|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
 Posted - 10/31/2007 : 07:45:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
How about the fact that the geologic column is based on the assumption of evolution.
|
Where DO you get this stuff?
Evolutionary theory had no influence at all on the creation of the geologic column. Columns for limited geographical areas were common by the mid 1700's. Attempts to create a global column began in the late 1700's. By 1850 the main geological periods were set. Darwin's "The Origin of Species" was published in 1859.
Perhaps you are confused by the use of fossils for correlating the rocks from one local geologic column to another. This was done based on the simple observation that fossils changed from the lower parts of the columns to the younger, and always in the same order. It was a reasonable assumption that the same fossils in one location correlated in age to the same fossils in another location. This facilitated the creation of the global column. Subsequent radiometric dating has confirmed this assumption.
Please do not confuse the ordering of fossils in the geologic column with the theory of evolution. While the TOE explains the ordering, the ordering itself cares not a wit about the TOE. The ordering is a "fact", often referred to as "The Fact Of Evolution" (FOE?) to distinguish it from the theory. "Evolution" simply means "change over time", and its a fact that the observed fossis change over time (wheather its 4 billion years or 40 days, it doesn't matter). In fact, the prevailing "belief" of the early geologists was that the sediments were precipitated out of a single great flood. Sound familiar?
That you would say that its a fact that "the geologic column is based on the assumption of evolution" shows a serious lack of understanding on your part about both the geologic column and evolution.
Seriously, where did you get that "fact" from? |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 07:48:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Gosh the word indoctrinated is being thrown around a lot. As though there is no evidence for evolution and we are all just brainwashed.
So a magic guy in the sky did it makes more sense to you Bill? Okay, whatever floats your boat.
Magic guy
Natural process
Magic guy
Natural process
Magic guy
I'm sorry but I just have to go with natural process. Enjoy your lack of indoctrination though…
|
Who said anything about a magic guy? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
 Posted - 10/31/2007 : 07:59:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
I have never advocated spontaneous generation and have you/anyone ever observed m-t-m evolution or it's working mechanisim under a microscope?
|
Wow, the whole thing went whoosh.  |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 08:18:48 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by leoofno |
| Perhaps you are confused by the use of fossils for correlating the rocks from one local geologic column to another. This was done based on the simple observation that fossils changed from the lower parts of the columns to the younger, and always in the same order. It was a reasonable assumption that the same fossils in one location correlated in age to the same fossils in another location. This facilitated the creation of the global column. |
Evolutionary beliefs were used as a basis for the assumption that fossils of the same type were time-equivalent on a global scale.
And reasonable assumption can be a rather subjective term.
| Subsequent radiometric dating has confirmed this assumption. |
Radiometric dating methods are calibrated to the geologic column. Therefore it can not be considered an independent check of the geologic column.
| Please do not confuse the ordering of fossils in the geologic column with the theory of evolution. |
I didn't.
| While the TOE explains the ordering, the ordering itself cares not a wit about the TOE. The ordering is a "fact", often referred to as "The Fact Of Evolution" (FOE?) to distinguish it from the theory. "Evolution" simply means "change over time", and its a fact that the observed fossis change over time (wheather its 4 billion years or 40 days, it doesn't matter). |
If you have followed all my posts then you will know that I don't question evolution (change over time). I question the molecules-to-men assumption which has been saddled onto the back of observed evolution. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 08:25:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
Originally posted by Bill scott
I have never advocated spontaneous generation and have you/anyone ever observed m-t-m evolution or it's working mechanisim under a microscope?
|
Wow, the whole thing went whoosh.
|
Actually, I just dismissed your attempt to tie myself, and this debate, to some "believers" who lived centureies before I even existed.
