why we do not believe secular scientists

[gwynedd1]

That's not true because we some things, like astronomy, can only be direct observation of prehistoric events. The 1987 supernova happened 170,000+ years ago, long before the advent of history, be we couldn't observe it directly until 1987.

Hello USincognito,

That is more along the lines of a weak ontological argument . One could apply that to sunlight. We have all been at a different distances to light and it seems rather the same existential experience . One clove of garlic instead of two is still garlicky. Comparing that to a fossil would imply a eulogy is needed every time someone hits the dimmer switch. Since that is how we see stars, the star is.

 

[gwynedd1]

You don't really know anything about quantum mechanics and entanglement and uncertainty, right? Because it sounds like you just heard this from some newspaper headline and decided to run with it, ignoring what it actually means. I just want to make sure: you have no idea what you're talking about here, right?

Hello Dannager,

That concept was coined by QM. However, I have gone to the doctor and for some reason they wanted 6 test tubes of blood. A lessor outcome indeed. A dark room implies the same on how a photographer must not observe the photographs in bright light.
It was considered in QM that viewing an electron with something equally infinitesimal will alter it. It ain't that deep.

BTW it is not the uncertainty principle.

 

[USincognito]

That is more along the lines of a weak ontological argument . One could apply that to sunlight. We have all been at a different distances to light and it seems rather the same existential experience . One clove of garlic instead of two is still garlicky. Comparing that to a fossil would imply a eulogy is needed every time someone hits the dimmer switch. Since that is how we see stars, the star is.

Could you clarify this as it didn't make a lot of sense to me? I don't know what it all has to do with Supernova 1987A and that it occured about 170,000 years ago.

 

[gwynedd1]

Could you clarify this as it didn't make a lot of sense to me? I don't know what it all has to do with Supernova 1987A and that it occured about 170,000 years ago.

USincognito,

Viewing a supernova is not an appropriate context to identify it as a prehistoric event on many levels. It is an ontological argument you are making. What is a star? I could try an argument of monism and claim it exists in the present as a piece of the whole. The light shines somewhere still thus the star shines. Debating in such a manner we can certainly have all kinds of fun.

 

[USincognito]

Viewing a supernova is not an appropriate context to identify it as a prehistoric event on many levels. It is an ontological argument you are making. What is a star? I could try an argument of monism and claim it exists in the present as a piece of the whole. The light shines somewhere still thus the star shines. Debating in such a manner we can certainly have all kinds of fun.

I'm sorry, but I'm just not into weird navel gazing. Light emitted from the star that became SN 1987A had to travel for 168,000 years before it reached Earth in 1987. That's pretty cut and dried. No one hand clapping messiness, no is the river moving or ther bridge moving over it inanity. It's just a fact.

 

[GooberJIL]

Williston Basin, North Dakota.
Mckenzie river delta in Canada.

How many more do you want - there are a couple of dozen more locations around the world.

Geological column

** snip **

The Williston Basin in North Dakota

Also known as the North Dakota Column, this is claimed to contain the entire geologic column. As stated earlier, the total theoretical column depth is 100 miles, but the depth of the Williston Basin is only 3.4 miles. This means that much of the column is missing. Such large amounts of sedimentation are possible during a year-long global Flood, because it was laid down sideways making it quite possible to lay down such large amounts of sediment very quickly, the main factors being available sediment and the rate of current flow.
Now it does have rocks labeled as all ten ages, but some interesting data can be found in, The Geological Atlas of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin.. The Williston Basin is part of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin.
Here is how they labeled some these strata:

• Hay River Embayment (van Hees, 1964) - a depositional area northwest of the Peace-Athabasca Arch, developed on the Interior Platform, containing remnants of rocks that have been interpreted as being equivalent to Lower and Middle Cambrian units of central Alberta. The rocks have not been dated, and some of the strata may be younger than here interpreted. The embayment extends westward into the mountains of northeastern British Columbia. This indicates that when lacking fossils, they find rocks that they can interpret as equivalent to the rocks they are dating, so as to set a geologic age. Biostratigraphy according to Williston Basin, "biostratigraphy based on pollen and spores has been used to determine the age of the coal beds." [7] Other fossils include shells and fish but many layers have few if any fossils. In general these layers have not been dated by fossils. Furthermore, there is little reference to radiometric dates beyond the pre-Cambrian. The one set that is mentioned produced inconsistent results.

