The illusion of an old Earth
SOGGYNETNUT
I recently ran into a creationist at a Nature center . He and his wife didnt
like the dissplays of the iceage geology and prjhistoric life . I spoke to them
briefly . I am curious about the belief by certain creationists that God made
the Earth look mature / ancient even though its only a few thousand years old
.I pointed out that God would not be a deciever , there would be no need to
make an imaginary past .Is this belief promoted in varios denominations , or is
it simply an easy argument style to sweep away the science evidence of Billions
of years ?
Gary .
Grinder
"SOGGYNETNUT" <soggy...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20040625000747...@mb-m05.news.cs.com...
Here is a pretty good backgrounder:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/2376_issue_02_volume_1_number_2__2_11_2003.asp#The%20Return%20of%20the%20Navel
Steven Carr
Apparently, many denominations believe that science can only see the
appearances of something and not the objective reality under those
appearances.
Something may look like one thing, and in actual fact be another
thing. Our senses and all our science may tell us that the Earth is
old, but it could be young.
This is a perfectly acceptable religious position.
Steven Carr
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/
r norman
It may be acceptable logically and as a religious position, but it
does raise some religious questions. Why would God create a world so
carefully constructed that every conceivable "objective" measure using
every conceivable technique from that of particle physics through
biology and geology and astronomy to cosmology would produce an
elaborate but completely self-consistent story of billions of years of
age, not to mention cosmological, astronomical, geological, and
biological evolution?
And why would it then be wrong for us to use our God-given powers of
observation and reasoning to examine the universe we inhabit to
observe these facts and develop our theories?
Mike Goodrich
Perhaps it is that God is not a deceiver, but that people willfully deceive
themselves?
Geoff
news:40dbd01...@news.demon.co.uk...
But completely irrational from a scientific standpoint. Kinda makes you
wonder of what value the religious position is?
Geoff
news:pFVCc.591$vC2.24@lakeread04...
Mike...you finally came to a rational conclusion regarding your own
thoughts!
R.Schenck
Its a perfectly acceptable scientific position too no? Or rather,
while the position isn't scientific, there is nothing in science that
says this is not true.
Daniel Harper
I think most of us would disagree with it, i.e. think it rests on outmoded
metaphysics, but yes, it is a perfectly acceptable religious position. I
personally respected Uncle Davey's willingness to say that he believed in
a young earth not for scientific reasons, but for religious reasons; if
all creationists thought that way we'd have a much easier time in public
school board meetings.
Of course, when persons start claiming empirical evidence of a young
earth, it becomes a problem. Religions don't tend to discuss empirical
evidence, though.
>
> Steven Carr
> ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk
> http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/
--
Finding a scientific theory of creation is a bit like parsing /dev/null.
--Daniel Harper
(change terra to earth for email)
Dana Tweedy
That would explain the phenomena of Creationism quite nicely
DJT
>
Morehits4u
>From: soggy...@cs.com
>Yes I laffed my ass off the other day
when I heard some nut rignt wing
EE van gelist say ..with a straight face..
that the " Grand Canyon was created by
God 7000 years ago ..." Let me get off
the floor now
>
>
>
>
>
Ron Okimoto
SOGGYNETNUT wrote:
Sometimes I think that they are so used to being lied to by the people that
they trust for their theological beliefs that it is only natural that God would
lie to them too.
Can any creationist ever claim that they have been able to verify the
bull pucky that they get told and repeat here?
Paul Weary
"Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:RpWCc.108662$eu.10568@attbi_s02...
> > This is a perfectly acceptable religious position.
>
> But completely irrational from a scientific standpoint. Kinda makes you
> wonder of what value the religious position is?
A religious value.
Isn't this where the thread on post-modernism connects?
Shalom,
--
Paul Weary
Croydon, UK
Pip R. Lagenta
(SOGGYNETNUT) wrote:
I, personally, have heard this argument often enough to have been
driven to create a web page that addresses this very issue:
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/CHRIST.html>
It is in my own inimitable style.
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
---
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
AC
I'm unsure why a religious position should really matter at all in the arena
of science. Shall we also build scales to weigh angels, or detectors to see
how many truly sit on a pin?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Frank J
Exactly how old do you think the earth is?
Frank J
I think you are referring to Omphalos creationism:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html
AIUI, it is not endorsed by most major religions. Then again, neither
are the (pseudo)scientific creationisms, such as YEC, the various OECs
(day-age, gap, progressive).
Nevertheless, it seems that many *individuals* within these religions
"sense deep down" that there is something wrong with the
(pseudo)scientific creationisms, but are still hopelessly
compartmentalized, so they take the Gosse loophole. That is, they say
that God doesn't deceive, but tests our faith. Such people - and I
know at least one personally - do not try to second-guess science like
the (pseudo)scientific creationists, yet will never admit that
science, including evolution, is correct.
Klaus Hellnick
"Morehits4u" <moreh...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20040625131142...@mb-m04.aol.com...
What made you think he was right wing? Did he denounce socialism, read from
the US Constitution, or call for individual responsibility? Hint: there are
many left wing and neutral religious nuts, too.
Klaus
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
VoiceOfReason
And they do it so easily.
VoiceOfReason
It's a way to pooh-pooh all scientific discovery that doesn't match
the young-earth idea. Of course, they tend to back off if you ask
them if they seriously believe in a lying God.
Dick C
I don't know about that. To me it takes what should be a very minor
aspect of a religion and turns it into an area that requires
denial of senses and knowledge. It makes the religion almost entirely
materialistic, in that the religion spends much of its' time dealing
with evidence contrary to the position, and forces the followers
to choose between what they perceive as reality and what the religious
leaders proclaim as reality.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@comcast.net
SortingItOut
People don't willfully deceive themselves. They let their emotions
control their perception of and understanding of reality...and they
usually don't even realize it.
Perhaps those that don't regularly test their understanding against
the objective facts of the reality around them are more likely the
ones deceiving themselves.
Sean Pitman
> >This is a perfectly acceptable religious position.
>
> It may be acceptable logically and as a religious position, but it
> does raise some religious questions. Why would God create a world so
> carefully constructed that every conceivable "objective" measure using
> every conceivable technique from that of particle physics through
> biology and geology and astronomy to cosmology would produce an
> elaborate but completely self-consistent story of billions of years of
> age, not to mention cosmological, astronomical, geological, and
> biological evolution?
>
> And why would it then be wrong for us to use our God-given powers of
> observation and reasoning to examine the universe we inhabit to
> observe these facts and develop our theories?
It is not wrong for us to use our minds to determine the "truth" about
our world and our universe. The problem is that in order to know the
"truth" for certain, you must know all the information there is to
know in the universe. You speak of the old age of life on this earth
as a "fact" when this notion is in fact based on very subjective
interpretations of the actual evidence available. This old age notion
is not a "fact" it is a human theory and as such is subject to error.
Still, if it is the best and most reliable theory that one has
available, with the most predictive power, it is the best approach to
the truth that there is at this point in time. But, what if other
much more powerful theories are actually available that explain the
data in a much more helpful way?
Although I am certainly in a distinct minority here, I see the
evidence speaking clearly in favor of a very recent creation of life
on this planet. The geologic column and the fossil record are in fact
very young indeed. The earth and universe are probably very old, many
billions of years old, but the evidence for life on this earth clearly
speaks to a very recent and sudden arrival of many fully intact types,
forms, or kinds of living things. Biological evolution is in fact
quite limited in what can be achieved through mindless Darwinian
mechanisms of random mutation combined with function-based natural
selection. Neutral evolution or expanding neutral gaps grow
exponentially with increasing functional complexity until, at very low
levels of relative complexity, these neutral gaps stall all
evolutionary progress out at very low levels of functional complexity.
So, if both the mechanisms of evolution as well as the time frame for
evolution are jeopardized, the theory of evolution itself becomes
untenable and we must look for something that explains the data
better, like intelligent design theory.
For a more detailed discussion of this concept see:
Sean D. Pitman, MD
R. Baldwin
news:80d0c26f.04062...@posting.google.com...
Sean, there is considerable evidence that the geologic column and the fossil
record are old, and pretty conclusive evidence that the Genesis story is not
historical fact.
From your web site, I see that you are familiar with the channeled scablands
and the Columbia River basalt flows.
Your explanation of "huge shortly spaced watery catastrophes were involved
in formation of many of these features - concentrating and transporting mats
of widely divergent vegetation and quartzite rocks over long distances
before they were buried by shortly spaced lava flows traveling rapidly over
huge areas" does not make a whole lot of sense.
Your explanation ignores, for example, the Blue Lake rhino cast, indicating
the basalt flows occured in a terrestrial environment.
Your incredulidity over the flora of Miocene Washington is hardly an
indictment of modern geology. Fossil leaves consistent with the Vantage site
are found throughout the state in the expected strata. They indicate that
the climate was different at the time, not that the logs were transported
hundreds of miles as you seem to suggest.
There are also plant fossils in Republic (a friend of mine just found a
fossil flower there, a relative of the cocoa plant) in strata that
disappears underneath the basalt, and plant fossils in the Spokane area
where some of the hills protruded above the lava flows.
At the same time, there are paleozoic marine fossils in the older Kootenay
Arc, which also disappears underneath the lava flow.
Sean Pitman
> > So, if both the mechanisms of evolution as well as the time frame for
> > evolution are jeopardized, the theory of evolution itself becomes
> > untenable and we must look for something that explains the data
> > better, like intelligent design theory.
> Sean, there is considerable evidence that the geologic column and the fossil
> record are old, and pretty conclusive evidence that the Genesis story is not
> historical fact.
I am well aware that many people feel this way. I just happen to
disagree with this less than apparent perspective of the evidence.
> From your web site, I see that you are familiar with the channeled scablands
> and the Columbia River basalt flows.
Yes, and isn't it interesting that these Scablands, once thought by
the most prominent of geologists to have formed over millions of years
via slow uniformitarian processes, are now thought to have formed in a
catastrophic manner over a very short period of time just like J
Harlen Bretz had been saying for decades? Talk about being way off
base! How could geologists have been so very far off base and so
ardently firm in their interpretations and convictions when the
evidence for catastrophe where in fact so plainly written in the
Scabland features - even before the source of this watery catastrophe
was discovered?
> Your explanation of "huge shortly spaced watery catastrophes were involved
> in formation of many of these features - concentrating and transporting mats
> of widely divergent vegetation and quartzite rocks over long distances
> before they were buried by shortly spaced lava flows traveling rapidly over
> huge areas" does not make a whole lot of sense.
Ok, so how did the quartzite rocks and fairly large boulders get
there? Where is the evidence of long periods of erosive exposure to
the elements between successive lava flows?
> Your explanation ignores, for example, the Blue Lake rhino cast, indicating
> the basalt flows occurred in a terrestrial environment.
Evidently you haven't heard or read the part about the Blue Lake Rhino
being dead and in water when it was overtaken by the lava flow that
encased and preserved it. Yes, the Blue Lake Rhino was actually
bloated giving evidence that it had been dead in the body of water for
some time. I find this quite intriguing, don't you? Doesn't this make
it just a little bit difficult for you to say, in such categorical
terms, that this rhino, buried by lava while decomposing and floating
in water, is evidence against my ideas of concurrent watery
catastrophes? Certainly, you cannot use this waterlogged rhino as
clear evidence for a nice dry terrestrial environment now can you?
> Your incredulity over the flora of Miocene Washington is hardly an
> indictment of modern geology. Fossil leaves consistent with the Vantage site
> are found throughout the state in the expected strata. They indicate that
> the climate was different at the time, not that the logs were transported
> hundreds of miles as you seem to suggest.
I don't recall suggesting that logs were transported hundreds of miles
to be buried in what is now known as Washington State. This certainly
may have happened however and I fail to see how finding matching plant
materials in the same strata is evidence against this possibility.
Clearly this does not speak against the evidence that these flows were
in fact deposited very quickly in a very short span of time. Perhaps
the most conclusive evidence, as I see it, for this rapid deposition
is the lack of expected erosion between each layer, especially given
such an obviously wet environment.
> There are also plant fossils in Republic (a friend of mine just found a
> fossil flower there, a relative of the cocoa plant) in strata that
> disappears underneath the basalt, and plant fossils in the Spokane area
> where some of the hills protruded above the lava flows.
>
> At the same time, there are paleozoic marine fossils in the older Kootenay
> Arc, which also disappears underneath the lava flow.
Again, how does this speak against the possibility of rapid lava flow
deposition and/or transport of such fossils via watery mechanisms?
Even your Blue Lake Rhino was evidently floating and probably
transported in a watery catastrophe before it was buried by a lava
flow. Its preserved body certainly isn't evidence of a dry
terrestrial environment like you seem to be suggesting. In fact, it
seems to me that this most interesting rhino actually supports my
position much more than it supports your position - wouldn't you say?
In short, I fail to see that your position is at all clear based on
the evidence at hand. You have also glossed over the many other
evidences of catastrophic fossil burial and strata formation on huge
continental and even intercontinental scales as well as the striking
lack of protracted erosional evidence throughout the entire geologic
column. Certainly there is evidence of rapid/catastrophic erosion in
the geologic record, but there is little if any substantial evidence
that I have been able to find of general erosion acting over the
course of millions of years.
Dick C
> "R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in message
> news:<IXiDc.5004$DT5....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...
>> From your web site, I see that you are familiar with the channeled
>> scablands and the Columbia River basalt flows.
>
> Yes, and isn't it interesting that these Scablands, once thought by
> the most prominent of geologists to have formed over millions of years
> via slow uniformitarian processes, are now thought to have formed in a
> catastrophic manner over a very short period of time just like J
> Harlen Bretz had been saying for decades? Talk about being way off
> base!
Talk about how science works! When new information is found new
theories are formed if the old theories cannot explain it.
How could geologists have been so very far off base and so
> ardently firm in their interpretations and convictions when the
> evidence for catastrophe where in fact so plainly written in the
> Scabland features - even before the source of this watery catastrophe
> was discovered?
Because they did not have the new information. The information they
had was gleaned from the way glaciers were seen to be working all over
the world. The new information was found by flying over the scablands.
Something that few people had done when Bretz did it.
>
>> Your explanation of "huge shortly spaced watery catastrophes were
>> involved in formation of many of these features - concentrating and
>> transporting mats of widely divergent vegetation and quartzite rocks
>> over long distances before they were buried by shortly spaced lava
>> flows traveling rapidly over huge areas" does not make a whole lot of
>> sense.
>
> Ok, so how did the quartzite rocks and fairly large boulders get
> there? Where is the evidence of long periods of erosive exposure to
> the elements between successive lava flows?
Between the flows. You are aware, aren't you, that there were several
lava flows over the region, stretching from 6 to 17 million years ago?
And that the time between the flows allowed for complete ecosytems
to build up? And that the flows did not happen under water, but in
open air, except where they ran into lakes?
>
>> Your explanation ignores, for example, the Blue Lake rhino cast,
>> indicating the basalt flows occurred in a terrestrial environment.
>
> Evidently you haven't heard or read the part about the Blue Lake Rhino
> being dead and in water when it was overtaken by the lava flow that
> encased and preserved it. Yes, the Blue Lake Rhino was actually
> bloated giving evidence that it had been dead in the body of water for
> some time. I find this quite intriguing, don't you? Doesn't this make
> it just a little bit difficult for you to say, in such categorical
> terms, that this rhino, buried by lava while decomposing and floating
> in water, is evidence against my ideas of concurrent watery
> catastrophes? Certainly, you cannot use this waterlogged rhino as
> clear evidence for a nice dry terrestrial environment now can you?
