Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Uniformitarianism
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 46 of 70 (428872)
10-17-2007 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by TheWay
10-05-2007 10:22 PM


Re: Reviving for new people
I understand what the evidence looks like through old earth spectacles. I wouldn't argue with you on the founding principles of geology. However, I am currently looking into creationwiki's claim on superposition. Perhaps you could input your opinion on THIS article?
TW, obvioulsy the article is clever nonsense, designed to take advantage of your geological ignorance. Tell us one thing, do you really believe that geologists have not thought about these things? That perhaps we have not seen this type of sedimentation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by TheWay, posted 10-05-2007 10:22 PM TheWay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-17-2007 11:30 PM edge has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 47 of 70 (428874)
10-17-2007 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by TheWay
10-17-2007 3:48 PM


Re: the truth of evidence
think this is the reason we have a problem with the scientific origins debate in the first place. Science demands explanation through naturally occurring processes.
And guess what, reality is in accordance with this demand. Which makes it what we high-falutin' science types call "true".
This contradicts the foundation of scientific fundamentalism in that it does in fact take upon suppositions for the "evidence" to make sense.
The precise "supposition" being that the universe is not a lie.
You speak of science as if it is a religion.
No he doesn't.
And we can all read what he said, so we know that he doesn't.
Whom did you hope to fool by saying this?
Am I denying reality? I'm denying whatever reality your in
And since we are all in the same reality, and you assert that you're denying it ...
I also take issue with this term "natural processes" as if the natural isn't supernatural in itself.
Well, that's what the words mean, isn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by TheWay, posted 10-17-2007 3:48 PM TheWay has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 48 of 70 (428875)
10-17-2007 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by edge
10-17-2007 11:02 PM


Re: Reviving for new people
TW, obvioulsy the article is clever nonsense ...
I believe that you just described an article on CW as "clever".
The most that they can rise to is cunning. The sly, dirty cunning of a halfwit. Nothing that they have written is "clever".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by edge, posted 10-17-2007 11:02 PM edge has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 49 of 70 (429435)
10-19-2007 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by TheWay
10-17-2007 3:48 PM


Re: the truth of evidence
RAZD writes:
The problem is that once you make this assumption you can make no conclusions at all: it does not make an alternate hypothesis more likely, because it renders all hypothesis unlikely.
I think this is the reason we have a problem with the scientific origins debate in the first place. Science demands explanation through naturally occurring processes.
The full quote is:
Message 41
I will note that the uses of the phrases such as "do not reflect what actually happened" and "do not reflect the actual age of the rocks" are essentially and barefacedly assuming that the evidence lies to us. The problem is that once you make this assumption you can make no conclusions at all: it does not make an alternate hypothesis more likely, because it renders all hypothesis unlikely.
Given that we are talking about uniformitarianism in general and the geological application of it in specific, origins of life is a non sequitur and something of a red-herring here, although I have no problem with it at all.
The real point though is that the article you quoted is claiming that the evidence does not speak for itself, that it deceives the observer with false witness, that it lies, and that once you make this claim you cannot then claim what the evidence can support any argument. This is no "alternate explanation" rather it is denial of evidence
... it is purely a matter of looking at the evidence for truth, with the assumption that it is telling the truth.
This contradicts the foundation of scientific fundamentalism in that it does in fact take upon suppositions for the "evidence" to make sense. When you state:
... you must assume that the evidence does not lie.
What scientific fundamentalism? What contradiction? You are faced with an intellectual choice: either the evidence tells the truth or it lies. Logically the latter offers no way to determine any hypothesis at all, while the former is testable and falsifiable. The only choice that leads to logical conclusions and testable results is that the evidence is telling the truth. This is why any explanation of reality must include explanation of all the evidence.
You reinforce the belief that evidence is somehow not up to subjective view. Rather the "evidence" is somewhat like a Platonic Form.
Not at all. There may be many subjective as well as objective views, but because the only logical course is to assume that the evidence is telling the truth, we can then test these views against the evidence and see which works and which doesn't.
An example here could be the Piltdown hoax. Many people believed (subjective) it was true, others (also subjective) believed it was false, but it was only through testing of the different views against the evidence that it was shown to be a hoax: the evidence showed the truth of the matter.
TheWay writes:
I understand that U-ism predicts the geologic column and that the column predicts U-ism
Predict is too strong of a word, I didn't mean to confuse you. I mean that they have become so intertwined as to become synonymous.
My original response was
Message 41
But neither is a true statement. Uniformitarianism predicts that what we see in the geological column would be explained by geological processes as we know them -- sedimentation, earthquake, volcanism, subsidence, plate tectonics, etcetera. It does not make any predictions of what layers will follow other layers or how thick layers will be. Nor does the geological column predict uniformitarianism -- it just records the events of geological history that are preserved in the column (and omits the ones that are not preserved).
This still holds true in spite of your changing "prediction" to "intertwined" -- uniformitarianism says that what we see in the geological column is due to geological processes operating in the past according to natural laws in the same way as they operate today.
It sounds like you have a lot of pent up aggression, have you tried a punching bag or stress ball?
This is known as an ad hominem, an attack on the person and not the message, an emotional rather than rational response, especially when made to an argument that is simply an observation of truth. The truth is that denial of reality is delusion: continuing to believe that the Piltdown man is true, for instance, is delusional because honest evidence contradicts this belief.
You speak of science as if it is a religion, I agree.
This is yet another weak self-deluding typical YEC PRATT argument, for science is entirely different from faith in many ways. It seems that only those who are incapable of thinking of things in any manner except by faith often fall into the trap that everyone thinks that way. As the signature says "we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand" -- and science is not faith.
In my Perceptions of Reality I mention three basic forms of knowledge, science, philosophy and faith. But the major difference is that science is based on evidence, while faith is based on belief in spite of an absence of evidence one way or the other:
faith -noun 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
(American Heritage Dictionary)
This is why delusion is not faith, because delusion is belief in spite of evidence.
I also take issue with this term "natural processes" as if the natural isn't supernatural in itself. What is so natural about these processes that God couldn't have a hand in or in fact be a part of?
God may well have made the natural laws and processes -- that is after all an essential element of deist belief eh? However those laws and processes are then no more supernatural than all things created, from people to toads, and there is a world of difference between then letting those laws and processes operate and interfering with them to change the result.
Delusion should be reserved for those who think they understand more than they do. And that isn't an indirect finger point, I openly accuse you.
Another ad hominem. Sorry, but that is not the definition.
The real question is whether you have any argument that uniformitarianism is not valid, rather than arguments that evade the issue or use logical fallacies.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by TheWay, posted 10-17-2007 3:48 PM TheWay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by TheWay, posted 11-14-2007 9:22 PM RAZD has replied

  
TheWay
Junior Member (Idle past 5844 days)
Posts: 27
From: Oklahoma City, Ok
Joined: 08-21-2007


Message 50 of 70 (434196)
11-14-2007 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by RAZD
10-19-2007 9:16 PM