• Local lithostratigraphy and sedimentology are generally well known. However, the paucity of reliable radiometric dates and the absence of biostratigraphic control has hindered correlation within and between the assemblages and precluded accurate dating of each assemblage.

There are several other cases where poor or no biostratigraphic data is mentioned, as well as no reference to radiometric dates. As a result it seems that many of these strata were assigned geologic ages based on comparing rocks. Then the comparisons were interpreted based on the geological column. They seem to be assuming that because of the geologic column, the gaps must contain ages for which they have no fossils.
The conclusion that they have a complete geologic column in this area is based on the assumption of the existence of the geologic column. This is circular reasoning.
If that is not enough there is a place where a rock layer labeled Devonian can be found between rock layers labeled Carboniferous. Devonian is alleged to be older than Carboniferous, but this would suggest that they are really the same age.
Curiously while the theoretical column thickness is 100 miles, the maximum thickness of sediment found any place is only 16 miles. That means that at any given location at least 84% of the geologic column is missing.

** snip **

I'll look into the other when I get a chance.

 

[archaeologist]

That's not true because we some things, like astronomy, can only be direct observation of prehistoric events. The 1987 supernova happened 170,000+ years ago, long before the advent of history, be we couldn't observe it directly until 1987.

the problem with this scenario is that it assumes that the nova appeared exactly the same as it did when it first exploded. it doesn't take into account that in 168,000 +/- many factors could have transpired to alter the results of the explosion.

so in reality Goober and i are right {i have stated this before}, no one can see into the past. then again, it may not have taken 170,000 years to get here, that is just the assumption. no one can measure when the explosion happened nor track its progress so there are a lot of 'ifs' here.

 

[GooberJIL]

I'm out of time. Have a happy Sabbath and I'll see y'all Monday... I hope.

 

[USincognito]

the problem with this scenario is that it assumes that the nova appeared exactly the same as it did when it first exploded. it doesn't take into account that in 168,000 +/- many factors could have transpired to alter the results of the explosion.

so in reality Goober and i are right {i have stated this before}, no one can see into the past. then again, it may not have taken 170,000 years to get here, that is just the assumption. no one can measure when the explosion happened nor track its progress so there are a lot of 'ifs' here.

Could you name some... or any of those factors. And could you plug them into the calcluations on this from the Tufts University chemistry department showing how they are wrong in calculating distance and age?

Ad hoc suggestions of error should at least include what those errors are rather than merely allude to them possibly existing.

 

[USincognito]

Geological column

I'll look into the other when I get a chance.

I'll note for lurkers that while Archie (just as one example of late) would dismiss this source were it Talk Origins (which only has a bias for science) the evolution side gladly embraces Creationist sources because it allows us to finally have something to sink our teeth into.

I'd suggest you compare whatever you find on Creationwiki regarding the geological column with this page from Christian geologist Glenn Morton.

 

[gwynedd1]

I'm sorry, but I'm just not into weird navel gazing. Light emitted from the star that became SN 1987A had to travel for 168,000 years before it reached Earth in 1987. That's pretty cut and dried. No one hand clapping messiness, no is the river moving or ther bridge moving over it inanity. It's just a fact.

Oh yes you are navel gazing. I am just pointing it out and deconstructing it. You are blaming the victim. You are using fallacious ontological arguments. By your reasoning everything is prehistoric.

Everything that exists now is a result of the past. I could have viewed the fossil more accurately while it lived or even just after it died. Therefore the actual observation would have been more accurate at the precise observation point in the past. I could never have viewed SN1987 from this observation point in the past therefore the SN exists at this observation point in the present. It is simply another observation point and why would I consider one nearer to be appropriate? It near always better? Do you keep your nose one inch from the soup bowl?
I am, according to you, prehistoric. We use petrochemical fertilizers on corn. I have eaten lots of corn. Therefore I exist today as the result of prehistoric sun light just like the light from the SN.


