|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 58 (9200 total) |
| |
Allysum Global | |
Total: 919,252 Year: 6,509/9,624 Month: 87/270 Week: 0/83 Day: 0/12 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1631 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17894 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0 |
Practically everything we know of events comes from their effects, after the fact. From those effects we work our way back to the event.
In this sense there is no great qualitative difference between historical science and science examining present-day events.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17894 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0 |
I read your blog post, Mike, but it just made me think that you should think more.
For a start, when assessing which claim is the grander it is a good idea to pick equivalent claims and to understand them in some detail. Another is to properly understand the context. If you grant that new species have come into existence then evolution would seem to be the least "grand" explanation for that fact. Maybe your criteria claim that the idea that every known species has existed for an infinite time is not a "grand" claim and should be accepted by default. But I do not think that you accept that view, and I believe that the evidence adequately refutes it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17894 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0
|
quote: And by choosing to look at different things you grossly exaggerated a very small difference. You chose to make an apples to oranges comparison, Mike. That's not good thinking.
quote: Not well, phrased there Mike, but I think I know what you mean. However this distinction is the product of your fallacious comparison. A more accurate distinction is: 1) to accept evolution which is fully consistent with wih the known facts of reproduction and the law of identity (although the last bit is a rather pointless addition) 2) To reject evolution even though any alternative is even less consistent with our knowledge and would require a greater burden of proof.
quote: And science has met that burden of proof. Now I have to ask YOU if you are claiming that humans have existed forever. Because that is where your argument goes. Do you really think that that assertion needs no further support? Because that is what you are saying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17894 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0
|
quote: I guess that means you know that you're wrong, too. We both know that creation is a far "grander" claim than evolution by the standards you set forward. And you know that the idea that humans have existed forever isn't tenable either. So really your argument only reinforces evolution as the best explanation for the evidence. Too bad that you didn't think more carefully, and too bad that you don't have the courage to face up to the truth. Edited by PaulK, : Correct typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17894 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0
|
I think that your argument has rather a lot of problems. I'm going too into to two major issues, each of which covers multiple problems you need to face.
1. In Egypt, at least, probably Sumeria, maybe even other places, your date for the Flood puts it in the HISTORIC past. And you're going to have to quite drastically contract the history to shoehorn your ideas in. I know you'll reject the dates but the compression is still necessary. 2. We have lots of clues about the prehistoric past. Geologists and palaeontologists and archaeologists have worked very hard to find and understand these clues. Denying that they exist - or worse - is simply not an adequate response. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17894 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0
|
quote: And, as I pointed out, the absolute dates don't matter. You still have to alter history to fit your chronology. The more so if you assume that much of the post-Flood period is missing from the archaeological record - and how else can you explain why you EXPECT all of the intermediates between the ark-kinds and the species of today and recent history to be missing ? And do not forget, we have art even from prehistoric cultures. Writing is not the only witness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17894 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0 |
quote: Then I must have missed it. Please provide a reference (a link is preferred and simple with the mid= tag but thread and message numbers will do). I fear however that your explanations will be found lacking, since your "ordinary microevolution" would inevitably produce a large number of intermediates from your own description.
quote: You say that, but I see no reason to believe it. I don't even see a reason to think that you have any idea of how much compression is required. Even if the dating was "wrong", a claim refuted by overwhelming evidence. You're going to have to provide much more detail of your chronology to convince me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17894 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0
|
That pretty conclusively demonstrates that you have no real interest in the truth of the matter. I will grant that making an honest attempt at dealing with either subject would likely be a significant amount of effort but that hardly justifies passing off uninformed opinions (to be generous) as fact.
If you were honest you would at least admit that your entire case was personal opinion that you lacked the knowledge to defend.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17894 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0 |
quote: Then you will have no problem providing detailed evidence to support your claims. Go on. Do it. Show us that you've done the work. And keep the Moose happy by proposing it as a new topic. It would be worth one. Edited by PaulK, : Suggest starting a new topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17894 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0
|
quote: Does this actually make sense to anyone ? Why wouldn't the greater pressure on the lower strata prevent them from being deformed, too ? And why is the transition from no disturbance to severe distortion so marked ? Pressure does not explain that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17894 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0 |
The question here is whether Faith's post represents an honest attempt to find the truth or simply an attempt to prop up a dogma against the evidence.
quote: Strike one against Faith, This is a silly objection. It is perfectly possible to work out whether the evidence fits better with one explanation than another. And thus examining the evidence is a valid test. At least for those who are prepared to let evidence change their minds.
quote: This is obviously false. Looking for more evidence from Siccar Point - a more detailed examination is one possibility. Another is to examine other angular unconformities to see if they fit the patter of Siccar Point or not.
quote: In fact the only way to falsify the conclusion is for the prediction to fail or for other evidence strongly inconsistent with the conclusion to be produced. An alternative explanation of the evidence is not sufficient, even if it has no problems. In fact - and if Faith has properly researched the Wikipedia article she knows this - there are ALWAYS alternative explanations. If the simple existence of an alternative was a falsification all of science would be falsified. But back to Faith's explanation - is it really any good ? Pressure increases with depth so how can the pressure on the upper layers be sufficient to stop any bending while the lower strata are heavily deformed ? Pressure increases gradually so how can it explain the sudden transition we see in the rocks ? Without answers to these, obvious questions - questions which should have been considered before the suggestion was even made - we cannot even consider Faith's explanation a reasonable alternative. I really don't see much sign of science in this post. It's up to Faith to provide the missing pieces - to show that her explanation is as good as that of mainstream geology. But how can she do that when she refuses to admit the possibility of the tests that need to be done ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17894 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0 |
quote: The post to which he was replying had nothing to do with Doctor Adequate said either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17894 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0
|
quote: No, he's implying that the scientific method applied to the evidence that we actually have would lead to a single set of conclusions. Which does not necessarily imply that those conclusions are true (if science were missing a vital piece of evidence, for instance, it could be wrong). I would not go that far, but in some cases -like the fact that the Earth is old - it is true. So we dispute your intepretation because it is obviously false. So again you demonstrate how you cause your own problems.
quote: And that would be obviously false, too.
quote: By which you mean that you feel justified in abusing people because your arguments get honestly assessed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17894 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0 |
quote: You could say much the same for the formation of angular unconformities. So it's hard to see what your point is intended to be.
quote: Based on the fact that it explains the evidence well, and there is no viable competing alternative.
quote: And if your questions fail to produce valid objections - as so far they have - what then?
quote: More accurately the erosion that is at Siccar point supports the mainstream view over your wild speculations. And if there is the sort of erosion your view predicts at any angular conformity, you haven't shown it.
quote: As you know I have a couple of serious and obvious objections to that assertion. Objections you have yet to answer. Here they are again: The lower strata were even deeper. Why did this supposed effect not prevent them from buckling? Depth is a continuous quantity. Why would it produce a sudden transition between buckled and unaffected strata, rather than a more gradual one? Edited by PaulK, : Corrected the *#^*! Autocorrect
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17894 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0
|
quote: So, you are asserting that the force was applied directly to the lower strata and not to the upper strata. Do you have any evidence for that ? Any reason why it should be true not just at Siccar Point, but at angular unconformities in general?
quote: That doesn't answer it at all. In fact it leads us to expect to see a gradual transition.
quote: That doesn't seem very plausible either. I've asked you for support for that assertion, too.Why would different textures help movement?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024