The problem is, as I said above, that there are 300 separate flows,
yes 300. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/columbia/basalt.htm
And the flows were almost entirely in open air. How can we tell, you
ask? Because when lava flows and cools under water, it forms lumps
that look like pillows, because the water cools the outside so fast.
And the vast majority of the lava flows are not pillowed.
snip
John Stockwell
>"R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in message news:<IXiDc.5004$DT5....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...
>
>> > So, if both the mechanisms of evolution as well as the time frame for
>> > evolution are jeopardized, the theory of evolution itself becomes
>> > untenable and we must look for something that explains the data
>> > better, like intelligent design theory.
>
>> Sean, there is considerable evidence that the geologic column and the fossil
>> record are old, and pretty conclusive evidence that the Genesis story is not
>> historical fact.
>
>I am well aware that many people feel this way. I just happen to
>disagree with this less than apparent perspective of the evidence.
The notion of a young-earth global flood geology is a religious motivated
opinion. It is not a scientifically supported idea.
>
>> From your web site, I see that you are familiar with the channeled scablands
>> and the Columbia River basalt flows.
>
>Yes, and isn't it interesting that these Scablands, once thought by
>the most prominent of geologists to have formed over millions of years
>via slow uniformitarian processes, are now thought to have formed in a
>catastrophic manner over a very short period of time just like J
>Harlen Bretz had been saying for decades? Talk about being way off
>base!
>How could geologists have been so very far off base and so
>ardently firm in their interpretations and convictions when the
>evidence for catastrophe where in fact so plainly written in the
>Scabland features - even before the source of this watery catastrophe
>was discovered?
You are being a bit disengenous here. The two early theories of the
scablands were 1) glacial origin and 2) river erosion. Why? Because
these are the mechanisms that geologists new about. The Missoula ice
dam hypothesis of Bretz. Bretz supplied the necessary extraordinary
evidence to support his hypothesis, which is why the mechanism is accepted
today. (Eugene Shoemaker's championing of large impacts as the origin
of new craters is a similar situation.) You can argue that the classical
uniformitarian ideas of geologists gave way to new science. Ok,
classical uniformitarianism is gone now from geology.
However, "flood geology" is not going to come back. The idea is so dead that
it is held *only* by people who have a religious requirement for believing
in that idea.
>
>> Your explanation of "huge shortly spaced watery catastrophes were involved
>> in formation of many of these features - concentrating and transporting mats
>> of widely divergent vegetation and quartzite rocks over long distances
>> before they were buried by shortly spaced lava flows traveling rapidly over
>> huge areas" does not make a whole lot of sense.
>
>Ok, so how did the quartzite rocks and fairly large boulders get
>there? Where is the evidence of long periods of erosive exposure to
>the elements between successive lava flows?
>
>> Your explanation ignores, for example, the Blue Lake rhino cast, indicating
>> the basalt flows occurred in a terrestrial environment.
>
>Evidently you haven't heard or read the part about the Blue Lake Rhino
>being dead and in water when it was overtaken by the lava flow that
>encased and preserved it. Yes, the Blue Lake Rhino was actually
>bloated giving evidence that it had been dead in the body of water for
>some time. I find this quite intriguing, don't you? Doesn't this make
>it just a little bit difficult for you to say, in such categorical
>terms, that this rhino, buried by lava while decomposing and floating
>in water, is evidence against my ideas of concurrent watery
>catastrophes? Certainly, you cannot use this waterlogged rhino as
>clear evidence for a nice dry terrestrial environment now can you?
Since this area is a known one for glacial ice dam flooding, no doubt
it is a flood---a local flood. Now, Sean, where are all of the dinosaurs
and other flora that are also in your worldwide flood scenario?
[...the rest of the stuff deleted...]
The notion of a worldwide flood is so dead as a scientific theory that
it is not worthy of consideration.
>Sean
>www.DetectingDesign.com
>
>
John Stockwell | jo...@dix.Mines.EDU
Center for Wave Phenomena (The Home of Seismic Un*x)
Colorado School of Mines
Golden, CO 80401 | http://www.cwp.mines.edu/cwpcodes
voice: (303) 273-3049
Our book:
Norman Bleistein, Jack K. Cohen, John W. Stockwell Jr., [2001],
Mathematics of multidimensional seismic imaging, migration, and inversion,
(Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics, V. 13.), Springer-Verlag, New York.
Sean Pitman
> >> From your web site, I see that you are familiar with the channeled
> >> scablands and the Columbia River basalt flows.
> >
> > Yes, and isn't it interesting that these Scablands, once thought by
> > the most prominent of geologists to have formed over millions of years
> > via slow uniformitarian processes, are now thought to have formed in a
> > catastrophic manner over a very short period of time just like J
> > Harlen Bretz had been saying for decades? Talk about being way off
> > base!
>
> Talk about how science works! When new information is found new
> theories are formed if the old theories cannot explain it.
The information was clear and overwhelming and still the scientists
that opposed Bretz did not want to accept his rather obvious
conclusions because of their devotion to uniformitarianism.
> How could geologists have been so very far off base and so
> > ardently firm in their interpretations and convictions when the
> > evidence for catastrophe where in fact so plainly written in the
> > Scabland features - even before the source of this watery catastrophe
> > was discovered?
>
> Because they did not have the new information. The information they
> had was gleaned from the way glaciers were seen to be working all over
> the world. The new information was found by flying over the scablands.
> Something that few people had done when Bretz did it.
You are quite wrong and evidently do not know the story of J Harlen
Bretz or how he did his research. Bretz did not "fly over the
scablands", but rather did much of his field research on foot and by
driving here and there in his car and then walking. In this way Bretz
gathered overwhelming evidence that a catastrophic flood had in fact
created the scabland features. But, despite this very good fieldwork
evidence, it took Bretz decades to convince the geological community.
In fact, geologists simply would not be convinced until Pardee came
along with evidence for the source (Lake Missoula) of the huge and
sudden watery catastrophe that Bretz had already presented clear
evidence for all over the course of many years.
Clearly, if it wasn't for their uniformitarianism biasing them against
Bretz, the information presented by Bretz would have convinced any
candid consideration of the evidence *before* the actual source of and
mechanism for the flood waters were ever discovered.
> >> Your explanation of "huge shortly spaced watery catastrophes were
> >> involved in formation of many of these features - concentrating and
> >> transporting mats of widely divergent vegetation and quartzite rocks
> >> over long distances before they were buried by shortly spaced lava
> >> flows traveling rapidly over huge areas" does not make a whole lot of
> >> sense.
> >
> > Ok, so how did the quartzite rocks and fairly large boulders get
> > there? Where is the evidence of long periods of erosive exposure to
> > the elements between successive lava flows?
>
> Between the flows. You are aware, aren't you, that there were several
> lava flows over the region, stretching from 6 to 17 million years ago?
I am aware that this is the common claim, but there is little if any
evidence to support this conclusion.
> And that the time between the flows allowed for complete ecosytems
> to build up? And that the flows did not happen under water, but in
> open air, except where they ran into lakes?
There is no evidence for the build-up of such ecosystems especially
considering that there is very little evidence of the erosion that
would be expected if the time between lava flows was really as great
as would be required by your position.
> >> Your explanation ignores, for example, the Blue Lake rhino cast,
> >> indicating the basalt flows occurred in a terrestrial environment.
> >
> > Evidently you haven't heard or read the part about the Blue Lake Rhino
> > being dead and in water when it was overtaken by the lava flow that
> > encased and preserved it. Yes, the Blue Lake Rhino was actually
> > bloated giving evidence that it had been dead in the body of water for
> > some time. I find this quite intriguing, don't you? Doesn't this make
> > it just a little bit difficult for you to say, in such categorical
> > terms, that this rhino, buried by lava while decomposing and floating
> > in water, is evidence against my ideas of concurrent watery
> > catastrophes? Certainly, you cannot use this waterlogged rhino as
> > clear evidence for a nice dry terrestrial environment now can you?
>
> The problem is, as I said above, that there are 300 separate flows,
> yes 300. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/columbia/basalt.htm
> And the flows were almost entirely in open air. How can we tell, you
> ask? Because when lava flows and cools under water, it forms lumps
> that look like pillows, because the water cools the outside so fast.
> And the vast majority of the lava flows are not pillowed.
The edges of these lava flows are in fact pillowed quite commonly.
Also note that the potential to form pillow lava decreases as the
volume of extruded lava increases. Thus, the effective contact area
between lava and water (where pillow formations can potentially form)
becomes proportionately smaller as the volume of lava extruded becomes
larger. Now, consider again that the amount of lava and the speed at
which this lava must have been traveling to form such extensive and
relatively thin layers was very great. Other evidences of underwater
formation include the finding of fresh water fossils (such as sponge
spicules, diatoms, and dinoflagellates) between individual lava flows.
For more discussion of this and other related topics, see also:
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/geologiccolumn.html
Cirbryn
Cirbryn
Eros
> "SOGGYNETNUT" <soggy...@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:20040625000747...@mb-m05.news.cs.com...
> > I recently ran into a creationist at a Nature center . He and his wife
> didnt
> > like the dissplays of the iceage geology and prjhistoric life . I spoke to
> them
> > briefly . I am curious about the belief by certain creationists that God
> made
> > the Earth look mature / ancient even though its only a few thousand years
> old
> > .I pointed out that God would not be a deciever , there would be no need
> to
> > make an imaginary past .Is this belief promoted in varios denominations ,
> or is
> > it simply an easy argument style to sweep away the science evidence of
> Billions
> > of years ?
> > Gary .
> >
>
>
> themselves?
I can't speak for your god, Mike... but I am absolutely certain that
Creationists willfully deceive themselves about the physical evidence
around them. They have to... there is no other option once you are
brainwashed into fundamentalist religion. Even the so-called "gurus"
of the cult admit that;-
"There is not the slightest possibility that the *facts* of science
can contradict the Bible." -- Dr. Henry Morris (Institute for
Creation Research)
"There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or
another, be made to fit the creation model." -- Dr. Henry Morris
(Institute for Creation Research)
"No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take
precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of
Scripture." -- Dr. Henry Morris (Institute for Creation Research)
"The only way we can determine the true age of the earth is for God to
tell us what it is. And since He has told us, very plainly, in the
Holy Scriptures that it is several thousand years in age, and no more,
that ought to settle all basic questions of terrestrial chronology.
For those who believe in Creation, therefore, physical processes and
evidence that indicate an immense time scale must be EXPLAINED AWAY.
Only those processes or evidence commensurate with a short (i.e. 6000
years) time scale can be accepted for use in Creationism."
[Dr. H.M. Morris, 1974, "Scientific Creationism", Public School
Edition, Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego, p.136)]
EROS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The fundamentalists, by 'knowing' the answers before they start
[examining evolution], and then forcing nature into the straitjacket
of their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science
– or of any honest intellectual inquiry." – Stephen Jay Gould.
r norman
(Cirbryn) wrote:
>"Klaus Hellnick" <khellni...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message news:<jt1Dc.9900$OX2....@fe2.texas.rr.com>...
>> What made you think he was right wing? Did he denounce socialism, read from
>> the US Constitution, or call for individual responsibility? Hint: there are
>> many left wing and neutral religious nuts, too.
>> Klaus
>>
>Well there's an interesting question. Do you know of any left-wing creationists?
Well, yes. But it wasn't God -- it was the Committee for Social
Responsibility. The resolution to create the universe passed by a
seven to five vote with two abstentions. The five dissenters joined
with the abstainers and formed a splinter party, bitterly opposed to
the parent group. That explains The Fall.
catshark
(Cirbryn) wrote:
[...]
>> What made you think he was right wing? Did he denounce socialism, read from
>> the US Constitution, or call for individual responsibility? Hint: there are
>> many left wing and neutral religious nuts, too.
>> Klaus
>>
>Well there's an interesting question. Do you know of any left-wing creationists?
Don't know if this counts . . .
<http://atheism.about.com/b/a/063194.htm>
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
In the name of the bee
And of the butterfly
And of the breeze, amen
- Emily Dickinson -
R. Baldwin
news:80d0c26f.04062...@posting.google.com...
news:<IXiDc.5004$DT5....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...
>
> > > So, if both the mechanisms of evolution as well as the time frame for
> > > evolution are jeopardized, the theory of evolution itself becomes
> > > untenable and we must look for something that explains the data
> > > better, like intelligent design theory.
>
> > Sean, there is considerable evidence that the geologic column and the
fossil
> > record are old, and pretty conclusive evidence that the Genesis story is
not
> > historical fact.
>
> I am well aware that many people feel this way. I just happen to
> disagree with this less than apparent perspective of the evidence.
Whether people feel this way is irrelavent. What matters is the strength of
the evidence. The evidence does not support the Genesis story as literal
fact. This poses no problem for the millions of faithful who take Genesis as
allegorical, but again, that has no relevance in science.
Further, it is only people from a fundamentalist, literalist background who
have a problem with the evidence.
>
> > From your web site, I see that you are familiar with the channeled
scablands
> > and the Columbia River basalt flows.
>
> Yes, and isn't it interesting that these Scablands, once thought by
> the most prominent of geologists to have formed over millions of years
> via slow uniformitarian processes, are now thought to have formed in a
> catastrophic manner over a very short period of time just like J
> Harlen Bretz had been saying for decades? Talk about being way off
> base! How could geologists have been so very far off base and so
> ardently firm in their interpretations and convictions when the
> evidence for catastrophe where in fact so plainly written in the
> Scabland features - even before the source of this watery catastrophe
> was discovered?
Your web site has a very good overview of the Bretz story. It is in fact
fairly common for someone with a dramatic new idea to face opposition for
some years before it is accepted on the strength of the evidence. The
positive side of this is that Bretz' theory has been thoroughly vetted.
>
> > Your explanation of "huge shortly spaced watery catastrophes were
involved
> > in formation of many of these features - concentrating and transporting
mats
> > of widely divergent vegetation and quartzite rocks over long distances
> > before they were buried by shortly spaced lava flows traveling rapidly
over
> > huge areas" does not make a whole lot of sense.
>
> Ok, so how did the quartzite rocks and fairly large boulders get
> there? Where is the evidence of long periods of erosive exposure to
> the elements between successive lava flows?
There are many processes that could have deposited quartzite rocks and large
boulders. Evidence of long periods of erosive exposure assumes the lava
flows were exposed, which may not have been the case.
>
> > Your explanation ignores, for example, the Blue Lake rhino cast,
indicating
> > the basalt flows occurred in a terrestrial environment.
>
> Evidently you haven't heard or read the part about the Blue Lake Rhino
> being dead and in water when it was overtaken by the lava flow that
> encased and preserved it. Yes, the Blue Lake Rhino was actually
> bloated giving evidence that it had been dead in the body of water for
> some time. I find this quite intriguing, don't you? Doesn't this make
> it just a little bit difficult for you to say, in such categorical
> terms, that this rhino, buried by lava while decomposing and floating
> in water, is evidence against my ideas of concurrent watery
> catastrophes? Certainly, you cannot use this waterlogged rhino as
> clear evidence for a nice dry terrestrial environment now can you?
Actually, yes. Especially when combined with the related evidence, such as
leaf imprints in the Latah formation.
