Fossil Sorting in the Great Flood Part 2

Bill, you're the best!
That about the dermestid beetles is just too good - it's one of my bookmarks now.

quote:

---

"Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species representing changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing "DOES NOT!"

​

-- Dr. Pepper (a former contributer to another creation - evolution messageboard.

---

Maybe too much text, but this would be a nice statement for you to use as your "signature".Moose

Actually, I like Bill's statement better: Which gets to the heart of matters. If Mr. Byers is willing to ignore over 200 years of geologic data, then he is also able to ignore important parts of theology as well. Creationists, by their logic and attitude, imply that their understanding of theology is lacking as well. Great post Bill (as usual).

Progress at last. This is truly a step forward in our discussion that probably very seldom happens in these circles.YOU said HISTORY is SCIENCE. You said HISTORY only deals with HUMAN EVENTS. You said WHY CAN NOT SCIENCE DEAL WITH PAST EVENTS.
(also you said "observation of mechanisms in action" isn't needed. Then in post 339 Point three you said just that. but even this is minor)This is what we all contend over in an atomic sense.I though all held that the reason the history department and the science department are separated in a university was for a profound difference in methodolgy! Two very different fields of intellectual endeavor indeed! THIS MUST BE CLEARED UP FIRST.Likewise about History only deals with human events. I'M ASTONISHED.
To me history is just a record of past events PERIOD.People,trees or a storm. And its methodolgy in discovering the truth (what happened) is confined for obvoius reason.Finally you ask why can't science deal with past events. The reason is that past events were not witnessed and not repeatable or falsifiable. By definition a past fact can not be dealt with by the scientific method. It is gone forever. It will never be repeatable.
Any similiar present events is coinedence (sp)and not scientific evidence that likewise it happened in the past.We are in or close to the algebra of logic here and touching on why millions of people insticntively or creationists intellectually not persuaded that evolution is true.As in Court in civil and criminal cases there are two different standards of evidence used to come to a CONCLUSION.
So likewise in Science and history in fact and in the public mind there are two different standards of evidence.
Creationists,humbly, suggest our opponents, without giving up thier conviction in evolution, must give up a coresponding belief that Biology,geology,cosmology that deals in and relys on past events,past indeed,has a claim to the pestige to science.Again we have come to a higher level I suggest Loudmouth.Lets both play it close now.
Regards Rob

But the evidence that past events leave is witnessed, and the tests that can be performed on them are repeatable.So in fact events in the past are accessable to science. In fact, one popular field where that is regularly done is called "forensics." You know, that stuff they do in labs on all those cop shows like "CSI".If you believe that science cannot investigate the past, then you'd better open the prisons, because there's a lot of people convicted for crimes based only on forensic evidence.Funny, though, that "science cannot investigate the past" has not ever succeeded - probably hasn't even been attempted - as a legal defense. Why do you suppose that is? Probably because you're wrong about science being able to investigate the past.

quote:

---

I though all held that the reason the history department and the science department are separated in a university was for a profound difference in methodolgy! Two very different fields of intellectual endeavor indeed! THIS MUST BE CLEARED UP FIRST.

---

They are different endeavors that use the same methodology. Historical accounts that are not part of written accounts are derived from inderict evidence found at archaeological digs. Through this, we can derive the lifestyle of cultures through the way they lived instead of relying on faulty writings of contemporaneous authors. History, as it is taught in high schools and universities, is strictly about human endeavors. I can't remember learning about the migration patterns of water buffalo as part of my Western Civ classes, can you? Also, the biological sciences were called originally called "Natural History", for you information. In fact, most of the fossils across the world are found in "Natural History" museums. Through science, we are able to piece together what happened in the past, and those accounts are called history, whether or not they pertain to human or non-human species. However, to be a reliable history these accounts have to be consistent with the evidence. Within the evolutionary sciences, this means that evolutionary accounts have to be consistent with fossil and DNA evidence, modern day observations about the functioning of biological systems, and observed methods of creating biodiversity. And guess what, it is consistent right down the board unlike creationism which is inconsistent and contrarian in almost every way.

quote:

---

We are in or close to the algebra of logic here and touching on why millions of people insticntively or creationists intellectually not persuaded that evolution is true.

---

People don't want to believe that they are related to things they feel are inferior, plain and simple. They will use any contrivance accessible, including quote mining and outright lies. Creationists are not emotional persuaded, I will agree, but they seem to lack the capacity to prove that they are intellectually not persuaded. Instead, they want everyone to positively support evolutionary theories while not even attempting to support their own. They call evolution a flight of fantasy while believing that man was originally made from mud by a supernatural being who they have no evidence of. They claim that there is no evidence for evolution while writing papers criticizing the evidence. They claim that science can not peer into the past while writing articles on the supposed evidence for the hydroplate theory. They claim creationism is science without even knowing what science is or how it is practiced.I, for one, am a practicing scientist. I test things that happen in the past all of the time, even if they did happen 10 minutes ago. I test things that are not witnessable, such as molecular reactions that take place within human cells. I propose mechanisms for protein interactions even though they can not be seen by the human eye. My results go against certain paradigms within my field, but I try and publish them anyway. I know how the scientific method works because I USE IT. I know the strengths of the scientific method because I USE THEM. I know how science is done, you simply have no clue as to how anything within science is supported, how theories are constructed, or how theories are tested. Until this is cleared up, I will debate no more forever with Mr Byers.So, please, tell me how it is impossible to test past events using the scientific method. Please tell me how it is impossible to test the theory of evolution right now, in today's world. Please be specific and use examples.

quote:

---

The reason is that past events were not witnessed and not repeatable or falsifiable.

---

As Crashfrog said, past events leave evidence, and that evidence is measurable and repeatable. If I claimed that a 5,000 megaton nuclear bomb went off in China 10,000 years ago, could we test this? You bet we could. Why? Find a crater, and if that crater fits the criteria of a nuclear blast, and the crater dates to 10,000 years ago, I have evidence to the positive with no need to witness it. However, since the blast is inferred, I can no claim with absolute certainty but I can claim with little tentativity that I am right. This is the same way past meteor strikes are discovered, by the evidence they leave behind. This is how common ancestory is discovered, but the evidence in living organisms' DNA. Forensics works by the same scientific principles, looking for evidence that can either falsify or support the theory at hand by looking at the evidence left over from a crime. Many criminals are sent to death row without anyone witnessing the crime. Guess what they are convicted on? Evidence left at the crime. Are you saying that we should go back 100 years in forensics and only convict when a crime is witnessed first hand? I guess it would solve prison overpopulation.

Robert,History uses the same hypothetico-inductive method science does. Hypotheses are inferred, there are potential falsifications & predictions.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

And that may be because it would be explicitly bringing into our "talk" *nth* of Bertrand Russel PER SORT (*of*) progression WHEN a property of ordinals and mathematical induction change from being independent in Russel's THOUGHT (between the minds of Dedekind and Peano) and exist BEYOND phenomenological thermo but as many still need to catch this rythm I best not continue to try to make the this particular thread head absolutely in acutal infinity relevant as it may not in real trancendentalism be such but first IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO DO SOME READING OF NATURAL THEOLOGY else indeed Georgi's complaint about the negative discussions did remain WHOLELY on the c/e side but I doubt this for reasons I can not but give my very difficult kind of selective speaches. Those hear here whom have misjudged me were only being brought back to those alternatives EVC has already %% discussed. Needless to say the strech from fossil sorting to actual morpholgic renditions of Gladyshev's STRONG INEQUALITIES is not something to be squeezed into the thread's width but might insist instead on something the big ORange was after after all.

Okay, I feel much better now.Didn't understand a word this time.Back to normal.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Brad,For crying out loud, in your single paragraph there's three full stops/periods, & no commas whatsoever. Paragraphs are your friend. The first sentence has in excess of 120 words without a breathing space. You trying to kill us?You really expect people to read this? I assume that because you took the time to write this, you expect us to take the time to read it? Perhaps if you took the time to add some form of rudimentary punctuation?It's not just the lack of punctuation, either. Anyone?I KNOW you have something interesting to say, but you may as well write in Hebrew for the sense it makes.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

I am trying to figure out how to apply statitics to space and time incongruities in Georgi Gladyshev's heirarchic sense and I think I see how to try to PREDICT THEM (an nth series of them) if the morphology THEN exists but this will only have a formal relation to the topic of this thread hence my refernce to "width". I had said I hadn't willed to think futher on CALCIUM sorting and for this I needed to leave this threaded discussion for better color differences. The water remains and from Aggasiz's perspective we would just have been arguing from the wrong from in series. I do however take Georgi MORE seriously so I am sort of in a readable bind I would perfer not to be. Seeing how the old BM thread was not resurrected it probably behooves me not to create all kinds of links to my past postings but if that is what the peanuts gallery wants they can let it be known and that is how i wil right writely latter. Thanks for regerstering a literate protest.

i've wanted to hear the flooders' explanation for angular unconformites for a long time.

The Spud state, that would be Idaho right?Are you familiar with the evidences of the Missoula flood that is said to have raced out of Montana across northern Idaho and eastern Washington numerous times during the ice ages about a dozen millenia ago? I have often wondered how all that evidence could have survived a worldwide flood of only 4,000 years ago that creationists say stirred up all the mud and rock layers like a giant concrete mixing truck...................

Been away.
OK this is a excellent example.
The sedimentation shows the waters/pressure of the fllod fossilising the debris.
Then the continents in movement in the same year did the tilting.
The last thing could be explained by pressure at the end of the continental movement. Of coarse after weathering would take place.
Regards

Sorry Robert but you've been lead a bit astray by previous posters. The nature of the geology is not on topic here in my opinion. Would someone please propose a new topic for this; pick up the picture and Roberts explanation and then we can carry on. Thank you.Now back to sorting.