Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 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: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 61 of 877 (833950)
05-28-2018 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
05-27-2018 5:05 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
Faith writes:
OF COURSE NOT. I expect just enough information on the evidence so people know something about HOW THE CONCLUSION WAS ARRIVED AT (maybe even how stupid it is) and aren't kept in the dark and have enough motivation to look up more information at the public library or whatnot.
Several points:
  • Again, magazines work hard to understand their audience.
  • You're only making this complaint about a single topic, evolution, and only because you reject it. You don't really care about the explanatory level magazine articles choose.
  • You're not interested in evidence anyway, so what would be the point?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 5:05 PM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 62 of 877 (833952)
05-28-2018 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
05-27-2018 4:54 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
Based on the standard public school indoctrination along with their inadequate explanations, the way most people accept it.
The point, in case you missed it, is that you accept and reject evolution, and just about anything else, based on reasoning that would not satisfy anything. High school presentations may describe the theory of evolution, but the may well not provide what would constitute scientific proof to a 14-year-old audience. There is nothing nefarious about that.
If you want to understand complicated stuff, you might have to obtain a bit more of an education first.
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 31 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 4:54 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 63 of 877 (833953)
05-28-2018 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Faith
05-27-2018 10:32 PM


Re: Corals
Faith writes:
Environmental conditions would have been much more favorable to living things before the Flood to make a difference in rate of growth. That doesn't involve any differences in physics, chemistry or biology, just circumstantial things like temperature and food availability.
...
Again it doesn't sound like he took into account the usual idea that the pre-Flood environment was much more favorable for living things than conditions after the Flood, which should have been true for corals as well as everything else. There
Why do you think environmental conditions before the Flood favored incredibly high rates of growth?
Why can't we do anything now under controlled environmental conditions to favor incredibly high rates of growth? For example, why can't we grow a cabbage or a cow in a single day?
Shouldn't radiocarbon dating of coral reefs, whose ages have been studied extensively, reveal an extremely sudden slowing in the rate of growth after 4500 years ago?
Now that you suddenly know so much about coral reefs, perhaps you can explain this formation from Jar's list:
There are other time arguments anyway, tree rings and varves and so on so just add corals to the list.
All these things strongly contradict your flood scenario.
But I try to stick to arguments I think could prove the Flood, and arguments I understand well enough for that purpose, and try to avoid getting into other things. That means I have to prove the Flood with a few arguments if I can and all the rest would have to be dealt with later.
I continue to think it unwise for you to make claims about yourself, because that forces others to show those claims false, which causes you to lash out at them.
Anyway, you've offered no evidence or arguments for the Flood that corresponds to the real world or natural physical laws. You frequently argue issues you don't understand, such as Walther's Law and sedimentation atop stratigraphic columns.
In any case I don't want this thread to become another Flood thread. I want to get back to the Time Periods argument when I can.
Sure. What evidence do you have that strata were not deposited during periods of time, whether it was hours or eons? By the way, though we shouldn't have to keep making this clear, there is nothing in geology that declares rapid deposition impossible. Geology does believe that strata often contain evidence of the mechanisms behind their formation.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 10:32 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by PaulK, posted 05-28-2018 2:54 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 64 of 877 (833955)
05-28-2018 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Percy
05-28-2018 2:43 PM