Re: the truth of evidence
Hello Razd,
razd writes:
I will note that the uses of the phrases such as "do not reflect what actually happened" and "do not reflect the actual age of the rocks" are essentially and barefacedly assuming that the evidence lies to us. The problem is that once you make this assumption you can make no conclusions at all: it does not make an alternate hypothesis more likely, because it renders all hypothesis unlikely.
I guess I just don't understand. If evidence can speak, which is using your assumption that it can lie which allows us to logically speculate that it can also tell truth, then I would like to place an order for this "talking evidence." Thanks, you can pm me with the details.
I guess I just thought, silly me I know, that "evidence" must be interpreted. Is this wrong? It seems to me that whatever evidence your speaking about your generalizing into your main idea. Which from what I gather is: Evolutionists smart, Creationists dumb. Is that fair? Dendrochronology and varve dating is an oversimplified attempt to reach far past the true age of the earth. I find some of it fascinating, but nothing I have read really puts the nail in the coffin of a young earth. Sorry, I had to rant...let's continue.
razd writes:
The real point though is that the article you quoted is claiming that the evidence does not speak for itself, that it deceives the observer with false witness, that it lies, and that once you make this claim you cannot then claim what the evidence can support any argument. This is no "alternate explanation" rather it is denial of evidence
Again, I know you would like to think that inanimate evidences can speak, I err on the side of skepticism on this. If I claim that evidence lies, well I am in the same quack house as you. Is this some sort of twisted joke for you to lure me into a psychological trap? As far as I can reason, evidence can support anything until it can be falsified, is this not the nature of a theory?
razd writes:
You are faced with an intellectual choice: either the evidence tells the truth or it lies.
Again what are you smoking?
Logically the latter offers no way to determine any hypothesis at all,
And if the truth were that no hypothesis existed? Wouldn't that undermine the ideology of science? I mean I'm all for religion but I mean c'mon enough is enough.
The only choice that leads to logical conclusions and testable results is that the evidence is telling the truth. This is why any explanation of reality must include explanation of all the evidence.
And what a shame it would be if we couldn't explain something huh? That kind of thought doesn't occur in evolution dogma, does it?
There may be many subjective as well as objective views, but because the only logical course is to assume that the evidence is telling the truth, we can then test these views against the evidence and see which works and which doesn't.
Objective views are dependent on your philosophy or whether or not you believe there is such thing as objectivity in opinion. Is it possible for something to be logical yet wrong?
As for my personal attacks, I apologize, you came on rather...strong.

"Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing." --Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 10-19-2007 9:16 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2007 10:47 PM TheWay has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 51 of 70 (434214)
11-14-2007 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by TheWay
11-14-2007 9:22 PM


Re: the truth of evidence
Welcome back TheWay,
I guess I just don't understand. If evidence can speak, which is using your assumption that it can lie which allows us to logically speculate that it can also tell truth, then I would like to place an order for this "talking evidence." Thanks, you can pm me with the details.
I guess I just thought, silly me I know, that "evidence" must be interpreted. Is this wrong?
The evidence tells a story, and it is not a matter of interpreting it so much as understanding it. All the evidence taken together tells the same story: the story that the evidence tells is truth, reality. If we assume that there are two valid interpretations *- two stories -* then this leads to the conclusion that there are two truths or two *(or more)* realities, and we run into *sever logical* problems - or we come to the conclusion that one (or more) version is false and we need to test them to see which is correct.
We can assume that a piece of the story being told is true or false. If we assume that any piece of the story told by evidence can be a falsehood, then you cannot reach any real conclusions, for you can pick and choose whatever evidence you like and ignore the rest ...
... and likewise you can never tell whether any conclusion is real, true, valid. No matter what you chose, it could always be your evidence that is false.
It is only when you assume that the story told by all the evidence is the truth, that it is reality, that you can make valid conclusions and test them. It may take a while to get it right, but in the end there is only one valid result, one reality.
Anyone who says things like "do not reflect what actually happened" and "do not reflect the actual age of the rocks" is saying that the piece of the story told by the rocks is false - it's a denial of evidence and not an alternative explanation. *Anyone who tells you there are two valid interpretations is saying that there are two stories, two truths, two (or more) realities.*
It seems to me that whatever evidence your speaking about your generalizing into your main idea. Which from what I gather is: Evolutionists smart, Creationists dumb. Is that fair?
Rather than talk about creationists and evolutionists, let's talk about tested ideas and untested ideas. Both groups can *and do* have tested and untested ideas and concepts. The earth being an oblate spheroid orbiting the sun is a tested idea that has held up to testing. The earth being a flat surface at the center of the universe is also a tested idea that has not held up to testing. There is no difference to the validity of these concepts that depends on who holds them.
Any untested idea is as good (or bad) as any other untested idea. It is only through testing that we can weed out the bad ideas.
Dendrochronology and varve dating is an oversimplified attempt to reach far past the true age of the earth. I find some of it fascinating, but nothing I have read really puts the nail in the coffin of a young earth. Sorry, I had to rant...let's continue.
Rather they are simple concepts, and easy to test. You can test them yourself. They can also be tested against each other and against other evidence. Because all evidence must tell the same story (their part of it).
Again, I know you would like to think that inanimate evidences can speak, I err on the side of skepticism on this. If I claim that evidence lies, well I am in the same quack house as you. Is this some sort of twisted joke for you to lure me into a psychological trap? As far as I can reason, evidence can support anything until it can be falsified, is this not the nature of a theory?
If you assume that some evidence can be false, then you can never tell whether any conclusion is real, true, valid. No matter what you chose, it could always be your evidence that is false. It is only when you assume that the story told by all the evidence is the truth, that it is reality, that you can make any valid conclusions and test them.
*Now you could say that the conclusions that rely on less evidence being false are more valid, but the logical conclusion is that the conclusion that requires no evidence to be false is as valid as you can get, and is the same result as assuming that all evidence is telling the truth.*
Again what are you smoking?
A rational, objective method of investigating reality.
And if the truth were that no hypothesis existed? Wouldn't that undermine the ideology of science? I mean I'm all for religion but I mean c'mon enough is enough.
But you can't logically make a hypothesis that no hypothesis exists. Yes you can assume that the evidence lies and does not tell us what reality is - the buddhist version where all is illusion, but then no conclusion is valid, not even that all is illusion.
And what a shame it would be if we couldn't explain something huh? That kind of thought doesn't occur in evolution dogma, does it?
There are lots of things we can't explain yet, but what is better: to say "I don't know" or to claim that some untested concept is true?
Objective views are dependent on your philosophy or whether or not you believe there is such thing as objectivity in opinion. Is it possible for something to be logical yet wrong?
No, objective views can be tested for validity regardless of you philosophy or whether or not you believe there is such thing as objectivity in opinion. That tree rings are annual rings is an objective view that can be tested. We can determine that tree rings tell the age of the earth with an accuracy of 8,000 +/- 37 years (0.5%) because this is objective information that can be tested.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : dup
Edited by RAZD, : *added by edit*

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by TheWay, posted 11-14-2007 9:22 PM TheWay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by TheWay, posted 11-15-2007 11:41 PM RAZD has replied

  
TheWay
Junior Member (Idle past 5844 days)
Posts: 27
From: Oklahoma City, Ok
Joined: 08-21-2007


