Summations Only

Several points:

• Again, magazines work hard to understand their audience.
• You're only making this complaint about a single topic, evolution, and only because you reject it. You don't really care about the explanatory level magazine articles choose.
• You're not interested in evidence anyway, so what would be the point?

--Percy

The point, in case you missed it, is that you accept and reject evolution, and just about anything else, based on reasoning that would not satisfy anything. High school presentations may describe the theory of evolution, but the may well not provide what would constitute scientific proof to a 14-year-old audience. There is nothing nefarious about that.If you want to understand complicated stuff, you might have to obtain a bit more of an education first.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Why do you think environmental conditions before the Flood favored incredibly high rates of growth?Why can't we do anything now under controlled environmental conditions to favor incredibly high rates of growth? For example, why can't we grow a cabbage or a cow in a single day?Shouldn't radiocarbon dating of coral reefs, whose ages have been studied extensively, reveal an extremely sudden slowing in the rate of growth after 4500 years ago?Now that you suddenly know so much about coral reefs, perhaps you can explain this formation from Jar's list: All these things strongly contradict your flood scenario. I continue to think it unwise for you to make claims about yourself, because that forces others to show those claims false, which causes you to lash out at them.Anyway, you've offered no evidence or arguments for the Flood that corresponds to the real world or natural physical laws. You frequently argue issues you don't understand, such as Walther's Law and sedimentation atop stratigraphic columns. Sure. What evidence do you have that strata were not deposited during periods of time, whether it was hours or eons? By the way, though we shouldn't have to keep making this clear, there is nothing in geology that declares rapid deposition impossible. Geology does believe that strata often contain evidence of the mechanisms behind their formation.--Percy

Of course Faith could try simple mathematics.If we generously allow 10,000 years for the growth of the atoll, and 3000 years of accelerated growth there are 7000 years of normal growthIt would take 175,000 years to account for the growth of the atoll at the maximum normal rate. Subtracting the 7000 years means that we must account for 168,000 years worth of growth in 3000 years.That means the average rate over the 3000 years would need to be 56x greater than the maximum recorded rate. I think we need more than handwaving to justify such a rate when the estimate is already extremely generous to the YEC side - a figure of 100x would likely still err in the Creationists favour.

This isn't about ordinary reasonable magazine publication standards, this is about preventing the reader from understanding something that would be easy enough to rectify. I don't think they are intentionally doing this, I just think they assume the information is as good as fact, as historical geology does anyway, and that nobody should complain.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The magazines are presenting/describing. They do not contain the proof you think ought to be there. That is not a lack of respect. The magazines simply do not serve what you are claiming is your purpose.

That's yet another truly stupid post from you Faith.You are free to whine but that will never accomplish anything.OR...you could present the model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that would allow your flood to create the evidence seen in reality. Yet you never, every present the model, mechanism, process or procedure that could create the evidence that exists in reality by means of some flood or in 6000 years.The facts are that we have the fossils, the geology, the radiometric samples, the ordering AND we have the models, the mechanism, the methods, the processes and procedures that explain what exists in reality and all you have are two flood myths that are mutually exclusive and contradictory.You ain't never gonna win when you got nuttin.

Do you have any evidence supporting this view of the geologic column. What is it about "The National Geographic knows their audience better than you do" that you don't understand? You're just making up something to criticize about National Geographic because they wrote about a scientific theory you reject for religious reasons. The only thing humorous here is how transparent the reasons for your complaining are. Get some evidence. Learn some science. And if you're going to continue complaining about how magazines write their articles, then learn something about that, too.--Percy

It's not about their audience, it's about how the whole scientific community presents this stuff to the public, as if it were set in stone that the Jurassic period existed and had such characteristics, as if this were revealed to them from heaven. It's typical and it has nothing to do with the audience as you all keep trying to claim. It's just typical historical science mystification: we say it, therefore it's absolutely true, therefore you must believe it.

quote:

---

It's not about their audience, it's about how the whole scientific community presents this stuff to the public, as if it were set in stone that the Jurassic period existed and had such characteristics, as if this were revealed to them from heaven

---

National Geographic is not a part of the scientific community. The existence of the Jurassic Period is hardly in question, and the evidence is certainly there for the generalised impressions of it that are given. And they are just generalisations when applied to the period.

quote:

---

It's just typical historical science mystification: we say it, therefore it's absolutely true, therefore you must believe it.

---

Really ? Please support this claim. Remembering that journalists aren’t scientists.

They are a science magazine.They are doing what the science does, pretending they know things they don't and presenting their information in such a way that nobody can raise a question about it.

quote:

---

They are a science magazine.

---

Writing about science doesn’t make them scientists.

quote:

---

They are doing what the science does, pretending they know things they don't and presenting their information in such a way that nobody can raise a question about it.

---

That’s your assertion. However if it were true you would be dealing with the actual evidence instead of making accusations based on presumed motives.

That has to be one of your best really stupid posts Faith.Evidence revealed from heaven must always take second place to evidence revealed though reality. No Faith, you do not have to believe any of it, you are free to remain ignorant.

You mean just like the good creationists of the late 1700's? The ones whose honesty, after evaluating the available and growing body of evidence, forced them to conclude that their a priori assumptions had been wrong? The ones that founded the modern geology you reject?Is that the context you mean?Edited by Capt Stormfield, : No reason given.

The irony.....it is set in stone. So, YOU are complaining about revelations from heaven? You, who thinks revelations from heaven is the ultimate authority? Of course it does. Every reasonable reader, from 7th graders on, understands that they can research whether what they read in magazines is based on evidence or bullshit. When I was in school there were science books on specific fields with further listed references in the library as well as encyclopedias.Now, they also have the internet, although in your case, the internet is not your friend. Oh, boo hoo, they won't let you research whether it's true or not and they certainly won't let you express your ignorance.You would completely disregard any basic supporting evidence as we see you always do here, so don't expect anyone to respect your point. Finding evidence that supports or refutes scientific articles in magazines is understood to be the reader's responsibility and it is entirely your own fault if you are too lazy or ignorant or stubborn to do that.