Conclusion vs Presupposition

To communicate. All language is presupposition that others will understand you and want to communicate.I think you need to start with basics, the presuppositions for a naturalistic understanding of the natural world:(1) that there is an objective reality
(2) that evidence tells the truth about that objective reality
(3) that we can understand objective reality by understanding the evidenceThen the question comes down to whether these ideas are useful in everyday life.We apply the common assumption (1) of objective reality every time we drive to work or play, and are reminded of it every time we bump our shins on something in the dark.We apply (2) and (3) every time we use a scientific conclusion, whether it involves medicine or the functioning of automobiles, airplanes, etcetera.Put together these three assumptions tell us that when our understanding is at odds with the evidence, when new evidence contradicts theory for instance, that it is our understanding that is in error, not the objective reality, and our understanding must make an adjustment (ie - it's a reality check).Put together these three assumptions tell us that if the evidence shows that the earth is old, then it is old, while if the evidence shows that the earth is young that there would be no contradictory evidence showing anything being older than the real age of the earth.Likewise, if someone assumes that evidence - the green river varves for example - are produced by a method that does not produce such evidence (graded layers) today, and are NOT produced by a method that does produce such evidence (graded layers) today, then someone is assuming that our understanding is incomplete ... or that the evidence lies ... or that objective reality doesn't exist.If we assume that objective reality doesn't exist, then we are left with one or more subjective realities, and no conclusions are valid. The earth could be flat and gravity could be caused by invisible pink unicorns. All knowledge is irrelevant and anything you think you believe could be fantasy.If we assume that evidence lies then again no conclusions are valid. The earth could be flat and gravity could be caused by invisible pink unicorns. All knowledge is irrelevant and anything you think you believe could be fantasy.If we assume that our understanding is incomplete, yet there is no evidence that shows that our understanding is false, then the only conclusion we can come to is that our understanding is still sound, but that the results are tentative.That is science.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : moved phrase for clarity.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more 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 is false, a lie promoted by many creationist sites. If creationism is true then why do creationists need to lie about evolution? One of the big sites to do this regularly is AiG ... ergo your whole argument is based on a lie and is worthless. Now you have just made a false claim using AiG. You presumed these "quote" were true -- but the question is what do you use to validate claims? What do you do to ground-truth them against facts? Have you actually looked at each one of those "articles" and then checked them against the facts?It is easy to find the truth of what evolution is actually about from evolutionists - why do you go to creationists that lie about it? And the answer is "we don't know" -- this answer makes no difference to the study of the existing life on earth, and the natural behavior of life and thus evolution occurs either way.When you learn who is lying to you, the truth shall set you free.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more 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.

No, these are the preconceptions necessary for dealing with the real world and not living in fantasy -- they are the basis of all science and rational thought. Actually I understand that very well -- as that is my point. ... except that 1+1=2 is not related to the world of objective reality, but is an abstract intellectual construction (the definition of "2") ... ... which only applies at the nominal surface of the earth (being an approximation of GM/r², where r=radius of earth, within the tolerance given, and which itself is just another approximation based on empirical measurements) ... That does not make them valid, or necessarily true. What it means is that we can use these as axioms - assumed truthes - on which to base scientific investigation of the nature of things regardless of religious faith or philosophical leaning. Which again is part of my point. Science does not make presuppositions that other rational people make in the course of everyday life. Argument from incredulity, denial of evidence and the presupposition of a specific god are typical of creationists. Their presuppositions are in addition to any needed for doing good science, nor are there any presuppositions necessary for doing good science that need to be discarded before adapting the presuppositions of creationism.Welcome to the fray.Enjoy.ps - as you are new (haven't seen your other posts) some tips:type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:

---

quotes are easy

---

also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.And if you use the other reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):

... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds
clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it.Edited by RAZD, : added to ps

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more 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.

The actual source is:Just a moment...

quote:

---

Science 14 December 2007:
Vol. 318. no. 5857, pp. 1734 - 1735
DOI: 10.1126/science.1151980

​

Perspectives
GEOLOGY:
On the Accumulation of Mud
Joe H. S. Macquaker and Kevin M. Bohacs

​

Mudstones can be deposited under more energetic conditions than widely assumed, requiring a reappraisal of many geologic records.