Message 52 of 70 (434477)
11-15-2007 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by RAZD
11-14-2007 10:47 PM


Re: the truth of evidence
Hello Razd,
Thanks for the reply. Here we go.
razd writes:
The evidence tells a story, and it is not a matter of interpreting it so much as understanding it.
Again, right out of the gate you suggest that evidence is not interpreted. I completely disagree. I believe what you are doing, in trying to persuade me that evidence isn't interpreted and is rather a storyteller is by your definition delusional. I know I have been frivolous with you, but on this I cannot accept your point.
Uniformitarianism must be an assumption. Did James Hutton assume this prior to review of any geology? Wasn't this idea around before it was developed as a model for geology? Also, it has intentionally pervaded multiple scientific disciplines. And instead of being open minded towards other claims and models, such as innocent until proven guilty, this evolutionary assumption prompts defensiveness and statements of utter peril such as:
quote:
We can assume that a piece of the story being told is true or false. If we assume that any piece of the story told by evidence can be a falsehood, then you cannot reach any real conclusions, for you can pick and choose whatever evidence you like and ignore the rest ...
... and likewise you can never tell whether any conclusion is real, true, valid. No matter what you chose, it could always be your evidence that is false.
And what if the interpretations were false. I understand how you would very much enjoy the present evolutionary model, in its entirety, to afford the right to set the evidence up as autonomous. In reality though, you must admit that if we change the assumptions from the outset we could come up with different interpretations of the evidence especially when that is what creation science is doing.
Anyone who says things like "do not reflect what actually happened" and "do not reflect the actual age of the rocks" is saying that the piece of the story told by the rocks is false - it's a denial of evidence and not an alternative explanation. *Anyone who tells you there are two valid interpretations is saying that there are two stories, two truths, two (or more) realities.*
Again, rocks don't tell stories. Only people, as far as I know, tell stories. If you have evidence to support your claim that rocks tell stories, bring it. I know what your getting at, but I think your taking a suicidal jump of a hypothetical bridge to get there. Two interpretations would be the result of two outset assumptions. Not two sets of evidences.
Rather than talk about creationists and evolutionists, let's talk about tested ideas and untested ideas.
Sounds great. However, I believe that in doing so the evolution community would have the monopoly. Economics and atheistic materialism is the answer to that mystery. If an idea is untested, does that make it wrong? If an idea is tested, does that make the idea correct? If there was a tested idea such as varve formation looked at through a uniformitarian assumption, even though there is evidence that clearly suggests that varves can form rapidly, does that make the tested idea without variability in achieving the same result?
Rather they are simple concepts, and easy to test. You can test them yourself. They can also be tested against each other and against other evidence. Because all evidence must tell the same story (their part of it).
I think it is time for you to stop playing coy. Out with the "correct" scenario that you believe all the evidence "speaks" of.
If you assume that some evidence can be false, then you can never tell whether any conclusion is real, true, valid.
I don't really believe that "evidence" can be true or false. Just as abstractly I believe that energy can neither be positive nor negative. Only manipulated into moral subjectivity.
I'm skipping the stuff where, IMO, you made valid points. I write this so you won't feel as if I had ignored you.
That tree rings are annual rings is an objective view that can be tested. We can determine that tree rings tell the age of the earth with an accuracy of 8,000 +/- 37 years (0.5%) because this is objective information that can be tested.
I disagree, although we are not in a topic thread discussing dating methods I feel that dendrochronology falls under the category of subjectivity as scientific data in the field is relatively recent in either world views. Another example, IMO, is needed to verify your point without so much controversy.
In uniformitarianism there exists a paradox. As was the case of the Mt. St. Helens eruptions, there are things that can be accepted without invoking uniformitarianism and millions of years of evolution.
Paraconformities, virtually no erosion between "ages" of rock strata, erosion today that doesn't exist in the geologic column, mysteries of geology easier explained by a catastrophic flood, the ice age and the sequential bioemergence, also the fossils themselves raise serious doubt as to the fossilization probability and mass grave sites. More things to mention and further instances to examine, all of these logically lead one to remain skeptical of the evolutionary model.
Galileo was mocked and ridiculed for not falling in line with the modern view of the world, also Copernicus. I don't believe my ancestors were mice or that we share a common ancestor with apes. I'm not denying "evidence" in favor of an untested idea, as you would claim. I am exercising my logic and reason to commit to a reality far more probable.
Thanks.

"Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing." --Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2007 10:47 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by RAZD, posted 11-17-2007 10:59 PM TheWay has replied
 Message 63 by edge, posted 12-02-2007 12:46 PM TheWay has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 53 of 70 (434905)
11-17-2007 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by TheWay
11-15-2007 11:41 PM


