Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation

is that there really do seem to be two types of people, those who look for answers to questions, and those who question answers.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I agree with your post. But to understand and discuss the issues, it is often necessary to take baby steps. That was what I was trying to do in Message 119. However, even after serveral requests I couold not get Faith to walk through the analysis with me.To answer questions like why there are marine fossils found in mountains we need to follow the same procedure I outlined for grasses. It needs to go into greater detail than either side. And to begin, the creationist has to outline more than a simple statement. They need to explain what would be seen and why that would indicate a flood.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Actually, no, that is not quite correct. If you follow the chain back you will see that Message 47 is basically the same message, and it, the baby steps, and Faith's response to message 47 was what got her suspended. The grass question was asked because it was one of the major evidences that supports an old earth. It's not the biggest, but it is one of the most convincing. It is also simple, and relatively easy to follow if someone will work through it. The grass question IS a simple one. It just can't get much simpler. We are dealing with only one single facet, grasses.It was presented in that fashion because the thread is oriented towards letting someone who believes in the flood explain their support for that belief. The thread was specifically NOT about presenting the current geological evidence. It was an opportunity for a Flood Supporter to describe what we should find related to grasses if the flood story was true.One problem is that Flood supporters have seldom really described what should be seen. In the few cases where they do make such predictions, they have been shown to be wrong. So it has become very difficult to get them to commit to a clear prediction.That was what Percy, and to a lesser extent, myself, were trying to do. Percy did get Faith to admit that fossil ordering was a problem for the flood scenario. The exchange begins at Message 110 with a very simple question. Faith admitted that the flood scenario does not explain fossil ordering in Message 114. Percy then asked another simple question in Message 115Here response found in Message 118 was So basically there she is just saying she doesn't understand enough to evaluate the evidence.So when baby steps are taken, time after time the evidence does not support her position.I was trying to get her to walk through the same process now concerning grass. She simply refused to discuss it.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes I did say that unfortunately. It should have referenced that it is evidence that there was no flood.AbE:The point is not even so much grass as an example of how any determination should proceed. I was trying lay out one such example.This message has been edited by jar, 03-08-2006 11:40 AM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm not at all sure what 4 statements you are talking about. If I look in the OP of this thread there are a bunch of statements.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Okay, pretty much all of them.The problem with the statements in the OP is that absolutely none of them really are evidence. They are simply assertions.I think that goes to the heart of the issue. The creationist says "The existence of fossils all over the earth in the great abundance they are found, everywhere, is fantastic evidence for a worldwide flood."Well, no, that is not evidence of a flood. It is only evidence that fossils are found all over the world. They have made a leap of faith with nothing to support it.That is why I brought up grasses (and yes, there are grass fossils, particularly of pollens).The logical progression should be

• fossils are found all over the world.
• if those things were distributed by a world-wide flood, what should we see?
• how will they be ordered?
• what types should be found?
• what will the layer put down by the flood look like?
• how can the flood layer be distinguished from other layers?

If you look at what I laid out initially in Message 47 and again in Message 119 you will see that is exactly the formula I took.The Creationist made a claim, Fine, In this instance the claim is that grasses already existed, there was a flood, and then a period after the flood.My question, which still has not been answered is "If that is the case, what should we see in the record?"I laid out one possible scenario of what would then be seen, I then outlined a test that could be used to verify or refute that scenario: Further, I suggested that if the scenario outlined was not correct, the creationist could revise or correct the picture and we would then see how the new version might be tested.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes, but that is simply an assertion. You are just saying that the evidence supports your view. That's all. You have said nothing about the evidence. Well, there is nothing in what I posted that either supports or refutes any position, mine or Faith's.It is simply the steps that need to be followed to make any kind of determination.This goes back to something I mentioned earlier. There really are two types of folk, those that look for answers to questions and those that question answers.What you describe: is simply accepting answers to questions.To get to the truth though, or as close as we can to the truth, you need to question the answers.What I outlined is the typical procedure that anyone needs to go through to question the answers. But you need to also understand the topic. In that thread it was to explore any possible evidence for the flood. It was not to challenge the flood, but to look to see if there really was any evidence that might support it.What I outlined was the steps needed to see if the evidence did support the flood. Who knows, it actually might. But until someone comes up with some testable scenarios, there is simply nothing worthwhile, just assertions with no support.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, of course you can verify it.But...and this is what you fail to address. More impostantly, it can falsify a theory.If you make a prediction and then what you find does NOT match what was predicted, then there is reason to believe that the prdiction, and the theory, are wrong.This is very, very important. Falsification, finding out what doesn't fit, is how progress is made.Does that make sense to you and do you agree with that?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

What is direct evidence is that all those dead things ARE laid down in a particular order.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No, that is incorrect.The why has nothing to do with the evidence.The evidence is direct, it is the FACT that the fossils are laid down in that particular order.Do you agree that the evidence is the order the fossils were laid down?Explanations come later.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I cannot tell what you are trying to say. That's something that only you can determine. I've attempted just that in the grass message and you have never responded to it.But let's stick to the issue now of the ordering of the fossils.Do you agree that the order the fossils have been found in is direct evidence?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think that is a very important point.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, perhaps I didn't understand your answer. Perhaps you can show me where it is answered?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion