Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,286 Year: 5,543/9,624 Month: 568/323 Week: 65/143 Day: 8/19 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hello everyone
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2225 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 226 of 380 (712884)
12-07-2013 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Faith
12-07-2013 2:19 PM


Re: uniformitarianism
Uniformitarianism is usually used to deny an event such as the worldwide Flood of the Bible, to deny catastrophism on that grand a scale though they may find smaller catastrophes instead.
No, that would be evidence. Science relies on evidence to determine if there was a worldwide flood at the appointed time, ca. 4350 years ago. So far, the evidence shows there was no such flood at that date, or any other date within historic times.
It's really an assumption that CONDITIONS in the distant past can be extrapolated from those of the present, rather than the assumption that the physical laws are the same.
No, the idea that conditions in the distant past can be extrapolated from the evidence is based on the evidence. However, if one believes a priori in dogma and scripture and other old myths, then one can be so blinded by that belief that the evidence is ignored, denied, misinterpreted, or otherwise hand-waved away.
Creationists have reason to believe there were drastic changes in the condition of the entire earth and perhaps even the solar system, as a result, first, of the Fall, and then of the Flood which was judgment for sin. Uniformitarianism is blind to such events because of the assumption that whatever is seen is what always existed.
In spite of what creationists believe, there is no evidence for drastic changes ca. 6000 years ago (the mythical fall), nor about 4,350 years ago (the mythical flood). And no, science relies on evidence from the past, not some overriding dogma. Dogma is your field. Unfortunately for believers in your particular dogma, the evidence disproves the beliefs in a fall with drastically changing conditions about 6000 years ago and a global flood about 4350 years ago.
So, for instance, it would never occur to a uniformitarian that the earth used to be dramatically different than it is today, with no deserts, no extreme high mountains, no dangerous extremes of temperature, lush vegetation everywhere and so on. There is actually evidence of an unimaginably more fecund environment in the strata, but that's interpreted away by uniformitarian assumptions as the record of what happened over billions of years rather than the abundance of life forms that existed all at the same time on the planet and were all destroyed at the same time in one catastrophic event.
That's because the evidence shows billions of years, not a couple of thousand years followed by a catastrophic flood event during historic times. Believers can't see that because they are so blinded by belief that they have to ignore evidence the contradicts that belief.
With all that evidence on our side and much more we deal with such things as dendrochronology as in fact interpretive of an entirely different environment in parts of the rings rather than the year by year interpretation of uniformitarianism.
Did you not see the evidence that RAZD presented in the Great Debate thread? Are you really going to try to hand-wave away all of those posts loaded with evidence with this simple sentence lacking any kind of evidence? And if you are going to try and pretend that he didn't present all of that evidence, why do you imagine that we will pretend that we never saw it? Mindspawn has been sent reeling by the evidence, and you're not going to just dismiss it all with a simple wave of the hand. That's both dishonest and typical of creation "science."
Decay rates are just one of those assumptions that are used to determine the past that cannot be verified because they ARE applied to the unwitnessed past. The amount of slippage and false dating in their use is hardly ever acknowledged either, which makes the whole thing laughable.
You keep claiming that we can't look into the past with any reliability, but you have yet to present any evidence of that claim.
I've spent over 40 years doing archaeology, and I'm an expert at looking into the seni-recent past. I know what we can reliably determine, and what we can't yet determine within my particular discipline. There are tens of thousands of other scientists whose expertise lets them look at various aspects of the past. They too can tell a lot about what has happened in the past, ranging from fairly recent human history to determination of physical constants and details of the formation of our solar system and beyond--going back billions of years.
What "cannot be verified" is your claim that things such as decay constants changed wildly in the past.
What "cannot be verified" is your claim that there was a "fall" some 6000 years ago that changed Earth's history and conditions drastically.
What "cannot be verified" is your claim that there was a global flood some 4,350 years ago.
You are letting your belief substitute for evidence, and your belief is so fixed that it requires you to ignore or misrepresent any evidence to the contrary. In any group of scientists, dismissing all of the massive amounts of verified evidence that disproves your claims is not going to impress anyone. Better you should stick to your own "kind."

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Faith, posted 12-07-2013 2:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Faith, posted 12-07-2013 10:22 PM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2225 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 228 of 380 (712886)
12-07-2013 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Faith
12-07-2013 10:22 PM


Re: uniformitarianism
As I keep arguing, your "evidence" concerning the ancient past, the unwitnessed past, is interpreted through sheer imaginative speculations from the standpoint of the present, which is a very iffy and fallible perspective that no true science would ever countenance because there is no way to test it. And I can keep saying this if necessary. I get my evidence from witness testimony, not a lack of evidence, but very good evidence indeed.
That's pure BS.
Where I grew up we put that stuff out in the fields to grow crops.
If you have any evidence, let's have it. Otherwise, no hand-waving is going to be of any use.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Faith, posted 12-07-2013 10:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 12-07-2013 10:53 PM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2225 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 232 of 380 (712891)
12-07-2013 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Faith
12-07-2013 10:53 PM


