It seems as though Faith is not the only one unable to seperate fact from theory.
I don't know what "fact" means. Observation is what I can see with my own two eyes. Theory is what is derived from observations. I
The fact is that you cannot create compressional structures without compression.
----
Take a sheet of paper.
Now by only pulling on the edges make it fold in the middle.
Then when that does not work, try pushing on the edges and see if the paper folds.
What if I hold the ends of the paper and I have a friend violently push a ruler up from the bottom? I can get a form at least GENERALLY similar to folded paper. Would it be considered a "compressional structure"? Is there something special about "compressional structures" besides that they're pointy at the top? If not, then I would know MY "structure" can be called a "compressional structure." If you had described this through describing observations, such as some types of wrinkling that is present, etc., I would have been able to figure it out myself. Your analogy helped some, but not enough to distinguish between my postulation and what an actual "compressional structure" is.
If I try and figure it out from the words themselves, I come up with "structure that was compressed." How do I know something was compressed? What are the critical observations which led to the conclusion?
Let's try another one while we're at it.
The tectonic activity that pushed North America away from Europe was divergent. This is also a fact.
That's nice. What are the observations that led you to this conclusion? What measurements were made that allowed you to tell me it's fact?
If you don't want to extract the observations yourself, that's probably fine. You're just leaving it up to Faith to find them herself. But I wouldn't wait around for a reply. It'll be a while with all that reading for homework.
Now, you don't have to extract ALL the observations. But if you could mention a couple fundamental ones, then we can deal with the actual observations, and look for alternative explanations. And alternative explanations is the name of the game for YECs. We've at least got to the point where we should be able to acknowledge that.
Hope this helps clarify what I think is necessary. I posted the reply here because we're actually clarifying things that are relevant to the discussion (I think).
™ Version 4.2
