Cosmos with Neil DeGrass Tyson

You are going to have to do a bit better than that to come up with a false dichotomy that cannot be seen through in about two seconds (if that)The earth is active tectonically and geologically. It is not dead like the moon. And just as we can observe the planets in motion, we can observe geological processes in action here on earth, right now. And that knowledge informs our understanding of the motion of the tectonic plates, of how sedimentary layers form, how erosion works, what water does and does not do.In fact, every branch of natural science has both an observational component and an active experimental component. We use both of those pieces to generate information. The scientific method is what we use to evaluate data and to form, verify and reject hypothesis. In fact just as we can think of advantages that we can use to study astronomy, geologists can work with the fact that traces of the past are left on the earth, while the tracks of stars through the universe do not always leave traces.Your attempt to brand branches of science that you do not like, and only pretend to comprehend is interesting because it tells us something about the way you think. But as far as being convincing or informative about science. Nope. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Experimental science and observational science are basiclaly the same thing.

---

I think that the absence of experiments is a pretty big difference. In fact it's a bigger difference than the one that distinguishes "historical science"

quote:

---

The planets and stars move in relation to each other and in relation to Earth, observations over time can tell you all kinds of things about them. In the case of historical geology you have a stack of inert sediments that just lie there, and their fossil contents are dead and motionless.

---

Of course geology is not JUST a historical science, there are plenty of observations of present-day processes too.

quote:

---

Everything you come up with in this case is just a lot of wild guesswork that can't be validated by independent tests or independent observations.

---

We KNOW that that isn't true of dating to start with. So how can it be true of "everything" ?

quote:

---

My statement remains true: You CANNOT do any experiment or analysis of experiment that would prove that the fossils represent the only living things in a particular time period. But let me add: there is nothing observable about these fossils that could prove this either.

---

And my answer remains true. Nobody claims that the fossils found represent the only things alive at that time period. However, Fossils comprise a sample of the things living at the time, From a sufficiently large sample we can make justified inferences about what sorts of life existed at that time.

quote:

---

Yes they do and if the way it is deposited today in fact is really not the same as the way it was deposited in the geologic column they're going to get the whole thing wrong, which of course they do.

---

Of course this is only true if the "different" means of deposition mimic present processes sufficiently well for geologists to be unable to tell the difference. And there is no "of course" about that.

quote:

---

And the idea that the "structure of the rocks" tells you about the time taken for their deposition is some kind of fantasy. Layer after layer of sediment tells you NOTHING about how long it took. It could have taken anything from a few days to a few billion years for all you really know.

---

That is also false, the structure of the rock will tell you the materials it is made of. Chemical composition, grain size and the like. This tells us things like the energy needed to transport the particles and the settling rate. Sometimes we can find the source. Sometimes we can estimate the rate of supply. All from actual evidence. I'm sure that the geologists here can tell you more.

quote:

---

The physics of decay is not in dispute. It's the circumstances of the rocks that are being tested, and the many assumptions and unknowns about their condition at the time of their deposition. If that deposition occurred 4300 years ago you'd be off by millions of years. Which you are.

---

If you wish to claim accelerated radioactive decay - as many YECs do - the physics of decay is very much relevant. The rest of your claims are just fantasy. You need an actual physical model which would account for the real results. One which explains why all the precautions taken by working geologists and all the tests performed still produce vastly - and consistently - wrong dates, with all the different methods. Geologists DO care about getting it right, because they are doing REAL science. Which is why they deal with evidence and you concoct fantasies instead.

quote:

---

The problem at root is that you have no way of testing your test. All you can do is make assumptions about it in relation to a horde of unknowns. That is how this is NOT an observational OR an experimental science. You can ONLY impose your assumptions on the natural phenomena, you cannot test them in relation to that phenomena

---

Of course this is false, there are many tests which can be done and have been done. Are the results consistent with the relative dating dictated by the geometric relations of the strata ? Are the dates consistent across different dating methods ? What dates do we get for rocks of known age (by which I mean the rock produced by recorded volcanic eruptions) ?

quote:

---

Unfortunately for you your sampling is done WITHIN the boundaries of your assumptions that these ARE time periods. And you DO make assumptions about how a particular time period introduced such and such a creature, which simply happens to be present in this rock but not the rocks below, and about how a particular creature went extinct because it isn't in this rock though it was in the rocks below. Your samplings are meaningless because they are part of your whole wrongheaded theory.