Re: uniformitarianism
Witness evidence of the Flood IS evidence, a lot better evidence than pure speculation which is all you have though you delude yourself that your interpretations are facts.
Witness evidence? Do you not know how unreliable witnesses really are? And you're going back several thousand years, to what amounts to tribal myths, with no opportunity (as you would have in a court of law) for cross-examination. Witnesses are far less reliable in those circumstances than evidence from the real world--evidence that can be cross-checked by scientists around the world and verified to be accurate.
And you think you can really place that kind of "witness evidence" against evidence from the real world? About 200 years ago believers who were trying to prove the flood convinced themselves that the flood never happened, and they did so based on real world evidence. And for the past 200 years, that evidence showing the flood never happened has only become stronger and overwhelming stronger! To everyone but the true believers.
Even my own archaeological research disproves the global flood at ca. 4350 years ago. And if I can do this, so can tens of thousands of other archaeologists and other -ologists all over the world.
You are just deluding yourself--if you're even doing that.
The strata are also evidence of the Flood since nothing else but waves and currents of water could have laid them down all over the earth in such flat horizontality, or produced the strangely familial groupings of the fossils therein, including some catastrophically tossed and tumbled dinosaur burial sites, and so on.
When we are dealing with the time period of about 4350 years ago we are dealing with soils, not geological strata, and with cultural and faunal materials, not fossils.
These are the time periods archaeologists deal with every day. Geological strata are much older and you don't see those in recent times, no matter what creationists think. So forget fossils and geological strata and get real.
And dinosaurs? You're off by some 65 million years. Nice try, but no cigar. If you believe dinosaurs and humans overlapped in time you are delusional. Let's just forget that silly notion.
That you are unaware of this, or unwilling to accept the massive evidence, shows that you are trying to delude yourself. You certainly are not fooling any of us.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 12-07-2013 10:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Faith, posted 12-08-2013 12:36 AM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2225 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 238 of 380 (712898)
12-08-2013 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Faith
12-08-2013 12:14 AM


Re: uniformitarianism
Your view of the past can only remain a mental construct since the past as such, unless there are witnesses, is not testable, not verifiable, etc etc. Sigh. It's SO obvious. Doesn't matter how fancy your theories get, how many actual facts you can cram into them, they remain theories, i.e., purely mental constructs, without testability. Science requires testability, replicability, and the past isn't replicable so you need witnesses, which you don't have if you're talking about prehistory.
You have a very mistaken idea of what "theory" means in science. It doesn't mean wild ass guess, or assumption, or any of the other things creationists think.
To be a theory in science an idea which explains a given set of facts must explain all those of facts and survive testing. And it must also provide predictions which are verified. So your idea of what a "theory" consists of is completely wrong. There is no higher degree of explanation in science than a theory. But this is a standard creationist mistake, all in an effort to denigrate science and the scientific method.
Your instance on witnesses is ridiculous. Probably a result of your belief in creation "science."

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Faith, posted 12-08-2013 12:14 AM Faith has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2225 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
(1)
Message 242 of 380 (712902)
12-08-2013 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Faith
12-08-2013 12:36 AM


Re: uniformitarianism
One witness certainly wouldn't do it for your scientific theories about the past, you need lots of witnesses. But witnesses who live in the present and have only human speculation and imagination to go by in interpreting the evidence that comes to hand about the ancient past, is a true case of the unreliability of witnesses. Your dating methods are the same thing, as I've already said. These are witnesses who have witnessed nothing whatever, but just let their imaginations reconstruct the unknowable past, even calling their theory "fact," and you call that science and have no feeling for how absurd that is.
Wrong, Grasshopper!
Science doesn't require any witnesses. In fact, witnesses are not reliable.
Science requires evidence (also known as facts). And those facts have to be verified. Then one or more hypotheses are formed to give meaning to those facts. Only when one hypothesis explains all the relevant facts, has withstood the tests of time, and has successfully made predictions that have been verified, can that hypothesis be advanced to the level of a theory.
The usage of "theory" in the vernacular is vastly different from the usage of that term in science--something creationists either don't know or find convenient to lie about.
If you are going to speak about science, don't you think it would be good to learn a little about it? Or are you one of those creationists who thinks it's all wrong, so why bother learning anything? It sure seems that way from your posts.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Faith, posted 12-08-2013 12:36 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by scienceishonesty, posted 12-09-2013 11:09 AM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2225 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
(1)
Message 334 of 380 (713096)
12-09-2013 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by Faith
12-09-2013 2:06 PM


Re: uniformitarianism
THE UNWITNESSED PAST IS NOT TESTABLE;
HISTORICAL EVENTS ARE NOT REPLICABLE.
And a closed mind such as yours is incapable of learning.
You and other creationists have demonstrated that very clearly in these threads.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Faith, posted 12-09-2013 2:06 PM Faith 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