|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Scientific Fact versus Interpretation | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Actually, I think even in the case of the find of an ash-buried city, the fact that it was found this way is important to the story, and as a matter of fact it isn't usually left out the way the steps on the way to the "desert environment" are often left out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I think it is perfectly fair to point out that they are treating conjecture as fact without offering support no matter where it is found.
1) You have NOT substantiated that assignments are mere conjecture. That would require discussing how geologists made the assignment. If it was based on nothing or very little evidence then it would be conjecture. I would agree with you. But you have not shown that. 2) What you have shown is commentary which discusses a wholly separate subject than how geologists assign paleo-environments. I do not think it is fair to take comments out of context in order to treat something as unsupported conjecture. For example if the police announce that they have arrested a suspect for murder, and describe the crime as they believe it happened, it is not correct for me to say they only have conjecture because all the evidence (and how they handled it) was not in the description of their theory regarding the incident. Only by asking/investigating what evidence they have for that scenario do we then get the ability to argue conjecture.
Happens all the time, particularly with the fanciful illustrations of supposed life in the distant past, usually of dinosaurs but also of supposed pre-humans. THAT's what the layman has to swallow.
I agree that there is some dramatic license taken with imagery of the past, as well as descriptions of how things behaved in the past. That is not the same as discussing what event or environment produced a formation. The latter is normally based on signatures that are unique to an environment, and would require an explanation for its presence if it had NOT had contact with that environment. You are correct that scientists are likely to be brief and less explanatory to layman, but that sort of makes sense doesn't it? It is easier to discuss the theoretical scenario/model, than discuss all the evidence and how it was analyzed. How would a layman understand what that meant? Or how interested would they be? If they are interested there usually is data they can access. Is there a reason that this is unfair? holmes "What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Maybe I'm just getting too old for this. My point was AS USUAL very simple AND obvious. It should be obvious upon reading through the examples, so really, I just have nothing more to say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
My point was AS USUAL very simple AND obvious. And also, as usual, very wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
What do you think of the idea that the Carboniferous Period was a "landscape" all covered with black carbon, in which trees grew and animals roamed? That would be a rediculous scenario. It is a good thing that no one is suggesting that is what the Carboniferous was like. In fact if it was it would totally refute the standard geological explanation for the formation of coal. Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
and as a matter of fact it isn't usually left out the way the steps on the way to the "desert environment" are often left out.
Do you really believe that geologists do not explain how they identify desert environmental deposits? That they do not have criteria and are trying to hide this fact? holmes "What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
My point was AS USUAL very simple AND obvious.
Yes, if all scientists had were statements like the ones you showed, then it would be conjecture. However in other places where they discuss the topic of identifying depositional environment, they discuss how this is done. My point about this is simple and obvious. You are expecting something more from your cited quotes than is necessary for what they were, and then using that to argue what science has in toto. That is unless you are changing the stated goal of this topic from "interpretation" to "discussion for layman". Yes layman do not get full details, but the details are out there if layman look for them. This message has been edited by holmes, 03-16-2006 12:55 AM holmes "What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The point about these conjectures is that they aren't just conjectures of the sort we always build on observations or evidence, they are complete imaginative fantasy scenarios that cannot be tested at all. Yes they are built upon observed phenomena, or "evidence" but because they are just these scenarios they really should never be spoken of in the terms of finality they usually are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I haven't proposed anything in the way of motivations. I don't assume anything underhanded.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I know, it IS ridiculous, but I did actually find this site that appeared to be quite serious, that depicted such a landscape. I haven't been able to find it again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
If you ever find it again I would love to see it. I just hope you know that mainstream geology does not believe that coal was created on the surface.
Where paleo "landscapes" come in with regards to coal is actually very interesting. We know coal come from organic material and there are grades of coal that eventually start looking like peat. Yet we can go into a swamp today and drill down and find peat that eventually start looking like coal the farther you drill down. While it might be your opinion that coal is created from some dump of consolidated plant material during the flood, the transition from peat to coal that we can see today is what mainstream geology uses to construct the theory that coal beds were once lush swampland. Of course that is not the only evidence that points toward a swamp environment but it is the most simple. This message has been edited by Jazzns, 03-15-2006 06:38 PM Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
While it might be your opinion that coal is created from some dump of consolidated plant material during the flood, the transition from peat to coal that we can see today is what mainstream geology uses to construct the theory that coal beds were once lush swampland. Of course that is not the only evidence that points toward a swamp environment but it is the most simple. Seems to me that coal would have been produced in similar conditions wherever, but that the Flood would have provided beaucoup similar conditions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LinearAq Member (Idle past 4706 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
Faith writes:
I feel like the biggest dummy alive but I have to ask. What is it about these scenarios that make them "complete imaginative fantasy"? The point about these conjectures is that they aren't just conjectures of the sort we always build on observations or evidence, they are complete imaginative fantasy scenarios that cannot be tested at all. Yes they are built upon observed phenomena, or "evidence" but because they are just these scenarios they really should never be spoken of in the terms of finality they usually are.What is it about them that puts them in the category of "cannot be tested at all"? I look and I look...yet I cannot follow the logic you are using to make this judgement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Seems to me that coal would have been produced in similar conditions wherever, but that the Flood would have provided beaucoup similar conditions. Great. Then if you are right Faith, there should be an identifiable layer all over the world with a band of coal that was all laid down at the same time. If that band, that layer (like the K-T Boundary layer) is there, then it might suport the Flood. If it's not there, then you can throw out your theory of coal formation. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Great. Then if you are right Faith, there should be an identifiable layer all over the world with a band of coal that was all laid down at the same time. Well, imagine THAT, the CARBONIFEROUS layer!! There you have it!! This message has been edited by Faith, 03-15-2006 09:40 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024