12 Jul 05
Originally posted by chinking58Great article, shame about the lack of science
Ok, here's an article about a massive coal deposit in Australia that appeared in Creation Magazine. Some Undies (my tongue-in-cheek name for Unbelievers, as opposed to their term, Fundies, for Fundamentalist believers like myself) will dismiss this magazine and website out of hand. That is simply a cop-out they use to avoid the issue. I don't get it. ...[text shortened]... other articles found at this site.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i2/coal.asp
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightI can say that the grass I observed is longer today than it was yesterday - assuming I made an observation yesterday, and an observation today, and I noted a change to the length of the grass. So?
So, you need to think real hard to call yesterday's grass shorter?
Yes or no; is today's grass longer than yesterday's?
Conversely, was yesterday's grass shorter than today's?
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by David CThe late Holocene saw sea level rise in the Mediterranean. It is totally understandable that these events became part of the oral history of the early biblical peoples.
Don't misunderstand. I'm not trying to justify the flood myth with this information, nor does the data support any sort of worldwide flood catastrophe. Granted, this is only one researcher (well, his team), but he is tenured by a (ahem) respected institution:
http://www.news-about-space.org/story/2409.html
Additionally, we have the ongoing Holocene e ...[text shortened]... 9000 BCE. Could the trigger for the proto-myth of global disaster predate Usher's calculations?
Similarly the beginnings of cereal agriculture date from about 10000 bp with centres of wheat domestication in N Syria / SE Turkey and barley from the Jordan valley. These traditions are also reflected in the bible.
The re-working of oral history into a written record some 5000 years later, a written record that has been edited and re-worked many times since does not become a factual record of a world-wide flood just because the half baked fundies tell us its true.
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by vistesdI agree with you entirely. If I ask a panel of PhD astrophysicists from NASA what the object in the left shoulder of the constellation of Orion is, and the panel tells me that it is red giant called Betelguese, and equally numbered panel of high school dropouts tell me that it is infact not a star but rather a large planet, and I have no other information to go upon except their claims, then I would assert that it is more reasonable to give consider the NASA panel's claim more likely based solely upon the credentials of the panelists.
[b]I know you dubbed your question an irrelevant aside, but, given the availability of an easy answer through google, I cannot help thinking this is a mild reproach of my criticism of the King of Chin's authority as a geologist.
Not really. It might have been a (very) mild reproach with regard to "credentialism." Credentials can be importa ...[text shortened]... rity of credentials, they are certainly open to question.
If I was off-base, I apologize. 🙂[/b]
Now if both panels instead also supplement their claims with evidence, then it is no longer reasonable for me to favor the NASA panel solely because of superior certified education in the area of astronomy. Instead the validity of the claims should be decided upon the merits of their evidence.
So in short, evidence and argument trump credentials, but generally, in the absence of either evidence or argument, credentials can be used to weigh the likely truthfulness of a statement.
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by ColettiWould you further claim that the inference that the grass grew naturally over the period, and therefore was at some moment at a height halfway between the two observed heights, is weak and should not be given any more weight than the claim that the grass instantaneously went from being the first recorded height to the second?
I can say that the grass I observed is longer today than it was yesterday - assuming I made an observation yesterday, and an observation today, and I noted a change to the length of the grass. So?
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by ColettiI didn't say that one had to assert they were making a deductive claim for a conclusion to be deductively invalid. I said that if one is clearly using inductive reasoning, they can't be accused of committing a deductive fallacy. Do you regard all non-deductive reasoning to be "fallacious?"
A conclusion can be deductively invalid regardless to someone asserting it is a deductive conclusion. Either the conclusion is invalid deductively or it is not.
Any valid conclusion can be false if the premises are false. But if the argument is invalid - the truth of the conclusion is unknowable. The only knowable true conclusion is one that follows validly from true premises.
12 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiSo, you drive past a farmer's hayfield for the first time: hay longer than yesterday? Last week?
