Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
24 online now:
AZPaul3, Dr Adequate, vimesey (3 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,768 Year: 16,804/19,786 Month: 929/2,598 Week: 175/251 Day: 4/59 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Using the Bible as fact...
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3754
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 68 of 113 (13078)
07-08-2002 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by w_fortenberry
07-08-2002 2:24 PM


quote:
Sequence denotes an order in time. A reference to the sequence of the fossils is a reference to a particular order in time. The chronological order in which the fossils were laid is still a matter of speculation. Any given sequence may correspond to your definition for a theory, but it does not meet the requirements you have presented for a fact. Contrariwise, the position of those fossils in the ground is a fact. It is observable in a way in which the observers opinion is not involved. For example, the sequence which you have presented is that the fossils increase in difference from modern forms as depth of position increases. To obtain this sequence you observed the fact of the fossils’ position plus the fact of the differing anatomies of those fossils and theorized that those facts could best be explained by a sequence which corresponds to the theory of evolution.

A fundimental principle of geologic study is the principle of superposition.

quote:
The principle of superposition - in a vertical sequence of sedimentary or volcanic rocks, a higher rock unit is younger than a lower one. "Down" is older, "up" is younger.

From, and further information at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html#princ

It is a very basic interpretation that from bottom to top is older to younger. This is assuming that later tectonic actions have not modified the sequencing. And if tectonic resequencing has happened, it can be documented though the evidence.

Now a fact is as follows:
(from http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/gould_fact-and-theory.html )

quote:
Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Thus, both the positions and the sequences of the fossils are facts.

I leave the rest to someone else.

Moose

------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 07-08-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-08-2002 2:24 PM w_fortenberry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by w_fortenberry, posted 07-09-2002 1:23 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019