quote: You CANNOT do any experiment or analysis of experiment that would prove that the fossils represent the only living things in a particular time period,
We can't do experiments or controlled experiments to find extra-solar planets. Instead we rely on observation. Observational science has been around for a long time. More, nobody claims that the fossils that we do find are the only things that were living at the time. The actual claims about which life forms were present at any time are, moreover, testable by collecting more observations (in this case, by looking for more fossils), just as we would expect of valid observational science.
quote: and if your radiometric methods ARE contaminated or otherwise untrustworthy you'd have no way of knowing that all the strata were laid down in a relatively short period of time, which is patently the case
Apart from the structure of the rocks themselves. Which, in fact, is the major reason for concluding the time taken for deposition. Geologists DO study how sediment is deposited in the present day, and extrapolate that backward.
Even worse for you, radiometric dating methods have been extensively tested, by checking both the assumptions under which they operate and cross-correlating with other dating methods (mainly including other radiometric methods, admittedly, but the physics of decay makes an undetectable systematic error extremely unlikely). Even worse, the errors that are detected tend to indicate dates that are YOUNGER than the real date, or rely on the presence of older material. Both of these problems count against your position.
quote: Some things are just something you have to SEE. The idea that the strata represent time periods during which nothing lived but the peculiar fossil forms present in the rock IS just plain bonkers, but you have to open your eyes and SEE it.
And the idea that you could get away with such an obvious strawman is equally bonkers. But still you try it. Nobody says that the fossil record is exhaustive, everyone with any sense says that the fossil record is a limited sampling of the lifeforms living at any one time. But sampling - including the sampling produced by the processes of fossilisation - is quite well understood. We can make justified conclusions on the classes of lifeforms present from what we find - and do not find. Not at the level of species, certainly, but the higher up the taxonomic tree we go, the more certain we can be.
quote: It's a matter of judgment about the size and shape of the strata themselves, so nicely horizontally deposited by water, so many different kinds of sediments too as if particular time periods produced one and just one kind of sediment; and the fact that the fossils are a bunch of dead things in the bazillions, which is exactly what we'd expect of a worldwide Flood It's not a matter of some OTHER evidence. Your "detailed explanations" are RIDICULOUS, truly like a fairy tale.
Except for the strata that weren't deposited by water, the strata that include rock eroded from earlier formations, the strata formed by evaporation. Except for the order in the fossil record, except for the many transitional fossils. I could go on. Misrepresenting or even suppressing evidence that contradicts your views or strongly supports opposing views isn't "real science".
quote: And now on another thread we have a model of deposition by rising sea level, which is somehow supposed to accord with this ridiculous fantasy of time periods? YES, this is something you have to SEE, it's ABSURD!
In fact it is entirely reasonable, and good science too. And i can SEE that.
quote: Obviously you'd rather call ME names than be honest about the terms of the argument
Sure let's REALLY be honest about the terms of the argument, On our side we have evidence and reason, while you have misrepresentation, extreme prejudice and a hatred for any truth which contradicts your sacred commentaries. That's the reality of the situation. And of course you hate that truth, too.
quote: Experimental science and observational science are basiclaly the same thing.
I think that the absence of experiments is a pretty big difference. In fact it's a bigger difference than the one that distinguishes "historical science"
quote: The planets and stars move in relation to each other and in relation to Earth, observations over time can tell you all kinds of things about them. In the case of historical geology you have a stack of inert sediments that just lie there, and their fossil contents are dead and motionless.
Of course geology is not JUST a historical science, there are plenty of observations of present-day processes too.
quote: Everything you come up with in this case is just a lot of wild guesswork that can't be validated by independent tests or independent observations.
We KNOW that that isn't true of dating to start with. So how can it be true of "everything" ?
quote: My statement remains true: You CANNOT do any experiment or analysis of experiment that would prove that the fossils represent the only living things in a particular time period. But let me add: there is nothing observable about these fossils that could prove this either.
And my answer remains true. Nobody claims that the fossils found represent the only things alive at that time period. However, Fossils comprise a sample of the things living at the time, From a sufficiently large sample we can make justified inferences about what sorts of life existed at that time.
quote: Yes they do and if the way it is deposited today in fact is really not the same as the way it was deposited in the geologic column they're going to get the whole thing wrong, which of course they do.
Of course this is only true if the "different" means of deposition mimic present processes sufficiently well for geologists to be unable to tell the difference. And there is no "of course" about that.
quote: And the idea that the "structure of the rocks" tells you about the time taken for their deposition is some kind of fantasy. Layer after layer of sediment tells you NOTHING about how long it took. It could have taken anything from a few days to a few billion years for all you really know.
That is also false, the structure of the rock will tell you the materials it is made of. Chemical composition, grain size and the like. This tells us things like the energy needed to transport the particles and the settling rate. Sometimes we can find the source. Sometimes we can estimate the rate of supply. All from actual evidence. I'm sure that the geologists here can tell you more.
quote: The physics of decay is not in dispute. It's the circumstances of the rocks that are being tested, and the many assumptions and unknowns about their condition at the time of their deposition. If that deposition occurred 4300 years ago you'd be off by millions of years. Which you are.
If you wish to claim accelerated radioactive decay - as many YECs do - the physics of decay is very much relevant. The rest of your claims are just fantasy. You need an actual physical model which would account for the real results. One which explains why all the precautions taken by working geologists and all the tests performed still produce vastly - and consistently - wrong dates, with all the different methods. Geologists DO care about getting it right, because they are doing REAL science. Which is why they deal with evidence and you concoct fantasies instead.
quote: The problem at root is that you have no way of testing your test. All you can do is make assumptions about it in relation to a horde of unknowns. That is how this is NOT an observational OR an experimental science. You can ONLY impose your assumptions on the natural phenomena, you cannot test them in relation to that phenomena
Of course this is false, there are many tests which can be done and have been done. Are the results consistent with the relative dating dictated by the geometric relations of the strata ? Are the dates consistent across different dating methods ? What dates do we get for rocks of known age (by which I mean the rock produced by recorded volcanic eruptions) ?
quote: Unfortunately for you your sampling is done WITHIN the boundaries of your assumptions that these ARE time periods. And you DO make assumptions about how a particular time period introduced such and such a creature, which simply happens to be present in this rock but not the rocks below, and about how a particular creature went extinct because it isn't in this rock though it was in the rocks below. Your samplings are meaningless because they are part of your whole wrongheaded theory.
But these aren't assumptions, they are conclusions derived from evidence. YOU have assumptions that contradict them.
quote: Again, all you need to do is LOOK at the form of the strata and the weirdly limited collection of fossils from layer to layer to see that the whole thing is bonkers. This is the TRUE observational science.
That is prejudice and ignorance.
quote: But they are SLABS OF FLAT ROCK THAT EXTEND FOR MILES IN ALL DIRECTIONS. Really, it's like you haven't noticed the obvious.
The strata are more than that. But anyway geology is all about understanding how the strata originated. You just reject their explanations because you prefer the falsehoods taught by your cult.
quote: This all looks very different once you realize they were all the product of the Flood and that all you have done is impose your wrong theory on them so you are getting wrong ideas about how they were deposited. You're missing the forest for the trees at the very least.
In other words once you go off into fantasyland you delude yourself into imagining that the evidence can't contradict your fantasies. Which of course is exactly what you are going here. It is perfectly obvious to any unbiased observer that you try to force-fit the evidence into your fantasy - and willfully ignore major items of evidence that don't fit.
quote: The order is at least partly also an artifact of the theory.
The order was discovered well before Darwin.
quote: Fossils of the same Species found at different levels are interpreted in terms of those in the higher levels having evolved from those in the lower levels, but all it really shows is the normal sorting of normal microevolution and that the different races of the same Species simply got buried at different levels.