The fraud usually works by using your own ontological system( a reality defining system) while retaining another for everything else. You have then created an artificial distinction. However I am not going to let you do that and I will apply your ontological system to everything else and prove it creates no distinctions. You are the navel gazing huckster and in good form you attempt to imply I created the complexity by the mere description of it . The one doing the card trick calls it simple magic. The one who knows and explains how you had it up your sleeve is the realist. There is no magic and Astronomy is not best described as prehistoric phenomena.

 

[gwynedd1]

the problem with this scenario is that it assumes that the nova appeared exactly the same as it did when it first exploded. it doesn't take into account that in 168,000 +/- many factors could have transpired to alter the results of the explosion.

so in reality Goober and i are right {i have stated this before}, no one can see into the past. then again, it may not have taken 170,000 years to get here, that is just the assumption. no one can measure when the explosion happened nor track its progress so there are a lot of 'ifs' here.

Hello archaeologist,

Ifs are suppositions, they do not exist. There are no fixed frames of reference we can define as the "perfect observation point" of a star. Whats the definition? We can arbitrarily define a distance that maintains a consistent 25 C. Water is a handy frame of reference for lots of things. Now if I am at a distance that maintains 15 C we could call that historical residual effects. If we are at a distance of 100C temperature that would be a preexistent component of the defined event we are viewing.

We make up all these definitions because without frames of reference it is all junk science. All our knowledge is based upon relative comparisons and changes in proportion. Whats and X until I tell you it is like a Y? There is no perfect viewing distance of a star that I know?
The answer to "does a tree that falls in a forest when no one is there make a noise?" , is simple when a noise is defined. If a noise is the movement of wave forms in the air, then yes it does make a noise. If sound is defined as brain activity that interprets ear drum movements into electrical impulses interpreted by a human brain, then no there is no noise.

I am not aware of these strict definitions in the field. I am aware that relative frames of reference are all the rage.

 

[Deamiter]

gwynedd1 -- interestingly enough in science every single reference frame can be translated into every other reference frame. When you record data or build models, you choose a reference frame that is most convenient. However that does not mean that you're neglecting every other reference frame. There's an entire mathematical field centered around transforming from one reference frame to another.

So yes, while the reference frames are relative, they are interconnected. The conclusions built in one reference frame will hold in all other reference frames.

 

[KerrMetric]

As stated earlier, the total theoretical column depth is 100 miles

Curiously while the theoretical column thickness is 100 miles, the maximum thickness of sediment found any place is only 16 miles. That means that at any given location at least 84% of the geologic column is missing.

That is not a true definition of geological column - there is no expectation of 100 miles thick because that number is not germane. Do you know why?

 

[Deamiter]

Geological column

Curiously while the theoretical column thickness is 100 miles, the maximum thickness of sediment found any place is only 16 miles. That means that at any given location at least 84% of the geologic column is missing.

I'll look into the other when I get a chance.

Note the conspicuous comparison of the geologic column to a theoretical depth of 100 miles. They're ignoring the fact that some deposits from each age exists in one place and claiming that the largest thickness of each age anywhere in the world must be found stacked up on top of each other for the geologic column to exist. Of course it ignores the obvious fact that sedimentation differs from place to place so the entire geologic column should NOT be a simple addition of the largest of each layer. For example, if we take a layer in the Devonian period, a river delta will build up MUCH more sediment than an arid plain. Should we insist that the entire depth of the river delta exist where we found the arid plain or else the Devonian period is not represented?!?

From Glenn Morton (linked by USincognito):
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htm

[Woodmorappe] says, "Creationists do not say that every single day’s deposits must be preserved! The fact is that Morris and Parker are not talking about a little of the daily sediment being missing. If we read the Morris and Parker quote again, we can see that the 100- or 200-mile column is not the presumed product of daily sedimentation. Rather, the 100- to 200-mile column represents the sum of the thickest sections from the field of each of the ten Phanerozoic systems and/or their major components.

"Now what does all this mean? Common sense teaches us that 16 miles (at most) which exists, out of a total of 100 or 200 miles, is a very incomplete column!"

