Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Conclusion vs Presupposition
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 1 of 2 (443524)
12-25-2007 2:59 PM


One allegation often made by ID supporters and Biblical Creationists is that what the evidence shows us is a matter of world view and that Evolutionists interpret things based on some presupposition of great age, and old earth.
I would like to discuss that and see if it can be defended, or if as most Evolution supporters claim, their position is an inescapable conclusion instead.
I would like to point to several recent examples as support of my position.
In the thread on Lake Varves we were discussing the Green River formation. In Message 44 I pointed out the following:
They can only settle on the bottom. That is what is so clear about this example. We have over 4,000,000 instances of a finer material being laid down followed by a slightly coarser layer then another finer layer, another coarser layer.
To get that fine a silt to settle out the water must be near still, followed by the more active flow to provide the slightly coarser layer, followed another quiescent period.
This is not sand but silt and we can deal with how to make silt after someone explains Thread How to make sand., but for now, you need to present the model that explains over 4 million layers of finer silt then coarser silt, lighter silt then darker silt.
So lets look at your 4 million catastrophic events. If it happened over the 6000 year period you have mentioned that is over 666 events a year, about two a day, every day right up through yesterday. Likely someone might have noticed.
In that case it also eliminates a flood during those 6000 years.
If it happened during the flood year it is about 11,000 repeating cycles a day or something over 450 such events every hour, more than seven every minute.
Now remember this is such fine silt that it will stay suspended unless the water is standing still for a considerable period of time.
So once again, what is your model for the 4 million plus alternating layers of finer and coarser, lighter and darker material?
In the Green River formation we find over 4 million (actually a recent oil shale drill core shows up to 20 million) layers that consist of darker and lighter, finer and coarser, repeated layers of silt.
Starting with just the fact that the layers exist, what possible information can be gained?
When we look around at the world we can find similar examples being created in lakes today. During spring and summer there are algae blooms that stain the silt a darker color followed by a winter period when the algae die off and a lighter color silt is deposited. We also see seasonal variations based on run off where periods of faster flow keep the finest silt suspended allowing only the coarser material to be deposited.
So the question is, simply based on the existing alternating layers found in the Green River deposits, what conclusions can be drawn?
Well we do see regular annual layers being created today, so there is an explanation for what is seen. However, if that is true then the conclusion, not presupposition, is that the Green River formation must equal a period of over 4 million years.
But that is a conclusion based on the data. It does not begin with the assumption of great age, rather the evidence leads to the conclusion of great age.
Let's consider a second recent example, the How to make sand..
In the thread we looked at the various ways that sand could be made. The conventional view is that first a mountain is made, then it is weathered, then the weathered material is transported and reduced until you get sand which is then deposited at some lower elevation. Again, we can see this happening today. We know that the conventional model is possible since we can observe it happening.
BUT...
it takes time to raise up a mountain, time to weather it, time to transport and reduce the material and then deposit it as sand. That is not a presupposition, it is a conclusion based on the evidence.
We also find, as shown in the Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up. that we can find examples of bedded schist (metamorphic sandstone) consisting of alternating layers of finer and coarser particles and located at the very lowest exposed layers of the Grand Canyon. Again, the conclusion is that sand was carried to the spot and deposited, in a series of events with faster and slower flow. The material was later buried to complete the process of changing from sandstone to schist.
Since this is the very lowest exposed layer, the Vishnu Schist, and there are many, many more layers with different composition above it, the conclusion is that it happened a long time ago. It happened long enough ago for mountains to be created, weathered, reduced, transported, deposited, buried and changed.
Again, age is not a presupposition but rather a conclusion.
The question is, where are the alleged presuppositions?

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 2 (443540)
12-25-2007 3:38 PM


Thread copied to the Conclusion vs Presupposition thread in the Dates and Dating forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024