Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public)
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 16 of 877 (833858)
05-27-2018 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by edge
05-27-2018 11:20 AM


edge writes:
Frankly, I have a problem with characterizing the climate of the Jurassic in simplistic terms. After all, this is a fairly large planet with land, oceans, weather and tectonism. We clearly had deserts in what was western North America at the time. Really, there is no need to generalize. After all, why couldn't climates have been similarly variable as they are today?
I considered adding that just like today the Jurassic had deserts and plains and jungles and swamps and forests and mountains and snow and monsoons and so on, but I decided to keep it short on details. If Faith reads that chapter (which she won't) it does a pretty good job of describing how different parts of the planet had different climates, and that climates during the Jurassic were not constant.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by edge, posted 05-27-2018 11:20 AM edge has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 17 of 877 (833859)
05-27-2018 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Faith
05-27-2018 12:53 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
The NG writeup is TYPICAL, that's my point. There are LOTS AND LOTS of examples of this flat out assertive way of presenting both Old Earth Geology and the Theory of Evolution, which has been driving me crazy since before I became a Christian or knew anything about creationism. I hope to get to providing some examples of this. I don't buy the explanation that you can't treat the public with the respect of giving some explanation instead of acting like you know it all and they just have to submit.
Blame the writers, not the scientists. Scientists are forever complaining about oversimplification, over generalization and over confidence in science reporting. The fact is - writers and editors write to their audience. Most people just want the story, not the science. But the science is out there for those who want to read it and there are multiple tiers of popular science writings that appeal to different people based on how much detail there is.
The advantage to a science paper is that it is concise and information dense, but the disadvantage is that it is jargon laden and assumes degree level background in the subject. If you want the same information presented to a high school level, you'll find it is very lengthy.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 12:53 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


(4)
Message 18 of 877 (833866)
05-27-2018 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
05-27-2018 2:39 AM


Faith writes:
So I'm asking what's the evidence this is based on?
I find myself getting angry at this. Really, really pissed off.
You've been here 17 years. You've been presented with evidence for every possible argument made. Many, many times. And here you are asking for it yet again as though you've just arrived.
How can you possibly ask this question with a straight face? Are you just the longest standing Poe in internet history?
You complain that the simplified answered are too simple and the source material is too technical. Yet somehow you manage to convince yourself that the real scientists - all those hundreds of thousands of people that DO understand the material and actual do the painstaking research - are wrong.
How do you do that Faith? How do you think you can declare a scientific expert wrong whilst simultaneously telling us that you don't understand what s/he's saying?
You do all this having never qualified in any subject so you literally have no comprehension what it takes to research and publish a paper in any discipline. It's utterly hopleless; you're simply delusional and I'm wondering what we think we're doing repeatedly discussing this stuff with you.
We're as cracked as you are.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 2:39 AM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 19 of 877 (833867)
05-27-2018 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Faith
05-27-2018 12:53 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
Faith writes:
...this is generally accepted science for scientifically literate people and the background does not need to be regurgitated, because it is understood.
But others on the thread are saying the opposite, that my information is from a popular source where we shouldn't necessarily expect to find scientifically literate readers, so I'm directed to more scholarly sources where the background information is available.
I think many here would characterize National Geographic differently from RAZD. To me it's a general public sort of magazine where few articles require any scientific literacy, and those that are about science are at a very basic level, like the one you cited about the Jurassic. Many articles are about travel, adventure and contemporary foreign cultures. One article last summer was about the historical Jesus. Photos are a big focus. National Geographic is not a science magazine, and certainly not a science journal.
But my objection is that the public is being presented with a flat out assertion on the level of known fact without even a smidgen of tentativity,...
Magazines for the general public contain articles appropriate to their audience.
...factual knowledge that nobody could possibly have about a time millions of years ago.
Why do you think evidence that has survived from millions of years ago doesn't tell us about that time?
The NG writeup is TYPICAL, that's my point.
Not much of a point - they still have to sell magazines. If they get too technical they'll lose their audience. A magazine that was once fairly technical scientifically but that has been dumbed down considerably in recent years, I think in pursuit of increasing their circulation, is Scientific American - very disappointing.
There are LOTS AND LOTS of examples of this flat out assertive way of presenting both Old Earth Geology and the Theory of Evolution, which has been driving me crazy since before I became a Christian or knew anything about creationism.
This confirms what we've suspected for some time now - you never really accepted geology and evolution.
I hope to get to providing some examples of this. I don't buy the explanation that you can't treat the public with the respect of giving some explanation instead of acting like you know it all and they just have to submit.
You make magazines sound like the Gestapo. Magazines print articles that appeal to their audience. That's as it should be and is not going to change.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 12:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 3:51 PM Percy has replied
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 4:07 PM Percy has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 20 of 877 (833869)
05-27-2018 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Faith
05-27-2018 12:53 PM


The public needs to earn respect (and also be willing to learn)
There is a thread already Faith that helps provide the very evidence you seek.
  1. The Landscape seen in this image:
  2. Capitan Reef
  3. Layered salt deposits separated by sediment layers
  4. The cross bedding seen in this picture
  5. The White Cliffs of Dover
  6. This fossil sand dune seen in this image:
  7. Half Dome:
  8. Banded Ironstone:
  9. Layered Erratic Rocks:
  10. The Layered Chalk Beds of Kansas:
These are examples of direct evidence of millions of years. They all exist. And so far no one has been able to explain their existence in any way other than very long periods of time and the same processes we see going on today.
You had a chance to present alternate explanations Faith; I created the thread just so you and others who believe like you could present your alternative models, mechanisms, methods, processes or procedures to explain the existence of the evidence but not one person has responded with anything other than song and dance and word salad.
You came; you bitched and you ran away.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 12:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 4:13 PM jar has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 21 of 877 (833871)
05-27-2018 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Percy
05-27-2018 2:38 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
You make magazines sound like the Gestapo. Magazines print articles that appeal to their audience. That's as it should be and is not going to change.
Maybe I'm misrepresenting my own concerns here. It is true that I've felt cheated and misled by many articles on evolution and OE geology over the years, articles for the public since I never had an inclination to get deeper into the science questions, until this forum has led me to find answers to some particular questions. Otherwise I've just wanted to get a general idea of what science says about these things, and in this thread I wanted to give examples of this habit of flat out asserting an interpretation as if it were a fact. There are tons of them.
But the background of the thread is my objection to the whole idea that there are any time periods at all, that there is such a thing as a Jurassic Period, that there is such a thing as the Geological Time Scale. This makes the continual encounter with flatly asserted supposedly scientific knowledge about the ancient past doubly deceptive to my mind. Just statements I'm supposed to swallow without any reason given for it, and then later on when I've learned some creationist views I've acquired the extra cynicism of recognizing that the evidence for all of it is just a few things found in a rock.
Over all these years at EvC (and by the way it's only been about ten overall since there were very long gaps in my presence here) I don't recall anyone pointing out this evidence I'm asking for either, the whole discussion is always just an assertion: Oh yes the Cambrian in the Grand Canyon was originally a beach with pebbles on it and such and such a climate and so on and so forth. I may be forgetting a very rare case or two where the evidence was seriously argued for the interpretation, but mostly I have the impression that the Tapeats is either being called a beach or the Cambrian is being described in terms of a transgression or something or other, reifications of interpretations without any discussion of the connection between the actual evidence in the rock and the interpretation, let alone any attempt to justify this methodology.
So it's seemed to me I'm the only one here who mentions that the time periods are interpreted from a mere flat rock and its contents.
That's why it's good to get ANY acknowledgment that it is indeed the stuff in the rock that is interpreted into the time period landscape. And I know you mentioned one source in an earlier post, a marvelously unique recognition in my experience, about how salts and coal in the rocks indicate the climate and swampy conditions ascribed to the Jurassic period. That is RARE it seems to me. I'll go to that post next.
But I also still think it's all a crock. Nevertheless I think it should be made a lot more explicit exactly what stuff in what rock is interpreted as evidence of features in the supposed time period. The connection should be made explicit in every case.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Percy, posted 05-27-2018 2:38 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 05-27-2018 4:19 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 49 by Percy, posted 05-28-2018 11:18 AM Faith has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 877 (833872)
05-27-2018 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Faith
05-27-2018 12:53 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
Unfortunately, this is wrong. Respect is earned via effort. ICANT wants the theory of general relativity and the big bang theory explained so a fifth grader can understand it. Well, not everything can be explained to a 10-year-old if the standard is that you have to prove it to the 10-year-old.
We can use analogies and pictures and simplifications in order to describe the results, but actually convincing someone requires actually studying the science and reaching conclusions, perhaps with some guidance. Nothing can be proven with an analogy. The real data and science is required.
Respect is due to the person who puts in the effort to understand, and who is willing to question his own beliefs about science. That might mean going out and getting information or looking things up when the explanation being offered is not good enough. Zero respect is due to the illiterate person who won't even try to read a scientific paper.
I don't buy the explanation that you can't treat the public with the respect of giving some explanation instead of acting like you know it all and they just have to submit.
Let's not generalize too much. You are not necessarily representative of the public in terms of what is a reasonable level to present things.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.
Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith
I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 12:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 4:08 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 23 of 877 (833874)
05-27-2018 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Percy
05-27-2018 2:38 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
There are LOTS AND LOTS of examples of this flat out assertive way of presenting both Old Earth Geology and the Theory of Evolution, which has been driving me crazy since before I became a Christian or knew anything about creationism.
This confirms what we've suspected for some time now - you never really accepted geology and evolution.
Well, but I DID accept evolution -- I wasn't reading anything about geology, that was a brand new discovery for me when I started posting here -- I accepted evolution but did have questions, and trying to track down the reasoning for it was extremely frustrating. I thought it should be available to the average interested person, I wasn't planning to get any deeper than that.
Beyond that you shouldn't have to "suspect" I don't accept geology or evolution, it should be obvious. I mean HISTORICAL geology, I know edge knows a lot about the physical world and I accept that and try to benefit from his knowledge, until he interprets it in Old Earth terms. Evolution I no longer accept at all and never will.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Percy, posted 05-27-2018 2:38 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by NoNukes, posted 05-27-2018 4:27 PM Faith has replied
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 05-28-2018 12:29 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 24 of 877 (833875)
05-27-2018 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by NoNukes
05-27-2018 3:56 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
Respect should be automatic toward any human beings who read their magazines. Readers shouldn't have to qualify for respect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by NoNukes, posted 05-27-2018 3:56 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by NoNukes, posted 05-27-2018 4:25 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 25 of 877 (833876)
05-27-2018 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by jar
05-27-2018 3:30 PM


Re: The public needs to earn respect (and also be willing to learn)
Any large formation made of sedimentary layers was formed by the Flood. I don't know how the reef was formed. Half Done wasn't formed by the Flood but by the volcanism after it. That's all you're getting from me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by jar, posted 05-27-2018 3:30 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 05-27-2018 4:31 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 56 by Percy, posted 05-28-2018 1:08 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 26 of 877 (833878)
05-27-2018 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Faith
05-27-2018 3:51 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
quote:
But the background of the thread is my objection to the whole idea that there are any time periods at all, that there is such a thing as a Jurassic Period, that there is such a thing as the Geological Time Scale.
Yes, people are saying things you don’t like and your response is - as always - to try to smear them. And apparently you think Jesus did the same sort of thing.
But in fact these ideas you object to are well supported by evidence, we have discussed enough of it for you to know that. Thus your claims of deception are false.
quote:
So it's seemed to me I'm the only one here who mentions that the time periods are interpreted from a mere flat rock and its contents.
They aren’t. True all the evidence from geology comes from the rocks - where else could it come from? But as we have explained to you the geological periods are derived from a massive effort correlating and relating the strata over large areas.
quote:
That's why it's good to get ANY acknowledgment that it is indeed the stuff in the rock that is interpreted into the time period landscape
You must be the only person who doesn’t find it too obvious to be worth mentioning.
quote:
But I also still think it's all a crock. Nevertheless I think it should be made a lot more explicit exactly what stuff in what rock is interpreted as evidence of features in the supposed time period. The connection should be made explicit in every case.
Obviously not. We don’t require that if other pop science articles, and it would make for much longer and much more repetitive articles, giving details that many readers aren’t likely to want.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 3:51 PM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 877 (833879)
05-27-2018 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Faith
05-27-2018 4:08 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
Respect should be automatic toward any human beings who read their magazines. Readers shouldn't have to qualify for respect.
Personal respect as a human being? Sure. But respecting their opinion on a scientific matter that required the scientist to study for a decade? That kind of respect must be earned.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.
Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith
I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 4:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 4:56 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 877 (833880)
05-27-2018 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
05-27-2018 4:07 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
Well, but I DID accept evolution
You accepted evolution based on what?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.
Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith
I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 4:07 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 4:54 PM NoNukes has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 29 of 877 (833881)
05-27-2018 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Faith
05-27-2018 4:13 PM


