Summations Only

Can I assume that you don't believe you're the only person on Earth whose intellect isn't fallen? And that therefore you're accusing Pollux of something that is just as true of yourself? Which makes your assertion silly?--Percy

But you're not arguing that the geological strata formed supernaturally. You're arguing that it was all natural while insisting on processes that are anything but natural. Seems like you're the one refusing to accept that there might have been a supernatural hand involved.--Percy

No, I don't think the rise in level is theoretcial. If you throw in a very large boulder that nearly blocks the stream then the level behind the bolder will most certainly rise and the water will pour past the boulder on either side in torrents. Now consider this thought experiment again with a smaller boulder. The rise behind the boulder will also be smaller. Now consider the thought experiment yet again with an even smaller boulder. The rise behind the boulder be smaller yet.As you continue to repeat the thought experiment with ever smaller boulders until they become the size of sand grains there never becomes a time when the level behind the boulder come sand grain does not rise. As a practical matter there may be a size below which the rise in level isn't measurable, but the rise in level isn't theoretical. It is very real, just very small.--Percy

As I was saying in Message 1569:The familiar complaint by creationists that you all just hand-wave away, that the ToE and the Old Earth are "just theory," has genuine substance to it, it's a serious criticism and not something your definitions can so easily dispense with.Your first definition of Theory is What you don't seem to recognize is that this definition can apply to an accepted untestable delusion into which you feed facts although there may be better explanations of those facts in reality. In other words this is a recipe for nothing but hardened bias.\\Your second definition of Theory is This applies ONLY to what I've been calling REAL science or HARD science because first of all it IS about actually OBSERVED phenomena so it IS testable as described above, while the sciences of the ancient unwitnessed prehistoric past deal with one-time events that are not observable or replicable. Events that occur within historical time may at least have witnesses, and by witnesses I mean documents about observed phenomena which is a form of replication in a sense. But none of this is possible with events of the prehistoric past. The observed phenomena in that case can only be explained by imaginative constructs, or theories, or hypotheses in the sense I've been trying to explain.We can only guess about how a worldwide Flood would behave for instance because nobody has ever seen one. Those who are biased against the Flood, however, are always coming up with ridiculous inadequate ideas about what a Flood would have done. They are always pronouncing as if it were fact we all have to submit to, whatever half-baked notion they may have about conditions that would have made such an event impossible, though they have no way to verify any of it, it's all just what they BELIEVE about these things. But since they are on the side of "science" they can vilify, browbeat and intimidate creationists who should know the Flood at least is a historical event, until some even go over to their side, despite their having nothing but untestable unprovable imagination for evidence. When all you have is untestable imagination it's really easy to SOUND scientific.For the theories of TRUE science, REAL science, REAL WORLD PROOFS OR TESTS to validate or falsify them can be performed by anybody with the means to do so. If the theory is that objects always fall to the ground when dropped from a height, anybody can do a test to prove or disprove that; if the theory is that a river can flow uphill, with the right apparatus anybody can perform a test to prove or disprove it; if the theory is that clay becomes impermeable to water by heating it, anybody with the clay and the right heating equipment can perform a test to prove or disprove it and establish the ranges of temperature and time within which it is true or false. And so on. You have tons of witnesses in other words, and tons of real-world physical means 9of testing those theories.YOU CANNOT DO THAT WITH THEORIES ABOUT THE UNWITNESSED OR PREHISTORIC PAST. You cannot prove that fossils found in the strata are genetically related to other fossils. There is no test you can do to prove that. You cannot prove they are of any particular age either, because you cannot test your radiometric methods. You can't prove they didn't live at the same time. You cannot prove that humans are genetically related to primates. ALL YOU HAVE IS THEORY based on your observation of similarities. And really it's only a "Hypothesis" according to your definition: "a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified" except for the fact that it can NEVER be verified, it will always remain a tentative theory for that reason. The problem is that you all insist that such unprovable "tentative theories" HAVE BEEN established as fact when they cannot possibly be. Ever. You beat us up all the time for claiming this obvious truth, you pronounce dogmatically that Evolution is FACT and berate us for refusing to accept your dogma and so on. You get up on your high horse and intone these definitions at us and recite the Science Creed about "objectivity" and all that rubbish against all our efforts to show you how you are just building mental castles, falsely convincing yourself you're being objective and doing Science when all you have is the litany, the creed, the shell of science, not science itself.You SHOULD be able to prove that mutations are a disease process but your theory keeps you from doing that. You record all the different kinds of mistakes made in the replication of DNA as if they were simply normal ways of producing new genetic possibilities. All they do is destroy the built-in genetic possibilities but your Theory blinds you to that very real possibility so you just go on and on adding wings to your castle thinking you're supporting your theory when all you're doing is elaborating on your mental castle. It SHOULD eventually collapse under the weight of reality, that famous idea that a real theory is of course falsifiable, but when you have a Theory that is nothing but mental conjuring that is backed up by others' mental conjurings in an atmosphere of hostility to anything that challenges it, you can go on rationalizing and building this castle for a LONNNG time, possibly until Judgment Day.REAL science cures diseases and sends men into space BECAUSE IT'S TESTABLE. The ToE and OE do nothing but validate themselves with more mental stuff that has no constructive purpose whatever. Oh I'm sure the location of fossils can lead you to oil or coal, and somehow you've incorporated formulas about millions of years into your methods too, but I'm sure you could do quite well without that part of the formulas. They are just a redundant way of saying "that kind of rock at that level in the strata or in that sort of formation" anyway.Of course you're all very fussy about HOW the terms are used, because of the facts I'm describing here that threaten to prove, yeah prove, that the sciences of ancientness are nothing but fairy tales. Now here comes the pedantry about "Proof" that keeps you from seeing the difference between REAL science and fantasy science,. Which simply obscures the simple facts creationists have been trying to bring to your attention, about how REAL science IS able to "prove" its theories in a sense that the sciences of the unobservable, unwitnessed, prehistoric past are not. The objection "it's only a theory" has an important REAL MEANING you are simply waving away with such obfuscating pedantic academic definitions.You CAN "prove" the Law of Gravity or Germ Theory or the physics of rocket science or the general laws of genetic inheritance, in a sense you can NEVER prove that cows are genetically related to pigs or that a given fossil, say Archaeopteryx, is a genetic transitional, a transition, say, between birds and reptiles, or that a hunk of limestone represents a time period in Earth's ancient past, God help us. The former ARE provable in the sense that matters here, the latter remains always and forever "only a theory." Splitting hairs about the definitions of "theory" and "proof" does nothing but obscure the point that statement is trying to get across. Litany, Creed. Unrelated to the Reality I'm trying to talk about here. It ends up being just a Euphemism or an article of Faith because it is not borne out in reality except probably for the REAL sciences.I don't see any point in going on but I guess if this isn't clear yet I may have to later.

This has nothing to do with the arguments for the Flood, it's a side issue about the Flood stories around the world that support the fact that there WAS a worldwide Flood.You are simply incapable of thinking rationally about the physical world, that's YOUR problem not mine, you've made a lot of weird statements about what's possible or impossible. And I'm sure you know that your statement here is out of context, you had no business commenting at all on this side issue.I'm sure we can count on a cadre of Evo supporters to come to your defense though.

So do stories about witches, vampires, elves, trolls, unicorns..... I guess those are all fact too?

"I'm not, you are," is the best you could come up with? You sure have a lot of opinions. If you'd like a private conversation, use PM.I'm afraid I just couldn't resist pointing out the contradiction inherent in insisting there's nothing supernatural about a supernatural flood while simultaneously casting aspersions at others (one of your favorite pastimes) for not accepting enough supernatural.--Percy

The past is not unwitnessed because the evidence is left behind written in the rocks, the ocean depths, the ice, and the biota.OE is testable because it can make predictions of what will be found in the Earth :
With currently observed processes, it could be predicted that when you core into a lake bed deposit, the C14 date will increase reasonably linearly with depth. This is observed. To refute this as evidence of age you have to postulate C14 decay and lake bed deposits to both vary in a way that just happens to look that way.With currently observed processes, you could predict that the RM ages of sea mounts would increase reasonably linearly as you move away from the formative hot spot. This is observed. To refute this as evidence of age you have to postulate that plate motion and RA decay varied by unknown processes in a way that just happens to look as though they agree.With currently observed processes, you could predict that if the Earth is old, there will be no short half-life RA isotopes except those that are currently being produced. This is observed : all RA isotopes except those being currently produced have half-lives of 80,000,000 years or more. YEC postulates that there was a time of accelerated decay associated with the Flood. The reason this is postulated is not because a Flood hypothesis requires it, but as an ad hoc way of explaining what is observed. This brings with it extra problems of getting rid of the associated heat, and still explaining uranium haloes and the Oklo phenomenon. Also you need to say why it affected the Sun and Moon also, but not distant stars.Ice core layers are counted out to at least 70,000 apparently annual layers. Increased lead is found associated with layers dated to the Industrial Revolution, and also a few hundred years BC when the Greeks started smelting lead. This shows the accuracy of the count back that far, and there is no change in the method of counting till the layers get too thin around 70,000. Using other methods the count is extrapolated to 1,000,000 years.This is but a small portion of what is available. The number of cores taken and studied around the world in lakes, on land, under the sea, and in ice is truly huge. No one ever seems to find evidence which can be attributed to a world-wide flood, but there is plenty of evidence consistent with long age. Are all the scientists lying satanists?

This is more along the lines of what I am thinking. There is no indication at the surface of what is going on under the surface, but there is undoubtedly shallow areas where the river runs fast and deep areas where the water slows down (ie. runs and pools). Certainly there are plenty of rocks on the bottom that act as barriers, yet the surface level is flat, not backed up.On the left side is a log that has fallen in the river. The water upriver from it and to the right, is all one level, nothing raised up. Below the log the level is actually down because water is flowing around it and there is less water flowing over or under the log.This image is the Jordan River here in Michigan and I believe it is about 18 - 24" deep. If the land underneath lifted 6", you wouldn't even know it. It would not change the surface profile, which would remain flat even though the water running over the uplift would be going faster.Definitely if there was enough of a barrier introduced, such as a boulder that nearly blocks the stream, water would back up. I have been thinking about the physics behind that and I think it has to do with the resistance of the barrier. When the resistance builds up to a level that the streams energy can't keep up with it, the water level will back up until it can provide the additional energy to keep up with the resistance. I haven't figured out how to model that idea mathematically though. That will take some more thought.HBD

quote:

---

The familiar complaint by creationists that you all just hand-wave away, that the ToE and the Old Earth are "just theory," has genuine substance to it, it's a serious criticism and not something your definitions can so easily dispense with.

---

Trying to cast doubt on scientific conclusions by calling them "theories" is hardly a serious argument. Pointing out that the argument is ignorant and false is a valid response, and hardly "hand waving". If creationists are too proud to admit their errors, then that is their problem.

quote:

---

What you don't seem to recognize is that this definition can apply to an accepted untestable delusion into which you feed facts although there may be better explanations of those facts in reality. In other words this is a recipe for nothing but hardened bias.\

---

Fortunately science has mechanisms for dealing with that problem. Unless you define "better" as being whatever you happen to like. But that would place more weight on prejudice not less. Creationism lacks such mechanisms, which explains why it is in such a dreadful state.

quote:

---

A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena

This applies ONLY to what I've been calling REAL science or HARD science because first of all it IS about actually OBSERVED phenomena so it IS testable as described above, while the sciences of the ancient unwitnessed prehistoric past deal with one-time events that are not observable or replicable.

---

Of course you're wrong because there's nothing there demanding that principles or the testing derive from direct observation. Of course, quite a lot of the principles in evolution and geology are tested by direct observation, where that's possible so even that objectin fails to stand.

quote:

---

We can only guess about how a worldwide Flood would behave for instance because nobody has ever seen one.

---

Can't we apply what we know about the behaviour of water, for instance, to work out a lot?Or do you object to that because the results aren't what you would like?

quote:

---

For the theories of TRUE science, REAL science, REAL WORLD PROOFS OR TESTS to validate or falsify them can be performed by anybody with the means to do so

---

Noting that those means might include use of the Large Hadron Collider - or construction of an equally powerful facility - what's your problem with either the Old Earth or evolution? Both are open to testing - and have passed many tests.

quote:

---

YOU CANNOT DO THAT WITH THEORIES ABOUT THE UNWITNESSED OR PREHISTORIC PAST.

---

Writing that in capitals doesn't make it any less wrong.

quote:

---

You cannot prove that fossils found in the strata are genetically related to other fossils

---

Being unable to perform a test that you would like performed doesn't mean that no tests are possible. Indeed, we should ask why we find the pattern of morphological features that we do without genetic relationships? Do you have a testable alternative explanation? At least we can test the relationship between genetic relationships and physical form in existing species.

quote:

---

You cannot prove they are of any particular age either, because you cannot test your radiometric methods.

---

Of course we can test radiometric methods. For instance we can apply multiple methods to rocks of similar age and see if they agree. Ask RAZD about that. Or we can apply the same method to rocks where we have an idea of the relative age (from the geometric relationships) and see if the radiometric results are consistent with what we already know.To sum up, the "just a theory" argument is hopelessly wrong.The argument about direct observation is a different argument - and also wrong. Not only because it ignore the role of direct observation in geology and evolutionary science, bit because it makes a categorical distinction that does not exist. All observations are indirect to some degree - a witness experiences only the effects of a past event, not the event itself.

