|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
QuickSearch
|
|
| |||||||
| Chatting now: | Chat room empty | ||||||
| Jedothek | |||||||
|
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Coyote Member (Idle past 332 days)  Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I don't want to get too off the subject of the thread, but one prime example is that YECs can't accept the results of a dozen or more different forms of dating that all agree, and all point to the same conclusion--an old earth.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
edge Member  Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3
|
Actually, I'm not sure that I said anything that conflicts.
I didn't know there was a question. As I have said several times, anyone could find some oil drilling a grid pattern all over the world with no thinking whatsoever. Impossible to raise money. And there is a reason for that. I have also said that drilling around oil seeps or accidentally discovering oil while drilling for water is not a big shock. What I have said is that it is impossible to convince anyone to drill for oil without as much geological information as possible and, in many cases, direct use of evolutionary thinking is necessary. In other words, it's all a matter of opinion. However, if you use economics, drilling with YEC or flood geology is a loser. Big time.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Admin Director  Posts: 12618 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 3.1
|
The goal is a fact-based discussion. In the absence of fact-based Flood explanations for fossil evidence, instead of claims of what Floodists will show in the future it might be better to focus on evidence against the explanations of conventional geology. Proving geology wrong wouldn't prove the Flood right, but it would at least give you a factual basis for rejecting modern geology. In essence you'd be arguing, "I don't know how the geological formations we see today happened, but the explanations of modern geology are wrong because...<fill in the blanks>..." The published book containing Copernicus's evidence for a heliocentric solar system did not claim it represented fact, just that its calculations worked, making it possible to accurately calculate the date of Easter. For the succeeding couple decades astronomer/mathematicians used his math while rejecting his theory. Though heliocentrism gradually came to dominate scientific views of the solar system, geocentrists and flat-earthers and so forth continued to exist and still exist today, but their inability to muster scientific evidence for their own views or against scientific views leaves heliocentrism's validity virtually unchallenged. If Floodists today are not in the same ark with respect to modern geology as geocentrists and flat-earthers were for the Copernican Revolution then they must show themselves distinct by presenting evidence and argument for their positions. Notice that I didn't say just "evidence" or just "argument." Its essential that arguments be supported by evidence. For example, if tides during the Flood caused certain geological formations, what is the evidence for those tides and that they operated in that way? If the Flood laid down the geological layers we see today, what is the evidence that floods work in that way? If landscapes experiencing erosion or deposition become uninhabitable, what is the evidence? This last one about landscapes becoming unlivable forms a significant part of the foundation for your claim that only the flood could explain the evidence, and yet you haven't returned to your dialogue with Stile over at the The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock thread. Stile's Message 1144 is still unanswered. I'm disallowing supporting your positions with arguments whose discussion you seem to be avoiding. Though I think it best to resume the discussion with Stile you can actually discuss this topic with anyone, since I've also disallowed the pattern of claiming offense to avoid responding. If a post doesn't make sense to you then help the person work out where the problem lies - do not merely respond, "Please forgive if I have to say that makes absolutely not one iota of sense to me," as you did in Message 372. This seemed to effectively end the discussion. Please, no replies to this message. Edited by Admin, : Minor change. Edited by Admin, : Grammar.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Admin Director Posts: 12618 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 3.1
|
You can't just declare it the wrong explanation. You have to show it the wrong explanation, using evidence and argument. Please, no replies to this message.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Admin Director Posts: 12618 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 3.1 |
This is so far beyond the pale of constructive discussion or even reality that I'm suspending you for 24 hours. AbE: Explaining my action in more detail, the portion I'm very concerned about is where you say there is "not a shred of evidence," when my most important goal is an evidence-based discussion. Though in very general terms, in this very thread you've discussed the geologically derived rules for where to find oil and described your belief that they can be followed like cookbook recipes that work but whose other real world implications are false, while at the same time ignoring that theories that don't correspond to reality shouldn't work at all. Please avoid declarations that there's no evidence - they're not just untrue, they're very provocative. You've said many times that you understand the scientific evidence but have a different interpretation. Please discuss that evidence and how it leads you to a different interpretation. Please avoid declarations like (paraphrasing), "Sedimentary layers could only be formed by a global flood, especially ones with tracks and burrows," unless they're followed by argument for how the evidence supports them. For just a couple examples, you could describe the evidence for mammals digging burrows on mud flats between tides, and the evidence that such burrows are found in sedimentary layers that formed from mud flats. Please, no replies to this message. Edited by Admin, : AbE.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Admin Director Posts: 12618 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 3.1 |
Please, no replies to this message.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member  Posts: 17138 From: frozen wasteland Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
If that was true, the oil companies could save a lot of money by hiring high school dropouts instead of geologists and just giving them a Finding Oil for Dummies handbook. In a way, the OE theory is incidental to finding oil - but to find oil it is necessary to understand how the rocks formed, how they changed after they were formed, etc. Finding oil comes from that understanding and so does the realization that the rocks must be old.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
edge Member Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
Good point. One could say that it's not so much the use OE geology, but a repudiation of YE geology that is necessary.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Taq Member  Posts: 7997 Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
quote:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Taq Member Posts: 7997 Joined: Member Rating: 3.8
|
Let's start with the fact that a flood couldn't have produced the observed fossil record. For example, we have deposits thousands of feet thick in some places made up almost entirely of dead animals and plants. A flood doesn't do that. A flood deposits eroded material, not life. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
edge Member Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3
|
Nevertheless, your adherence to scripture, forces a certain interpretation of the facts. So, it is not the facts themselves which dictate your position. And, frankly, you have not done well at all in supporting your position. For instance, we only have to go back to your admission that you have no idea how the fossil record came to be the way it is other than it 'must have been'. That is a pretty weak argument.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Faith Member  Posts: 32638 From: Nevada, USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Except that such a strategy cannot work for you because dating alone rules out any and all of your "interpretations". The fossil record works against you in a similar fashion. Ignoring that set of counter arguments is not addressed by any number of unrelated arguments. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Faith Member Posts: 32638 From: Nevada, USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Coyote Member (Idle past 332 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
The many different dating methods are entirely separate from the theory of evolution. And in fact, each of those dating methods relies on a different set of circumstances, mostly independent from one another! For them all to show the same results, and all to be wrong, would mean that all of physics and chemistry are wrong. [That would mean nothing would work, including your computer and your body, let alone the rest of the universe.] You can't pick and choose what you like and what you don't like from a very intensely inter-correlated and inter-related set of disciplines without disrupting the entire thing. Is that what you really want to propose? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019
(1)