Well that's an obvious fantasy. If the strata were all produced in a single year - and a lot of life died in the early stages anyway - then there isn't a lot of time for microevolution.
quote: Trilobites for instance occur in a great variety of races and are found in many levels. You ASSUME the higher evolved from the lower, but in actual reality it may be the parent species that happened to get buried in the highest layer.
It seems to me that you are the one making assumptions here.
quote: The idea that there is a progression from one Species to another is also assumed, it's a matter of judgment, not a matter of knowledge. You focus on particular features of a Species that look like they might be genetically related to another Species and ignore features that are unique because well, those "evolved." It's all a mental game, you have no evidence, it's all theory, all invention, all hot air.
Of course this is just bluster. The analysis doesn't even produce parent-child relations except in cases where there is other evidence. And how is identifying unique features as having evolved "ignoring" them ?
quote: And there are NO transitional fossils in the abundance Darwin knew they would have to be found to prove his theory. They do not exist.
This is just the usual creationist misunderstanding. Darwin dealt with that objection himself.
quote: And what you CALL transitional fossils are simply Species unto themselves, or naturally occurring races of a given Species.
Which of course is just more assumption. Can you explain why we find so many intermediates ? Why the evidence comports so well with evolutionary theory ? Why do we find fossils like tiktaalik or morganucodon or the many others ? This is evidence that you are neglecting because it doesn't fit with your assumptions.
quote: Eh? You must be talking about how the "science" of evolution works, and it's certainly true of that; otherwise I have no idea what you are talking about.
Then you must be extremely lacking in self-awareness. What, for instance, is your whole idea that fossils are just "dead things" but an intentional attempt to cover up the other features of the fossil record that you can't reasonably explain ?
quote: Oh I like that model too, I think it's truer than many other things that have been said about the deposition of the strata. It shows how the strata formed mechanically by water. Associating time periods with those strata is something you impose on that simple model.
Yet you call it "ABSURD". But if you like real geology, why not spend time researching that rather than attacking strawmen ?
quote: Here we go again, the Recitation of the Creed, though the actual facts, the real evidence, and Reason itself totally belie this comforting pledge of allegiance you all recite from time to time.
And yet these posts prove it.
Come on Faith, you're denying the possibility of testing methods which, in reality, have been quite thoroughly tested, just because your mind - blinded by prejudice - can't even imagine the tests which have been done. There's no reason or evidence there, just denial.
Edited by Admin, : Fix next to last close quote dBCode.
quote: They are basically the same thing as far as being true science goes, their methods not being available to the historical sciences, neither experiment NOR observation.
That's an amazingly silly thing to say. Of course geology uses lots of observation. Both the present day state of rocks - even the measurements used in radiometric dating are observations - to the behaviour of sediments as they are being deposited.
The supposed difference is between direct observation and inference of past events from present day evidence. But looking at a photograph of cloud chamber facts to identify particle interactions is a clear example of the latter. It's certainly within the bounds of real science.
quote: Yeah, in the present, NN, which of course is all that can actually be observed, but the past remains inert and silent, that was my point of course. The planets move, the fossils don't.
We're aware of the limits on the evidence available from fossils. But that doesn't change the fact that we can tell far more from fossils than that they are merely the remains of dead things as you would have it. We can tell quite a lot about the sorts of things that they were, when alive. And that's where things start to go wrong for you. Of course if you really meant that it was impossible to make observations of fossils you'd have to claim that they were invisible and undetectable, too. But I'm sure that even you can see that that is silly.
quote: You know what water usually does, you have no idea what the oceans would do if they covered all the land mass in the world, how the tides and the currents would behave among other things.
I think that we can reasonably assume that its physical properties would not suddenly change. Nor that it would develop an intelligence of sorts that delighted in sorting the remains of dead animals and plants into pleasing patterns, as opposed to those that would follow from ordinary hydrodynamics. Tides and currents simply won't help you (and you really ought to know that).