Each individual rock on the bottom makes its contribution to obstructing the flow of water. Even a flat pebble lying perfectly flat on the bottom makes a contribution, since its absence would increase the volume of water at that cross section of the river. We're only considering the contribution of this single factor, by the way. There's a lot of other factors that have a say in the level of the river. You have to trust your equation and your knowledge of physics. The river can't flow faster without an increase in force, and that force comes from gravity. Water flowing from a greater height turns more potential energy into kinetic energy. If the increase in height of the water weren't real then the increased energy and increased velocity of the water could not be real either.My previous message suggested a thought experiment where a boulder thrown into the stream is considered to be smaller and smaller. This time I'd like to suggest the opposite thought experiment. Imagine you throw a tiny pebble, say a half inch in diameter, into the middle of the stream. You see no effect. Now you throw another and again see no effect. You continue throwing one pebble at a time into the stream and seeing no effect, but eventually you have thrown so many pebbles into the stream that you do begin to see an effect. If the contribution of each pebble were actually zero then you would never see any effect, so the contribution of each pebble cannot be zero.--Percy

"Dating produces facts" you said. If you mean it produces actual facts about the actual physical world, boy are you deluded. It does produce "facts" of course, if unreliable numbers suffice for facts. Which happen to be wrong. There is only one trustworthy date for the Flood, which is derived from the dating clues in the Bible, and that is around 4300 years ago, and that IS of course based on evidence since a written account from the ancient world IS evidence. All the other dates are just weird attempts to accommodate to your false science. The Bible is a written record of knowledge from the ancient world, which is a lot more evidence than "science" has. All you have is conjecture, guesswork and belief based on nothing at all but your imagination and your untestable radioactive decay, whereas we have actual written evidence, historical evidence with enough information to make it as good as a scientific document about the physical facts of the Flood. Unfortunately you have no ability to judge such things, which is why your science is really just a fantasy, the Emperor's New Clothes/Science, but your belief is strong enough to prevent you from ever seeing the truth. Except that your dating is a delusion. Too bad. You seem to be unable to unglue your mind from your illusions about dates. In case you managed not to read what I actually wrote above, I attributed the scablands to the flooding of a LAKE, not the Flood itself. I do think you MUST have trouble reading. I explained the scablands FROM the same evidence you have and not from the Flood.Your blindness is amazing though. The evidence for the Flood is everywhere. The billions of fossils are evidence. To attribute those to slow time is absurd. They require special rare conditions and the Flood provided those conditions in abundance. The strata are evidence. To associate different sediments with eras of time is absurd. The generally wrecked condition of Planet Earth is evidence.Oddly, you have no ability to understand what evidence is. That's because your science is one of those historical interpretive sciences that build only on human imagination rather than actual knowledge about the real world. Actually it's the theory of the Old Earth itself that hampers you. If you weren't bound and gagged by that theory you might have a better chance of actually recognizing facts. [Of course it isn't really a theory, according to your own definitions, and may not even rise to the status of hypothesis]. The problem is that the YEC dating is stable and consistent but your ability to comprehend it is nonexistent. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Hi Faith,Any book or document (including the Bible) that is an accurate account would be supported by the evidence. The Genesis account of the flood cannot be considered an accurate account because it is not supported by any evidence and is contradicted by much evidence.This is a science thread, so you should be seeking scientific evidence of your position instead of issuing unsupported declarations based upon your interpretation of the Bible. You've presented no scientific data to support this position. As has been explained in great detail, none of the evidence presented and discussed in this thread points to a global flood 4300 years ago. Your determined insistence on impossible and unnatural processes makes even more starkly clear how impossible such a flood is. If you're not going to say something true then you might at least *try* to be original. You're the only one who has given no indication of understanding the nature of scientific evidence, and you certainly have no ability to interpret it.AbE: I see that you edited your post six times since I began replying to it. There's a preview button that allows you to see *exactly* what your message will look like when you post it. You don't have to go through repeated Edit/Submit cycles.--PercyEdited by Percy, : AbE.

The Biblical Flood account is supported by tons of evidence, for starters the humongous evidence of the billions of fossils, the humongous evidence of the stratified sediments, the wrecked condition of the planet as I just said, evidence staring you in the face. So sorry you seem to be unable to recognize evidence and continue to project your intellectual failures onto me.ABE: I do use the Preview button all the time, I just always have more to say later. Sorry, way it goes.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.