Re: the truth of evidence
Again, right out of the gate you suggest that evidence is not interpreted. I completely disagree. I believe what you are doing, in trying to persuade me that evidence isn't interpreted and is rather a storyteller is by your definition delusional. I know I have been frivolous with you, but on this I cannot accept your point.
"Understand" has connotations of accept, appreciate, figure out and perceive, while "interpret" has connotations of adapt, depict and portray.
When I read an post like yours, the evidence of what you want to convey, the meaning of your post is written in letters and words. My purpose in reading it is to understand what your words mean, not to interpret them in a way I want to. I do not need to interpret the letters to read the words -- an "A" is an "A" -- there is only one interpretation of the reality of the letters posted. Nor is reality some romance novel storyteller making stuff up, rather it is a drab unemotional recorder of events. Vesuvius erupted in 79 AD. This event is recorded in ash deposits and history. We don't need to interpret the evidence to know that Vesuvius erupted, nor are there different interpretations of the evidence possible that would mean that Vesuvius did not erupt in 79 AD.
Like your letters, a sedimentary layer is a sedimentary layer, a layer of Flabellinas rugosa shells is a layer of Flabellinas rugosa shells,and a measured level of radioactivity in an object is a measured level of radioactivity, tree summer growth is a tree summer growth, and tree winter growth is a tree winter growth, and each one is different from the other. These things do not need to be interpreted: they are what they are.
The words are assembled when the evidence of the letters is assembled in the proper order -- the order in which they are found on the page. Again, I do not need to interpret the words, as they have their own meaning, meaning verified by context of the rest of the evidence ("right" as in "correct" as opposed to "not left"). Again, my purpose in reading it is to understand what your words mean, not to make various interpretations based on my world view. One could "interpret" words differently, but the meaning of the post is lost, and this invalidates those interpretations as false when they are tested by the context of the whole set of evidence - the letters and the words formed by the letters.
For example, summer tree growth is summer tree growth, and winter tree growth is winter tree growth, each is different from the other due to climate change with the seasons, and together they make a distinct annual ring, a "word." Ten (10) tree rings would be a longer "word" composed of tree ring letters, each with a winter side and a summer side. A tree with 4,839 rings is still a single word. The rings are physical facts that are not subject to alternative "interpretation" - they cannot be "interpreted" as not-rings.
We can also look at the evidence of Vesuvius and understand that there have been many eruptions at different times and of different intensities in the past, and we can determine which are older and which are younger from understanding the evidence. We cannot interpret the evidence to mean there are different orders of the ages for the various eruptions.
We don't need to interpret the evidence that light is bent by gravity to understand what it means.
Uniformitarianism must be an assumption. Did James Hutton assume this prior to review of any geology?
No, it is not a matter of assumption, rather it is a conclusion based on what the evidence shows. As you point out, Hutton came to this conclusion in the late 1700's, well before Darwin used their results in understanding geoplogy
James Hutton - Wikipedia
quote:
James Hutton (3 June 1726 OS (14 June 1726 NS) Edinburgh, Scotland ” 26 March 1797) was a Scottish geologist, naturalist, chemist and experimental farmer. He is considered the father of modern geology.[1][2] His theories of geology and geologic time,[3] also called deep time,[4] came to be included in theories which were called plutonism and uniformitarianism.
At Glen Tilt in the Cairngorm mountains in the Scottish Highlands, Hutton found granite penetrating metamorphic schists, in a way which indicated that the granite had been molten at the time. This showed to him that granite formed from cooling of molten rock, not precipitation out of water as others at the time believed, and that the granite must be younger than the schists.[5][6]
He went on to find a similar penetration of volcanic rock through sedimentary rock near the centre of Edinburgh, at Salisbury Crags,[2] adjoining Arthur's Seat: this is now known as Hutton's Section.[7][8] He found other examples on the Isle of Arran and in Galloway.[6]
Hutton reasoned that there must have been several cycles, each involving deposition on the seabed, uplift with tilting and erosion then undersea again for further layers to be deposited, and there could have been many cycles before over an extremely long history. In a 1788 paper he presented at the Royal Society of Edinburgh,[3] Hutton remarked, "we find no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end."
Wasn't this idea around before it was developed as a model for geology? Also, it has intentionally pervaded multiple scientific disciplines. And instead of being open minded towards other claims and models, such as innocent until proven guilty, this evolutionary assumption prompts defensiveness and statements of utter peril such as:
Yes, it's a massive evolutionary conspiracy to impose a concept on geology and other sciences, and it was secretly organized many decades before evolution was a gleam in Darwin's eye. Those biologists are dangerous criminals. OR your ignorance and paranoia is showing.
Why would physicists assume that radioactive rates have stayed the same when they have actually tested this concept and found no measurable change in this or in other known constants (like the speed of light).
Could it be that the concept is pervading "multiple scientific disciplines" because it is a many times tested valid conclusion based on the evidence we know today? Because there is no evidence that shows it is not a valid conclusion?
And what if the interpretations were false. I understand how you would very much enjoy the present evolutionary model, in its entirety, to afford the right to set the evidence up as autonomous.
Again, evolution has no relationship to the validity of geological conclusions, the structure of geology is independent of the conclusions of evolution. Evolution is not some "overview" of reality. This is a false representation usually made by ignorant creationists that don't understand science in general and the division of science into many independent disciples in particular. A geologist does not need to understand evolution to understand and do geology (obviously, when Hutton worked out basic principles used today before Darwin was born). Likewise a physicist does not need to understand evolution - or geology - to understand and do physics, including radioactive decay, or gravity affecting light.
Nor does a biologist need to understand geology or physics to understand biology and evolution. Nor does biology or evolution depend on uniformitarianism.
In reality though, you must admit that if we change the assumptions from the outset we could come up with different interpretations of the evidence especially when that is what creation science is doing.
No, because reality does not depend on interpretations or assumptions. You can start with assumptions and then test them against reality, and those that are false will be seen to be invalid. The flat earth is one example. A young earth is another. Assuming these concepts to be true does not make them so. Assuming you can interpret evidence to make these concepts true is also false, as they will remain false regardless of your assumptions and interpretations.
The only assumption that we need is that the evidence of reality is true, so that understanding the evidence means we understand reality. If we change this assumption then the only conclusion is that there is no way to understand reality as every concept can rest on false evidence.
Again, rocks don't tell stories. Only people, as far as I know, tell stories. If you have evidence to support your claim that rocks tell stories, bring it. I know what your getting at, but I think your taking a suicidal jump of a hypothetical bridge to get there. Two interpretations would be the result of two outset assumptions. Not two sets of evidences.
Nor two realities. Rocks don't tell (multiple, fanciful, fictional, arbitrary) stories, they tell you history, their history.
Sounds great. However, I believe that in doing so the evolution community would have the monopoly.
Who is "the evolution community" eh? Do you mean every person who does not happen to believe in certain religious concepts no matter how educated or what culture they live in? Which community would pastors in favor of teaching evolution be in?
Are you saying that creationists have NO tested ideas? They think gravity is a figment of imagination?
Economics and atheistic materialism is the answer to that mystery.
Bizarre.
If an idea is untested, does that make it wrong? If an idea is tested, does that make the idea correct?
No, not necessarily, but an idea that does not stand up to testing is false. The flat earth is a false idea because it does not stand up to testing. The idea that the earth is young is false because it does not stand up to testing. The concept that the earth is old does stand up to testing, that doesn't mean that it is correct, just the best idea of the age of the earth that we have so far.
If there was a tested idea such as varve formation looked at through a uniformitarian assumption, even though there is evidence that clearly suggests that varves can form rapidly, does that make the tested idea without variability in achieving the same result?
There is a difference between annual varves and rapidly forming varves, and varves aren't assumed to be annual nor is some " uniformitarian assumption" involved. You look at what the varve evidence includes. For instance, in Lake Suigetsu there are alternate layers of diatom shells and clay, with the diatoms coming from summer blooms of diatoms dying and falling to the bottom, and clay from settling slowly so that they only accumulate without the shells during the winter when no diatoms grow.
I think it is time for you to stop playing coy. Out with the "correct" scenario that you believe all the evidence "speaks" of.
Reality.
I don't really believe that "evidence" can be true or false. Just as abstractly I believe that energy can neither be positive nor negative. Only manipulated into moral subjectivity.
Try this then: "true" = demonstrates reality, "false" = does not demonstrate reality.
I'm skipping the stuff where, IMO, you made valid points. I write this so you won't feel as if I had ignored you.
Cool.
I disagree, although we are not in a topic thread discussing dating methods I feel that dendrochronology falls under the category of subjectivity as scientific data in the field is relatively recent in either world views. Another example, IMO, is needed to verify your point without so much controversy.
It's subjective because it is recent??? No, tree rings are objective, you can cut a tree down and count the rings, you can go find the Prometheus stump and count the rings, other people can go and count the same rings and they won't come up with a different subjective count.
You can also measure the carbon-14/12 ratio in the different layers and find that indeed the ratio is different in different layers, and there are two things that show up:
(1) there is an 11 year cycle of max and min values of variations in the tree ring counts that matches pattern of the dark spot cycle of the sun (which affects the production of carbon-14 in the atmosphere),
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/...n/activity/sunspot_cycle.html
quote:
The number of sunspots seen on the "surface" of the Sun changes from year to year. This rise and fall in sunspot counts is a cycle. The length of the cycle is about eleven years on average. The Sunspot Cycle was discovered in 1843 by the amateur German astronomer Samuel Heinrich Schwabe.
The Sun is usually very active when sunspot counts are high. Sunspots show us where the Sun's magnetic field might be "twisted up" enough to cause solar flares and coronal mass ejections. The Sun gives off more radiation than usual during solar max, and this extra energy changes the uppermost layers of Earth's atmosphere.
and
(2) even with the variations from those 11 year periods, the general trend is for the inner layers to have lower carbon-14/12 ratios than outer layers in a pattern that matches radioactive decay for the half-life of carbon-14 plus the 11 year dark spot cycle:
That makes three independent clocks in the evidence that agree with one another: annual tree rings, 11 year solar cycle, carbon-14 decay rate. Notice that this is evidence that validates the tree rings being annual, and both the solar cycle and the radioactive decay being uniformitarian processes.
There is other evidence from the agreement from radiometric dating and its correlation with sedimentary layers. We can talk about this evidence, especially seeing as it is more related to the topic than dendrochronology:
Are Radioactive Dates Consistent?
quote:
For example, Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) dating was tested against the Cenozoic-Era North American Land Mammal ordering. By ordering, I mean that rock layers were given numbers, with bigger numbers at greater depth. Each fossil was given the number of the rock layer it was found in. (Geologists call this stratigraphic order.) Here are the results:
The standard geological idea is that "deeper is older". (It's called the Principle of Superposition, and was invented two centuries before Darwin.) In this table, Superposition and K-Ar dating are mutually consistent.
The above is one example from
A response to creationist criticisms on radiometric dating, G. Brent Dalrymple, USGS Open-File Report #86-110, United States Geological Survey, 1986.
but if the subject interests you, it is much easier to obtain his book, The Age Of The Earth.
There are other examples on another thread that I can look up if you are interested.
In uniformitarianism there exists a paradox. As was the case of the Mt. St. Helens eruptions, there are things that can be accepted without invoking uniformitarianism and millions of years of evolution.
What's the paradox? What does Mt St Helens have to do with it? Or are we still not understanding what the term uniformitarianism means?
Paraconformities, virtually no erosion between "ages" of rock strata, erosion today that doesn't exist in the geologic column, mysteries of geology easier explained by a catastrophic flood, the ice age and the sequential bioemergence, also the fossils themselves raise serious doubt as to the fossilization probability and mass grave sites. More things to mention and further instances to examine, all of these logically lead one to remain skeptical of the evolutionary model.
What? This sounds like creationist gibberish to me, selective misuse of evidence and other forms of misrepresentation. Care to elaborate? Probably should be a new thread as it is off topic.
Galileo was mocked and ridiculed for not falling in line with the modern view of the world, also Copernicus. I don't believe my ancestors were mice or that we share a common ancestor with apes. I'm not denying "evidence" in favor of an untested idea, as you would claim. I am exercising my logic and reason to commit to a reality far more probable.
Of course you are free to deny reality in any belief you care to have. Everyone is so entitled, but in doing so they are also denying that they are interested in the truth about reality. The probability of such beliefs has yet to be demonstrated, but that is off topic on this thread - care to start a new one?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by TheWay, posted 11-15-2007 11:41 PM TheWay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by simple, posted 11-18-2007 1:32 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 57 by TheWay, posted 11-23-2007 4:59 PM RAZD has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 70 (434920)
11-18-2007 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
01-12-2002 11:07 PM