I can say that the grass I observed is longer today than it was yesterday - assuming I made an observation yesterday, and an observation today, and I noted a change to the length of the grass. So?
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightCol is just being argumentative. There is no way that he operates in the world without making the assumptions supporting the constancy of natural laws.
So, you drive past a farmer's hayfield for the first time: hay longer than yesterday? Last week?
While it is true that we cannot be absolutely certain such laws have not changed in such a manner as to make it look as though they hadn't changed, no reasonable person holds this position except when pressed to hold a position in an argument.
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by vistesdhe concludes any statement that aint his is a fallacy
I didn't say that one had to assert they were making a deductive claim for a conclusion to be deductively invalid. I said that if one is clearly using inductive reasoning, they can't be accused of committing a deductive fallacy. Do you regard all non-deductive reasoning to be "fallacious?"
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by telerionOr if by admitting that one can indeed glean valid data from this process, radioactive dating becomes real, the Earth is billions of years old, Genesis is wrong and there goes Heaven ...
Col is just being argumentative. There is no way that he operates in the world without making the assumptions supporting the constancy of natural laws.
While it is true that we cannot be absolutely certain such laws have not changed in such a manner as to make it look as though they hadn't changed, no reasonable person holds this position except when pressed to hold a position in an argument.
13 Jul 05
Originally posted by frogstompAye, it's a tankless task, must get tanked ...
Isn't this from a basic algebra course that's getting the young'un ready for vector analysis, and since it's pre-trig Math.
Im picturing some poor grammar school teacher trying to explain to some kid it's not the proper setting to postulate a non-abelian universe in an attempt to prove an idea that came from the stone age.
13 Jul 05
Originally posted by KneverKnight"The same parts of the earth are not always moist or dry, but they change according as rivers come into existence and dry up. And so the relation of land to sea changes too and a place does not always remain land or sea throughout all time, but where there was dry land there comes to be sea, and where there is now sea, there one day comes to be dry land. But we must suppose these changes to follow some order and cycle. The principle and cause of these changes is that the interior of the earth grows and decays, like the bodies of plants and animals. . . ."
Or if by admitting that one can indeed glean valid data from this process, radioactive dating becomes real, the Earth is billions of years old, Genesis is wrong and there goes Heaven ...
"But the whole vital process of the earth takes place so gradually and in periods of time which are so immense compared with the length of our life, that these changes are not observed, and before their course can be recorded from beginning to end whole nations perish and are destroyed."
Aristotle
You can't blame God or Aristotle for Scholasticism , that was the handiwork of religious fanatics.
13 Jul 05
Originally posted by telerionFair enough buddy!
Hey, I lived in SE Alaska for about eight years as kid. Mostly out on Prince of Wales Island. Anyhoo . . .
As for your status as geologist, I suppose you could fairly claim to have been a geology tech when you were doing the summer work or whatever after you graduated. Usually though I think of someone with a PhD or working towards one in the field, o ...[text shortened]... t. If it includes supporting evidence from a website or article please cite this.
Thank you.
Prince of Whales you say? What an amazing coincidence! That's where I was working! Moira Sound, Niblack Anchorage. I was married and my three kids were born in ketchikan.
Like I said, I never quite 'new' if I could call myself a geologist. I'll take your PhD definition to heart. I guess I'm not even a carpenter though now!
15 Jul 05
Well Tel, in regards to the Grand Canyon, what say we look at this one for a start, and see what we can see.
I'm coming from the point of view holding that if anything is true, there will be many related truths; some major, some minor, but all truths work consistently with all other truths. That's what I enjoy about being a Fundy! I can engage in ethical arguments, natural science discussions, Biblical studies; compare notes on philosophy and the social sciences, and always remain confident that the Truths in one field will mesh with the truths in all the others, because our creator God is behind it all.
The details of a limestone deposits will not prove or disprove anything all by themselves, because they may fit into both, or many, hypotheses, but all specific evidence found will fit into the truth. Over time, the data found in nature will tend to point in one direction more than any other.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/limestone.asp