You cannot earn respect by refusing to address reality.
Faith writes:
Any large formation made of sedimentary layers was formed by the Flood. I don't know how the reef was formed. Half Done wasn't formed by the Flood but by the volcanism after it. That's all you're getting from me.
Which, as expected, is NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH. That is not a model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that explains how any of those formations were created. Nor is there ANY evidence that volcanism played any part in either of the Biblical Flood myths.
Have you ever read the Bible Faith?
As expected, there is NO explanation from anyone supporting the nonsense called a Biblical Flood.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 4:13 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 30 of 877 (833882)
05-27-2018 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Percy
05-27-2018 10:53 AM


1. I disagree that believers in the Flood need to try to deal with all the questions about how the Flood did this or that, and agree with mike the wiz on that subject. That's why I wasn't interested in that thread. I think it will eventually be conclusively shown beyond a doubt that the Flood did occur, even shown with a minimum of evidence, so that all the other questions become irrelevant for that purpose, questions to be answered in the new context that assumes the Flood occurred, rather than as evidence for its occurrence.
Since this is how I approach the subject, most of your questions are also irrelevant, but since you continue to nag me about them I will make some comments.
From 1 to 4 I don't know.
5. In stratigraphic columns, why do fossils appear increasingly different from modern forms with increasing depth?
This is an overgeneralization since there are some very odd creatures in the recent periods. The following is from Historical Geology which I believe was written by our own Dr. A:
I've emphasized some of the oddities:
Quaternary
Marked by the existence and spread of modern humans and the decline and disappearance of many groups of large fauna extant in the Neogene.
Neogene
Skull of a Smilodon (commonly known as a "saber toothed tiger"). Contains recognizable horses, canids, beaver, deer, and other modern mammal groups. The Neogene also contains many large mammalian fauna no longer extant: glyptodonts, ground sloths, saber-toothed tigers, chalicotheres, etc. First hominids found in Africa.
Paleogene
Marked by the diversification of mammals and birds. Among the mammals we see the first that can be easily identified with modern mammalian orders: primates, bats, whales, et cetera. Similarly representatives of many modern bird types are identifiable in the Paleogene, including pigeons, hawks, owls, ducks, etc. Now-extinct groups of birds found in the Paleogene include the giant carnivorous birds known colloquially as "terror birds".
But there are a lot of "modern" creatures in the Paleogene with a few strange ones, but even more weird creatures above it in the more "recent" period. Mammals and birds, but not "modern" ones.
Reading on in the list there are a few I probably have an answer to but now I'm tired from putting together the above reference so I will come back to it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 05-27-2018 10:53 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Percy, posted 05-28-2018 1:55 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 74 by Capt Stormfield, posted 05-28-2018 6:20 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 77 by NoNukes, posted 05-28-2018 9:20 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 84 by RAZD, posted 05-29-2018 6:21 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024