>
> > Your incredulity over the flora of Miocene Washington is hardly an
> > indictment of modern geology. Fossil leaves consistent with the Vantage
site
> > are found throughout the state in the expected strata. They indicate
that
> > the climate was different at the time, not that the logs were
transported
> > hundreds of miles as you seem to suggest.
>
> I don't recall suggesting that logs were transported hundreds of miles
> to be buried in what is now known as Washington State. This certainly
> may have happened however and I fail to see how finding matching plant
> materials in the same strata is evidence against this possibility.
> Clearly this does not speak against the evidence that these flows were
> in fact deposited very quickly in a very short span of time. Perhaps
> the most conclusive evidence, as I see it, for this rapid deposition
> is the lack of expected erosion between each layer, especially given
> such an obviously wet environment.
Rapid deposition of plant materials in the Vantage area is a possibility.
They may have been deposited by a Lahar from the Cascade Mountains in
between basalt flows. Rapid deposition does not explain the type of plant
fossils found elsewhere. The delicate fossil blossom my friend just found
would have been destroyed in a catastrophic event, not preserved.
>
> > There are also plant fossils in Republic (a friend of mine just found a
> > fossil flower there, a relative of the cocoa plant) in strata that
> > disappears underneath the basalt, and plant fossils in the Spokane area
> > where some of the hills protruded above the lava flows.
> >
> > At the same time, there are paleozoic marine fossils in the older
Kootenay
> > Arc, which also disappears underneath the lava flow.
>
> Again, how does this speak against the possibility of rapid lava flow
> deposition and/or transport of such fossils via watery mechanisms?
> Even your Blue Lake Rhino was evidently floating and probably
> transported in a watery catastrophe before it was buried by a lava
> flow. Its preserved body certainly isn't evidence of a dry
> terrestrial environment like you seem to be suggesting. In fact, it
> seems to me that this most interesting rhino actually supports my
> position much more than it supports your position - wouldn't you say?
What evidence makes you think it was floating, and what makes you think it
was transported in a watery catastrophe? A small pond explains the evidence
quite nicely. Does your explanation cover the tree hole next to the rhino
cave?
>
> In short, I fail to see that your position is at all clear based on
> the evidence at hand. You have also glossed over the many other
> evidences of catastrophic fossil burial and strata formation on huge
> continental and even intercontinental scales as well as the striking
> lack of protracted erosional evidence throughout the entire geologic
> column. Certainly there is evidence of rapid/catastrophic erosion in
> the geologic record, but there is little if any substantial evidence
> that I have been able to find of general erosion acting over the
> course of millions of years.
You are looking for evidence of a straw man.
>
> Sean
> www.DetectingDesign.com
>
MurphyInOhio
Intelligent Designer enacting a planned creation in which certain aspects of
the Design are at a pre-set calibration in structure and appearance. While
witnessing "science claims" keep coming, in which long-age believers glibly
swallow lunatic extrapolations which render..."oops we just discovered the
universe is a BILLION years older". Uh...sure it is.
Michael Cugley
called "murphy...@wmconnect.com (MurphyInOhio)" wrote the follwing in
what can only be called
"news:murphy-20040629031...@mb-m29.wmconnect.com":
What, precisely, is "lunatic" about this? That's the way science is done.
New evidence comes in, theories are revised.
....
I've just wasted some typing, haven't I?
--
Korvar the Fox!
http://www.korvar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Mike Goodrich
"R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in message
> Whether people feel this way is irrelavent. What matters is the strength
of
> the evidence. The evidence does not support the Genesis story as literal
> fact.
What a comfort to know that you are around to tell us all what the evidence
supports, and what it doesn't, just in case we should have any doubts or
mistaken notions about it.
Sheesh,
-mg
John Wilkins
And minutes of your life reading and thinking about this moron. You
won't get it back, you know.
--
Dr John Wilkins
john...@wilkins.id.au http://wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
Stanley Friesen
HE isn't, or at least not alone. The scientific community as a whole is
there to do just that, however. That is their *job*.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
Tracy Hamilton
All you have to do is make an argument. Bretz's experience was identical
to Wegener's on plate tectonics. Essentially their theories were not
accepted until ENOUGH evidence was accumulated (in particular a
mechanism). They were not dismissed out of hand as wrong, but as
inadequately supported.
Creationists have a somewhat different problem - the evidence that Bretz
used to show
a catastrophic flood is not everywhere - so there was no catastrophic flood
everywhere.
Tracy P. Hamilton
Mike Goodrich
"Tracy Hamilton" <DontSpam...@uab.edu> wrote in message
news:cbrtm7$989$1...@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu...
>
[snip]
> Creationists have a somewhat different problem - the evidence that Bretz
> used to show
> a catastrophic flood is not everywhere - so there was no catastrophic
flood
> everywhere.
Non Sequitur!
cheers,
Mike Goodrich
"Stanley Friesen" <sar...@friesen.net> wrote in message
news:1ir2e0p4lq5bbkhmq...@4ax.com...
Well, it is certainly comforting to know that the majority consensus can be
relied upon so! I guess those folks who list 'appeal to the gallery' as
logically fallacious just don't have a clue...
Sheesh, how did our educational system fails us so badly?
Pithecanthropus Erectus
You have no clue as to how science works, do you Mike?
1. Observe phenomena
2. Postulate possible explanations
3. Eliminate the impossible, which is where Genesis fits.
4. Check out the remaining possibilities and devise a test.
5. Try to DISprove the remaining possibilities using the test.
6. Use statistical analyses to measure the possibilities and their
effect on the phenomena.
7. Check your math.
8. Use alternate tests to verify your results.
9. Check to see if any extraneous variables could have altered your results.
10. Find a respected professional familiar with the phenomena and ask
that professional to check your math and your results.
11. Either curse or thank that professional.
12. Submit your results to a group of professionals so that they can
check your results.
13. Either curse them or thank them.
14. Research to see if some pipsqueak somewhere else has come up with a
better explanation.
15. Check that little pipsqueak's math.
16. Offer to collaborate.
17. Sometimes the pipsqueak morphs into a helluva professional with
whom you are glad to work.
18. Submit your work to a journal for publication.
19. Publication sends it to your peers (as if there were any) for
verification.
20. If it passes their review, journal decides if it is relevant or
current.
21. Either curse or thank the journal.
22. Years later, someone else makes an observation that you either
missed or dismissed and updates the findings of your work.
23. Science marches on, not caring whether you got rich from it or not.
This is a brief summary.
Results may vary.
Mark VandeWettering
It is not a logical fallacy to appeal to actual authorities on the subject
of their authority.
> Sheesh, how did our educational system fails us so badly?
It didn't fail all of us.
Mark
Sean Pitman
> > I am well aware that many people feel this way. I just happen to
> > disagree with this less than apparent perspective of the evidence.
>
> Whether people feel this way is irrelavent. What matters is the strength of
> the evidence.
What matters is what you personally feel or believe the strength of
the evidence to be. Being human however, your personal beliefs, based
on your own interpretation of the available evidence, may in fact be
quite wrong. You see, the "strength of the evidence" is subjectively
determined and may be determined quite differently by different
otherwise equally intelligent and honest investigators.
> The evidence does not support the Genesis story as literal
> fact.
That is certainly your obvious opinion, but it is not necessarily
"true". In my own opinion, the evidence clearly speaks against your
position. But, of course, my own opinion is also a subjective opinion
- like yours is.
> This poses no problem for the millions of faithful who take Genesis as
> allegorical, but again, that has no relevance in science.
> Further, it is only people from a fundamentalist, literalist background who
> have a problem with the evidence.
You like to bring the Bible into this, but really, like Bretz, I don't
need the Bible or the Genesis account at all to see the evidence as
speaking directly against your conclusions. Your generalized arguments
about those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis
account are completely irrelevant here in this conversation.
Also, I could argue that only those with a dogmatic fundamentalist
educational background who have bought into the doctrine of
Darwinian-style evolutionism have a problem with the evidence of a
young geologic column.
> > > From your web site, I see that you are familiar with the channeled
> > > scablands and the Columbia River basalt flows.
> >
> > Yes, and isn't it interesting that these Scablands, once thought by
> > the most prominent of geologists to have formed over millions of years
> > via slow uniformitarian processes, are now thought to have formed in a
> > catastrophic manner over a very short period of time just like J
> > Harlen Bretz had been saying for decades? Talk about being way off
> > base! How could geologists have been so very far off base and so
> > ardently firm in their interpretations and convictions when the
> > evidence for catastrophe where in fact so plainly written in the
> > Scabland features - even before the source of this watery catastrophe
> > was discovered?
>
> Your web site has a very good overview of the Bretz story. It is in fact
> fairly common for someone with a dramatic new idea to face opposition for
> some years before it is accepted on the strength of the evidence. The
> positive side of this is that Bretz' theory has been thoroughly vetted.
Bretz had to battle the opposition for far longer than should have
been required to convince an unbiased candid mind of the true view of
the evidence. He presented overwhelming evidence for a catastrophic
flood for over 40 years without changing the minds of his hardened
uniformitarian colleagues. In fact, when Bretz was finally recognized
for his work, he bemoaned the fact that he couldn't gloat over his
victory too much because those who apposed him the most were already
dead.
It seems then that dogma primarily changes, not by the changing of
scientists' minds, but when old scientists die and a new generation
that is not already hardened in the prevailing dogma takes their
place. In short, scientists are just as biased and "religious" in
their thinking as is any sectarian church-going fundamentalist.
> > Ok, so how did the quartzite rocks and fairly large boulders get
> > there? Where is the evidence of long periods of erosive exposure to
> > the elements between successive lava flows?
>
> There are many processes that could have deposited quartzite rocks and large
> boulders. Evidence of long periods of erosive exposure assumes the lava
> flows were exposed, which may not have been the case.
The only way to get quartzite rocks and boulders hundreds of miles
from their origin to be deposited between lava flows is a watery
transport. I guess rhinos could have kicked them all the way, but
short of this, only water could have done this sort of transport.
And again, there is no evidence of long exposure between flows. The
expected erosion is just not there. The flows were obviously
deposited in relatively rapid sequence giving little chance for
erosion to take place between subsequent lava flows.
> > > Your explanation ignores, for example, the Blue Lake rhino cast,
> > > indicating the basalt flows occurred in a terrestrial environment.
> >
> > Evidently you haven't heard or read the part about the Blue Lake Rhino
> > being dead and in water when it was overtaken by the lava flow that
> > encased and preserved it. Yes, the Blue Lake Rhino was actually
> > bloated giving evidence that it had been dead in the body of water for
> > some time. I find this quite intriguing, don't you? Doesn't this make
> > it just a little bit difficult for you to say, in such categorical
> > terms, that this rhino, buried by lava while decomposing and floating
> > in water, is evidence against my ideas of concurrent watery
> > catastrophes? Certainly, you cannot use this waterlogged rhino as
> > clear evidence for a nice dry terrestrial environment now can you?
>
> Actually, yes. Especially when combined with the related evidence, such as
> leaf imprints in the Latah formation.
Now you are just being silly. The only way that vegetation could be
so finely preserved in lava flows if it too was in water when it was
buried by the 900 deg C. lava.
> > I don't recall suggesting that logs were transported hundreds of miles
> > to be buried in what is now known as Washington State. This certainly
> > may have happened however and I fail to see how finding matching plant
> > materials in the same strata is evidence against this possibility.
> > Clearly this does not speak against the evidence that these flows were
> > in fact deposited very quickly in a very short span of time. Perhaps
> > the most conclusive evidence, as I see it, for this rapid deposition
> > is the lack of expected erosion between each layer, especially given
> > such an obviously wet environment.
>
> Rapid deposition of plant materials in the Vantage area is a possibility.
> They may have been deposited by a Lahar from the Cascade Mountains in
> between basalt flows. Rapid deposition does not explain the type of plant
> fossils found elsewhere. The delicate fossil blossom my friend just found
> would have been destroyed in a catastrophic event, not preserved.
Actually, it seems to me that preservation of delicate fossils
requires rapid/catastrophic burial and is therefore catastrophe
dependent. In fact, the fine preservation of exquisitely preserved
fossils is one of the main arguments I use in support of sudden
catastrophe on a huge scale throughout the geologic column.
> > > There are also plant fossils in Republic (a friend of mine just found a
> > > fossil flower there, a relative of the cocoa plant) in strata that
> > > disappears underneath the basalt, and plant fossils in the Spokane area
> > > where some of the hills protruded above the lava flows.
> > >
> > > At the same time, there are paleozoic marine fossils in the older
> > > Kootenay Arc, which also disappears underneath the lava flow.
> >
> > Again, how does this speak against the possibility of rapid lava flow
> > deposition and/or transport of such fossils via watery mechanisms?
> > Even your Blue Lake Rhino was evidently floating and probably
> > transported in a watery catastrophe before it was buried by a lava
> > flow. Its preserved body certainly isn't evidence of a dry
> > terrestrial environment like you seem to be suggesting. In fact, it
> > seems to me that this most interesting rhino actually supports my
> > position much more than it supports your position - wouldn't you say?
>
> What evidence makes you think it was floating, and what makes you think it
> was transported in a watery catastrophe? A small pond explains the evidence
> quite nicely. Does your explanation cover the tree hole next to the rhino
> cave?
The Blue Lake Rhino was clearly boated and obviously waterlogged to be
preserved in cast form in molten lava. This is not just my
interpretation, but is the standard mainstream interpretation of this
formation. There is no reason to assume a that the rhino died in a
small pond vs. being transported by a much larger flow of water from
somewhere else, during which time the carcass bloated and was then
buried by a lava flow. Certainly the evidence does not speak against
this position nor does it necessarily support your contention that
this fossil rhino is clear evidence of a dry terrestrial environment.
This argument of yours just isn't so.
The tree that was buried next to the rhino is also clear evidence that
water was involved in the transport of this tree - else the tree would
have been burned up in the lava flow before the cast of the tree could
have been preserved in such an intact way. The same is true for the
other well preserved mats and lenses of vegetation that are present
all throughout these lava flows.
> > In short, I fail to see that your position is at all clear based on
> > the evidence at hand. You have also glossed over the many other
> > evidences of catastrophic fossil burial and strata formation on huge
> > continental and even intercontinental scales as well as the striking
> > lack of protracted erosional evidence throughout the entire geologic
> > column. Certainly there is evidence of rapid/catastrophic erosion in
> > the geologic record, but there is little if any substantial evidence
> > that I have been able to find of general erosion acting over the
> > course of millions of years.
>
> You are looking for evidence of a straw man.
That's a fine subjective opinion, but from my perspective at least,
the evidence is in fact strongly against your straw-man
interpretations. Obviously, others will have to make up there own
minds for themselves. As for me, I may simply be too blind to
recognize the validity of your seemingly lame arguments, but for now,
I honestly do not understand how you could be so blind to the obvious
- if you weren't already indoctrinated by fundamentalist evolutionist
philosophy that is. And, I'm sure, you feel the same way about me.
Tracy Hamilton
The Spokane Flood would not work for the Noachian Deluge even there,
as it would be a different kind of catastrophic flood . Thanks for
reminding
me that "Noachian deluge" does not follow from "catastrophic flood".
I hope that Sean Pittman takes your suggestion to heart.
Tracy P. Hamilton
MurphyInOhio
>> > an Intelligent Designer enacting a planned creation in which certain
>> > aspects of the Design are at a pre-set calibration in structure and
>> > appearance. While witnessing "science claims" keep coming, in which
>> > long-age believers glibly swallow lunatic extrapolations which
>> > render..."oops we just discovered the universe is a BILLION years
>> > older". Uh...sure it is.