​

J. Macquaker is in the School of Earth, Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK. K. M. Bohacs is with the ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company, Houston, TX 77027, USA.

​

E-mail: Joe.Macquaker(AT)Manchester.ac.uk; Kevin.M.Bohacs(AT)exxonmobil.com

---

and Just a moment...

quote:

---

Science 14 December 2007:
Vol. 318. no. 5857, pp. 1760 - 1763
DOI: 10.1126/science.1147001

​

Reports
Accretion of Mudstone Beds from Migrating Floccule Ripples
Juergen Schieber,1* John Southard,2 Kevin Thaisen1

​

Mudstones make up the majority of the geological record. However, it is difficult to reconstruct the complex processes of mud deposition in the laboratory, such as the clumping of particles into floccules. Using flume experiments, we have investigated the bedload transport and deposition of clay floccules and find that this occurs at flow velocities that transport and deposit sand. Deposition-prone floccules form over a wide range of experimental conditions, which suggests an underlying universal process. Floccule ripples develop into low-angle foresets and mud beds that appear laminated after postdepositional compaction, but the layers retain signs of floccule ripple bedding that would be detectable in the rock record. Because mudstones were long thought to record low-energy conditions of offshore and deeper water environments, our results call for reevaluation of published interpretations of ancient mudstone successions and derived paleoceanographic conditions.

​

1 Department of Geological Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA.
2 Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.

​

E-mail: jschiebe(at)indiana.edu

---

(color added for emPHAsis) Flocculation is where small particles combine to make larger particles (that can settle out if they are dense enough).So now all you have to do is show that the floccule ripples are present in the green river varves, especially the varves that have been characterized as free of ripples. Not really -- your article doesn't mean that the green river varves are not due to slow sedimentation.Why doesn't AiG reference the actual Science mag article, preferring to reference a mag that does not cite the Science article? What are they hiding? Perhaps that such flocule ripple bedding can be easily detected?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : formatEdited by RAZD, : emails changed to reduce spamming them

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more 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.

That's one version, anyway. Chose another religion, get a different starting point, different base belief. I've edited it to correct the wrong statements. None of what you said is necessary for evolution, you are confusing creationist-straw-man with evolution, a bad thing to do because(1) it's a logical fallacy
(2) creationists lie about evolution
(3) they deceive gullible people with their lies That's one of the liars. A professional liar - he's a lawyer.If you want to learn what evolution really is and what it involves go back to the Dogs will be dogs will be ??? thread, and pick up where we left off -- with the similarity between dog and eohippus skeleton and look at the similarities of bones and their sizes and proportions, and at the shapes and posture of the legs and feet. Correct, so the only logically valid answer is "we don't know" ... but where curious people say "lets see what we can find in the evidence of reality" and "what do we know that we can use as a starting point" So if you start with a point as near truth as you can find, you are ahead eh? Why don't we start with the evidence of life we can see today and work backwards? Actually both could be false. How do you find out? No, mutation causes the variability, natural selection favors those that survive and reproduce over those that don't.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more 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.

It doesn't. Evolution starts with life existing - particularly starting with the life we know today and working backwards. That is what the evidence shows (close enough). The earliest life known is a cyanobacteria 3.8 billion years old, and it is a prokaryote with cell wall enclosing DNA etc (no nucleus and no mitochondria though). Eukaryotes with nucleus and mitochondria evolved roughly 1.6 - 2.1 billion years ago. We don't know. There are some ideas, but no evidence at this point (no fossil bearing rock older than 3.8 billion years found yet).

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more 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.

And those that tell you otherwise are lying.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more 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.

Actually not. Argument from incredulity on top of nonsense -- that's a real good foundation for philosophy. So? The fact remains that this is what the evidence shows, and beyond that we don't know. Really? Gosh you make it sound so ... simple. Which just shows that your understanding of "relative flash" and "slow gradual incremental evolutionary development" could be wrong eh?It doesn't matter what you think Beretta, the universe is totally unimpressed, and things will continue to progress regardless of your opinion or conclusions of what is or is not impossible.Once you understand that you can look for truth.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more 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.