Woodmorappe rests his entire case upon this 200 mile thick column which he says must be there if the geologic column is to be real. We will examine that statement. Woodmorappe writes:
"There are a number of locations on the earth where all ten periods of the Phanerozoic geologic column have been assigned. However, this does not mean that the geological column is real. Firstly, the presence or absence of all ten periods is not the issue, because the thickness of the sediment pile, even in those locations, is only a small fraction (8-16% or less) of the total thickness of the hypothetical geologic column. Without question, most of the column is missing in the field."

This of course is NOT the definition of the geologic column that ANY geologist would use. If we can show that Woodmorappe's logic is flawed, then we can show that his case falls flat on its face. Woodmorappe and other young-earth creationists are trying to say that if we add the thickest sediments in each period from anywhere in the world this defines the entire geologic column. This is a ridiculous and silly argument. This is like saying the following:

The Antarctic region receives less than 1/10 of an inch of snow per year. Places in Colorado Ski country receive up to 5-10 feet of snow per year and Houghton, Michigan receives up to 20 feet per year. Let us add up the maximum snow fall anywhere in the world each day of the year. Most likely we would tally up something like 200 feet of snow as the total maximum daily snow fall. If we then conclude that this means that Antarctica only gets 1/2000 of the yearly snow fall and therefore Antarctica doesn't represent a full years snowfall, we would have done the same thing that Woodmorappe is doing with the geologic column. This is rather spurious to say the least. Antarctica received a full year's worth of snowfall--it is just a smaller amount than Vail, Colorado. Similarly to add up the maximum sedimentation in each geologic period and then expect that that represents the entire geologic column is perverse. Woodmorappe's argument doesn't stand up.

Today, Woodmorappe claims that the real issue with regard to the geologic column is the small percentage of the maximum sedimentation that exists. If Woodmorappe really felt that the existence of the 10 periods was of no importance, if Woodmorappe really thought that the small percentage of the 200 miles was the real issue, why did he spend his entire 1981 article talking about where the 10 periods existed? One would think he would spend the most time on the most important issue. He spent the most space discussing the 10 periods and I can't find a single paragraph on what he now says is important. Woodmorappe's entire article belies his current claim.

(bold mine)

Also from the link, a list of places where the geologic column exists in its entirety:
The Ghadames Basin in Libya
The Beni Mellal Basin in Morocco
The Essaouira Basin in Morocco(Broughton and Trepanier, 1993)
The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
The Adana Basin in Turkey
The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
The Carpathian Basin in Poland
The Baltic Basin in the USSR
The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
The Jiuxi Basin China
The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
The Tarim Basin China
The Szechwan Basin China
The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
The Williston Basin in North Dakota (Haimla et al, 1990, p. 517)
The Tampico Embayment Mexico
The Bogata Basin Colombia
The Bonaparte Basin, Australia (above this basin sources are Roberston Group, 1989)
The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta(Trendall 1990)
The Parana Basin North, Paraguay and Brazil( (Wiens, 1995, p. 192)
The Cape Karroo Basin (Tankard, 1995, p. 21)
The Argentina Precordillera Basin (Franca et al, 1995, p. 136)
The Chilean Antofagosta Basin (Franca et al, 1995, p. 134)
The Pricaspian Basin (Volozh et al, 2003)

And a list of places just in Chinawhere the entire column is found:
Inner Mongolia Ejin region
Jilin Province
Heilongjiang province XiaoHingong Mtns
Jiangsu province
Zhejiang province
Anhui province
Hubei province
Hunan province
Guangdong province
Guangxi province
Guizhou province
Xizang province Lhasa district
Ningxia Hui province
Shaanxi province
Gansu Province
Qinghai province
Xinjiang province
Liaoning province
Sichuan province
Jiangxi province

 

[gwynedd1]

gwynedd1 -- interestingly enough in science every single reference frame can be translated into every other reference frame. When you record data or build models, you choose a reference frame that is most convenient. However that does not mean that you're neglecting every other reference frame. There's an entire mathematical field centered around transforming from one reference frame to another.

So yes, while the reference frames are relative, they are interconnected. The conclusions built in one reference frame will hold in all other reference frames.

Hello Deamiter,

Yes it is true that other frames of references can be addressed by picking at least two. Then we can begin to see things in proportion.


Not to pick on anyone here but it is a good example. Comparing a super Nova to a fossil, as I stated, is problematic on many levels.