And what does using a microscope to disprove spontanous generation have to do with m-t-m evolution? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 08:35:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Because I don't think you can provide any such example. I think your claim is smoke-and-mirrors. And I don't agree with you in the first place, because the speculation and assumptions I'm talking about are much more basic than what you're willing to discuss. |
How about the fact that the geologic column is based on the assumption of evolution. |
How is that an assumption or speculation within the theory of evolution? I don't give a rat's patootie about the geologic column, that's independent of biology.| I never said that, but what do you mean by "know?" |
What do you mean by "knowledge?" |
You're the one who asked me if we can "know" for sure. I have no doubt that you used that word with a particular meaning in mind. Why do you refuse to tell me what it is?| What problem? All I did was provide an easy to understand scenario where evidence can be looked at using scientific methods and a consensus is reached and the conclusion is completely wrong. Are you saying that this scenario is not possible in regard to m-t-m evolution science? Because that is why I keep bringing it up. It is my belief that you have a hard time acknowledging that the possibility exists, that using scientific methods to examine the evidence can come to any incorrect conclusions, at least as far as m-t-m evolution science goes . |
What utter nonsense. If you had "simply" argued that science is wrong sometimes, there would be no disagreement. That's not what you argued, you said (over and over again) that a particular part of evolutionary theory is "a belief." And now you refuse to even acknowledge that there is a difference between the words "belief" and "knowledge" besides spelling.| Your next move is to pull out your "get out of jail free" card and boast: "that in the very rare chance that a m-t-m evolution scientist did make a mistake then it is certain that another would soon correct him. The chances of a m-t-m evolution scientist making a mistake and then no other m-t-m evolution scientist correcting him is the lowest possible value next to zero. And we can prove that claim with m-t-m evolution theory as well." |
I would never say any such thing. You're just making things up, now. Is this a last act of desperation before you vanish for another few weeks, coming back as if your part in this discussion never happened?| Oh brother. It's like putting the inmates in charge of the inmates. Forgive me if I challenge the logic of your checks and balances. |
Forgive me if I sneer at your wholly fabricated frustration. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 08:37:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Actually, I just dismissed your attempt to tie myself, and this debate, to some "believers" who lived centureies before I even existed.
|
Of course you did. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
perrodetokio
Skeptic Friend
275 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 09:07:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Kil
Gosh the word indoctrinated is being thrown around a lot. As though there is no evidence for evolution and we are all just brainwashed.
So a magic guy in the sky did it makes more sense to you Bill? Okay, whatever floats your boat.
Magic guy
Natural process
Magic guy
Natural process
Magic guy
I'm sorry but I just have to go with natural process. Enjoy your lack of indoctrination though…
|
Who said anything about a magic guy?
|
Erm... you did... about a hundred times! |
"Yes I have a belief in a creator/God but do not know that he exists." Bill Scott
"They are still mosquitoes! They did not turn into whales or lizards or anything else. They are still mosquitoes!..." Bill Scott
"We should have millions of missing links or transition fossils showing a fish turning into a philosopher..." Bill Scott |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 09:33:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| Your equation of a jury trial and the process of science is part of the problem. |
What problem? All I did was provide an easy to understand scenario where evidence can be looked at using scientific methods and a consensus is reached and the conclusion is completely wrong. Are you saying that this scenario is not possible in regard to m-t-m evolution science? Because that is why I keep bringing it up. It is my belief that you have a hard time acknowledging that the possibility exists, that using scientific methods to examine the evidence can come to any incorrect conclusions, at least as far as m-t-m evolution science goes. |
The major differences are: that science do not accept personal testimony, and that the trial is not over once the initial verdict is stated, it continues being tested. And finally, the person being convicted know that his imprisonment is provisional and that his case is constantly being tried, and doesn't hold a grudge if he is released.
| Your next move is to pull out your "get out of jail free" card and boast: "that in the very rare chance that a m-t-m evolution scientist did make a mistake then it is certain that another would soon correct him. |
Why shouldn't we expect that to happen? Only morons demand that scientists never make a mistake.
This is one of the problems that theists have: scientific knowledge is always provisional, and not set in stone like the Infallible Word of God. Yet, theists expect, yes even demand that science produce Absolute Truth, or it cannot compete with the Bible. Since they are too often confined to see things in Black or White, scientific knowledge becomes black because theists' contrast levels are set to maximum.
| The chances of a m-t-m evolution scientist making a mistake and then no other m-t-m evolution scientist correcting him is the lowest possible value next to zero. |
It's because the scientific method demands experiments to be repeated, and theories re-analysed.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 10:14:03 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| I don't give a rat's patootie about the geologic column, that's independent of biology. |
Ok. How about the assumption that the natural selection mechanism is capable of mutating molecules-to-mice and mice-to-men. They assume that it is based on their belief in common decent and the fact that we have observed molecules, mice, and men. With their preconceived notions what else could they assume but that NS was a capable mechanism? This is all based on the assumption that their belief in common decent is correct.