OK. So the assumption de jour is actualism, actually, now. Looking at at how things actually are, and assuming that is the key to the past, and future. How could anything be more religious?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-12-2002 11:07 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 70 (434922)
11-18-2007 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by RAZD
11-17-2007 10:59 PM


Re: the truth of evidence
(2) even with the variations from those 11 year periods, the general trend is for the inner layers to have lower carbon-14/12 ratios than outer layers in a pattern that matches radioactive decay for the half-life of carbon-14 plus the 11 year dark spot cycle:
Notice the widening gap at around 700 BC, to 4000 BC? (Between the so called calibrated results, and uncalibrated ones?)
You could drive a Mac truck through that claim!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by RAZD, posted 11-17-2007 10:59 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2007 9:46 PM simple has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 56 of 70 (435072)
11-18-2007 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by simple
11-18-2007 1:32 AM


Re: the truth of evidence
Notice the widening gap at around 700 BC, to 4000 BC?
Where the actual data diverges from the line representing a constant C-14 level in the atmosphere by less than 10%, and that shows the actual C-14 age to be 110% of the calculated age based on that line?
Even with this being a source of error, it still shows that the minimum age of 12,405 years based on tree rings would have to be 13,645 years old based on C-14. Small consolation.
(Between the so called calibrated results, and uncalibrated ones?)
Again demonstrating that you don't know what you are talking about, in spite of having been over this data how many times? All that is shown is uncalibrated results against a the line representing a constant C-14 level in the atmosphere. And of course we know that the C-14 level varies.
You could drive a Mac truck through that claim!
Why do your trucks always drive on flat tires with broken transmissions and no engine?
For someone who hides behind multiple screen names, who misrepresents information time and again and who essentially admits that you would rather a universe that lied to you than one that tells a truth that you don't like, one has to wonder what you think truth is.
It's not whatever you want it to be.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by simple, posted 11-18-2007 1:32 AM simple has not replied

  
TheWay
Junior Member (Idle past 5844 days)
Posts: 27
From: Oklahoma City, Ok
Joined: 08-21-2007


Message 57 of 70 (435889)
11-23-2007 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by RAZD
11-17-2007 10:59 PM


