Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
79 online now:
jar, kjsimons, PaulK, vimesey (4 members, 75 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,122 Year: 4,234/6,534 Month: 448/900 Week: 154/150 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 90 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 82 of 614 (719247)
02-12-2014 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Faith
02-12-2014 3:21 AM


Re: How about forensic science?
My answer to the forensics comparison is that criminal forensics all goes on in the present really, but certainly not the PREHISTORIC past, which was what I was saying was the problem for science, not the past as in historic times. There are plenty of clues and witnesses in historic time that don't exist in the prehistoric past.

The problem here is that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. If the earth is only 6000 years old and was created in 6 literal days, the only "prehistoric" past is the first 5 days. So you can't even refer to any "unwitnessed past" since humans have existed since day 6. All the events that we have evidence of happening in the past are in the "historical past," are they not?

If we start with that assumption, then everything we are talking about becomes part of this "observable past" and so is subject to present reality. Therefore, we can apply uniformitarian principals to past events and make inferences as to how things happened. Uniformitarianism doesn't mean that no events could have occurred in the past that are different from what we experience today, but that those events would leave evidence that we can interpret based on principals that we can observe and test in the present.

I know that is what you think you are doing, but you're not. What you are doing is saying that since these events happened in the prehistoric past that no one can really know for sure what happened since no one was there to witness them. Therefore, you are free to speculate as to how things might have been, or how the evidence supports your idea. And since no one can know for sure, your ideas are as likely as anyone else's.

So what is it? When would this "pre-historic past" have existed? What can we not know about the historical past that is not based on our understanding of current processes? Take just ONE geological layer from the GC and analyze how it could have formed based on current understanding of geological processes (you can do this because that layer was laid down in the historical past). Take just ONE speciation event and analyze how it happened based on current understanding of genetic processes (you can do this because that speciation event also happened in the historical past).

What do you think you will find?

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 3:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 4:54 PM herebedragons has taken no action

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 90 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(7)
Message 112 of 614 (719318)
02-13-2014 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Faith
02-12-2014 6:04 PM


Re: Science? Ha!
You misinterpret DNA, you misinterpret mutations, you misinterpret the fossils, you misinterpret the strata, you misinterpret the archaeological record, you misinterpret history, you get it all wrong ...

OMG, I can't believe you would say this when you yourself admit to not knowing much about these subjects.

but you hate those so much who try to show it to you there's no saving you from it

I can't speak for Taq, but I certainly don't hate you or even what you stand for.

What IS offensive is when you come here and say that you know almost nothing about genetics and then proceed to lecture those of us that have put considerable time and energy into learning about the subject as to how we are misinterpreting the facts. Genetics, geology, cellular biology are not beyond your ability to learn, but it is beyond your ability to take wild guesses about and simply make up bogus scenarios.

You say we are all just guessing, but that is simply not true. Yes, there is some amount of guess work that goes into interpreting the past. Of course there is. But the difference is how we go about developing that guess work. You start with a conclusion and then try and fit evidence. We start with evidence and then try and draw conclusions. This is the point I was trying to get across to you in Why the Flood Never Happened when you called me a stupid idiot. (where was Mikey for that ad-hominem attack?)

And you all aggressively defend it.

For me personally, the thing I am most "aggressive" about is that those who are supposedly defending the Word of Truth need to resort to half-truths, deceptions, mis-leading arguments, known falsehoods and clever sciency sounding terminology in order to defend "the truth." For me, if the ToE is wrong ... I am OK with that. If a literal version of creation is right ... I'm OK with that. If there was a global flood 4400 years ago ... I'm OK with that. What I'm not OK with is defending those points of view with BS.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 6:04 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 02-13-2014 3:54 PM herebedragons has taken no action

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 90 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(3)
Message 155 of 614 (731886)
07-01-2014 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Faith
07-01-2014 6:50 AM


Re: Siccar Point
That's far from the kind of test that allows you to actually see that DNA is a double helix.

Is it? You do realize that no one has actually 'looked at' DNA and observed the double helix, don't you? That DNA is a double helix is inferred, not directly observed. Here is the x-ray diffraction from Rosalind Franklin's lab that gave Watson and Crick the final piece of evidence they needed to build their double helix model:

You do realize that you have to be able to interpret that x-ray diffraction, don't you? Do you see an obvious double helix in that image?

There was no direct, observable evidence of the double helix until 2012 when scientists from the University of Genoa developed a new technique that allowed them to capture an electron microscope image of the double helix. Here it is ...

Article here

Since you are convinced that DNA being a double helix IS a scientific fact that has undergone appropriate scientific reasoning, perhaps you could research this particular topic and see how it was determined that DNA is indeed a double helix.

We use inference and indirect evidence to understand things we cannot directly observe all the time.

That's the only test there is.

Just to be clear ... "test" isn't synonymous with controlled experiment.

What "experiments" can you point to that have convinced you that DNA is a double helix?

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 07-01-2014 6:50 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Faith, posted 07-01-2014 10:58 AM herebedragons has taken no action

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 90 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 157 of 614 (731889)
07-01-2014 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Coyote
07-01-2014 10:08 AM


Re: Siccar Point
You seem to think that "interpreted" means "automatically wrong" or something.

Or, maybe to be more precise, "automatically wrong if I don't like it."

I take it to mean that ALL interpretations are equally valid, since they are "only"interpretations.

For example, that the Coconino sandstone was laid down by aeolian processes or by flood processes are both equally valid conclusions since both are "interpretations" and since no one was there to witness it.

What gets me is how some things that are based completely on inductive reasoning and indirect evidence are accepted while others that use directly observable evidence and deductive reasoning are rejected. This subjectivity is clearly the "I don't like it" bias.

In fact, what you are doing is exactly the opposite of science!

Yes, it is clearly apologetics. Again, IMO, the attempt at apologetics is just as bad as the attempt at science.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Coyote, posted 07-01-2014 10:08 AM Coyote has seen this message

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 90 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 169 of 614 (731907)
07-01-2014 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Faith
07-01-2014 11:19 AM


Re: Amen!
Lol. A punch in the nose? Well its a good thing this is an internet forum where I don't have to worry about being assaulted for having a different point of view.

So what do you call it when the methodology works like this:

The Bible says ... ( x ), therefore we must interpret all evidence according to that paradigm?

Or the evidence suggests ... ( x ), but we know that is wrong because the Bible says something else.

What do you call that?

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 07-01-2014 11:19 AM Faith has taken no action

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 90 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 195 of 614 (731960)
07-02-2014 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Faith
07-01-2014 3:44 PM


Re: Siccar Point
DNA structure is absolutely KNOWN, testable and provable and not subject to interpretation,

Not so. The structure is not KNOWN or provable but rather it is an ACCEPTED fact. The structure is accepted because it explains the evidence, not because it proves anything. The evidence of the structure of DNA absolutely DOES require interpretation. Look at those images again...

There is nothing straightforward about interpreting those images. Even the actual photograph is not unambiguous, do you actually see the two strands, the sugar backbone, the double helix, or the individual nucleotides? NO, you don't. If you look at the photograph you can see that the section the author blew up is the only place in the photograph where the lops are clearly visible. How's that for ambiguous? You don't think that requires interpretation? You think that image PROVES the double helix?

Does anything in those images look like this?

This is a model of the structure of DNA based on the evidence presented in the images above. (there is more evidence but it is more mathematical in nature, these are the primary images that I know of) How do we go from the two images above, the actual evidence, to the image below?

While we don't refer to the structure of DNA as a "theory," that is essentially what it is; a theoretical construct based on available evidence that explains known features and characteristics of the DNA molecule. Future evidence could overturn our model of DNA - it seriously could.

My point is not to discuss the structure of DNA, but to use an example of something you accept to illustrate how scientists come to conclusions when that cannot physically observe something. They draw conclusions based on model that describe and fit the evidence. Most molecular biology works this way.

Geology works in the same way. All your rhetoric about not being able to test it is just nonsense. Geologists test their theories with models, logic, observations and they try to explain ALL available evidence. It is not that far removed from how the structure of DNA was determined.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Faith, posted 07-01-2014 3:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 11:56 AM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 90 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(4)
Message 256 of 614 (732116)
07-03-2014 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Faith
07-02-2014 11:56 AM


Re: Siccar Point
that is just a lot of pedantic nitpickery

Typical avoidance strategy. No its not pendantic nitpickery. Its an example that illustrates how scientific discovery works when we cannot directly observe a phenomenon. There are numerous examples.

Who went to the sun and dipped out a piece so that we could test it to find out of what is what made up of. How can we be so certain that it is made up of primarily Hydrogen? How was the element Helium discovered to exist on the sun before it had been found on the earth?