>And minutes of your life reading and thinking about this moron.
>"Doctor" John
Our Tasmanian (?) Doctor certainly spends an awful lot of time "evading
Murphy's posts" and then eagerly responding to them. The important demands on
the good offices of Third World "Doctors" must be quite slack, yes?
KelvynT
>> >> Your explanation of "huge shortly spaced watery catastrophes were
>> >> involved in formation of many of these features - concentrating and
>> >> transporting mats of widely divergent vegetation and quartzite rocks
>> >> over long distances before they were buried by shortly spaced lava
>> >> flows traveling rapidly over huge areas" does not make a whole lot of
>> >> sense.
>> >
>> > Ok, so how did the quartzite rocks and fairly large boulders get
>> > there? Where is the evidence of long periods of erosive exposure to
>> > the elements between successive lava flows?
>>
>> Between the flows. You are aware, aren't you, that there were several
>> lava flows over the region, stretching from 6 to 17 million years ago?
>
>I am aware that this is the common claim, but there is little if any
>evidence to support this conclusion.
>
>> And that the time between the flows allowed for complete ecosytems
>> to build up? And that the flows did not happen under water, but in
>> open air, except where they ran into lakes?
>
>There is no evidence for the build-up of such ecosystems especially
>considering that there is very little evidence of the erosion that
>would be expected if the time between lava flows was really as great
>as would be required by your position.
Oh dear, Sean, we've been here before and you ignored the evidence
then as well. I'll refresh your memory:
From my reply at http://tinyurl.com/2j22m
"Why should there be deep weathering between flows? Do the figures -
the Columbia River basalts consist of around 300 flows over a period
of about 11 million years. That's one flow (average 580 cu. km) on
average every 36.000 years - not a long time for any 'deep erosion' or
even soil horizons to form, even if the lava had fully cooled
immediately. And in fact, 96% of the basalts are estimated to have
been erupted in a period of about 1.5my."
Ecosystems don't necessarily take that long to establish. Rakata, one
of the remnants of Krakatau has a thriving one after less than 150
years.
"Within a century the remnant of Krakatau, Rakata, on which not a
blade of grass was visible for a year, is now clothed in tropical
forest from the shore to its 800-meter peak. On the three islands
devastated in 1883 there are now over 400 species of vascular plants,
thousands of species of arthropods including 54 species of
butterflies, over 30 species of birds,18 species of land mollusks, 17
species of bats and 9 reptiles."
Kelvyn
R. Baldwin
Have you anything substantive to say, or are you simply going to continue
making snide comments?
R. Baldwin
news:80d0c26f.04062...@posting.google.com...
news:<8T4Ec.12469$DT5....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...
>
> > > I am well aware that many people feel this way. I just happen to
> > > disagree with this less than apparent perspective of the evidence.
> >
> > Whether people feel this way is irrelavent. What matters is the strength
of
> > the evidence.
>
> What matters is what you personally feel or believe the strength of
> the evidence to be. Being human however, your personal beliefs, based
> on your own interpretation of the available evidence, may in fact be
> quite wrong. You see, the "strength of the evidence" is subjectively
> determined and may be determined quite differently by different
> otherwise equally intelligent and honest investigators.
While science is not perfect and always undergoes improvement, it is far
more objective than subjective. That is why method, equipment, calibration,
etc. must be defined. The strength of evidence has to do with how closely
observed data fits the model, not how investigators feel about the data.
>
> > The evidence does not support the Genesis story as literal
> > fact.
>
> That is certainly your obvious opinion, but it is not necessarily
> "true". In my own opinion, the evidence clearly speaks against your
> position. But, of course, my own opinion is also a subjective opinion
> - like yours is.
Science is not interested in "Truth", it is a method for developing better
and better models for natural phenomena. Your notion that it is one person's
subjective opinion against another's shows that you don't really understand
this.
>
> > This poses no problem for the millions of faithful who take Genesis as
> > allegorical, but again, that has no relevance in science.
> > Further, it is only people from a fundamentalist, literalist background
who
> > have a problem with the evidence.
>
> You like to bring the Bible into this, but really, like Bretz, I don't
> need the Bible or the Genesis account at all to see the evidence as
> speaking directly against your conclusions. Your generalized arguments
> about those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis
> account are completely irrelevant here in this conversation.
It is indeed relevant because of the correlation between belief in literal
Genesis and belief in a 6000 year-old earth. This suggests that
fundamentalism causes people to distort their view of the natural world.
>
> Also, I could argue that only those with a dogmatic fundamentalist
> educational background who have bought into the doctrine of
> Darwinian-style evolutionism have a problem with the evidence of a
> young geologic column.
You could, but that would not be describing science education very well.
It is preferable that radical new ideas are subject to intense scrutiny
before acceptance. We would be ill-served if science adopted every loony-bin
hypothesis that came along. Also, Bretz had to overcome amateur status (he
was a high school teacher, IIRC). It was natural that the geological
community questioned whether he knew what he was talking about.
>
> It seems then that dogma primarily changes, not by the changing of
> scientists' minds, but when old scientists die and a new generation
> that is not already hardened in the prevailing dogma takes their
> place. In short, scientists are just as biased and "religious" in
> their thinking as is any sectarian church-going fundamentalist.
Science is not dogma. All scientific theories are subject to replacement by
new theories that better describe the data. Science is, however,
conservative in accepting new theories because so often faulty ideas stem
from bad method, bad observation, inattention to correlated variables, and a
host of other problems. It takes time to rule these out.
>
> > > Ok, so how did the quartzite rocks and fairly large boulders get
> > > there? Where is the evidence of long periods of erosive exposure to
> > > the elements between successive lava flows?
> >
> > There are many processes that could have deposited quartzite rocks and
large
> > boulders. Evidence of long periods of erosive exposure assumes the lava
> > flows were exposed, which may not have been the case.
>
> The only way to get quartzite rocks and boulders hundreds of miles
> from their origin to be deposited between lava flows is a watery
> transport. I guess rhinos could have kicked them all the way, but
> short of this, only water could have done this sort of transport.
Water transport is a reasonable hypothesis for moving boulders. It happens
in the Cascade range today. Would you care to elaborate?
>
> And again, there is no evidence of long exposure between flows. The
> expected erosion is just not there. The flows were obviously
> deposited in relatively rapid sequence giving little chance for
> erosion to take place between subsequent lava flows.
There need not be evidence of long exposure between flows. The rock was not
necessarily exposed.
>
> > > > Your explanation ignores, for example, the Blue Lake rhino cast,
> > > > indicating the basalt flows occurred in a terrestrial environment.
> > >
> > > Evidently you haven't heard or read the part about the Blue Lake Rhino
> > > being dead and in water when it was overtaken by the lava flow that
> > > encased and preserved it. Yes, the Blue Lake Rhino was actually
> > > bloated giving evidence that it had been dead in the body of water for
> > > some time. I find this quite intriguing, don't you? Doesn't this make
> > > it just a little bit difficult for you to say, in such categorical
> > > terms, that this rhino, buried by lava while decomposing and floating
> > > in water, is evidence against my ideas of concurrent watery
> > > catastrophes? Certainly, you cannot use this waterlogged rhino as
> > > clear evidence for a nice dry terrestrial environment now can you?
> >
> > Actually, yes. Especially when combined with the related evidence, such
as
> > leaf imprints in the Latah formation.
>
> Now you are just being silly. The only way that vegetation could be
> so finely preserved in lava flows if it too was in water when it was
> buried by the 900 deg C. lava.
The Latah formation is not a lava flow. Look it up.
>
> > > I don't recall suggesting that logs were transported hundreds of miles
> > > to be buried in what is now known as Washington State. This certainly
> > > may have happened however and I fail to see how finding matching plant
> > > materials in the same strata is evidence against this possibility.
> > > Clearly this does not speak against the evidence that these flows were
> > > in fact deposited very quickly in a very short span of time. Perhaps
> > > the most conclusive evidence, as I see it, for this rapid deposition
> > > is the lack of expected erosion between each layer, especially given
> > > such an obviously wet environment.
> >
> > Rapid deposition of plant materials in the Vantage area is a
possibility.
> > They may have been deposited by a Lahar from the Cascade Mountains in
> > between basalt flows. Rapid deposition does not explain the type of
plant
> > fossils found elsewhere. The delicate fossil blossom my friend just
found
> > would have been destroyed in a catastrophic event, not preserved.
>
> Actually, it seems to me that preservation of delicate fossils
> requires rapid/catastrophic burial and is therefore catastrophe
> dependent. In fact, the fine preservation of exquisitely preserved
> fossils is one of the main arguments I use in support of sudden
> catastrophe on a huge scale throughout the geologic column.
Such as volcanic ashfall, in which many of the fossils in question are
preserved? Which indicates a _terrestrial_ catastrophe not uncommon to the
Pacific Northwest?
Bloating is not evidence of a large water flow. It is evidence of a carcass.
Where is the evidence of a large water flow in the case of the Blue Lake
rhino?
>
> The tree that was buried next to the rhino is also clear evidence that
> water was involved in the transport of this tree - else the tree would
> have been burned up in the lava flow before the cast of the tree could
> have been preserved in such an intact way. The same is true for the
> other well preserved mats and lenses of vegetation that are present
> all throughout these lava flows.
I see you are unfamiliar with the tree molds in the Mt. St. Helens area. It
is actually quite common for tree casts to form in basalt flows on dry land.
My kids have crawled through such tree molds.
>
> > > In short, I fail to see that your position is at all clear based on
> > > the evidence at hand. You have also glossed over the many other
> > > evidences of catastrophic fossil burial and strata formation on huge
> > > continental and even intercontinental scales as well as the striking
> > > lack of protracted erosional evidence throughout the entire geologic
> > > column. Certainly there is evidence of rapid/catastrophic erosion in
> > > the geologic record, but there is little if any substantial evidence
> > > that I have been able to find of general erosion acting over the
> > > course of millions of years.
> >
> > You are looking for evidence of a straw man.
>
> That's a fine subjective opinion, but from my perspective at least,
> the evidence is in fact strongly against your straw-man
> interpretations. Obviously, others will have to make up there own
> minds for themselves. As for me, I may simply be too blind to
> recognize the validity of your seemingly lame arguments, but for now,
> I honestly do not understand how you could be so blind to the obvious
> - if you weren't already indoctrinated by fundamentalist evolutionist
> philosophy that is. And, I'm sure, you feel the same way about me.
Or perhaps you are too blinded by insistence on a literal translation of
Scripture to accept that you might be wrong. I was at one time, years ago,
until I allowed myself to think critically about the evidence.
>
> Sean
> www.DetectingDesign.com
>
Mike Goodrich
Loaded question.
I am sorry that you missed the substance...
Sean Pitman
> > > Whether people feel this way is irrelavent. What matters is the strength
> > > of the evidence.
> >
> > What matters is what you personally feel or believe the strength of
> > the evidence to be. Being human however, your personal beliefs, based
> > on your own interpretation of the available evidence, may in fact be
> > quite wrong. You see, the "strength of the evidence" is subjectively
> > determined and may be determined quite differently by different
> > otherwise equally intelligent and honest investigators.
>
> While science is not perfect and always undergoes improvement, it is far
> more objective than subjective. That is why method, equipment, calibration,
> etc. must be defined. The strength of evidence has to do with how closely
> observed data fits the model, not how investigators feel about the data.
You are evidently unaware as to how scientists use the scientific
method in real life. A whole lot of very subjective interpretation is
involved in most theories and interpretations of the evidence. This is
in fact what makes it possible for scientists to argue so much about
what various types of observations mean. This, of course, does not
mean that I don't appreciate the scientific method. I am a strong
believer in the scientific method. In fact, I think it is the only
rational way to really approach truth in any area of human
understanding of the external world/universe around us. However,
without complete information, which we never have, our subjective
interpretations of the observations that we see are always subject to
error.
> > > The evidence does not support the Genesis story as literal
> > > fact.
> >
> > That is certainly your obvious opinion, but it is not necessarily
> > "true". In my own opinion, the evidence clearly speaks against your
> > position. But, of course, my own opinion is also a subjective opinion
> > - like yours is.
>
> Science is not interested in "Truth", it is a method for developing better
> and better models for natural phenomena.
Listen to yourself man! How do you know if something is "better" if
it is not also believed to be more "true"? A "better and better
model" could also be said to be a "truer and truer model" - could it
not? As a method for finding the "better" the scientific method is
also the only way to find or at least to approach the "truth" about
the external world in which we find ourselves.
You just don't seem to like the word "truth" and prefer instead to
replace it with the word "better". This, in my opinion, is nothing
more than a matter of semantics. For example, would it be wrong for
me to say that I believe it to be a "true" statement that the earth
revolves around the sun? Or, is that simply a "better" statement than
to say the sun rises in the east and sets in the west? Do you see
what I'm saying here?
> Your notion that it is one person's
> subjective opinion against another's shows that you don't really understand
> this.
Your notion the mainstream scientists are somehow more objective than
normal people shows that you just don't understand how real life
science works. I personally am involved with scientific research
studies in medicine and pathology and let me tell you that there are
often great leaps of faith that are taken in scientific research just
as there are in any other discipline, to include religious-type faith.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that all sciences are fields of
religious faith. I see no fundamental difference between science and
a rationally investigated religious faith of any kind.
> > Also, I could argue that only those with a dogmatic fundamentalist
> > educational background who have bought into the doctrine of
> > Darwinian-style evolutionism have a problem with the evidence of a
> > young geologic column.
>
> You could, but that would not be describing science education very well.
Actually, it would. Mainstream science teachers do not restrict
themselves to the presentation of data alone but also feel compelled,
like any good teacher would, to present to their students the popular
interpretations of that data. These interpretations, unbeknownst to
the students and often to the teacher as well, are often supported by
little if any solid evidence and beyond this are often directly
contradicted by very obvious and compelling evidence that is simply
never brought to the attention of these students of evolutionist
philosophy.
> > Bretz had to battle the opposition for far longer than should have
> > been required to convince an unbiased candid mind of the true view of
> > the evidence. He presented overwhelming evidence for a catastrophic
> > flood for over 40 years without changing the minds of his hardened
> > uniformitarian colleagues. In fact, when Bretz was finally recognized
> > for his work, he bemoaned the fact that he couldn't gloat over his
> > victory too much because those who apposed him the most were already
> > dead.
>
> It is preferable that radical new ideas are subject to intense scrutiny
> before acceptance. We would be ill-served if science adopted every loony-bin
> hypothesis that came along. Also, Bretz had to overcome amateur status (he
> was a high school teacher, IIRC). It was natural that the geological
> community questioned whether he knew what he was talking about.
This is just nonsense. Anyone who will not accept overwhelming
evidence presented over the course of several decades has simply gone
beyond "intense scrutiny" to deliberate blindness. Also, Bretz was no
"amateur". He earned his Ph.D. in geology from the University of
Chicago. He was just as educated and "expert" in the field that he
was talking about as anyone else, and perhaps more so since no one
else had actually done the extensive field work research in the
Scablands that he had obviously done.
> > It seems then that dogma primarily changes, not by the changing of
> > scientists' minds, but when old scientists die and a new generation
> > that is not already hardened in the prevailing dogma takes their
> > place. In short, scientists are just as biased and "religious" in
> > their thinking as is any sectarian church-going fundamentalist.
>
> Science is not dogma. All scientific theories are subject to replacement by
> new theories that better describe the data.