| I have no doubt that you used that word with a particular meaning in mind. Why do you refuse to tell me what it is? |
Because you already have no doubt of the meaning.
| If you had "simply" argued that science is wrong sometimes, there would be no disagreement. |
I pretty much did.
| That's not what you argued, you said (over and over again) that a particular part of evolutionary theory is "a belief." |
It is. My argument was that because science can sometimes be wrong the conclusion that natural selection was capable of mutating molecules-to-mice and then mice-to-men was, by definition, a belief. Besides the fact that natural selection has never been observed accomplishing such feats. The mere existence of molecules, mice, and men do not make it so.
| And now you refuse to even acknowledge that there is a difference between the words "belief" and "knowledge" besides spelling. |
I acknowledge it and I will use each in a sentence for you.
Even though Dave acknowledges that science is wrong sometimes, he still has a belief that m-t-m evolution is the most reasonable explanation for the diversity of life we see around us.
In order to remove belief science would have to be 100% correct, 100% of the time. Which it is not. Some might add reasonable belief, or reasonable assumption, but it is still belief and assumption.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief
Dave claims that m-t-m evolution explains the diversity in life that we see. But because science does make some mistakes he would have a limited knowledge, or a limited sum of what is known, as to the validity of such a claim.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/knowledge
| I would never say any such thing. You're just making things up, now. |
I was paraphrasing.
| Is this a last act of desperation before you vanish for another few weeks, coming back as if your part in this discussion never happened? |
This forum is about 3rd or 4th down on my list as far as how I like to spend my free time. And I travel on occasion in my line of work so I don't always have the time or computer access to join in on all the fun. Your noticing my absence at these times is a nice gesture, thanks.
| Forgive me if I sneer at your wholly fabricated frustration. |
No forgiveness is required as your speculation on my frustration is incorrect. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 10/31/2007 11:15:46 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 10:19:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
Originally posted by Bill scott
Actually, I just dismissed your attempt to tie myself, and this debate, to some "believers" who lived centureies before I even existed.
|
Of course you did.
|
BTW, what does using a microscope to disprove spontanous generation have to do with m-t-m evolution? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 10:24:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Originally posted by leoofno |
| Perhaps you are confused by the use of fossils for correlating the rocks from one local geologic column to another. This was done based on the simple observation that fossils changed from the lower parts of the columns to the younger, and always in the same order. It was a reasonable assumption that the same fossils in one location correlated in age to the same fossils in another location. This facilitated the creation of the global column. |
Evolutionary beliefs were used as a basis for the assumption that fossils of the same type were time-equivalent on a global scale.
And reasonable assumption can be a rather subjective term.
|
I probably shouldn't have used the word assumed. Correlation is inferred based on the following facts:
1. Younger sediments are deposited on top of older sediments. Therefore the sediments represent a time sequence with the oldest sediments on the bottom.
2. The order of the fossils in different local geologic columns is always the same.
3. The local environments at the location of the columns were not isolated or independent from each other.
One can infer from these facts that fossil assemblages at one column will correlate in time to the same assemblages at other columns. How is that not reasonable? Is there another choice?
Not much evolutionary theory involved here, just Faunal Succession.
| Subsequent radiometric dating has confirmed this assumption. |
Radiometric dating methods are calibrated to the geologic column. Therefore it can not be considered an independent check of the geologic column.
|
Here you're just dead wrong. Radiometric dating has nothing to do with the geologic column. It is not calibrated to, or justified in any way by, the geologic column. If it were to give ages for rocks in the column that did not agree with the ordering of the column, then that would be powerful evidence against the validity of the column. However, that is not the case. If fact the dates derived agree quite well with the ordering of the layers in the column.
Please explain how radiometric dating is calibrated to the geologic column. Since the column had no dates assigned to it before the advent of this technique, I find it hard to see how it could be done. Perhaps a link?