How was the process of photosynthesis determined? Or the electron transport chain?

How about the atomic theory? Or mechanisms of organic chemical reactions? That was the hardest thing about Organic Chemistry; it was so theoretical. Put some chemicals in a tube and a reaction happens ... so what? And when you predict that a certain reaction will happen based on the molecular structure and then run the actual reaction, you may find that the expected product only makes up 75% of the final product, the other 25% are alternate products. What's up with that?

Your insistence that someone has to witness events is completely unfounded.

There are no competing theories of its structure, right?

There were when it first came out, but the evidence won the day.

It works and nobody doubts it.

But why? That's the question. Why does it work? The "theory" is the explanation of that. Why does the theory work?

Parts of the sequence of thought about it can be questioned and I question them.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with forming alternate hypotheses. In fact, that process is vital to science. However, the more accepted the current theory, the better the alternate hypothesis needs to be. It can't just explain one little piece better than the current theory, it has to explain ALL of the data as well or better. Sometimes theories do have holes in them or uncertainties. An alternate hypothesis needs to not only address the uncertainties, but also the certainties as well.

An alternative hypothesis should start like this:

The current theory fails to explain phenomenon [X] because of [list of reasons]. However, my hypothesis provides a better explanation for this phenomenon.

This new proposed hypothesis then needs to be subject to scrutiny and needs to be able to defend itself against that scrutiny. If and only IF it stands up to scrutiny will it be accepted. Also realize that the more accepted the current theory is, the more scrutiny it will suffer, BECAUSE the current theory has been accepted to be the best explanation of the evidence.

Another point. Simply denying the current theory is not sufficient to overturn it. Here is a list of the reasons I have seen you insert into [list of reasons] above.

  • It happened in the unwitnessed past, so no one can be certain.
  • That evidence doesn't prove anything.
  • Billions of years doesn't make any sense.
  • Anyone should be able to look at this cross section of the GC and see that it didn't take billions of years to form.
  • The Bible says the earth is only 6,000 years old and a worldwide flood occurred 4,300 years ago.

Those are poor reasons to give if you want your alternate hypothesis to be considered.

Another bit of advice; take on small pieces at a time. There is no point in trying to overturn the "Old Earth Theory" all at once. Believe it or not, that the earth is old is a conclusion not a theory. It is a conclusion that has been reached by the accumulation of many, many pieces of data and theories about that data. Instead, choose one part of the GC, for example, and develop an alternate hypothesis about how that formed.

A good example would be the contact between the Muav and the Redwall and how the Temple Butte formation fits in.

  • First describe what the current theory fails to explain.
  • Then explain how your hypothesis explains those phenomenon better.
  • Make some predictions that would have to be true if your hypothesis were true BUT would have to be false if the current theory were true.
  • Gather objections to your hypothesis and prepare to defend them.
  • Demonstrate that your hypothesis satisfies those objections. If you have to use any of the reasons from the [list of reasons] I listed above, the objections are not adequately satisfied.
  • Test your predictions.
  • If one of the predictions proves false OR any of the objections presented cannot be adequately addressed, either modify hypothesis or abandon it as untenable.

I am sincerely trying to help you here, Faith. If you truly want your ideas to be considered scientific rather than apologetic, this is the procedure you must follow. The reason no one is considering your approach scientific, is because it simply is not.

As I said, alternative hypotheses are a vital part of science. In fact, I would suggest that without alternate hypotheses we could not test anything. The hypothesis "This rock is old." would be a lousy hypothesis. A better hypothesis would be "IF this rock is old, THEN we should see [X]; IF this rock is not old (young), THEN we should see [Y]. The two hypotheses can be directly compared to determine which can better predict an expected observation.

Your mantra that "we cannot know the unobserved past" puts your hypothesis firmly on non-scientific grounds. Science deals with what we CAN know. Current hypotheses tell us what we CAN know about the past. If it is wrong and there is a better hypothesis, then you need to demonstrate that - scientifically.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 11:56 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 12:39 PM herebedragons has replied
 Message 281 by herebedragons, posted 07-08-2014 10:17 AM herebedragons has taken no action

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 90 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 263 of 614 (732131)
07-03-2014 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Faith
07-03-2014 12:39 PM


Re: Siccar Point
We can be equally certain about anything to the extent to which we can apply the methods I outlined in the second half of my post. Sure, somethings we can apply those methods more rigorously than we can to others. Sure, in general there is more uncertainty about past events than there is about things we can study that are right in front of us; although there may be more certainty about some past events than of particular things we do have right in front of us. (example. we are more certain about the diet of many dinosaurs than we are about how a water molecule is split during photosynthesis). It all depends on the degree to which we can apply the scientific method.