1. First we have frame of reference. I would insist the default is Earth. SN 1987 can only be observed on Earth in 1987. We see stars. They are all at different points from our frame of reference. Other than proportion they are phenomenologically the same. That is why we lump them together as "stars". In the case of seeing a fossil we have an assumed frame of reference. It is before me. It is best described as an arbitrary frame of reference rather than the "past".
2. The fossil is a quantum leap in a state of degradation of life. It is metamorphic in scale. There are few relations that can be made from the fossil to the life that created it. There are no direct proportions applied to the senses. This is not like viewing a phenomenological event. It is not like hearing an explosion 1/2 mile away verse 2 miles away. It is pure inference to guess at the fossil and what it was.

 

[Deamiter]

2. The fossil is a quantum leap in a state of degradation of life. It is metamorphic in scale. There are few relations that can be made from the fossil to the life that created it. There are no direct proportions applied to the senses. This is not like viewing a phenomenological event. It is not like hearing an explosion 1/2 mile away verse 2 miles away. It is pure inference to guess at the fossil and what it was.

I just watched an episode of "Dino Labs" on the science channel and relying only on the length and shapes of the bones they built complex computer models that show exactly how different dinosaurs moved. Do you claim that the size and shape of fossilized bones has no useful relation to the size and shape of the original bones? Do you understand that bones are so unique that forensic anthropologists can determine the sex, age, and often a person's occupation and major hobbies (if any) just by looking at the bones? The size, shape and position of the joints can determine their movement, the center of mass of the organism etc... The wear patterns are incredibly useful in determining repeated motions.

Are you claiming that these are wild guesses because you seem to be demonstrating a misunderstanding of the field rather than convincingly showing how the conclusions made in palaeontology are based on "few relations." Shall we find a few palaeontology websites and expand the list of the few relations I'm aware of as a lay-person in the field and see what your understanding of "pure inference" actually entails?

 

[gwynedd1]

I just watched an episode of "Dino Labs" on the science channel and relying only on the length and shapes of the bones they built complex computer models that show exactly how different dinosaurs moved. Do you claim that the size and shape of fossilized bones has no useful relation to the size and shape of the original bones? Do you understand that bones are so unique that forensic anthropologists can determine the sex, age, and often a person's occupation and major hobbies (if any) just by looking at the bones? The size, shape and position of the joints can determine their movement, the center of mass of the organism etc... The wear patterns are incredibly useful in determining repeated motions.

Deamiter,

That is also because we have living frames of reference. We can compare a person's bones to when they were alive and create a handy index. We do not have that luxury with dinosaurs.

Are you claiming that these are wild guesses because you seem to be demonstrating a misunderstanding of the field rather than convincingly showing how the conclusions made in palaeontology are based on "few relations."

Are you claiming that inferences are wild guesses is my question?

Shall we find a few palaeontology websites and expand the list of the few relations I'm aware of as a lay-person in the field and see what your understanding of "pure inference" actually entails?

I know exactly what an inference is because I used to make them with inferential statistics to determine main effects in both psychological and industrial settings. If it did not work we would all be driving GMs and watching the Super Bowl on the latest Zenith.
Using fossils as evidence is doing so by inference, no ifs , ands or buts , not by direct observation like a star.
However it is consistent with my observations that many people that support evolution as a theory do not know much about science. I suppose their confidence is boosted by the fact that many creationists lack common sense.

 

[KerrMetric]

However it is consistent with my observations that many people that support evolution as a theory do not know much about science.

No offence - but when did psychology become a science. It has been ridiculed for decades, even from within, that it does not apply scientific methodology. It's a mainly subjective "soft" science at best. Often it's just a belief system with surveys and a few freshman stat class numbers thrown in.

It's really only in recent times psychology has finally started using more rigourous statistical methods - and most psychology programs still don't teach sophsticated statistical methods despite the reliance of statistics in psychology.

Too many questionnaires and not enough empirical science.

 

[archaeologist]

We can arbitrarily define a distance that maintains a consistent 25 C

is the 'c' for celsius?

Could you name some... or any of those factors. And could you plug them into the calcluations on this

so you are saying that that light remains pure throughout its travels?as to the above i might, not sure, have to think on it