Re: the truth of evidence
Hi Razd,
Sorry I took so long to respond, let's get started.
Razd writes:
"Understand" has connotations of accept, appreciate, figure out and perceive, while "interpret" has connotations of adapt, depict and portray.
As your such a staunch supporter of reality lets just stick to a definition based in such a place instead of your imagination. "Interpret." Straight from Interpret Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Main Entry:
in·ter·pret Listen to the pronunciation of interpret
Pronunciation:
\in-tr-prt, -pt\
Function:
verb
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French interpreter, from Latin interpretari, from interpret-, interpres agent, negotiator, interpreter
Date:
14th century
transitive verb 1 : to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms 2 : to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance : construe 3 : to represent by means of art : bring to realization by performance or direction intransitive verb : to act as an interpreter between speakers of different languages
synonyms see explain
Regardless of such socially incorrect usages of the word which could have attached certain connotations, I used the word interpret and meant to use the word interpret in a manner consistent with the first definition listed by m-w.com.
A good example of interpretation would be of radiometric dating. Scientists calculate the decay rate half life with some fancy mathematics which enable us all to enjoy a given "interpretation" that conceives an actual date. However, there is an assumption that the decay rate has always been a constant. I would like to get to this topic, but for now I haven't the time and I would like to focus on getting to a common ground on uniformitarianism and my biology thread.
When I read an post like yours, the evidence of what you want to convey, the meaning of your post is written in letters and words.
If, for instance, rocks had words on them I would concede your point. However, you set up a straw man when you decided what I meant when I used the word interpret. You set the parameters, denoted by your "connotations," and then began to tear it down with a simple logic. Please do not treat me like a fool, as I have not extended you that discourtesy.
Uniformitarianism must be an assumption. Did James Hutton assume this prior to review of any geology?
No, it is not a matter of assumption, rather it is a conclusion based on what the evidence shows.
I honestly think your trying not to see my point. Allow me to set up a hypothetical situation.
Timmy looks at the grand canyon and watches the Colorado River eroding it very slowly. He concludes that it must have taken a long time for the water to erode the whole canyon.
Timmy is concluding that it must have taken a long time for the Colorado River to erode what he now sees. IF, the rate of erosion had always been constant. So Razd, pray tell where do we logically attach this extremely obvious assumption? If it isn't inherently apart of uniformitarianism and if it cannot be attached to uniformitarianism, where can it be placed? No where? If so, wouldn't that be considered denying reality?
From Wikipedia:
quote:
Uniformitarianism, in the philosophy of science, is the assumption that the natural processes operating in the past are the same as those that can be observed operating in the present. Its methodological significance is frequently summarized in the statement: "The present is the key to the past."
{emphasis mine}
It's in the first paragraph! What else can be said? It's an assumption. And an assumption, like uniformitarianism, can be validated by testing against it. I am not saying that it hasn't been tested against, nor that some data has supported it. What I am trying to convey is that if we replaced this assumption with another assumption like a catastrophic Flood Event, then we would find data that supports this assumption as well. And we have, and in IMO, a much more satisfying picture of the current geology.
Yes, it's a massive evolutionary conspiracy to impose a concept on geology and other sciences, and it was secretly organized many decades before evolution was a gleam in Darwin's eye. Those biologists are dangerous criminals.
Well said.
Why would physicists assume that radioactive rates have stayed the same when they have actually tested this concept and found no measurable change in this or in other known constants (like the speed of light).
When I speak generally, I am attacked (by you) ad hominem. I "deny reality" so often one could picture my regular participation at the Special Olympics. I speak "creationist gibberish" harumph! Are you trying to insult me? You veil an agenda to dicredit, provoke and humiliate me instead of being openly civil. You insult my intelligence by asking me questions like the one above, invoking an appeal to popularity and sprinkle of appeal to authority. I don't have all the scientific literature as I will readily admit, however, I highly doubt you do either. I also doubt you have read all of it, to make such a claim and form it as a question you know I could spend hours researching an answer for just so you can hand wave my rebuttal. How about instead of making impossible shoes to fill, you fill them with at least one reference. I'm not in the answering impossible questions forum.
Could it be that the concept is pervading "multiple scientific disciplines" because it is a many times tested valid conclusion based on the evidence we know today? Because there is no evidence that shows it is not a valid conclusion?
Could it be that it pervades multiple scientific disciplines because without it the evolution pony doesn't ride?
Again, evolution has no relationship to the validity of geological conclusions, the structure of geology is independent of the conclusions of evolution.
Did you giggle after you wrote this? I laughed out loud. Let me set up another hypothetical scenario.
Timmy received the new issue of Geology Today in the mail. He licks his lips as he reads all of the articles. In summary, scientists now understand that all the rock strata previously thought to be billions of years old, is dramatically younger, perhaps just a couple thousand years old. Timmy wonders what is going to happen to a theory (evolution, big bang, etc.) that required billions of years....
Now, I know this sounds fantastic to you but it illustrates my point. For you to say "the structure of geology is independent of the conclusions of evolution," is acceptable but in the light of saying "evolution has no relationship to the validity of geological conclusions," is ridiculous.
A geologist does not need to understand evolution to understand and do geology
I agree so why is a standard curriculum so involved in the evolution theory? http://www.geol.umd.edu/pages/Graduates/courses.htm
No, because reality does not depend on interpretations or assumptions.
Please, you make me want to type rude things.
I just have one last question, because I really don't like the rest of your post. Do you believe in an objective reality or "true" reality?

"Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing." --Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by RAZD, posted 11-17-2007 10:59 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by edge, posted 11-23-2007 8:19 PM TheWay has not replied
 Message 59 by RAZD, posted 11-23-2007 9:49 PM TheWay has replied
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 11-25-2007 4:02 PM TheWay has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 58 of 70 (435936)
11-23-2007 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by TheWay
11-23-2007 4:59 PM


Re: the truth of evidence
It's in the first paragraph! What else can be said? It's an assumption. And an assumption, like uniformitarianism, can be validated by testing against it. I am not saying that it hasn't been tested against, nor that some data has supported it. What I am trying to convey is that if we replaced this assumption with another assumption like a catastrophic Flood Event, then we would find data that supports this assumption as well.
Ummm, no. That was tried and rejected about 200 years ago. Even with a bias toward a flood interpretation, it was eventualy abandoned. With good reason. Why to backwards?
And we have, and in IMO, a much more satisfying picture of the current geology.
You opinion is duly noted. However, it is not shared by the overwhelming majority of researchers in the field. Why should we give your opinion any credence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by TheWay, posted 11-23-2007 4:59 PM TheWay has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 59 of 70 (435952)
11-23-2007 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by TheWay
11-23-2007 4:59 PM