Re: Corals
Of course Faith could try simple mathematics.
If we generously allow 10,000 years for the growth of the atoll, and 3000 years of accelerated growth there are 7000 years of normal growth
It would take 175,000 years to account for the growth of the atoll at the maximum normal rate. Subtracting the 7000 years means that we must account for 168,000 years worth of growth in 3000 years.
That means the average rate over the 3000 years would need to be 56x greater than the maximum recorded rate. I think we need more than handwaving to justify such a rate when the estimate is already extremely generous to the YEC side - a figure of 100x would likely still err in the Creationists favour.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Percy, posted 05-28-2018 2:43 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 65 of 877 (833956)
05-28-2018 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Percy
05-28-2018 2:08 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
This isn't about ordinary reasonable magazine publication standards, this is about preventing the reader from understanding something that would be easy enough to rectify. I don't think they are intentionally doing this, I just think they assume the information is as good as fact, as historical geology does anyway, and that nobody should complain.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 05-28-2018 2:08 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by jar, posted 05-28-2018 3:16 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 135 by Percy, posted 05-30-2018 9:50 AM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 877 (833957)
05-28-2018 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Faith
05-27-2018 4:56 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
didn't say anything about respecting the reader's "opinion," but they should be given the basic respect for their intelligence of not expecting them to buy into a flat assertion without any justification as if they were children.
The magazines are presenting/describing. They do not contain the proof you think ought to be there. That is not a lack of respect. The magazines simply do not serve what you are claiming is your purpose.

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 32 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 4:56 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 67 of 877 (833959)
05-28-2018 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Faith
05-28-2018 3:00 PM


Complaining is simply childish whining.
Faith writes:
This isn't about ordinary reasonable magazine publication standards, this is about preventing the reader from understanding something that would be easy enough to rectify. I don't think they are intentionally doing this, I just think they assume the information is as good as fact, as historical geology does anyway, and that nobody should complain.
That's yet another truly stupid post from you Faith.
You are free to whine but that will never accomplish anything.
OR...
you could present the model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that would allow your flood to create the evidence seen in reality.
Yet you never, every present the model, mechanism, process or procedure that could create the evidence that exists in reality by means of some flood or in 6000 years.
The facts are that we have the fossils, the geology, the radiometric samples, the ordering AND we have the models, the mechanism, the methods, the processes and procedures that explain what exists in reality and all you have are two flood myths that are mutually exclusive and contradictory.
You ain't never gonna win when you got nuttin.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 05-28-2018 3:00 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 68 of 877 (833960)
05-28-2018 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Faith
05-27-2018 10:37 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
Faith writes:
I'm really trying to make a bigger point, edge: I think this way of handling the idea of time periods reflects the basic unscientific and irrational character of the whole theory.
Do you have any evidence supporting this view of the geologic column.
There is no reason why that NG article couldn't just point out with each description of supposed conditions or features in the Jurassic time period, how this or that interpretation was based on this or that element found in a particular rock in a particular location.
What is it about "The National Geographic knows their audience better than you do" that you don't understand?
You'd be adding a sentence to each point at most and being a lot more honest, speaking of being honest, than the usual pontifical declaration of dogma.
You're just making up something to criticize about National Geographic because they wrote about a scientific theory you reject for religious reasons.
AND I think once it became clear what big pictures are based on what little evidence, and anyone not dedicated to Geology took the time to really look at that evidence in those rocks, people would fall over laughing.
The only thing humorous here is how transparent the reasons for your complaining are. Get some evidence. Learn some science. And if you're going to continue complaining about how magazines write their articles, then learn something about that, too.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 10:37 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 05-28-2018 3:24 PM Percy has replied
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 05-28-2018 9:26 PM Percy has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 69 of 877 (833961)
05-28-2018 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Percy
05-28-2018 3:19 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
What is it about "The National Geographic knows their audience better than you do" that you don't understand?
It's not about their audience, it's about how the whole scientific community presents this stuff to the public, as if it were set in stone that the Jurassic period existed and had such characteristics, as if this were revealed to them from heaven. It's typical and it has nothing to do with the audience as you all keep trying to claim. It's just typical historical science mystification: we say it, therefore it's absolutely true, therefore you must believe it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Percy, posted 05-28-2018 3:19 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by PaulK, posted 05-28-2018 3:39 PM Faith has replied
 Message 73 by jar, posted 05-28-2018 5:15 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 75 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-28-2018 7:19 PM Faith has replied
 Message 137 by Percy, posted 05-30-2018 10:13 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 70 of 877 (833966)
05-28-2018 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Faith
05-28-2018 3:24 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
quote:
It's not about their audience, it's about how the whole scientific community presents this stuff to the public, as if it were set in stone that the Jurassic period existed and had such characteristics, as if this were revealed to them from heaven
National Geographic is not a part of the scientific community. The existence of the Jurassic Period is hardly in question, and the evidence is certainly there for the generalised impressions of it that are given. And they are just generalisations when applied to the period.
quote:
It's just typical historical science mystification: we say it, therefore it's absolutely true, therefore you must believe it.
Really ? Please support this claim. Remembering that journalists aren’t scientists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 05-28-2018 3:24 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Faith, posted 05-28-2018 3:45 PM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 71 of 877 (833969)
05-28-2018 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by PaulK
05-28-2018 3:39 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
They are a science magazine.
They are doing what the science does, pretending they know things they don't and presenting their information in such a way that nobody can raise a question about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by PaulK, posted 05-28-2018 3:39 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by PaulK, posted 05-28-2018 4:01 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 138 by Percy, posted 05-30-2018 10:27 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 72 of 877 (833972)
05-28-2018 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Faith
05-28-2018 3:45 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
quote:
They are a science magazine.
Writing about science doesn’t make them scientists.
quote:
They are doing what the science does, pretending they know things they don't and presenting their information in such a way that nobody can raise a question about it.
That’s your assertion. However if it were true you would be dealing with the actual evidence instead of making accusations based on presumed motives.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Faith, posted 05-28-2018 3:45 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 73 of 877 (833976)
05-28-2018 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Faith
05-28-2018 3:24 PM


Another really stupid Post Faith.
Faith writes:
It's not about their audience, it's about how the whole scientific community presents this stuff to the public, as if it were set in stone that the Jurassic period existed and had such characteristics, as if this were revealed to them from heaven.
That has to be one of your best really stupid posts Faith.
Evidence revealed from heaven must always take second place to evidence revealed though reality.
Faith writes:
It's just typical historical science mystification: we say it, therefore it's absolutely true, therefore you must believe it.
No Faith, you do not have to believe any of it, you are free to remain ignorant.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 05-28-2018 3:24 PM Faith has not replied

  
Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 74 of 877 (833980)
05-28-2018 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Faith
05-27-2018 4:47 PM


Careful What You Wish For.
...questions to be answered in the new context that assumes the Flood occurred, rather than as evidence for its occurrence."
You mean just like the good creationists of the late 1700's? The ones whose honesty, after evaluating the available and growing body of evidence, forced them to conclude that their a priori assumptions had been wrong? The ones that founded the modern geology you reject?
Is that the context you mean?
Edited by Capt Stormfield, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 05-27-2018 4:47 PM Faith has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(2)
Message 75 of 877 (833981)
05-28-2018 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Faith
05-28-2018 3:24 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
Faith writes:
it's about how the whole scientific community presents this stuff to the public, as if it were set in stone that the Jurassic period existed and had such characteristics
The irony.....it is set in stone.
Faith writes:
as if this were revealed to them from heaven.
So, YOU are complaining about revelations from heaven? You, who thinks revelations from heaven is the ultimate authority?
Faith writes:
It's typical and it has nothing to do with the audience as you all keep trying to claim.
Of course it does. Every reasonable reader, from 7th graders on, understands that they can research whether what they read in magazines is based on evidence or bullshit. When I was in school there were science books on specific fields with further listed references in the library as well as encyclopedias.
Now, they also have the internet, although in your case, the internet is not your friend.
Faith writes:
It's just typical historical science mystification: we say it, therefore it's absolutely true, therefore you must believe it.
Oh, boo hoo, they won't let you research whether it's true or not and they certainly won't let you express your ignorance.
You would completely disregard any basic supporting evidence as we see you always do here, so don't expect anyone to respect your point. Finding evidence that supports or refutes scientific articles in magazines is understood to be the reader's responsibility and it is entirely your own fault if you are too lazy or ignorant or stubborn to do that.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 05-28-2018 3:24 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 05-28-2018 9:08 PM Tanypteryx has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024