That may be the ideal, but you are dealing with real human beings here
who often have very strong bias and devotion to a particular point of
view. The Bretz story is a classic illustration of this problem.
Many of those who apposed Bretz never changed their minds before they
died. The fact is that we should all be aware of personal bias and
try to overcome it as best as is humanly possible when we truly
understand that the evidence is clearly against one of our current
positions regardless of how meaningful that particular position may be
to us and perhaps to our respective egos.
> Science is, however,
> conservative in accepting new theories because so often faulty ideas stem
> from bad method, bad observation, inattention to correlated variables, and a
> host of other problems. It takes time to rule these out.
Hmmmmm . . . so you also admit that scientific investigation is
fraught with potential pitfalls in investigation and interpretation?
There you have it my man. How then are you so confident that your
current position is absolutely correct? How do you know that my
interpretation of the lava flows in Washington State is so obviously
ludicrous? The evidence that you have presented certainly does not
overcome the evidence that I have presented. In fact, you have
actually added to my position and have actually taken away from your
own position. How then can you remain so confident that you have the
"truth" when it comes to interpreting what these lava flows mean?
> > The only way to get quartzite rocks and boulders hundreds of miles
> > from their origin to be deposited between lava flows is a watery
> > transport. I guess rhinos could have kicked them all the way, but
> > short of this, only water could have done this sort of transport.
>
> Water transport is a reasonable hypothesis for moving boulders. It happens
> in the Cascade range today. Would you care to elaborate?
What do you mean "elaborate"? Would you care to present any other
alternative to watery transport on a rather large scale over a very
short period of time?
> > And again, there is no evidence of long exposure between flows. The
> > expected erosion is just not there. The flows were obviously
> > deposited in relatively rapid sequence giving little chance for
> > erosion to take place between subsequent lava flows.
>
> There need not be evidence of long exposure between flows. The rock was not
> necessarily exposed.
If the lava was not exposed, what was covering it and, if covered,
where is that covering now?
> > Now you are just being silly. The only way that vegetation could be
> > so finely preserved in lava flows if it too was in water when it was
> > buried by the 900 deg C. lava.
>
> The Latah formation is not a lava flow. Look it up.
I'm not talking just about the Latah formation, but about all places
where finely preserved fossils are found, to include very hot lava
flows.
> > Actually, it seems to me that preservation of delicate fossils
> > requires rapid/catastrophic burial and is therefore catastrophe
> > dependent. In fact, the fine preservation of exquisitely preserved
> > fossils is one of the main arguments I use in support of sudden
> > catastrophe on a huge scale throughout the geologic column.
>
> Such as volcanic ashfall, in which many of the fossils in question are
> preserved? Which indicates a _terrestrial_ catastrophe not uncommon to the
> Pacific Northwest?
A "terrestrial" catastrophe does not mean that previous and subsequent
catastrophes did not follow quite rapidly, giving little time for
erosive changes. This is exactly what we find throughout the
geologic column. Very flat and smooth layers, relative to each other,
throughout the geologic column with little if any evidence of long
term erosion between the layers. The same is true of the lava flows
in the Washington State. There simply is no erosion between the
layers of these lava flows that would be there if they were in fact
laid down over the course of millions of years. Also, many times
where there is volcanic ashfall, there is also concurrent evidence of
watery catastrophe. Specimen Creek in Yellowstone is just one example
of this.
> > The Blue Lake Rhino was clearly boated and obviously waterlogged to be
> > preserved in cast form in molten lava. This is not just my
> > interpretation, but is the standard mainstream interpretation of this
> > formation. There is no reason to assume a that the rhino died in a
> > small pond vs. being transported by a much larger flow of water from
> > somewhere else, during which time the carcass bloated and was then
> > buried by a lava flow. Certainly the evidence does not speak against
> > this position nor does it necessarily support your contention that
> > this fossil rhino is clear evidence of a dry terrestrial environment.
> > This argument of yours just isn't so.
>
> Bloating is not evidence of a large water flow. It is evidence of a carcass.
> Where is the evidence of a large water flow in the case of the Blue Lake
> rhino?
Again, how did the quartzite stones get transported over these lava
flows? Also, go and look up the standard interpretation of the Blue
Lake Rhino and see if most do not agree that this rhino was in fact
dead in a body of water for a period of time before the lava overtook
its carcass.
> > The tree that was buried next to the rhino is also clear evidence that
> > water was involved in the transport of this tree - else the tree would
> > have been burned up in the lava flow before the cast of the tree could
> > have been preserved in such an intact way. The same is true for the
> > other well preserved mats and lenses of vegetation that are present
> > all throughout these lava flows.
>
> I see you are unfamiliar with the tree molds in the Mt. St. Helens area. It
> is actually quite common for tree casts to form in basalt flows on dry land.
> My kids have crawled through such tree molds.
If my memory serves me well, Mt. St. Helens did not produce lava when
it erupted, but huge volumes of ash, which is certainly not as hot as
molten lava. Also, even though tree casts may be formed in actual
molten lava flows, the fine detail of these trees and plants is lost.
Not so in the Washington State lava flows. The lenses of vegetation
preserved here often show very fine detail and even the preservation
of non-carbonized organic material - which would have been completely
burned if it were not in water when buried by the liquid lava.
Look it up. This is the standard explanation for the fine
preservation of organic material in the Washington State lava flows.
In any case, that is all I have time for today . . .
Sean Pitman
> >> And that the time between the flows allowed for complete ecosytems
> >> to build up? And that the flows did not happen under water, but in
> >> open air, except where they ran into lakes?
> >
> >There is no evidence for the build-up of such ecosystems especially
> >considering that there is very little evidence of the erosion that
> >would be expected if the time between lava flows was really as great
> >as would be required by your position.
>
> Oh dear, Sean, we've been here before and you ignored the evidence
> then as well. I'll refresh your memory:
> From my reply at http://tinyurl.com/2j22m
> "Why should there be deep weathering between flows? Do the figures -
> the Columbia River basalts consist of around 300 flows over a period
> of about 11 million years. That's one flow (average 580 cu. km) on
> average every 36.000 years - not a long time for any 'deep erosion' or
> even soil horizons to form, even if the lava had fully cooled
> immediately. And in fact, 96% of the basalts are estimated to have
> been erupted in a period of about 1.5my."
We certainly have been here before and it was you, as I recall, who
seemed to ignored the evidence. Consider again your suggestion that
the rates of erosion on these basalts was so minimal (< 0.5 cm/k.y.)
that it would not have resulted in a significant change even after
36,000 years. However, as I pointed out to you before, a recent real
time study by Riebe et. al. to determine the effects of various
climatic conditions on erosion rates of granite showed that erosion
rates averaged 4cm per 1,000 years (k.y.) with a range of between
2cm/k.y. and 50cm/k.y. What is especially interesting is that despite
ranges in climate involving between 20 to 180 cm/yr of annual
precipitation and between 4 to 15 deg. C the average erosion rates
varied by only 2.5 fold across all the sites and were not correlated
with climate indicating that climatic variations weakly regulate the
rates of granitic erosion. Another fairly recent paper, by Lasaga and
Rye, from the Yale University Department of Geology and Geophysics,
noted that the average erosion rates of basalts from the Columbia
River and Idaho regions is "about 4 times as fast as non-basaltic
rocks" - to include granite. This suggests, especially with the
obviously "wet" environment in the region during the formation of
these lava flows, that one could reasonable expect the erosion rate of
basalts to average 16 to 20 cm/k.y. I see little evidence to suggest a
lower rate of erosion than this. Over the course of 36,000 years this
rate of erosion works out to between 6 to 7 meters (19 to 23 feet) of
vertical erosion. This is significant erosion and there should be
evidence of this sort of erosion if the time gap between flows really
averaged some 36,000 years.
Again, this sort of erosion simply isn't there and I fail to see the
evidence of established local ecosystems that you envision. Rather,
there is abundant evidence of watery transport and preservation of
mats of widely divergent vegetation during rapid and catastrophic
events in this region. Now, what is interesting here is that these
"forest elements" to include large lenses of fossilized wood are
widely divergent in the type of preserved wood found. It is
interesting that hundreds of species are found all mixed up together
ranging from temperate birch and spruce to subtropical Eucalyptus and
bald cypress. The petrified logs have been stripped of limbs and bark
and are generally found in the pillow complexes of the basaltic flows,
implying that water preserved the wood from being completely destroyed
by the intense heat of the lava as it buried them.
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/geologiccolumn.html
Mark Isaak
seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com (Sean Pitman) wrote:
>> Science is not dogma. All scientific theories are subject to replacement by
>> new theories that better describe the data.
>
>That may be the ideal, but you are dealing with real human beings here
>who often have very strong bias and devotion to a particular point of
>view. The Bretz story is a classic illustration of this problem.
>Many of those who apposed Bretz never changed their minds before they
>died.
And yet Bretz was not only vindicated; he became highly renowned among
his peers. How did he accomplish that? Was it by quote-mining other
geologists' work on the Internet? Was it by citing how previous
geologists were mistreated when they proposed something unorthodox?
Or was it by finding, presenting, and defending hard evidence with his
geologist peers?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Mark Isaak
<res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>Bloating is not evidence of a large water flow. It is evidence of a carcass.
>Where is the evidence of a large water flow in the case of the Blue Lake
>rhino?
There is a chapter on the Blue Lake rhino in Kurten's _How to Freeze a
Mammoth_ (New York, Columbia U. Press, 1990). It points out that the
rhino was not covered by liquid lava, but was packed in pillow lava.
That indicates it was in water when it was fossilized. There is no
evidence of water flow, though.
Hank
Tasmania third world? Not hardly.
Ohio third world? Definitely. Been there. Cleveland - is there any
place else in the world where rivers catch fire from the filth and
pollution?
Some rural places are nice, but a lot of unused processing power in the
cranial department.
--
Assimilate a pitiful little species like you? I think not! - Q of Borg
Andy Groves
Mike, you seem to be saying that the majority of informed opinion is
no better than the majority of uninformed opinion. That's very
strange. I very much doubt that you would ignore the informed opinion
of a majority of doctors before you underwent a surgical procedure, or
the informed opinion of a majority of aeronautical engineers before
you stepped on a plane. Why is the informed opinion of scientists any
different?
Or is this just about "weight" of evidence? Are you saying that the
amount of evidence for a position is irrelevant to the validity of
that position? Or are we back to arguing who decides whether a piece
of evidence is valid or not? Back to the experts........
Andy
AC
He certainly seems to have a better handle on the evidence than you.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Tim Norfolk
>Ohio third world? Definitely. Been there. Cleveland - is there any
>place else in the world where rivers catch fire from the filth and
>pollution?
That was about 30 years ago. It's much nicer now.
R. Baldwin
news:vkd6e0dkpd45l78qk...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 03:53:36 +0000 (UTC), "R. Baldwin"
> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
> >Bloating is not evidence of a large water flow. It is evidence of a
carcass.
> >Where is the evidence of a large water flow in the case of the Blue Lake
> >rhino?
>
> There is a chapter on the Blue Lake rhino in Kurten's _How to Freeze a
> Mammoth_ (New York, Columbia U. Press, 1990). It points out that the
> rhino was not covered by liquid lava, but was packed in pillow lava.
> That indicates it was in water when it was fossilized. There is no
> evidence of water flow, though.
>
Yes. It appears to have been buried while lying in a small pond.
Zachriel
> "R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in message
news:<WRqEc.20425$x9.1...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
>
> > > > Whether people feel this way is irrelavent. What matters is the
strength
> > > > of the evidence.
> > >
> > > What matters is what you personally feel or believe the strength of
> > > the evidence to be. Being human however, your personal beliefs, based
> > > on your own interpretation of the available evidence, may in fact be
> > > quite wrong. You see, the "strength of the evidence" is subjectively
> > > determined and may be determined quite differently by different
> > > otherwise equally intelligent and honest investigators.
> >
> > While science is not perfect and always undergoes improvement, it is far
> > more objective than subjective. That is why method, equipment,
calibration,
> > etc. must be defined. The strength of evidence has to do with how
closely
> > observed data fits the model, not how investigators feel about the data.
>
> You are evidently unaware as to how scientists use the scientific
> method in real life. A whole lot of very subjective interpretation is
> involved in most theories and interpretations of the evidence. This is
> in fact what makes it possible for scientists to argue so much about
> what various types of observations mean.
Of course scientists argue. That's how science progresses. They especially
like to argue when the evidence is unclear or contradictory.
You certainly seem to be confusing the various aspects of the scientific
method. Let's start with a basic statement, somewhat simplified for
discussion: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation, repeat.
Eventually, any hypothesis must make *objective* predictions that can be
matched to observations. If it doesn't make such predictions, it is not
scientific by definition.
> This, of course, does not
> mean that I don't appreciate the scientific method. I am a strong
> believer in the scientific method.
From your comments, you don't appear to understand the scientific method.
Please give us a statement of the scientific method.
> In fact, I think it is the only
> rational way to really approach truth in any area of human
> understanding of the external world/universe around us.
From your comments, I wouldn't know why you would trust such an unreliable
and completely subjective method of inquiry. Please tell us why you think
the scientific method is a valid method of investigation.
> However,
> without complete information, which we never have, our subjective
> interpretations of the observations that we see are always subject to
> error.
Of course. We can't know everything about everything. However, many
scientific assertions are beyond *reasonable* dispute, and can rightly be
called scientific fact. These include the fact that the Earth moves, that
humans are composed of cells, that the universe if billions of years old,
and that life evolves.
> > > > The evidence does not support the Genesis story as literal
> > > > fact.
> > >
> > > That is certainly your obvious opinion, but it is not necessarily
> > > "true". In my own opinion, the evidence clearly speaks against your
> > > position. But, of course, my own opinion is also a subjective opinion
> > > - like yours is.
> >
> > Science is not interested in "Truth", it is a method for developing
better
> > and better models for natural phenomena.
>
> Listen to yourself man! How do you know if something is "better" if
> it is not also believed to be more "true"?
The scientific method is just that, a method. Something is considered a
better scientific explanation if it makes more consistent and more accurate
predictions.
> A "better and better
> model" could also be said to be a "truer and truer model" - could it
> not?
You are conflating various meanings of the word "truth".
> As a method for finding the "better" the scientific method is
> also the only way to find or at least to approach the "truth" about
> the external world in which we find ourselves.
>
> You just don't seem to like the word "truth" and prefer instead to
> replace it with the word "better". This, in my opinion, is nothing
> more than a matter of semantics. For example, would it be wrong for
> me to say that I believe it to be a "true" statement that the earth
> revolves around the sun? Or, is that simply a "better" statement than
> to say the sun rises in the east and sets in the west? Do you see
> what I'm saying here?
Yes. And you are conflating the various meanings of the word "truth".
> > Your notion that it is one person's
> > subjective opinion against another's shows that you don't really
understand
> > this.
>
> Your notion the mainstream scientists are somehow more objective than
> normal people shows that you just don't understand how real life
> science works.
Scientists are not necessarily more objective than anyone else. That's why
we have a method to act as a sieve. All scientific hypotheses must be
matched to observation. We can develop an hypothesis by any method we
choose, but it must be reasonably consistent with current observation and
capable of making testable predictions about future observations.
> I personally am involved with scientific research
> studies in medicine and pathology and let me tell you that there are
> often great leaps of faith that are taken in scientific research
An hypothesis can come from any source. However, to be considered
scientific, it must make testable predictions of observations.
> just
> as there are in any other discipline, to include religious-type faith.