Re: the truth of evidence
As your such a staunch supporter of reality lets just stick to a definition based in such a place instead of your imagination. "Interpret." Straight from Interpret Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster ...
Regardless of such socially incorrect usages of the word which could have attached certain connotations, I used the word interpret and meant to use the word interpret in a manner consistent with the first definition listed by m-w.com.
Then you should also accept Thesaurus.com
quote:
Synonyms: adapt, annotate, clarify, comment, commentate, construe, decipher, decode, delineate, depict, describe, elucidate, enact, exemplify, explain, explicate, expound, gather, gloss, illustrate, image, improvise, limn, make of, mimic, paraphrase, perform, picture, play, portray, re-enact, read, render, represent, solve, spell out, take*, translate, understand, view
versus Thesaurus.com
quote:
Synonyms: accept, appreciate, apprehend, be aware, catch, catch on, cognize, conceive, deduce, dig, discern, distinguish, explain, fathom, figure out, find out, follow, get*, grasp, identify with, infer, interpret, ken*, know, kumtux, learn, make out*, master, note, penetrate, perceive, possess, read, realize, recognize, register, savvy*, see, seize, sense, sympathize, take in*, take meaning, tolerate
The synonyms show the different connotations of the words, including the ones I had noted, and which do apply to this issue.
Again, the basic difference is that we want to understand reality as shown by the evidence, rather than interpret it to suit our whim. We can interpret evidence to show that the earth is flat, but when we understand the evidence we know that it shows the earth is an oblate spheroid. We can interpret evidence to show that astrology is valid, yet I believe we can agree that this is not scientific, and thus that because we can interpret evidence to mean what we want it to, that doesn't make the result scientific or any more real than a flat earth or astrology.
This is the fundamental difference between the scientific approach and the creationist\IDologist approach: scientists are interested in understanding what the evidence really means, what is real, what is true, while creationists\IDologists are interested in making the evidence fit their story. Part of that attempt is to portray science as something it is not, such as saying it is only a theory, it is only an interpretation, and implying that there are other concepts just as valid, just as tested.
A good example of interpretation would be of radiometric dating. Scientists calculate the decay rate half life with some fancy mathematics which enable us all to enjoy a given "interpretation" that conceives an actual date. However, there is an assumption that the decay rate has always been a constant. I would like to get to this topic, but for now I haven't the time and I would like to focus on getting to a common ground on uniformitarianism and my biology thread.
The level of radioactivity in the samples is reality, fact, truth, and different levels in different rocks is due to different times of decay no matter how you "interpret" the results. If you are really interested in this topic see threads Feedback about reliability of dating, Correlation Among Various Radiometric Ages or Radioactive carbon dating ... or start one of your own.
There is nothing fancy about the math - it is quite simple. There is also evidence that decay rates are the same now as they were in the past -- it is not just an assumption, but a tested concept. For instance the decay rate of cobalt-56 is confirmed by evidence from SN1987A (see Message 76) 168,000 years ago, among other things.
The evidence shows that, not only is there no reason to postulate a change in decay rates, but that such a change would require several basic changes to the elemental behavior and the fine structure of physics that would result in evidence that has not been seen, while several things that have been seen could not have occurred. Changing the decay rate would mean that the Oklo natural reactors would not have occurred when and how they did, some 2 billion years ago.
You talk about "fanciful math" in relation to the rate of decay of radioactive elements, but you have no concept of the truly "full of fancy" math that would be needed to (1) produce a different decay rate and (2) maintain the evidence of what has occurred. This is one of the reasons that these arguments are not about "alternative explanations" -- because there is no attempt to complete the explanations, and and no attempt to develop predictions that would invalidate them.
If, for instance, rocks had words on them I would concede your point. However, you set up a straw man when you decided what I meant when I used the word interpret. You set the parameters, denoted by your "connotations," and then began to tear it down with a simple logic. Please do not treat me like a fool, as I have not extended you that discourtesy.
The chemical composition of rocks is not a matter of interpretation, but a fact that can be understood. The level of radioactivity in a rock is also not a matter of interpretation, but a fact that can be understood. The presence or absence of different elements and isotopes of elements is also not a matter of interpretation, but fact that can be understood. This evidence does not need to be interpreted to be understood.
You can develop concepts of how these facts came to be - theories - and then test them against the evidence to see which ones are valid representations of reality and which ones are false.
The validity of these concepts is not a matter of interpretation, but of testing against the evidence, against reality. The issue is NOT whether you can interpret evidence to suit your fancy, but whether you can understand the reality they represent. Science does not behave like faith.
I honestly think your trying not to see my point. Allow me to set up a hypothetical situation.
Timmy looks at the grand canyon and watches the Colorado River eroding it very slowly. He concludes that it must have taken a long time for the water to erode the whole canyon.
Timmy is concluding that it must have taken a long time for the Colorado River to erode what he now sees. IF, the rate of erosion had always been constant. So Razd, pray tell where do we logically attach this extremely obvious assumption? If it isn't inherently apart of uniformitarianism and if it cannot be attached to uniformitarianism, where can it be placed? No where? If so, wouldn't that be considered denying reality?
You complain a perceived straw man in my argument between the usage of understand and interpret, and then you foist this representation of the whole field of geology as the assumption of a child looking at a canyon. WOW.
Please read through Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up. and Was there a worldwide flood? and feel free to post this question there.
The short answer is that Timmy's concept is not tested or validated the way that geology is. Geologists would test the erosion rates of different rocks and see what the evidence of slow erosion and fast erosion would look like in different strata, and then compare that with observations of the Grand Canyon. Nor would they assume a constant rate of erosion, as there are several different layers that - on a first assumption basis - would erode at different rates.
To state\think that the geological conclusion that the Grand Canyon has eroded over considerable time is just an assumption based on a cursory observation is really rather insulting to geologists.
From Wikipedia:
quote:
Uniformitarianism, in the philosophy of science, is the assumption that the natural processes operating in the past are the same as those that can be observed operating in the present. Its methodological significance is frequently summarized in the statement: "The present is the key to the past."
{emphasis mine}
It's in the first paragraph! What else can be said? It's an assumption. And an assumption, like uniformitarianism, can be validated by testing against it. I am not saying that it hasn't been tested against, nor that some data has supported it.
Yes, in the philosophy of science it is an assumption, the application of it to geology and physics is based on observation and testing and validation. To understand how uniformitarianism is viewed in geology we can look at the material cited in the OP (Message 1):
From "Evolution of the Earth", 2nd Edition, Robert H. Dott, Jr. & Roger L. Batten, McGraw-Hill, 1976, pp.38-39
The only assumption we make today is that physical and chemical laws are constant, which is properly called actualism. By inductive reasoning and analogy, the study of geologic processes action today provides up with powerful clues to their past action, but we do not assume that those processes always acted with the same rates and intensities. There is confusion about what is meant by "catastrophic" processes and by a lack of appreciation of the vastness of geologic time. Geologists today routinely accept sudden, violent, and even certain unique events as perfectly consistent with contemporary earth theory. Only by substituting the term actualism for the ambiguous uniformitarianism can misconceptions be minimized. (My "bolds" - Added by edit - Moose)
End of quotation from cite.
Those physical and chemical laws have also been tested to see whether this assumption is valid and to date this assumption has not been invalidated. This is not an assumption of a child standing on the lip of the Grand Canyon.
What I am trying to convey is that if we replaced this assumption with another assumption like a catastrophic Flood Event, then we would find data that supports this assumption as well. And we have, and in IMO, a much more satisfying picture of the current geology.
Well if you were going to be scientific about it, rather than just have a philosophical conversation (the intellectual game of "what if" ideas: what if the Pilgrims had thanked the indians instead of their religion ... ), then you would propose a theory that would explain the existing evidence, make predictions of what you would see that would be different from the "standard model," and test those predictions. As noted on several other threads (particularly Was there a worldwide flood?) there are several sever problems that need to be overcome from the start.
Now I won't pretend that you won't find some evidence that could show fast erosion (there have been a couple partial blockages of the canyon that have resulted in fast erosion downstream when they collapsed for instance), but you will not be able to explain all the evidence, especially the evidence for slow erosion that invalidates this concept. This would be like the evidence that you can find for a flat earth, or astrology.
Yes, it's a massive evolutionary conspiracy to impose a concept on geology and other sciences, and it was secretly organized many decades before evolution was a gleam in Darwin's eye. Those biologists are dangerous criminals.
Well said.
That is the impression that creationists give with their ad hoc statements portraying evolution as some philosophical overview that controls how people think.
When I speak generally, I am attacked (by you) ad hominem. I "deny reality" so often one could picture my regular participation at the Special Olympics. I speak "creationist gibberish" harumph! Are you trying to insult me? You veil an agenda to dicredit, provoke and humiliate me instead of being openly civil. You insult my intelligence by asking me questions like the one above, invoking an appeal to popularity and sprinkle of appeal to authority. I don't have all the scientific literature as I will readily admit, however, I highly doubt you do either. I also doubt you have read all of it, to make such a claim and form it as a question you know I could spend hours researching an answer for just so you can hand wave my rebuttal. How about instead of making impossible shoes to fill, you fill them with at least one reference. I'm not in the answering impossible questions forum.
Simple solution: don't mix evolution with geology and assume some evolutionist conspiracy governs geology (or any other science) and has controlled it since before evolution was developed by Darwin. It's a silly idea that deserves no respect. The fact that it is common to creationists does not make the idea less silly.
Could it be that it pervades multiple scientific disciplines because without it the evolution pony doesn't ride?
Nope. This may come as a shock to you, but the young earth model could be true and evolution would still be valid. This is because the argument creationists have is not with evolution -- the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation -- but with the concept of common descent and the evidence for a single common ancestor population rather than a multitude of (as yet undefined number or level of development) of first ancestors.
That the age of the earth is very old is a fact that has nothing to do with evolution, but with the reality of geological, physical and astronomical evidence. The evidence for an old earth can be demonstrated without any reference to biology to say nothing of evolution.
The natural history of earth and the life on it, from fossil records to present day genetics, is not predicated on evolutionary "needs" or on what "evolution needs" to have happened in order to be correct, rather it is evidence of the truth of reality - whether that truth involves evolution or not. Evolution does not control how other sciences work.
Did you giggle after you wrote this? I laughed out loud. Let me set up another hypothetical scenario.
Timmy received the new issue of Geology Today in the mail. He licks his lips as he reads all of the articles. In summary, scientists now understand that all the rock strata previously thought to be billions of years old, is dramatically younger, perhaps just a couple thousand years old. Timmy wonders what is going to happen to a theory (evolution, big bang, etc.) that required billions of years....
Now, I know this sounds fantastic to you but it illustrates my point. For you to say "the structure of geology is independent of the conclusions of evolution," is acceptable but in the light of saying "evolution has no relationship to the validity of geological conclusions," is ridiculous.
Nope. Glad you had a chuckle, but you missed the point: your hypothetical article in "Geology Today" does not depend on evolution to come to it's conclusions, nor does any article in any professional journal of geology, but on the evidence for geology.
Not only that, evolution will still be observed to occur every day, and the theory of evolution will still be valid in explaining the observed changes in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.
I agree so why is a standard curriculum so involved in the evolution theory? http://www.geol.umd.edu/pages/Graduates/courses.htm
Is it? Only one course mentions "evolution" or "life" in the whole list. You can also look for the frequency of "fossil" in the course descriptions: 4 times in 46 graduate level classes. A shocking 8.7% of the course descriptions, even without looking at WHAT is involved ... and none of which are pre-requisites for geology courses that don't involve fossils, life or evolution. Not one of the courses mentions evolution theory.
Biostratigraphy involves the study of the relationship of index fossils to certain sedimentary deposits, this is just using information available in the study of geology.
Micropaleontology involves the study of the morphology, classification, ecology and geologic ranges of important microfossil groups, particularly index fossils.
Heavy knowledge of evolution required there.
Finally, from Page not found | The University of Maryland Graduate School
quote:
Master of Science (M.S.)
The Department of Geology offers a Master of Science degree. There is no single prescribed curriculum. Although 24 credit hours of course work and 6 credit hours of thesis research are required, the entire course of study is individually developed for each student by his/her graduate program committee as approved by the Graduate Committee. The M.S. degree is awarded following the successful completion of the course requirements, submission of a satisfactory thesis, and an oral defense of the thesis. The M.S. normally requires two years of work.
Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.)
For the Ph.D. degree, requirements include satisfactory completion of course work, preparation of a research proposal, an oral candidacy and research proposal examination, and a successful dissertation defense. The Ph.D. commonly requires three to four years of work, if conducted after the completion of an M.S. program, or four to five years from the time of admission if pursued directly from the bachelor level.
Neither degree requires that a single one of those four (4) out of 46 courses be included in those taken by the students. The degree requires 24 of the possible 138 credit hours of all the classes with only 12 possible that use (shudder) fossils.
Gosh, I'm whelmed by the load of evolutionary biology that is forced on geologists to understand their field! So many different course combinations could be taken without a single one involving fossils (such scary things) that this really makes my point:
quote:
A geologist does not need to understand evolution to understand and do geology
Thanks for the validation.
I just have one last question, ... Do you believe in an objective reality or "true" reality?
Yes. It is rather a rational concept don't you think? whereas thinking that reality can be subjective or that there can be two or more "objective" realities is really, in essence, believing in fantasy -- isn't it?
... because I really don't like the rest of your post. ...
Not "liking" the rest of my post is one way to avoid reality, isn't it? What a cozy world you have, where you only need deal with issues you "like" eh?
Do you think you can run away from reality?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by TheWay, posted 11-23-2007 4:59 PM TheWay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by TheWay, posted 12-01-2007 11:32 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 60 of 70 (436412)
11-25-2007 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by TheWay
11-23-2007 4:59 PM