Your assertion that we can't apply the scientific method to past events is unfounded. I gave you the methodology by which you could apply the scientific method to your ideas should you so desire. However, your rejection of us being able to know anything for certain about the past is intended (or at least it appears that way) only to suggest that your idea is equally valid. Its NOT. For your ideas to be considered scientific you need to play the game. If you want to approach it a different way, fine ... but that's not scientific.

Take my advice about how to apply the scientific method to your idea. Quit making excuses and using denial tactics.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 12:39 PM Faith has taken no action

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 90 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 281 of 614 (732539)
07-08-2014 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by herebedragons
07-03-2014 12:35 PM


Re: Siccar Point
Faith, this is my advice as to how you could frame your argument in a scientific way. I replied to my own message and pulled out relevant points so I could add further comments where necessary.

HBD writes:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with forming alternate hypotheses. In fact, that process is vital to science. However, the more accepted the current theory, the better the alternate hypothesis needs to be. It can't just explain one little piece better than the current theory, it has to explain ALL of the data as well or better. Sometimes theories do have holes in them or uncertainties. An alternate hypothesis needs to not only address the uncertainties, but also the certainties as well.

Sometimes an alternate hypothesis explains one part of the data very, very well - even better than the current theory, but unless it can explain ALL the data as well or better than the current theory, it won't be accepted.

HBD writes:

An alternative hypothesis should start like this:

The current theory fails to explain phenomenon [X] because of [list of reasons]. However, my hypothesis provides a better explanation for this phenomenon.

HBD writes:

Another point. Simply denying the current theory is not sufficient to overturn it. Here is a list of the reasons I have seen you insert into [list of reasons] above.

  • It happened in the unwitnessed past, so no one can be certain.
  • That evidence doesn't prove anything.
  • Billions of years doesn't make any sense.
  • Anyone should be able to look at this cross section of the GC and see that it didn't take billions of years to form.
  • The Bible says the earth is only 6,000 years old and a worldwide flood occurred 4,300 years ago.

Those are poor reasons to give if you want your alternate hypothesis to be considered.

This point is very important. There needs to be justification for proposing an alternate hypothesis. "The current theory doesn't make sense", "The Bible says", or "I can tell by just looking that the current theory is wrong" will not go very far to convince people that you have a legitimate, scientific reason for proposing an alternate hypothesis. Instead, what data, what evidence does the current theory NOT explain or provide a weak explanation for?

HBD writes:

As I said, alternative hypotheses are a vital part of science. In fact, I would suggest that without alternate hypotheses we could not test anything. The hypothesis "This rock is old." would be a lousy hypothesis. A better hypothesis would be "IF this rock is old, THEN we should see [X]; IF this rock is not old (young), THEN we should see [Y]. The two hypotheses can be directly compared to determine which can better predict an expected observation.

A common way to propose an alternate hypothesis is to use a null hypothesis, which we will call H0, to test against. H0 is simply a statement that the hypothesis, which we call H1 is NOT true. H0 says nothing about what IS true, simply that H1 is NOT true.

The problem is, rather than supporting H1 with evidence, creationists typically put their efforts into showing that H0 is not true. However, showing that H0 is false does not make H1 true.

For example, if the hypothesis is that the rocks of the GC are young, showing that the dating methods employed by current methods are faulty does NOT support the hypothesis, it is an attempt to show that H0 is false, but says nothing about H1. This is a flawed approach. IF H1 cannot be supported, then H0 is true by default, not the other way around.

HBD writes:

This new proposed hypothesis then needs to be subject to scrutiny and needs to be able to defend itself against that scrutiny. If and only IF it stands up to scrutiny will it be accepted. Also realize that the more accepted the current theory is, the more scrutiny it will suffer, BECAUSE the current theory has been accepted to be the best explanation of the evidence.

This is often the hardest part of the process to accept; no one wants their ideas torn to shreds. But this is a vital part of the process. This is the part where you will be expected to defend your hypothesis and demonstrate that it DOES explain ALL of the evidence as well or better than the current theory. The more firmly established the current theory, the more difficult this part will be because the more explanatory power the current theory has or is thought to have.