---

But these aren't assumptions, they are conclusions derived from evidence. YOU have assumptions that contradict them.

quote:

---

Again, all you need to do is LOOK at the form of the strata and the weirdly limited collection of fossils from layer to layer to see that the whole thing is bonkers. This is the TRUE observational science.

---

That is prejudice and ignorance.

quote:

---

But they are SLABS OF FLAT ROCK THAT EXTEND FOR MILES IN ALL DIRECTIONS. Really, it's like you haven't noticed the obvious.

---

The strata are more than that. But anyway geology is all about understanding how the strata originated. You just reject their explanations because you prefer the falsehoods taught by your cult.

quote:

---

This all looks very different once you realize they were all the product of the Flood and that all you have done is impose your wrong theory on them so you are getting wrong ideas about how they were deposited. You're missing the forest for the trees at the very least.

---

In other words once you go off into fantasyland you delude yourself into imagining that the evidence can't contradict your fantasies. Which of course is exactly what you are going here. It is perfectly obvious to any unbiased observer that you try to force-fit the evidence into your fantasy - and willfully ignore major items of evidence that don't fit.

quote:

---

The order is at least partly also an artifact of the theory.

---

The order was discovered well before Darwin.

quote:

---

Fossils of the same Species found at different levels are interpreted in terms of those in the higher levels having evolved from those in the lower levels, but all it really shows is the normal sorting of normal microevolution and that the different races of the same Species simply got buried at different levels.

---

Well that's an obvious fantasy. If the strata were all produced in a single year - and a lot of life died in the early stages anyway - then there isn't a lot of time for microevolution.

quote:

---

Trilobites for instance occur in a great variety of races and are found in many levels. You ASSUME the higher evolved from the lower, but in actual reality it may be the parent species that happened to get buried in the highest layer.

---

It seems to me that you are the one making assumptions here.

quote:

---

The idea that there is a progression from one Species to another is also assumed, it's a matter of judgment, not a matter of knowledge. You focus on particular features of a Species that look like they might be genetically related to another Species and ignore features that are unique because well, those "evolved." It's all a mental game, you have no evidence, it's all theory, all invention, all hot air.

---

Of course this is just bluster. The analysis doesn't even produce parent-child relations except in cases where there is other evidence. And how is identifying unique features as having evolved "ignoring" them ?

quote:

---

And there are NO transitional fossils in the abundance Darwin knew they would have to be found to prove his theory. They do not exist.

---

This is just the usual creationist misunderstanding. Darwin dealt with that objection himself.

quote:

---

And what you CALL transitional fossils are simply Species unto themselves, or naturally occurring races of a given Species.

---

Which of course is just more assumption. Can you explain why we find so many intermediates ? Why the evidence comports so well with evolutionary theory ? Why do we find fossils like tiktaalik or morganucodon or the many others ? This is evidence that you are neglecting because it doesn't fit with your assumptions.

quote:

---

Eh? You must be talking about how the "science" of evolution works, and it's certainly true of that; otherwise I have no idea what you are talking about.

---

Then you must be extremely lacking in self-awareness. What, for instance, is your whole idea that fossils are just "dead things" but an intentional attempt to cover up the other features of the fossil record that you can't reasonably explain ?

quote:

---

Oh I like that model too, I think it's truer than many other things that have been said about the deposition of the strata. It shows how the strata formed mechanically by water. Associating time periods with those strata is something you impose on that simple model.

---

Yet you call it "ABSURD". But if you like real geology, why not spend time researching that rather than attacking strawmen ?

quote:

---

Here we go again, the Recitation of the Creed, though the actual facts, the real evidence, and Reason itself totally belie this comforting pledge of allegiance you all recite from time to time.

---

And yet these posts prove it.Come on Faith, you're denying the possibility of testing methods which, in reality, have been quite thoroughly tested, just because your mind - blinded by prejudice - can't even imagine the tests which have been done. There's no reason or evidence there, just denial.Edited by Admin, : Fix next to last close quote dBCode.

Nothing wrong with that.It seems to me that the Cosmos episodes have some balance between being life science based and being physics based, although there is definitely more physics than biology.And thanks to technology we don't have to choose regardless of what the schedulers think!

Not to mention that we still need some explanation for the different levels. In this paragraph of Faith's we are actually witnessing denial in action. The denial is right there in the word 'simply'.