Actually, this brings up something concerning the geologic column that does have something to do with the theory of evolution. You see, the supposed slow pase of evolution implied by the theory did not fit well, before radiometric dating, with the estimates of the Earth's age. The amount of change shown by faunal succcession seemed to require more time than was available. Estimates for the Earth's age ranged from the 6000 to 10000 years derived from the Bible to about 400 million, with most scientisits settling on around 100 million years. None of these ages was considered long enough for Darwin's theory. Radiometric dating, by showing the incredible antiquity of the Earth, changed all that.
|
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 11:01:24 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by leoofno |
| I probably shouldn't have used the word assumed. |
No you should have.
| Please explain how radiometric dating is calibrated to the geologic column. Since the column had no dates assigned to it before the advent of this technique, I find it hard to see how it could be done. |
It is amazing how consistent two things can be when one is calibrated by the other.
Geologists experiment with different methods to determine which are valid within the geological context of their samples.
Under uniformitarian geology a rock or fossil's location in the geologic column is the most important part of a sample's geological context.
The result is that the geologic column effectively serves as a filter for dates, such that acceptable dates agree with the geologic column.
So as a result all radiometric dating methods are calibrated to the geologic column.
| Radiometric dating, by showing the incredible antiquity of the Earth, changed all that. |
Assuming that it was calibrated to miles rather then feet.
Take ten cars and calibrate their odometers to 1 mile = 1 foot and then have them driven around an average size city. The results from all ten cars would produce surprisingly consistent and detailed data showing various locations around the city to be tens of thousands of miles apart, when they are in reality at most only a few miles apart.
http://creationwiki.org/CD103
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 11:07:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Ok. How about the assumption that the natural selection mechanism is capable of mutating molecules-to-mice and mice-to-men. They assume that it is based on their belief in common decent and the fact that we have observed molecules, mice, and men. With their preconceived notions what else could they assume but that NS was a capable mechanism? This is all based on the assumption that their belief in common decent is correct. |
How much natural selection is responsible for biodiversity (as opposed to other evolutionary mechanisms) is being actively studied and debated today, in the scientific literature. There is no assumption about its capabilities, people are using observation and experiment to form arguments on the relative level of natural selection's involvement in contemporary speciation events.| I have no doubt that you used that word with a particular meaning in mind. Why do you refuse to tell me what it is? |
Because you already have no doubt of the meaning. |
I wouldn't have asked if I had no doubt. I have very grave doubts that what you and I consider 'knowledge' are the same.| If you had "simply" argued that science is wrong sometimes, there would be no disagreement. |
I pretty much did. |
But since science being wrong sometimes is no reason to have a belief in anything scientific, why are you so concerned with the word "belief?"| That's not what you argued, you said (over and over again) that a particular part of evolutionary theory is "a belief." |
It is. |
Once again, you are confusing knowledge with belief.I acknowledge it and I will use each in a sentence for you.
Even though Dave acknowledges that science is wrong sometimes, he still has a belief that m-t-m evolution is the most reasonable explanation for the diversity of life we see around us.
In order to remove belief science would have to be 100% correct, 100% of the time. Which it is not. Some might add reasonable belief, or reasonable assumption, but it is still belief and assumption. |
That last part is false, true and false. Why is it that you refuse to acknowledge that there are other options besides "perfect knowledge" and "belief?" Your painting this as a black-or-white choice is ludicrous.| Dave claims that m-t-m evolution explains the diversity in life that we see. But because science does make some mistakes he would have a limited knowledge, or a limited sum of what is known, as to the validity of such a claim. |
Which doesn't make it a belief.| I would never say any such thing. You're just making things up, now. |
I was paraphrasing. |
I never said anything like that, so you weren't paraphrasing me.| No forgiveness is required as your speculation on my frustration is incorrect. |
Because you couldn't have been paraphrasing me, "wholly fabricated" is very accurate. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 11:27:16 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| How much natural selection is responsible for biodiversity (as opposed to other evolutionary mechanisms) is being actively studied and debated today, in the scientific literature. There is no assumption about its capabilities, people are using observation and experiment to form arguments on the relative level of natural selection's involvement in contemporary speciation events. |
Well it is assumed that molecules-to-mice-to-man mutations are possible, no matter what, if any, mechanisms you care to assign as the acting agent. Just because one has a belief in common decent and has observed molecules, mice, and men does not make the mutations so.
| I wouldn't have asked if I had no doubt. |
Then why did you say:
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 10/31/2007 11:30:52 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
ID predicts.......