Also note that the burden of evidence falls on the one proposing the alternate hypothesis. You often seem put off that people keeping asking you for evidence of your claims and you complain that all anyone else offers is "stories." The trouble is that the arguments for these "stories" has been going on for the last 200 years and can now be reduced to "stories." Some of the data for these arguments is not readily accessible because it was published many years ago before the internet and is in something called books.

I am not saying that those that support the current theory do not need to provide evidence, I am saying the burden of evidence falls on the one proposing the alternate hypothesis. H0 does NOT need to be defended, H1 needs to be supported. Does that make sense?

And finally, despite the fact you think that there is an old earth theory that all data needs to be interpreted by, there is no such thing. That the earth is old is a conclusion. I know you don't believe that, but it's true. The conclusions about the age of the earth come from adding up the data; A + B + C .... +Z = [Age of the Earth].

If the hypothesis is the the Grand Canyon was deposited in a single catastrophic event, then it needs to be shown that EVERY single layer was deposited by that catastrophic event. If there is any feature within the system that could not have been deposited by that catastrophic event, then the hypothesis is falsified and needs revision (perhaps setting limits as to what layers that event is responsible for). A daunting task indeed!!!

So, I recommend that you focus on one piece at a time. For example, the current theory says that one way limestone is deposited is in offshore marine environments by the accumulation of the shells of tiny, sea animals. At this point, this process is considered to be a fact and does not need to be supported for discussions like this and can simply be stated as such. So the argument could go something like this:

There is 300 feet of limestone which was deposited in a calm marine environment by the accumulation of the shells of billions of tiny marine animals. How could this have happened in a flood?

Improper, unscientific response: You can't prove that is how it was deposited, it COULD have been deposited in a flood as well. I see no problem here. Or another one, "to think that a layer represents a depositional environment is just nonsense." These responses address and attempt to call into question H0 instead of supporting H1, which is that limestone deposits are consistent with flood deposits. H1 needs to be supported!

A more scientific response: Provide evidence that limestone CAN be deposited in environments that are consistent with massive floods.

That is why I advised you to take on one piece at a time.

HBD writes:

Another bit of advice; take on small pieces at a time. There is no point in trying to overturn the "Old Earth Theory" all at once. Believe it or not, that the earth is old is a conclusion not a theory. It is a conclusion that has been reached by the accumulation of many, many pieces of data and theories about that data. Instead, choose one part of the GC, for example, and develop an alternate hypothesis about how that formed.

A good example would be the contact between the Muav and the Redwall and how the Temple Butte formation fits in.

  • First describe what the current theory fails to explain.
  • Then explain how your hypothesis explains those phenomenon better.
  • Make some predictions that would have to be true if your hypothesis were true BUT would have to be false if the current theory were true.
  • Gather objections to your hypothesis and prepare to defend them.
  • Demonstrate that your hypothesis satisfies those objections. If you have to use any of the reasons from the [list of reasons] I listed above, the objections are not adequately satisfied.
  • Test your predictions.
  • If one of the predictions proves false OR any of the objections presented cannot be adequately addressed, either modify hypothesis or abandon it as untenable.

An unconformity is problematic for a single catastrophic event. You need to demonstrate an alternate hypothesis that supports the idea that a single catastrophic event could create a feature that looks like an unconformity.

HBD writes:

I am sincerely trying to help you here, Faith. If you truly want your ideas to be considered scientific rather than apologetic, this is the procedure you must follow. The reason no one is considering your approach scientific, is because it simply is not.

Your mantra that "we cannot know the unobserved past" puts your hypothesis firmly on non-scientific grounds. Science deals with what we CAN know. Current hypotheses tell us what we CAN know about the past. If it is wrong and there is a better hypothesis, then you need to demonstrate that - scientifically.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by herebedragons, posted 07-03-2014 12:35 PM herebedragons has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Faith, posted 07-08-2014 2:38 PM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 90 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 288 of 614 (732711)
07-10-2014 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by Faith
07-08-2014 2:38 PM


Re: HBD's "helpful" advice
Ugh. Reading this is a pain.

Why am I not surprised?

I guess it's just hard to take the patronizing attitude

My attitude was not patronizing at all. I simply want you to understand what the expectations are for a scientific endeavor and why people here continue to say that the approach you are taking is NOT scientific. You think that they say that because you reach a different conclusion than they do; if you don't think the earth is old, then you are not scientific. But that is simply not true. That is not why people say you are not being scientific.

all the more from someone who long ago caved in on the Biblical standard.