That's fine. But in science those leaps of faith have to make testable and
objective predictions of future scientific observations.
> In fact, I would go so far as to say that all sciences are fields of
> religious faith. I see no fundamental difference between science and
> a rationally investigated religious faith of any kind.
<snip>
Then you seriously misunderstand the scientific method. Science is not a
belief, but a method. Fortunately, no particular philosophy is required to
work in science. You can believe that little green men gave you the
formula--as long as the formula is independently tested and verified.
The scientific *method* works by matching theory and observation:
hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation, repeat. There are other
statements of the scientific method (due to emphasis on one component of the
method or another, and especially due to the requirements of particular
fields of study), but all such statements are roughly equivalent.
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
An hypothesis can come from virtually any source. Workable scientific
hypotheses have historically come from deep thought, from fanciful
thought-experiments (Einstein), from wide experience with observation, from
the imagination, from a lucky guess, a hunch, serendipity, even from a dream
(Kekulé). In real day-to-day science, most hypotheses come naturally as
extensions of existing theory.
However any such scientific hypothesis must be reasonably consistent with
known observations and make scientific predictions of future observations.
R. Baldwin
A model is better if it has a smaller variance between prediction and
observed data.
>
> You just don't seem to like the word "truth" and prefer instead to
> replace it with the word "better". This, in my opinion, is nothing
> more than a matter of semantics. For example, would it be wrong for
> me to say that I believe it to be a "true" statement that the earth
> revolves around the sun? Or, is that simply a "better" statement than
> to say the sun rises in the east and sets in the west? Do you see
> what I'm saying here?
"Truth" is a philosophical concept. It is not attainable in science. All
theories are inherently approximations that model natural phenomena. Science
does acknowledge facts, of which "the earth rotates around the sun" is an
example. The data is so conclusive that only a fool would argue the point.
There is a mathematical model that describes the rotation which works
reasonably well, but on a small scale it is disrupted by the gravitational
pull of every major and minor planet in the solar system, and even other
factors that will never be completely described because the precision is not
that important. The model we use is a good one, and it is factual, but it is
not "truth" and it can be improved.
>
> > Your notion that it is one person's
> > subjective opinion against another's shows that you don't really
understand
> > this.
>
> Your notion the mainstream scientists are somehow more objective than
> normal people shows that you just don't understand how real life
> science works. I personally am involved with scientific research
> studies in medicine and pathology and let me tell you that there are
> often great leaps of faith that are taken in scientific research just
> as there are in any other discipline, to include religious-type faith.
> In fact, I would go so far as to say that all sciences are fields of
> religious faith. I see no fundamental difference between science and
> a rationally investigated religious faith of any kind.
I did not assert that mainstream scientists are more objective than normal
people. I would also agree that in medicine there is some horrendously bad
science done (very small sample sizes, poor analysis of covariables, etc.).
I do not agree that the sciences are fields of religious faith. Neither do I
agree that faith is accessible to rational investigation, and I count myself
among the faithful.
>
>
> > > Also, I could argue that only those with a dogmatic fundamentalist
> > > educational background who have bought into the doctrine of
> > > Darwinian-style evolutionism have a problem with the evidence of a
> > > young geologic column.
> >
> > You could, but that would not be describing science education very well.
>
> Actually, it would. Mainstream science teachers do not restrict
> themselves to the presentation of data alone but also feel compelled,
> like any good teacher would, to present to their students the popular
> interpretations of that data. These interpretations, unbeknownst to
> the students and often to the teacher as well, are often supported by
> little if any solid evidence and beyond this are often directly
> contradicted by very obvious and compelling evidence that is simply
> never brought to the attention of these students of evolutionist
> philosophy.
Mainstream theories are mischaracterized by your term "popular
interpretations". A theory cannot become a theory unless it has first been
exhaustively tested by many researchers against the evidence.
>
> > > Bretz had to battle the opposition for far longer than should have
> > > been required to convince an unbiased candid mind of the true view of
> > > the evidence. He presented overwhelming evidence for a catastrophic
> > > flood for over 40 years without changing the minds of his hardened
> > > uniformitarian colleagues. In fact, when Bretz was finally recognized
> > > for his work, he bemoaned the fact that he couldn't gloat over his
> > > victory too much because those who apposed him the most were already
> > > dead.
> >
> > It is preferable that radical new ideas are subject to intense scrutiny
> > before acceptance. We would be ill-served if science adopted every
loony-bin
> > hypothesis that came along. Also, Bretz had to overcome amateur status
(he
> > was a high school teacher, IIRC). It was natural that the geological
> > community questioned whether he knew what he was talking about.
>
> This is just nonsense. Anyone who will not accept overwhelming
> evidence presented over the course of several decades has simply gone
> beyond "intense scrutiny" to deliberate blindness. Also, Bretz was no
> "amateur". He earned his Ph.D. in geology from the University of
> Chicago. He was just as educated and "expert" in the field that he
> was talking about as anyone else, and perhaps more so since no one
> else had actually done the extensive field work research in the
> Scablands that he had obviously done.
It is hardly nonsense. The evidence is not overwhelming until it is
corroborated. Now it is. Several decades ago it was not. Bretz did solid
work and turned out to be right. When his data was first presented nobody
could have known this.
>
> > > It seems then that dogma primarily changes, not by the changing of
> > > scientists' minds, but when old scientists die and a new generation
> > > that is not already hardened in the prevailing dogma takes their
> > > place. In short, scientists are just as biased and "religious" in
> > > their thinking as is any sectarian church-going fundamentalist.
> >
> > Science is not dogma. All scientific theories are subject to replacement
by
> > new theories that better describe the data.
>
> That may be the ideal, but you are dealing with real human beings here
> who often have very strong bias and devotion to a particular point of
> view. The Bretz story is a classic illustration of this problem.
> Many of those who apposed Bretz never changed their minds before they
> died. The fact is that we should all be aware of personal bias and
> try to overcome it as best as is humanly possible when we truly
> understand that the evidence is clearly against one of our current
> positions regardless of how meaningful that particular position may be
> to us and perhaps to our respective egos.
Many people opposed Pons and Fleischman too. There may even be some new
knowledge yet to come out of their research too, but in that case the
skepticism seems to have panned out.
>
> > Science is, however,
> > conservative in accepting new theories because so often faulty ideas
stem
> > from bad method, bad observation, inattention to correlated variables,
and a
> > host of other problems. It takes time to rule these out.
>
> Hmmmmm . . . so you also admit that scientific investigation is
> fraught with potential pitfalls in investigation and interpretation?
> There you have it my man. How then are you so confident that your
> current position is absolutely correct? How do you know that my
> interpretation of the lava flows in Washington State is so obviously
> ludicrous? The evidence that you have presented certainly does not
> overcome the evidence that I have presented. In fact, you have
> actually added to my position and have actually taken away from your
> own position. How then can you remain so confident that you have the
> "truth" when it comes to interpreting what these lava flows mean?
Your interpretation of the lava flows in Washington State stands in direct
contradiction to what I can see myself in the state where I live.
>
> > > The only way to get quartzite rocks and boulders hundreds of miles
> > > from their origin to be deposited between lava flows is a watery
> > > transport. I guess rhinos could have kicked them all the way, but
> > > short of this, only water could have done this sort of transport.
> >
> > Water transport is a reasonable hypothesis for moving boulders. It
happens
> > in the Cascade range today. Would you care to elaborate?
>
> What do you mean "elaborate"? Would you care to present any other
> alternative to watery transport on a rather large scale over a very
> short period of time?
What is your explanation? Glacial flood? Jokulhaups? A bad winter storm? Or
the Noachic Deluge? How does the data support your idea?
>
> > > And again, there is no evidence of long exposure between flows. The
> > > expected erosion is just not there. The flows were obviously
> > > deposited in relatively rapid sequence giving little chance for
> > > erosion to take place between subsequent lava flows.
> >
> > There need not be evidence of long exposure between flows. The rock was
not
> > necessarily exposed.
>
> If the lava was not exposed, what was covering it and, if covered,
> where is that covering now?
There are layers of former sediment between lava flows.
>
> > > Now you are just being silly. The only way that vegetation could be
> > > so finely preserved in lava flows if it too was in water when it was
> > > buried by the 900 deg C. lava.
> >
> > The Latah formation is not a lava flow. Look it up.
>
> I'm not talking just about the Latah formation, but about all places
> where finely preserved fossils are found, to include very hot lava
> flows.
Well, I _was_ talking about the Latah formation, which you could see if you
hadn't snipped the older text. Your "silly" comment is off base.
>
> > > Actually, it seems to me that preservation of delicate fossils
> > > requires rapid/catastrophic burial and is therefore catastrophe
> > > dependent. In fact, the fine preservation of exquisitely preserved
> > > fossils is one of the main arguments I use in support of sudden
> > > catastrophe on a huge scale throughout the geologic column.
> >
> > Such as volcanic ashfall, in which many of the fossils in question are
> > preserved? Which indicates a _terrestrial_ catastrophe not uncommon to
the
> > Pacific Northwest?
>
> A "terrestrial" catastrophe does not mean that previous and subsequent
> catastrophes did not follow quite rapidly, giving little time for
> erosive changes. This is exactly what we find throughout the
> geologic column. Very flat and smooth layers, relative to each other,
> throughout the geologic column with little if any evidence of long
> term erosion between the layers. The same is true of the lava flows
> in the Washington State. There simply is no erosion between the
> layers of these lava flows that would be there if they were in fact
> laid down over the course of millions of years. Also, many times
> where there is volcanic ashfall, there is also concurrent evidence of
> watery catastrophe. Specimen Creek in Yellowstone is just one example
> of this.
Again, your assumption that erosion must be necessary presumes that the rock
was exposed. Suppose it was covered with dirt?
Do you not think geologists can tell the diference between volcanic ashfall
associated with watery catastrophe and volcanic ashfall on land?
>
>
> > > The Blue Lake Rhino was clearly boated and obviously waterlogged to be
> > > preserved in cast form in molten lava. This is not just my
> > > interpretation, but is the standard mainstream interpretation of this
> > > formation. There is no reason to assume a that the rhino died in a
> > > small pond vs. being transported by a much larger flow of water from
> > > somewhere else, during which time the carcass bloated and was then
> > > buried by a lava flow. Certainly the evidence does not speak against
> > > this position nor does it necessarily support your contention that
> > > this fossil rhino is clear evidence of a dry terrestrial environment.
> > > This argument of yours just isn't so.
> >
> > Bloating is not evidence of a large water flow. It is evidence of a
carcass.
> > Where is the evidence of a large water flow in the case of the Blue Lake
> > rhino?
>
> Again, how did the quartzite stones get transported over these lava
> flows? Also, go and look up the standard interpretation of the Blue
> Lake Rhino and see if most do not agree that this rhino was in fact
> dead in a body of water for a period of time before the lava overtook
> its carcass.
I agree the rhino was dead in water. What I am asking you for is evidence
that there was a large flow of water involved.
>
> > > The tree that was buried next to the rhino is also clear evidence that
> > > water was involved in the transport of this tree - else the tree would
> > > have been burned up in the lava flow before the cast of the tree could
> > > have been preserved in such an intact way. The same is true for the
> > > other well preserved mats and lenses of vegetation that are present
> > > all throughout these lava flows.
> >
> > I see you are unfamiliar with the tree molds in the Mt. St. Helens area.
It
> > is actually quite common for tree casts to form in basalt flows on dry
land.
> > My kids have crawled through such tree molds.
>
> If my memory serves me well, Mt. St. Helens did not produce lava when
> it erupted, but huge volumes of ash, which is certainly not as hot as
> molten lava. Also, even though tree casts may be formed in actual
> molten lava flows, the fine detail of these trees and plants is lost.
> Not so in the Washington State lava flows. The lenses of vegetation
> preserved here often show very fine detail and even the preservation
> of non-carbonized organic material - which would have been completely
> burned if it were not in water when buried by the liquid lava.
The mountain did not only erupt in 1980. If you visit the Trail of Two
Forests near Ape Cave you will find grand terrestrial tree molds. Most of
them are upright stumps. There is no remaining fossilized tree material such
as you find at Vantage. The tree hole by the Blue Lake rhino is a tree mold
like those near Mt. St. Helens, not fossil tree material like the Vantage
specimens.
>
> Look it up. This is the standard explanation for the fine
> preservation of organic material in the Washington State lava flows.
>
> In any case, that is all I have time for today . . .
Perhaps you should visit and see for yourself, with an _open mind_.
>
> Sean
> www.DetectingDesign.com
>
TomS
<42d6e0ld6b2oi122d...@4ax.com>, Mark Isaak stated..."
>
>On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:58:42 +0000 (UTC),
>seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com (Sean Pitman) wrote:
>
>>> Science is not dogma. All scientific theories are subject to replacement by
>>> new theories that better describe the data.
>>
>>That may be the ideal, but you are dealing with real human beings here
>>who often have very strong bias and devotion to a particular point of
>>view. The Bretz story is a classic illustration of this problem.
>>Many of those who apposed Bretz never changed their minds before they
>>died.
>
>And yet Bretz was not only vindicated; he became highly renowned among
>his peers. How did he accomplish that? Was it by quote-mining other
>geologists' work on the Internet? Was it by citing how previous
>geologists were mistreated when they proposed something unorthodox?
>Or was it by finding, presenting, and defending hard evidence with his
>geologist peers?
But ... but ... but that *takes work*.
Don't you know that when I come up with my world-shattering,
paradigm-shifting, out-of-the-box-thinking, masterful idea, that
somebody else is supposed to take it from there, and do the work,
and I'm just supposed to sit back and get the medals and the
recognition?
Isn't that the way that science works?
Of course, in the case of creationism, it probably doesn't
help that the creationists don't even have a theory that is
available for others to work on.
---Tom S.
"It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical
errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to
Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable
of leading in a heretical direction." George Orwell, 1984, Pt. 2 ch. 9
Larry Moran
I agree. I was there last month and it seemed like a pretty
nice place. Looks about the same as many cities in Canada.
I think you should bump it up to "second world" status so it
matches Toronto and Sydney.
Larry Moran
Mike Goodrich
"Andy Groves" <gro...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:991ea4ae.04063...@posting.google.com...
Andy,
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the
humble
reasoning of a single individual"
-
Galileo Galilei
cheers,
-Mike
Mike Goodrich
"AC" <mightym...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnce6h7u.3o2....@mp1.alberni.net...
Well AC, as Dawkins would tell you, not everything that seems to be
something actually is so, and you can even go to college to have your brain
washed into official ways of thinking that would allow you to see something
as only 'apparent' ...
Ironically, if the design of biological systems is only 'apparent' and not
real, then of course the branching of lines of descent of all species from
common ancestor species may also only be 'apparent' and not real. I'm sure
that Dawkins is not really that interested in using his own paradigm in that
instance.
How did evolutionary naturalists get themselves into such an incoherent
mess? Truth suppression, and fallacious reasoning no doubt ...
Mike Goodrich
Sean Pitman
> > In fact, I would go so far as to say that all sciences are fields of
> > religious faith. I see no fundamental difference between science and
> > a rationally investigated religious faith of any kind.
> <snip>
>
> Then you seriously misunderstand the scientific method. Science is not a
> belief, but a method.
Science is a method that leads to a belief with a statistical degree
of reliability. If science were just a method without the outcome of
reliable belief, then it would be worthless.
> Fortunately, no particular philosophy is required to
> work in science. You can believe that little green men gave you the
> formula--as long as the formula is independently tested and verified.
If one's belief in "little green men giving formulas" was in fact
supported by testable predictions, then that belief would in fact be
supported by the scientific method according to the predictive value
of the testable predictions. In short, it is possible to support the
belief in smart little green men scientifically just like it is
possible to support the belief that certain tribes of pigmies live in
Africa and that Aborigines live in Australia. What is needed is a
testable prediction based on ones observations and/or beliefs.
> The scientific *method* works by matching theory and observation:
> hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation, repeat. There are other
> statements of the scientific method (due to emphasis on one component of the
> method or another, and especially due to the requirements of particular
> fields of study), but all such statements are roughly equivalent.
> http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
Certainly true . . .
> An hypothesis can come from virtually any source. Workable scientific
> hypotheses have historically come from deep thought, from fanciful
> thought-experiments (Einstein), from wide experience with observation, from
> the imagination, from a lucky guess, a hunch, serendipity, even from a dream
> (Kekulé). In real day-to-day science, most hypotheses come naturally as
> extensions of existing theory.
Also true . . .
> However any such scientific hypothesis must be reasonably consistent with
> known observations and make scientific predictions of future observations.
Yes . . . and the same is true of any "reasonable" religious position.
One may believe that little green men live in the middle of the moon
that will one day come to earth and take those that believe in them
back to live in the middle of the moon. However, if this notion is
not testable in any sort of falsifiable way, then it is basically a
worthless non-rational belief. It is no better than believing in
Santa Claus.
Actually, a child's belief in Santa Claus may in reality be quite
rational because at least they see abundant evidence all over the
place that Santa Claus is real. I mean, after all, there are all
those presents under the tree every Christmas. All those that the
child recognizes as authority figures or "experts" in their life are
telling them that Santa Clause is real. There are stories, poems,
songs, pictures and even movies of Santa Claus. Occasionally Santa
Claus is even interviewed on the local and national news. Certainly
with all this very predictable and seemingly reliable evidence,
without and understanding the evidence to contrary, it is very
rational to believe in Santa Claus. The same is true of any other
such evidence-based belief system be it "religious", "philosophical",
or even "scientific" in nature. All evidence-based beliefs are
basically the same. All are in fact based on the use, even if
subconscious use, of the scientific method.
Andy Groves
And your point is what exactly?
Andy
Louis
> Andy,
>
>
> "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the
> humble reasoning of a single individual"
>
> -
> Galileo Galilei
>
>
> cheers,
>
> -Mike
You know Mike you are right in this at least. It doesn't actually
matter whether one person says something or a million do, in science
it's the data that counts.
Sadly for you what you are claiming contradicts the data, and indeed
logic and reason. That many people can see this and that many people
point out that what you claim contradicts the data, logic and reason
is just bad news for you.
What was being refered to in the material I snipped was that body of
work, that data, which has been accumulated over time by many
different people. That many people today "speak with one voice", as it
were, on certain issues is merely an indication that that data is well
known. The side issue that many people are correctly expressing the
conclusions based on that data, and indeed the data itself, does not
one thing to reinforce or detract from the veracity of the data
itself. Argument from number of promotors is a logical fallacy as I am
sure you know. But again, sadly for you Mike, that was not what Andy
(or anyone) was trying to do.
Like has been said in the snip, you appear to be attempting to claim
that uninformed opinion is as valid as informed opinion. Whoops! While
all people's opinions are equal in terms of their right to be
expressed, all people's opinions are not equal in terms of how
accurate they are. Your opinion is innaccurate, it conflicts with the
data. After all how correct is my opinion that George Bush is
actually a robot being operated by Saddam Hussein and that Osama Bin
Laden is Jesus returned to earth? Not very! All people might be
equally valid, all opinons are not.
Galileo would not have been impressed with you, he would have gone
with the data, after all he died as a result of doing so. Do please
try not to sully the names of real scientists with your prejudices and
persecution complex. It makes you look a little shabby and worthless.
While it is true that a few individuals have indeed changed the face
of scientific knowledge with their penetrating insights, these
individuals are vastly more rare than those individuals who think
their unorthodox ideas are worthy of changing the face of science when
actually they are merely deluded. Are you somehow unaware of this? Is
it another basic, school-girl error like so many you (and others)
make? Sometimes the person promoting the unorthodox view is actually
incorrect and a lunatic, sometimes the majority is correct.
Persecution does not make one holy or correct.
Louis
Mike Goodrich
The same as Galileo's ?
KelvynT
I now know there is no evidence (short of a dated video recording of
the events) I could present that would make you change your views, so
I'm not even going to bother. Life's too short. Take this as a
capitulation if it makes you feel better.
However, I can't leave without a parting shot.
"Weathering mantle production rates can also be estimated using
radiometric dating. For example, suppose you have 10 seperate lava
flows in an area, which are dated at 1, 2, 3 . . . million years. If
the flows are seperated by 1 meter thick weathering mantles, then the
weathering mantles are developing at a rate of 1m/Ma. As an example,
Pillans (1997) presents evidence for extremely slow weathering on
basalt flows in north Queensland, Australia at rates of only 0.3m/Ma.
The youngest flow in the chronosequence, Toomba (13Ka), showed
essentially no breakdown or soil development at all. The two oldest
flows, Beckford (3.3Ma) and Wongalee (5.6Ma), showed 0.8m and 1.3m of
soil development, respectively"
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/sap.htm
I hope you're happy in your little world.
Kelvyn
Sean Pitman
> > > Science is not interested in "Truth", it is a method for developing
> > > better and better models for natural phenomena.
> >
> > Listen to yourself man! How do you know if something is "better" if
> > it is not also believed to be more "true"? A "better and better
> > model" could also be said to be a "truer and truer model" - could it
> > not? As a method for finding the "better" the scientific method is
> > also the only way to find or at least to approach the "truth" about
> > the external world in which we find ourselves.
> >
> > You just don't seem to like the word "truth" and prefer instead to
> > replace it with the word "better". This, in my opinion, is nothing
> > more than a matter of semantics. For example, would it be wrong for
> > me to say that I believe it to be a "true" statement that the earth
> > revolves around the sun? Or, is that simply a "better" statement than
> > to say the sun rises in the east and sets in the west? Do you see
> > what I'm saying here?
>
> "Truth" is a philosophical concept. It is not attainable in science. All
> theories are inherently approximations that model natural phenomena. Science
> does acknowledge facts, of which "the earth rotates around the sun" is an
> example. The data is so conclusive that only a fool would argue the point.
> There is a mathematical model that describes the rotation which works
> reasonably well, but on a small scale it is disrupted by the gravitational
> pull of every major and minor planet in the solar system, and even other
> factors that will never be completely described because the precision is not
> that important. The model we use is a good one, and it is factual, but it is
> not "truth" and it can be improved.
I'm not talking about absolute "Truth", but about humans beliefs about
what is or is not "true" or "correct". In this sense, "truth" is not
simply some vague philosophical concept. Some ideas, positions, or
theories can in fact be demonstrated to be more or less reliably
"true" than other ideas, positions or theories. This is clearly
recognized by most people. Just look at common definitions of truth
and science and you will find that science most definitely involves
the search for "better and better" *truth* - an approach to truth.
Science is: "Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes;
ascertained truth of facts." - Webster's Dictionary
Truth is: "A fact that has been verified; "at last he knew the truth";
"the truth is the he didn't want to do it" 2: conformity to reality or
actuality; "they debated the truth of the proposition"; "the situation
brought home to us the blunt truth of the military threat"; "he was
famous for the truth of his portraits"; "he turned to religion in his
search for eternal verities" - Webster's Dictionary
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science
All I have time for today . . .
Glenn
Of course, including r norman. He is no different from any other
evolutionist, in that they all regularly engage in exercises designed to
cast
their opponents in a bad light, and they will use any means they think
necessary.
Andy Groves
Do you think Galileo was simply speaking from his personal experience,
or do you think he was making a universal statement?
Do you think Galileo was talking about the authority of 1000 laypeople
versus the humble reasoning of a single individual trained in science?
Or do you think he was talking about authority of 1000 individuals
trained in science versus the humble reasoning of a single layperson?
Or do you think he was talking about authority of 1000 individuals
trained in science versus the humble reasoning of a single individual
trained in science?
It seems to me that while his statement *might* be true in some cases
- such as his, where the authority of the Catholic church was pitted
against his scientific reasoning - it is quite obviously not true in
all cases.
Let's deal with my examples again, since you seemed to ignore them
last time. I very much doubt that you would ignore the informed
opinion of a majority of doctors before you underwent a surgical
procedure, or the informed opinion of a majority of aeronautical
engineers before you stepped on a plane. Why is the informed opinion
of scientists any different? Are you going to actually address the
question this time, or do have another one-liner up your sleeve?
Andy
Earle Jones
"Mike Goodrich" <goodr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Andy Groves" <gro...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> news:991ea4ae.04063...@posting.google.com...
[...]
> > Or is this just about "weight" of evidence? Are you saying that the
> > amount of evidence for a position is irrelevant to the validity of
> > that position? Or are we back to arguing who decides whether a piece
> > of evidence is valid or not? Back to the experts........
> >
> > Andy
> >
>
>
> Andy,
>
>
> "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the
> humble reasoning of a single individual"
>
> -
> Galileo Galilei
>
>
> cheers,
>
> -Mike
*
Mike, I am really amazed that you would choose this quote by Galileo
to make your point. Who do you think represented the "authority of
a thousand" that Galileo referred to?
And who do you think was the "single individual"?
earle
*
"Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus
above that of the Holy Spirit?"
--John Calvin, "Commentary on Genesis"
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
r norman
<glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
>Of course, including r norman. He is no different from any other
>evolutionist, in that they all regularly engage in exercises designed to
>cast
>their opponents in a bad light, and they will use any means they think
>necessary.
You are quite capable of casting yourself in a bad light without my
assistance.
What I engage in is quite different: I direct the glaringly brilliant
light of science on you to let others see just what might be present.
The only means necessary is called "rhetoric": The art of using
language so as to persuade or influence others. Sometimes, I do
resort to "reason": The mental faculty which is used in adapting
thought or action to some end.
Zachriel
> "Zachriel"
<"http://www.zachriel.com/mutagenation/"@serv3.gc.dca.giganews.com> wrote in
message news:<zOOdnVecGo6...@adelphia.com>...
>
> > > In fact, I would go so far as to say that all sciences are fields of
> > > religious faith. I see no fundamental difference between science and
> > > a rationally investigated religious faith of any kind.
> > <snip>
> >
> > Then you seriously misunderstand the scientific method. Science is not a
> > belief, but a method.
>
> Science is a method that leads to a belief with a statistical degree
> of reliability.
For some reason you choose words such as "belief" (or "truth") that are
easily conflated due to their multiple meanings. "Belief" in religion is not
the same as "belief" in science.
* When someone makes the religious statement, "I believe in God", they are
expressing a certainty in God's spiritual existence.
* When someone makes the scientific statement, "I believe the results were
positive," they are making a qualified affirmation, not a certainty.
When scientists say that evolution is a fact, they are stating that the
evidence is overwhelming. The Theory of Evolution is supported by
observations in many different and differing fields of science.
<snip>
>
> If one's belief in "little green men giving formulas" was in fact
> supported by testable predictions, then that belief would in fact be
> supported by the scientific method according to the predictive value
> of the testable predictions.
In this example, the *formula* was the hypothesis, while the little green
men did *not* constitute a valid scientific hypothesis.
<snip>
>
> > However any such scientific hypothesis must be reasonably consistent
with
> > known observations and make scientific predictions of future
observations.
>
> Yes . . . and the same is true of any "reasonable" religious position.
You will have to be more specific on this point. All the major religions
appear to depend upon non-rational, a priori assumptions. That doesn't make
them "wrong", just non-scientific. For instance, direct spiritual experience
of angels might *reasonably* convince you of the existence of a spirit
world, but this does not constitute scientific evidence.
> One may believe that little green men live in the middle of the moon
> that will one day come to earth and take those that believe in them
> back to live in the middle of the moon.
> However, if this notion is
> not testable in any sort of falsifiable way, then it is basically a
> worthless non-rational belief.
Your assertion:
Non-testable = worthless
However, your assertion is itself not subject to rational validation. Your
assertion must be accepted a priori or arbitrarily, as "worth" is something
we assign subjectively. In any case, most of us accept many non-testable,
non-scientific assertions as being very worthwhile, including ideas of
justice and beauty. Perhaps you mean "scientifically worthless".
Your assertion:
Non-testable = non-rational
I assume you use "testable" to mean observation of natural phenomena. Yet,
logic itself is rational, but not a natural phenomena. Though rational,
logic is not subjective to scientific inquiry. You may be conflating science
with rationality. They are not identical.
A more proper assertion:
Non-testable = non-scientific
> It is no better than believing in
> Santa Claus.
<snip>
Sorry, there is no scientifically valid theory of Santa Claus.
Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies.
http://www.educa.rcanaria.es/usr/zonzamas/virginia.htm
Zachriel
> "R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in message
news:<qJKEc.18324$x9....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
>
>
> I'm not talking about absolute "Truth", but about humans beliefs about
> what is or is not "true" or "correct". In this sense, "truth" is not
> simply some vague philosophical concept. Some ideas, positions, or
> theories can in fact be demonstrated to be more or less reliably
> "true" than other ideas, positions or theories. This is clearly
> recognized by most people. Just look at common definitions of truth
> and science and you will find that science most definitely involves
> the search for "better and better" *truth* - an approach to truth.
Using this definition, the Theory of Evolution is true and creationism is
demonstrably false.
> Science is: "Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes;
> ascertained truth of facts." - Webster's Dictionary
>
> Truth is: "A fact that has been verified; "at last he knew the truth";
> "the truth is the he didn't want to do it" 2: conformity to reality or
> actuality; "they debated the truth of the proposition"; "the situation
> brought home to us the blunt truth of the military threat"; "he was
> famous for the truth of his portraits"; "he turned to religion in his
> search for eternal verities" - Webster's Dictionary
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science
I would recommend care when using words such as "truth" or "belief" due to
their multiple definitions.
Noctiluca
> "Mike Goodrich" <goodr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<X7ZEc.20$jp1.6@lakeread04>...
> > "Andy Groves" <gro...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> > news:991ea4ae.04070...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Mike Goodrich" <goodr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<7PUEc.17144$rf7.1962@lakeread02>...
> > > > "Andy Groves" <gro...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> > > > news:991ea4ae.04063...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > "Mike Goodrich" <goodr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<IdfEc.33352$cj3.7420@lakeread01>...
> > > > > > "Stanley Friesen" <sar...@friesen.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:1ir2e0p4lq5bbkhmq...@4ax.com...
> > > > > > > "Mike Goodrich" <goodr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >"R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > > >news:8T4Ec.12469$DT5....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
<snip>
E.g. Tycho Brahe. Once again Mike proves incapable of thinking past
his need for a cheap ego boost.
Eros
I don't think so, Mike. You appear to be a little confused, or perhaps
even willfully dishonest. In either case you are incorrect. Galileo
was comparing often irrational popular opinion (the authority of a
thousand) with the scientific reasoning of a single individual
scientist (most likely himself, considering the way he was treated by
the fanatical religionists of the time).
Today we have the irrational popular opinion of Creationism vs the
scientific reasoning of biologists, palaeontologists, etc. When taken
in correct context, Galileo's point is just as valid today as it was
in his time, whether with respect to Creationism, or any other
pseudoscience. There is no time limit on kooky unscientific ideas.
