Comparitive delusions

Hello IRH,I have been looking for some good pictures of ancient orogenic events that would show Faith an area that was once a mountain range. I am pretty sure she would not take the Appalachians as one, even though they were once almost as high or not higher than the Himalayas.I could have sworn I had a beautiful picture that shows an relatively flat area with large regional folding but I think it was in my geology textbook I sold back . Would you be able to find some or provide a link to some nice pictures?

quote:

---

As I already said, I had this impression about how interpretation is treated as fact in relation to the ToE and OE long before I was a Christian. But I guess I can say it all I want and you will ignore it.

---

Yes, I will ignore it - because that doesn't answer the question. This particular unsupported opinion belongs in the Scientific Interpretation thread, not here.The question, again - what gives you or any literalist creationist the right to call scientists deluded/misguided about science, when you and by definition every literalist creationist are deluded/misguided from a scientific point of view?Is the pot calling the kettle black?So you see, your opinion on how science is presented doesn't answer this question.

Most stuff I can get is Irish geology. I'll see what I can find.You might want to be more specific though - do you want faults, folding, just generally deformed rock?

quote:

---

and tend to present it MORE that way to the poor layman who has no way to question it.

---

The layman is only poor when they refuse to follow up on the facts on subjects that supposedly interest them. Your ignorance of the facts is not equivalent to their non-existence. Or will you tell me now that you have read and understood the references in the paper? That is what those who are interested do after all. You don't read a paper and say that is the sum total of the evidence. There is a reference section to each paper which cites further evidence. At least for the primary literature in which science is communicated. In many cases there is a link to the raw data. Science is accessible but you seem to indicate you want to be spoon fed everything and then complain when it does not happen. Your laziness is not equivalent to the non-existence of facts either...you are basically saying Jesus does not exist because I have not read the bible.

quote:

---

Clever to demand that the poor layman become a scientist in order to protect himself against possibly false information which is really no more than propaganda.

---

I don't demand anything of you except that you back up your assertions or stop making them if you cannot. I do not demand a layman become a scientist to protect themselves. I SUGGEST a layman research subjects they are interested in, update themselves on the available facts before coming to a conclusion one way or another. Otherwise, they should exhibit a modicum of honesty and say they do not actually know what the state of a given field actually is.Lots of them do..including many on this site...you unfortunately apparently have no desire to. Just because you read a National Geographic article on DNA for example hardly puts you in a position to make claims as to the veracity of genetics and molecular biology. And it is not up to scientists to spoon feed you remedial biology to convince you of the veractiy of their methods...you can stay 2000 years behind the times as you like...science will march on providing new facts, theories and applications because anybody can check the facts, reproduce the findings, test their hypotheses or falsify them.....can you say that about any of your claims with respect to creationist "interpretations"?

My assertions were backed up in the giving of all those examples at the start of the fact v interpretation thread. That's all there is, there ain't no more.

You accused me of having the opinions I have based on my religious beliefs. That is false. That's all I wanted to say.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-20-2006 08:33 AM

quote:

---

You accused me of having the opinions I have based on my religious beliefs. That is false. That's all I wanted to say.

---

But that still isn't the point, Faith. This topic isn't about why you hold your particular opinions. You could believe that all of modern geology is a fabrication because the sky is blue for all I care.The point, the question, repeated again here (and this time I'll be as explicit as I can):You are a bible literalist. You believe that bushes and snakes can talk, that a man can be swallowed by a whale and survive, that all of humanity came from one man and one woman. This is contrary to what science says, i.e. that bushes and snakes cannot talk, that any man swallowed by a whale will die, and that a species cannot survive if only two individuals of that species exist. Why you believe this doesn't especially matter - only that you do. From a scientific point of view, you are deluded or misguided about these things.My point is that you are being hypocritical in accusing scientists of being deluded or misguided from a scientific point of view, when you are deluded or misguided from the same point of view. It is the same as any creationist accusing a scientist of distorting or lying about evidence when they are routinely shown to do so themselves - the pot calling the kettle black.My argument is that you have no right to make such an accusation, especially seeing as you refuse to educate yourself about science, despite the numerous articles and papers that others have linked complete with further citations, i.e. in the Scientific Interpretation thread you refused to read holmes' paper which he presented as a response to a question you asked. This is called wilful ignorance, by the way, and many creationists display it.This message has been edited by IrishRockhound, 03-20-2006 03:02 PM

So what you are telling me and others is that you have enough time to make damning proclamations on this forum about what evidence does or does not exist, how science is done, and the motives of scientists but don't have the time (or desire) to actually determine what the facts actually are because all those little silly experiments, papers, citations and technicalities are too tedious? You do realize this is a "dog ate my homework" arguement that you are using. It does not work for the students who use it and it certainly is not a robust defense of your position. I really cannot fathom why creationists expend so much energy opposing things they have no background in yet are fully resistent to expending one iota of energy to actually get a background...other laypeople seem to manage....it reminds me of the people who protest films without actually having seen them because maybe it could be offensive.

What I'm telling you is that what I pointed out in the examples given already covers everything I wanted to say. It's right there, it didn't require any interpretation from me. I believe I demonstrated the case sufficiently for my purposes. I didn't suggest that it was "damning," that's your reading of it. I myself suppose there are reasonable explanations for it, although it does bug me and has always bugged me. But if it IS damning, as so many of you seem to believe, then perhaps it should be taken more seriously than it is being taken. Again, what you see is what you get. I didn't add anything or interpret anything.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-20-2006 01:17 PM

Your examples were full of refutations of your ideas. This has been pointed out to you but there has been no response to that.The paper you can't read has refutations of your ideas. Stuffed with them in the abstract in fact. But then you can't read it so you still make claims that are, for the most part (but not totally), WRONG.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-20-2006 01:28 PM

Two others acknowledged that my examples are examples of what I said they are examples of, which is all I presented them to be. Take it up with them.

Hello IRH,There isn't any hurry, just wondering if you might have a picture or name of a formation so I can find a picture of some very large-scale folded formations. (ie. on the order of worn down mountains as if the mountain was shaved off the rest of the land and all that was left was the folded formations).

The Appalachian chain along the East Coast of the US is just such a formation. The best view IMHO is to start with Google Earth and look at where they begin in Alabama, then follow the bends and twists, starts and stops as it meanders north.Here are a few more links that might help you. Start herethen hereand then here.This message has been edited by jar, 03-20-2006 03:14 PM{Adminnemooseus adds a link to a topic: The Jar started A series of Questions for our Geologists. topic.}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-20-2006 04:22 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

But how very very odd. I didn't express any ideas to BE refuted. The examples are self-explanatory.

You conveniently left out that both of us disagreed with your assessment of the validity of those "interpretations". Getting a little forgetful, are we?In Message 4 of the Scientific Fact versus Interpretation topic you very nicely provided a listing of quotes and catagorized them as either fact or interpretation. I agreed that that was a reasonable separation. However, I disagreed with this statement of yours. Additionally, you implied that your use of the word "conjecture", which you used to describe each interpretation, was tantamount to saying fanciful guesswork.
These implications that geologists just make things up or are quite stupid brought out the need for you to support your accusations...at least in my mind. That is why you were asked the following question: This question was asked of you on at least 7 occasions by a number of participants. From what I have been able to read in several different threads, you have not even tried to answer that question. Maybe I missed it...could you point it out?