Not true

And the utter lack of ability to see what I AM doing and trying to do here.

I have had many discussions with you, on several different topics, and I know exactly what you are trying to do: defend the Bible as you interpret it.

You THINK you are employing the scientific method because you say, for example, the the flood was a natural event, not miraculous. So since you are talking about natural phenomenon, you are being scientific. But that is just not the case. What you are really doing is trying to shoehorn some of the facts into a preconceived conclusion.

Blech

I am sorry you feel that way. Carry on.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Faith, posted 07-08-2014 2:38 PM Faith has taken no action

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 90 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 294 of 614 (734630)
07-31-2014 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Dr Adequate
07-31-2014 4:33 PM


Re: More BS to deal with
If you're going to admit that geologists can reconstruct past events from present data

No, geologists who study the actual rocks and analyze detail after detail can't reconstruct the past, but someone with a computer, an internet connection and a picture of the Grand Canyon sure can!

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-31-2014 4:33 PM Dr Adequate has taken no action

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 90 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 324 of 614 (734754)
08-01-2014 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by petrophysics1
08-01-2014 9:38 PM


Re: working geologists do observational science
If someone other than Faith wants to know I'll explain it. As a hint it has an awful lot to do with accurately describing and measuring rocks.

I for one would be interested in that process. Perhaps you could use as an example a layer in the Grand Canyon that we are familiar with?

I have come to realize though that when a layer is described as sandstone, for instance, that description says nothing about the complexity of the sediment which typically includes many, many more details and materials than the term "sandstone" implies.

I also think it would be helpful to explain to Faith (and myself too) exactly how you use absolute dates. My impression is that correlations and relative relationships can be worked out without an absolute age, but that knowing absolute ages make your job easier and more predictable.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by petrophysics1, posted 08-01-2014 9:38 PM petrophysics1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by Faith, posted 08-01-2014 11:54 PM herebedragons has taken no action
 Message 342 by petrophysics1, posted 08-02-2014 4:10 AM herebedragons has taken no action

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 90 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 360 of 614 (734884)
08-03-2014 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 357 by Faith
08-03-2014 1:33 AM


Re: working geologists do observational science
the main way Old Earth concepts are used in practical Geology is through radiometric dating

In all seriousness Faith, could you make a list of what you consider to be "Old Earth concepts?" I am having trouble with the idea. For example, is radiometric dating a "Old Earth concept?" If we used radiometric dating and it indicated the earth was 6,000 years old, it would then be a "Young Earth concept." So I see radiometric dating as just a concept, that yields results that suggest the earth is old.

Uniformitarianism would be one that maybe is an "Old Earth concept." Because a "Young Earth concept" would have to be that things in the past, including the laws of physics, operated completely different than they do today.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 1:33 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 9:42 AM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 90 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 366 of 614 (734927)
08-03-2014 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by Faith
08-03-2014 9:42 AM


Re: working geologists do observational science
Ah. So its not "Old Earth concepts" you have a problem with it is old earth conclusions. That makes more sense.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 9:42 AM Faith has taken no action

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 90 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 375 of 614 (734965)
08-03-2014 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 370 by Faith
08-03-2014 9:19 PM


Re: working geologists do observational science
I am pretty sure he explained this quite clearly to you already. If you have two intrusions, how do you know which is older? Just because one is higher in the stack doesn't mean it is younger. And how do you know where if fits into the time sequence? Well you could drill bore holes all over the region until you completely map out the sequence to which he asked you "how much money do you have to waste?" Or you could date the intrusions radiometrically and know almost immediately where they fit into the sequence.

He also gave you the example of Archean rocks, which are highly metamorphosed and/or igneous.

quote:
Instead of being based on stratigraphy as all other geological ages are, the beginning of the Archean eon is defined chronometrically. The lower boundary (starting point) of 4 billion years is officially recognized by the International Commission on Stratigraphy.

So if you're going to work in Archean rocks you must use chronometric dates, relative sequence means little to nothing.

Yes, it is ultimately the relative position that they are looking for when drilling or mining, but using radiometric dates to establish that relative position works. Could the earth be 4.5 billion seconds old rather than 4.5 billion years? Sure, but that is not what the evidence adds up to.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 9:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 10:02 PM herebedragons has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022