On one side there's geology with all its evidence and rigid adherence to the known laws of science, and this you're calling crazy.And on the other side there's the Flood with its absence of any evidence and its many violations of the known laws of science, and this seems natural and convincing to you.Even more weird is the effort you're exerting to convince people of something with no evidence that makes no sense. Any normal rational person would reason, "Okay, I've got this great idea that I know is true, but I'm going to need some evidence and some scientific rationale before I can convince anyone else, so I better go off and do my homework first."But not you. The only thing you offer in favor of your idea that we know is true is that you're completely and utterly convinced you're correct. But there are tons of crazy people out there who believe things true that are complete nonsense. As I've said before, some people believe the Earth is flat, some believe the sun orbits the Earth, and some believe they're Napoleon. What you have in common with these people is the complete lack of supporting evidence combined with mountains of evidence that you're wrong.You seem to think the only thing that's important is that you maintain your faith in your own ideas. It's not. What's important is how persuasive your ideas are to others. Shared ideas are how we know we're not suffering from delusions.--Percy

That's way too high a standard. How about just 'my post is going to be read by professionals and I don't want to look like a blooming idiot'. Or 'someone is likely to check my facts so I should not just make up crap and call it truth.' Or even, 'my posts from yesterday are still available so I cannot get away with lying about them.'Faith does not accord any of us the respect due any human being. She does not care about anything other than her own point.

They are basically the same thing as far as being true science goes, their methods not being available to the historical sciences, neither experiment NOR observation. And I've just as often contrasted historical science with observational science as with experimental science, but of course nobody ever remembers any of that, just myopically criticizes whatever can be found in my current post (except when there's nothing to criticize in it and then they'll drag in all sorts of enormities to accuse me of from wherever they can find them or trump them up.) Although in saying this I may be responding more to other posts here than to NN's, sorry if so. Golly gee, I would have thought so, but then there are all those EvC worthies who insisted in the Grand Canyon arguments that of COURSE the whole stack of strata could have been unaffected by tectonic activity for a billion years. No big deal. Yeah, in the present, NN, which of course is all that can actually be observed, but the past remains inert and silent, that was my point of course. The planets move, the fossils don't. You know what water usually does, you have no idea what the oceans would do if they covered all the land mass in the world, how the tides and the currents would behave among other things.And I take tectonic activity a lot more seriously than some here too. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

They are basically the same thing as far as being true science goes, their methods not being available to the historical sciences, neither experiment NOR observation.

---

That's an amazingly silly thing to say. Of course geology uses lots of observation. Both the present day state of rocks - even the measurements used in radiometric dating are observations - to the behaviour of sediments as they are being deposited.The supposed difference is between direct observation and inference of past events from present day evidence. But looking at a photograph of cloud chamber facts to identify particle interactions is a clear example of the latter. It's certainly within the bounds of real science.

quote:

---

Yeah, in the present, NN, which of course is all that can actually be observed, but the past remains inert and silent, that was my point of course. The planets move, the fossils don't.

---

We're aware of the limits on the evidence available from fossils. But that doesn't change the fact that we can tell far more from fossils than that they are merely the remains of dead things as you would have it. We can tell quite a lot about the sorts of things that they were, when alive. And that's where things start to go wrong for you. Of course if you really meant that it was impossible to make observations of fossils you'd have to claim that they were invisible and undetectable, too. But I'm sure that even you can see that that is silly.

quote:

---

You know what water usually does, you have no idea what the oceans would do if they covered all the land mass in the world, how the tides and the currents would behave among other things.

---

I think that we can reasonably assume that its physical properties would not suddenly change. Nor that it would develop an intelligence of sorts that delighted in sorting the remains of dead animals and plants into pleasing patterns, as opposed to those that would follow from ordinary hydrodynamics. Tides and currents simply won't help you (and you really ought to know that).