I suggest you refrain from using this quote in support of your case in
future, because the way you portrayed it in your response above is
quite the opposite to the context in which it was intended.
EROS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who endowed us
with sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their
use." -- Galileo
AC
Glenn
"r norman" <rsn_@_comcast.net> wrote in message
news:efa9e0ha8in0cfkga...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 21:20:34 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
> <glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
>
>
> >Of course, including r norman. He is no different from any other
> >evolutionist, in that they all regularly engage in exercises designed
to
> >cast
> >their opponents in a bad light, and they will use any means they
think
> >necessary.
>
> You are quite capable of casting yourself in a bad light without my
> assistance.
Why should I be surprised that an evolutionist would say that? Eh?
>
> What I engage in is quite different: I direct the glaringly brilliant
> light of science on you to let others see just what might be present.
Sure you do.
>
> The only means necessary is called "rhetoric": The art of using
> language so as to persuade or influence others. Sometimes, I do
> resort to "reason": The mental faculty which is used in adapting
> thought or action to some end.
>
There is no reasoning in your comments above.
Sean Pitman
> "Sean Pitman" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
> news:80d0c26f.04070...@posting.google.com...
> > "R. Baldwin" <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote in message
> news:<qJKEc.18324$x9....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > I'm not talking about absolute "Truth", but about humans beliefs about
> > what is or is not "true" or "correct". In this sense, "truth" is not
> > simply some vague philosophical concept. Some ideas, positions, or
> > theories can in fact be demonstrated to be more or less reliably
> > "true" than other ideas, positions or theories. This is clearly
> > recognized by most people. Just look at common definitions of truth
> > and science and you will find that science most definitely involves
> > the search for "better and better" *truth* - an approach to truth.
>
> Using this definition, the Theory of Evolution is true and creationism is
> demonstrably false.
Again, this is clearly your position or you would not be an
evolutionist. However, your "demonstrations", as far as I can tell
anyway, have fallen quite short. Despite your bravado claims to the
contrary, you haven't even come close to demonstrating evolution
beyond the very lowest levels of functional complexity and in this you
have failed to make even a remotely convincing argument against design
theory/creationism.
> > Science is: "Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes;
> > ascertained truth of facts." - Webster's Dictionary
> >
> > Truth is: "A fact that has been verified; "at last he knew the truth";
> > "the truth is the he didn't want to do it" 2: conformity to reality or
> > actuality; "they debated the truth of the proposition"; "the situation
> > brought home to us the blunt truth of the military threat"; "he was
> > famous for the truth of his portraits"; "he turned to religion in his
> > search for eternal verities" - Webster's Dictionary
> >
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science
>
> I would recommend care when using words such as "truth" or "belief" due to
> their multiple definitions.
I would recommend looking the definitions up in the dictionary,
especially the primary definitions, before telling those who use these
words according to their defined meaning that they aren't using them
correctly. It makes you look like you don't know basic English or
something.
Sean Pitman
> I now know there is no evidence (short of a dated video recording of
> the events) I could present that would make you change your views,
Likewise . . . That is why I'm not here to change your views, but to
improve my own.
> so
> I'm not even going to bother. Life's too short. Take this as a
> capitulation if it makes you feel better.
Again, it might help if you didn't look at this as some "mission" to
change the minds of those who are too blinded to recognize the
obvious, like myself, but as a means to sharpen your own position for
those who are actually capable of rational observation and thought.
> However, I can't leave without a parting shot.
Of course not . . .
> "Weathering mantle production rates can also be estimated using
> radiometric dating. For example, suppose you have 10 seperate lava
> flows in an area, which are dated at 1, 2, 3 . . . million years. If
> the flows are seperated by 1 meter thick weathering mantles, then the
> weathering mantles are developing at a rate of 1m/Ma. As an example,
> Pillans (1997) presents evidence for extremely slow weathering on
> basalt flows in north Queensland, Australia at rates of only 0.3m/Ma.
> The youngest flow in the chronosequence, Toomba (13Ka), showed
> essentially no breakdown or soil development at all. The two oldest
> flows, Beckford (3.3Ma) and Wongalee (5.6Ma), showed 0.8m and 1.3m of
> soil development, respectively"
> http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/sap.htm
Then, consider an outline of the problem, especially concerning the
supposedly ancient surfaces of Australia, found in a paper published
by C. R. Twidale as far back as a 1976 issue of the "American Journal
of Science":
"Even if it is accepted that estimates of the contemporary rate of
degradation of land surfaces are several orders too high (Dole and
Stabler, 1909; Judson and Ritter, 1964; see also Gilluly, 1955;
Menard, 1961) to provide an accurate yardstick of erosion in the
geological past there has surely been ample time for the very ancient
features preserved in the present landscape to have been eradicated
several times over. Yet the silcreted land surface of central
Australia has survived perhaps 20 m.y. of weathering and erosion under
varied climatic conditions, as has the laterite surface of the
northern areas of the continent. The laterite surface of the Gulfs
region of South Australia is even more remarkable, for it has
persisted through some 200 m.y. of epigene [surface] attack. The forms
preserved on the granite residuals of Eyre Peninsula have likewise
withstood long periods of exposure and yet remain recognizably the
landforms that developed under weathering attack many millions of
years ago. . . The survival of these paleoforms [as Kangaroo Island]
is in some degree an embarrassment to all of the commonly accepted
models of landscape development."
Also, back in a 1986 article published in the journal "Geomorphology",
B. W. Sparks commented:
"The student has two courses open to him: to accept long
extrapolations of short-term denudation [erosion] figures and doubt
the reality of the erosion surfaces, or to accept the erosion surfaces
and be skeptical about the validity of long extrapolations of present
erosion rates."
So you see, making extrapolations based on radiometric dating
techniques, which are themselves fraught with all kinds of problems,
is much less reliable than those that are based on more direct
measurements of erosion over time. For your convenience I have listed
several such papers detailing real time studies of erosion rates for
granite as well as basalt surfaces, which you have yet to respond in a
meaningful way - at least not in a way that makes much sense to me
personally.
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/geologiccolumn.html
> I hope you're happy in your little world.
And you in your great big world . . .
> Kelvyn
Richard Forrest
Just to provide evidence of Glenn's ability to cast himself in a bad
light without any assistance, try this exchange on another thread:
To summarise (and I've snipped out a few lines to make the dialogue
clearer: look up the thread http://tinyurl.com/ytzgf to check that
I've been fair)
(RF) What evidence to the contrary? You haven't offered any.
(Glenn) Sure I have. Evolutionists are like ostriches, they stick
their head in the sand and say "No you didn't", or "Your behavior has
shown that", like below.
(RF)So what evidence have you offered? Give me a single substantive
example which hasn't been thoroughly refuted.
(Glenn) That there is no example which can not be "refuted". Take that
and twist it now.
(RF) So you have no evidence to offer in support of your position. Why
should we take you seriously?
(Glenn) And sure enough you did. Know for certain that I take you
seriously.
(RF) Okay. Give me the best piece of evidence you have, and give an
analysis of the refutation which no doubt exists in talk.origins
explaining why the refutation is flawed. Or is that twisting?
(Glenn) Do this! Right now! ROTFLMAO! You guys are such jerk-offs.
(RF) Such a well-formed argument. Proves my point, doesn't it?
(Glenn) Uh, no. ROTFLMAO!
(RF) So give me the best piece of evidence you have, and give an
analysis of the refutation which no doubt exists in talk.origins
explaining why the refutation is flawed.
Simple question
(Glenn) That wasn't a question.
RF
R. Tang
Doubtful. You'd have to understand his point to do so.
--
-
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL][Yes, it IS new]
- http://www.aatrevue.com
Richard Forrest
Let's not forget Jimmy Durante:
"They said was Galileo mad
They said Einstein was mad
They said Louie was mad"
"Who's Louie?"
"My Uncle - he was mad"
RF
Mike Goodrich
Both.
> Do you think Galileo was talking about the authority of 1000 laypeople
> versus the humble reasoning of a single individual trained in science?
>
> Or do you think he was talking about authority of 1000 individuals
> trained in science versus the humble reasoning of a single layperson?
>
> Or do you think he was talking about authority of 1000 individuals
> trained in science versus the humble reasoning of a single individual
> trained in science?
Both.
>
> It seems to me that while his statement *might* be true in some cases
> - such as his, where the authority of the Catholic church was pitted
> against his scientific reasoning - it is quite obviously not true in
> all cases.
>
False, it is true in all cases.
> Let's deal with my examples again, since you seemed to ignore them
> last time. I very much doubt that you would ignore the informed
> opinion of a majority of doctors before you underwent a surgical
> procedure, or the informed opinion of a majority of aeronautical
> engineers before you stepped on a plane. Why is the informed opinion
> of scientists any different? Are you going to actually address the
> question this time, or do have another one-liner up your sleeve?
How 'informed an opinion is' in a matter scientific or otherwise is subject
to Galileo's maxim regardless of the credentials of the people involved or
lack thereof.
If I choose to trust a doctor's opinion in a given situation, that says
something about me and does not make the 'authority of a thousand doctors
worth the humble reasoning of a single individual'.
There is no 'authority' in science - we are all on the same humble footing,
and you had better hope I am right.
regards,
-Mike
Andy Groves
Errr.....Mike..... I gave you three options. "Both" isn't an answer.
> >
> > It seems to me that while his statement *might* be true in some cases
> > - such as his, where the authority of the Catholic church was pitted
> > against his scientific reasoning - it is quite obviously not true in
> > all cases.
> >
>
>
> False, it is true in all cases.
>
>
>
> > Let's deal with my examples again, since you seemed to ignore them
> > last time. I very much doubt that you would ignore the informed
> > opinion of a majority of doctors before you underwent a surgical
> > procedure, or the informed opinion of a majority of aeronautical
> > engineers before you stepped on a plane. Why is the informed opinion
> > of scientists any different? Are you going to actually address the
> > question this time, or do have another one-liner up your sleeve?
>
>
> How 'informed an opinion is' in a matter scientific or otherwise is subject
> to Galileo's maxim regardless of the credentials of the people involved or
> lack thereof.
That was why I used the word layperson. Perhaps we are arguing at
cross-purposes here. I am arguing that someone cannot be informed
about a particular issue AND be a layperson. All I'm saying is that
someone who knows nothing about a subject (say, biochemistry) should
be trusted less on matters biochemical than a biochemist. Do you
really disagree with this?
> If I choose to trust a doctor's opinion in a given situation, that says
> something about me and does not make the 'authority of a thousand doctors
> worth the humble reasoning of a single individual'.
>
> There is no 'authority' in science - we are all on the same humble footing,
> and you had better hope I am right.
No, I sincerely hope you are wrong. But let me run three more examples
past you. From what you have said above, you appear to agree with the
idea that:
1. The opinion of somone who believes the sun moves round the Earth is
worth more than the opinion of 1000 astronomers who say the opposite.
2. The opinion of somone who believes malaria is caused by evil
spirits is worth more than the opinion of 1000 epidemiologists who
think it is caused by the malarial parasite Plasmodium.
3. The opinion of an atheist who believes that transubstantiation does
not occur during the Catholic Mass is worth more than the Catholic
bishops of North America.
Is this correct? Or is your point that someone can be educated about a
particular subject without being what Pagano refers to as
"credentialled"?
Andy
MurphyInOhio
of nuclear activity at the earth's core and the current timescale for
"cooling", since the calculations of Lord Kelvin/Thompson?
KelvynT
>http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/geologiccolumn.html
>
>> I hope you're happy in your little world.
>
>And you in your great big world . . .
I am thanks, there's a lot of room to breathe :-)
Kelvyn
Earle Jones
eros_tal...@hotmail.com (Eros) wrote:
*
Einstein thought highly of Galileo:
"In my opinion, the greatest creative geniuses are Galileo and
Newton, whom I regard in a certain sense as forming a unity. And in
this unity Newton is [the one] who has achieved the most imposing
feat in the realm of science."
A. Einstein (quoted in Moszkowski, Conversations with Einstein)
earle
*
Earle Jones
seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com (Sean Pitman) wrote:
> theory/creationism....
*
Sean: Would you remind us again: What exactly is the theory of
design/creation?
Thanks,
Earle Jones
"Glenn" <glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
*
Actually, it isn't that hard. Read a paragraph or two by someone
like Hovind and you'll find out that putting them in a bad light is
just about automatic.
It's like what Ingersoll said about the Bible: If you want to know
what's wrong with it, just read it.
earle
*
"All that is necessary, as it seems to me, to convince any
reasonable person that the Bible is simply and purely of human
invention -- of barbarian invention -- is to read it. Read it as you
would any other book; think of it as you would of any other, get the
bandage of reverence from your eyes; drive from your heart the
phantom of fear; push from the throne of your brain the cowled form
of superstition -- then read the Holy bible, and you will be amazed
that you ever, for one moment, supposed a being of infinite wisdom,
goodness and purity to be the author of such ignorance and such
atrocity."
--Robert Ingersoll (from his essay 'The Gods')
Cheezits
> "Andy Groves" <gro...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote in message
>> > the humble reasoning of a single individual"
>>
>
No it isn't? Because you aren't Galileo? And you don't know what you're
talking about with respect to scientific matters? HTH?
Sue?
--
"Everybody's stupid except me!" - Homer Simpson
Earle Jones
"Glenn" <glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
*
It certainly seems reasonable to me.
BTW, Glenn, consider the statement, "God exists".
If you believe this, is it a conclusion from reasoning that preceded
it? Or is it a hypothesis, from which your beliefs follow?
earle
*
Earle Jones
ric...@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote:
*
Very interesting interchange! And typical of Christers who
hypothesize their God and then let their thinking flow from that.
Glenn -- Here is an idea -- State the following: "I believe that
God exists and that his only son Jesus died to save us. Further, I
believe this based, not on any known scientific evidence, but rather
on my faith."
Don't you see that such an admission would completely change your
position to one of honesty and the resultant admiration?
Earle Jones
Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlinkNOSPAM.next> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:58:42 +0000 (UTC),
> seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com (Sean Pitman) wrote:
>
> >> Science is not dogma. All scientific theories are subject to replacement by
> >> new theories that better describe the data.
> >
> >That may be the ideal, but you are dealing with real human beings here
> >who often have very strong bias and devotion to a particular point of
> >view. The Bretz story is a classic illustration of this problem.
> >Many of those who apposed Bretz never changed their minds before they
> >died.
>
> And yet Bretz was not only vindicated; he became highly renowned among
> his peers. How did he accomplish that? Was it by quote-mining other
> geologists' work on the Internet? Was it by citing how previous
> geologists were mistreated when they proposed something unorthodox?
> Or was it by finding, presenting, and defending hard evidence with his
> geologist peers?
*
For more on J. Harlan Bretz, take a look at:
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/bretz_re.html
Bretz received the Penrose Medal (Geology's highest honor) just
before he died.
r norman
Murph, why don't you do your own research? A quick google on
"radioactive decay heating earth" produced many useful sites. But you
can browse the web and can read, too, can't you?
You do know, of course, that Lord Kelvin's calculations did not take
into account radioactive decay at all and so are completely inaccurate
to account for the current temperature or age of the earth.
Or are you waiting for someone to present data that, in some tiny way,
might be slightly flawed so you can jump all over it? True, you asked
a simple question and probably should deserve a simple answer but you
do have a long history in this news group.