perhaps a different tack
Let's take another tack, and look at where the concept of "interpret" takes us. The issue is whether scientists and creationists make "different interpretations" of evidence on which they then base their theories. We'll start with your definition:
"Interpret." Straight from Interpret Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
quote:
transitive verb 1 : to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms 2 : to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance : construe 3 : to represent by means of art : bring to realization by performance or direction
intransitive verb : to act as an interpreter between speakers of different languages
synonyms see explain.
You complain about my use of communication analogies, yet the word "interpret" is tied to communication and the analogies cannot be avoided. You "explain" or "tell" the meaning in understandable terms, "other languages" are interpreted so that you can understand the meaning in your own language, but the object is to understand the meaning. That is the point of good interpretation.
The interpreter\interpretation can also make mistakes or intentional changes to better fit preconceptions, it is possible to have bad interpretations.
So the question is not whether you can have several multitudes of interpretations, but whether any of them are accurate, and whether they represent a true understanding of the meaning.
This comes down to the purpose of the interpretation. If the purpose of the interpretation is to make the evidence fit a preconceived notion of the world, then when the interpretation is made the job is complete, done, finished - those who need their preconceptions fulfilled are happy. They don't care whether the interpretation is 'good' or 'bad' in relation to the true meaning of the evidence but whether it is 'good' or 'bad' in relation to the preconceived notion, and the only "test" is whether or not it agrees with their preconceived notion.
If the purpose of the interpretation is to make sure you really understand the true meaning of the evidence, the truth, the reality, then the work is not done, even when your interpretation is compatible with your current understanding of reality. It is not done for the simple reason that you don't know whether the interpretation is 'good' or 'bad' in relation to the true meaning of the evidence. It has not been validated.
It is possible to have several interpretations that all seem possible, but to determine which (if any) help us understand the true meaning of the evidence, the interpretation(s) must be tested and validated (or invalidated) by the evidence. The results of these interpretations must be consistent for all the evidence, and they should allow us to make predictions of things not yet known to increase our understanding of reality.
In science we call these interpretations "theories" - scientific theories - because they are based on evidence and their purpose is to improve our understanding of reality through standard testing and validation procedures.
Thus the "interpretation" of evidence does not happen between evidence and theory, nor does evidence need to be interpreted before it can be used to form a theory, rather the interpretation is the theory, and evidence is taken as what it is, evidence of reality, whether it validates or invalidates the theory.
Does that help?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by TheWay, posted 11-23-2007 4:59 PM TheWay has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024