First you have to correct your terminology. All science is observational. There's no such thing as non-observational science. Science studies the real world, so when nothing is observed there can be no science.When you say "observational science" I think what you really mean is science that didn't actually observe what happened first hand and so had to observe the evidence left behind to infer what happened. Much science is like this, including experimental science. For example, the Large Hadron Collider, the largest and most significant example of experimental science in the world today, did not actually observe the Higgs but rather inferred it from the evidence its decay left behind.The distinction that makes more sense is between experimental and historical science, but neither is exclusively experimental or historical. The experimental sciences will study historical events and the historical sciences will conduct experiments. The distinction is more helpful and conceptual than it is real and doesn't mean that neither engages in the other's specialty.Experimental science conducts experiments and analyzes the resulting evidence. Historical science studies past events and analyzes the resulting evidence. They're both engaged in analysis of data gathered from the real world. That's part of what makes them both science. Unfortunately most of us remember it all too well. It's like a recurring nightmare. First you raise this issue like it's never been discussed before, we explain why you're wrong, you eventually drop the issue after making ridiculous claims such as that old evidence cannot be analyzed, then sometime later you raise it again like it's never been discussed before. Like just now. You still have not replied to my Message 1647 in the Why the Flood Never Happened thread. This, too, has been rebutted many times. Any honest person would have followed this with, "Now I know it's been argued that...", but not you. Your willingness to throw caution to the wind and make incredibly wrong statements continues to amaze. The past is not inert. A billion year-old rock can still be analyzed. True, but you're going to have to explain why that matters. We know plenty about "what the oceans would do if they covered all the land mass in the world". First and foremost they would follow the laws of physics, something your flood fails to do. You take things you make up in your head a lot more seriously than evidence. We suspect tectonic activity where we see evidence of tectonic activity. You conclude tectonic activity when you need something magic to happen.--Percy

Why would that not be possible? So past events leave no effects behind? Isn't that what Cosmos is about? The point being? Non sequitur.
What does this have to do with fossils and planets? Meaning what?How many of my reports have you read?Edited by edge, : No reason given.

I remember quite a few of the dumbass things you say.I take your post as meaning that you are absolutely clueless about how it is possible to do anything more than guess about how the grand canyon is formed. Accordingly, your own attempts must be complete nonsense, since it is in your mind impossible to do otherwise.On the other hand, your misconceptions and lack of knowledge are not extended to geologists. That is simply your projection of your personal idiocy on others.I don't see a single other relevant thing in your post. It's full of blather based on your admitted ignorance. I assume you know yourself a little better than the grand canyon, but that's about it.

I know, right? haha I'm revising the geologic model for one of my deposits and attempting to construct (deconstruct?) the tectonic history of the deposit is currently the bane of my existence.The fact is, there are faults in the GC, but they have been obscured by gentle folding and more recent sedimentation. Evidence exists that suggests these faults (some of which appear to be major structural lineaments) have been active for millions of years. Possibly since the accretion of that particular terrane. But because they are not obviously visible to Faith's untrained eye, she feels it quite acceptable to ignore them.

It appears to me from a quick search that plenty of stuff has been written about seismic activity in the Grand Canyon. If I had some idea that scientists were ignoring that possibility, I would probably look through those papers before spouting off about my idea, because I know that I have never undertaken a serious study of the subject.That is not, of course how everyone does things. Some people think that if they've written about a topic on their own blog that they are an expert.

Since you mentioned your preference for biology over physics, I thought you might appreciate knowing that episode 9 has more of a evolution/biology focus.Also, despite not mentioning or focusing on it, Tyson shows us some fossil evidence that is difficult to explain using 'Flood physics' depositing layer(s) over a year.

On last night's episode (which I thought was a really good one) there were some great points that were brought up and interestingly enough he showed that sometimes science is not accepting of ideas, even though they will eventually be proven correct over time. I think this was an important thing to mention. It was different from the Lead episode where it was two competing scientists using the same data, but one was purposely misinterpreting it to benefit special interest groups.In this episode, we got the story of Alfred Wegener, a man who had stunning insights into how the Earth is continually reshaped through continental drift. However, very few of his fellow scientists trusted his ideas on this matter. In fact, they even created an entire conference specifically to discredit this idea and Wegener ended up dying a laughing stock in his field, all while holding the correct ideas the entire time. I think for the show, it was an important thing to highlight that while religion, politics, and big business can get in the way of good science, sometimes all it needs is fellow scientists who cannot grasp your idea or because the evidence is sparse at the time.Another highlight for me was learning about Marie Tharp, who I was unaware was the scientist responsible for verifying Wegener's ideas nearly 50 years after they were proposed. I am always excited to learn about more individuals who helped to solidify our knowledge about the world, especially ones who do not get much credit through regular discussions about the topics. With her refusal to avoid the implications of her maps, even if it went toward continental drift, she took a chance that could have cost her career and was instead successful. That is a great story to me.Finally, I like that Cosmos unapologetically took on the climate change deniers this week. I think one of my favorite lines was, "The dinosaurs never saw that asteroid coming. What's our excuse?"