Re: hypothesis and validated theory: geological colum and the law of superposition
thankyou for the information Radz, I am not denying the existence or validity of the geologic column. I can clearly see that the oldest layers are on the bottom and accept that 100%.
One of those tests consists of a simple comparison of existing undisturbed sedimentary layers: if layer A is above layer B in one location, then whenever you can find both layer A and layer B in other locations, A will be above B. Another test is that where layer A is above layer B and layer B is above layer C, then whenever you can find layers A and C - with or without B (it may not extend as far as the other layers) - layer A will be above layer C.
Is there any place on earth where the column exists in its entirety?
Why does it matter? How likely is it that it would?
how likely is it that it would not?
Here we see the difference between science and creation "science" in a nutshell.
Science spends decades or centuries exploring the world, gathering data, and proposing hypotheses to explain that data. The successful hypotheses gradually become accepted as theories because of their rigorous support and ability to make successful predictions.
Creation "scientists," operating from a religious belief, can't accept the findings of science and so propose various "What ifs..."
Now those "What ifs..." don't come with any supporting evidence, aren't subject to testing or verification by creation "scientists," and don't even have to form a cohesive body of supposition. Most often the "What ifs..." disagree with each other and are contradicted by the preponderance of scientific evidence.
But that's OK! We're doing creation "science" now, not real science.
All they have to do as creation "scientists" is raise sufficient doubt in the minds of their co-religionists and prospective converts so that they mistrust the scientific method and its findings. That is the ultimate goal of creation "science" -- the destruction of the scientific method and of real science, and its replacement by creation "science" -- in actuality religious dogma based on scripture and the bible. That creation "science" is the exact opposite of real science doesn't trouble them in the least.
Peg's comment seems to fit quite nicely into this category. It does not present any evidence or logical argument. It is strictly a "What if..." But in this case this is a elementary schoolyard "What if..." that amounts to nothing more than "Is not!"
In the stunted world of creation "science" this is considered a killer rebuttal, carrying the field and winning the day.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Blather messages - Also, topic has run its useful course
We've now well past 300 messages, and the topic has fragments to all kind of subtopics.
Also, we had off or non-topic blather messages at messages 342, 361, 363, 366, and 368, involving four different members (one who is soon to get two POTM cites from the non-admin mode, for other messages). Short suspensions almost happened.
Please note the "Geologic Column" topic links in message 370.
This topic closing down in about 15 minutes.
New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source