Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up.

CONTENT OF POST MOVED TO NEW THREAD:http://EvC Forum: Scientific Fact versus Interpretation -->EvC Forum: Scientific Fact versus InterpretationThis message has been edited by Faith, 03-15-2006 10:25 AM

CONTENT OF POST MOVED TO NEW THREAD:http://EvC Forum: Scientific Fact versus Interpretation -->EvC Forum: Scientific Fact versus InterpretationThis message has been edited by Faith, 03-15-2006 10:27 AM

CONTENT OF POST MOVED TO NEW THREAD:http://EvC Forum: Scientific Fact versus Interpretation -->EvC Forum: Scientific Fact versus InterpretationThis message has been edited by Faith, 03-15-2006 10:27 AM

CONTENT OF POST MOVED TO NEW THREAD:http://EvC Forum: Scientific Fact versus Interpretation -->EvC Forum: Scientific Fact versus InterpretationThis message has been edited by Faith, 03-15-2006 10:28 AM

CONTENT OF POST MOVED TO NEW THREAD:http://EvC Forum: Scientific Fact versus Interpretation -->EvC Forum: Scientific Fact versus InterpretationThis message has been edited by Faith, 03-15-2006 10:28 AM

There's really nothing to discuss.All I care about is getting across the distinction between the actual facts and the conjecture. Sometimes the conjectures are offered a little more tentatively than at other times, and sometimes some of the evidence that leads to them is offered too -- more so when the discussion is among scientists I gather, but what the layperson is usually confronted with is nothing but the imaginative scenario. Stick to the actual facts and there is no problem.In fact the exact conditions of the rocks that lead to such conjectures as "marine environment" are often left out or blurred over. I'd simply appreciate it if you and the other geologists would be alert to this effect and try to fill in the descriptive material that supposedly explains the scenarios -- but of course first of all I'd appreciate it if the imaginative scenarios were clearly identified as such and set apart from the facts better.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-15-2006 09:20 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 03-15-2006 09:46 AMThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 03-15-2006 08:49 AM

I haven't read your post carefully yet, but I have to point out that the first two quotes you are presenting are not mine though they are presented as if they were. The third is mine.

I think it would help if you simply left out the conjecture altogether myself. But if you are going to bring it in, then it has to be presented in terms of how you arrived at it. It's not fair to just describe a rock as a "marine environment." I didn't say she pulled it out of a hat. I assume it's standard geology. But my complaint is that the evidence usually isn't given, only the interpretation is given and it is given as fact rather than speculation, and to the poor layman it is often ALL that is given. It makes it impossible for another interpretation of the same phenomena to be offered. You don't give enough of the particulars for a person to think about and you don't like your interpretation being questioned because it's "science" and so on, but that attitude prevents your reader from thinking through the evidence, and especially if one is a YEC makes it nearly impossible to sort out enough fact from fiction to have an answer to you. But of course you don't want to hear the creationist's answer anyway. All you want to do is prove to us we're wrong, so there's not much motivation to be very careful about distinguishing the facts from the interpretations and imaginative scenarios. Boy is that a delusion.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-15-2006 09:40 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 03-15-2006 09:43 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 03-15-2006 09:44 AMThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 03-15-2006 08:50 AM

On a debate board when the interpretation is in question, this doesn't fly.This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 03-15-2006 08:51 AM

I may have nothing to say about dating, but presenting a date as geologists do is nothing but interpretation, so THEY have nothing to say EITHER. A date in geological time cannot be a FACT, I don't care HOW much evidence supposedly supports it.

Of course it's just an animal running from the Flood waters about 4500 years ago and eventually overtaken and buried in that particular layer which of course isn't a time period hundreds of millions of years old.
sn't.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Funny, it's rock layers that are labeled as time periods in scads of illustrations of the geo column. As for footprints on layers, some animals obviously escaped wave after wave of the Flood's incursion before finally getting caught. Big deal.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

They leave wet slicks. That's how footprints get preserved.

Yeah, I know edge, I don't see things your way. So what else is new?

Long period of time between waves/tides as Flood rises. This has been argued to death many times before. I haven't changed my mind.