Posted on 06/22/2006 1:28:41 PM PDT by Tim Long
Could these have formed during the Flood 4500 years ago??
I see that you don't know the difference between fact and interpretation.
C14 dates are extrapolations and are therefore interpretations of data, not facts, which are different things altogether.
Quite common mistake among believers.
I see that you just take potshots and have no idea what the thread I was discussing contains.
You did notice that this is a 'deduction', and not a fact didn't you? You do remember that I asked for a fact don't you?
Do you know the difference between a *fact* and an 'interpretations of evidence'?
Obviously not.
No, I see that you have a fundamental difficulty distinguishing between *facts* and 'interpretations'.
I was asking for *facts*. You have none. You have only 'interpretations', which are fundamentally different things altogether and something that you do not understand at the most basic level.
This is why you have been deceived. Until you recognize that 'fact', you will continue to believe that 'interpreations' are *facts*.
Simple, but deadly.
Paleosols are in the mind of the beholder and mean nothing.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/paleosols.asp
Huh? This is the way that ALL scientific theories are tested, by DEDUCING their empirical implications, and comparing those implications to the FACTS. Both deduction (from a theory or other claim rich in empirical implications) AND facts are required.
Facts simply are as they are. They don't bear any significance in and of themselves. They have to be analyzed as consistent or inconsistent with some theory which bears implications wrt their state: that attempts to account for them, and that risks potential falsification in doing so.
The linked material explicitly lays out both the deductions from macroevolution/common descent (including potential falsifications) AND the FACTS which confirm them (and which easily could have -- but don't -- falsify them).
You do remember that I asked for a fact don't you?
No, I don't remember that, because that's not what you asked me, as clicking back through the "To" links will readily reveal.
You asked for evidence that uniquely supports evolution. I gave you a link to the "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution". You asked me to pick one "which [...] you think uniquely supports evolution and we will discuss". I picked section 4, "The Molecular Sequence Evidence." I invited you to take the section as a whole, or pick a particular example therefrom.
If you've decided you don't want to discuss, then fine. Just say so. Or don't reply. You needn't throw a fit of revisionism.
...however... If all you want is "a fact," then here's one:
I am sitting as I type this.
Also,
There's a pebble in my pocket. It's black.
That's a couple more facts. How many more do you want?
If you ONLY want facts, and don't care about their status wrt to deductions from scientific theories, then of course any facts will do equally well.
That's right. All theories work that way, evolution is just untestable because the time frames are too large for the assumption to be accurately tested.
Instead, we get assumptions based on very very short time-frames that are then extrapolated. Nothing 'scientific' about that.
Again, correct on what facts are. And since no *fact* uniquely supports evolution, it is merely which interpretation you prefer. Again, nothing 'scientific' there. I also provided a link which comes to the exact *opposite* conclusion on the same facts. Therefore, these 'facts' do not uniquely support evolution.
That's my point. There are no *facts* that uniquely support evolution. Stop pretending that your interpretation is the only possibility and you will get more respect.
And yes I did ask for a *fact*. See post #292. You are Stultis, right? That post was to Stultis, right?
I also see that you recognize what facts are now. I can tell you categorically that the *fact* that you are 'sitting as you type' and 'have a black pebble in your pocket' do not uniquely support evolution. Now tell me which *fact* uniquely supports evolution or admit that you have none.
I already know that you don't have any, but it might be good for the other evos to see that *fact* as well.
Could these have formed during the Flood 4500 years ago??
If they were all of that age that would be a very good explanation. The problem is, these old soils can have a wide range of ages. In some cases there are soil layers stacked one on the other spanning many thousands of years, from long before the 4500 years ago date to modern times.
The usual case for soils is a wide range of depositional environments, with some from wind, some from water, some from slides, etc., and they are often cut in areas by subsequent events, such as streams. These layers can be read by sedimentologists, and usually dated pretty well with a combination of radiocarbon and faunal/floral dating.
All of these things that sedimentologists and archaeologists observe would be different if there was one final event such as a global flood. That would have created such a depositional signature that it would have been found easily when geologists first started looking.
Sorry, absolutely wrong. Radiocarbon dates are measurements, that is, facts or data points. They are repeatable.
With critical samples, archaeologists sometimes divide the sample into two or three pieces and send each to a different lab, just to make sure there are no lab errors. This is not done much anymore because the large commercial labs are extremely sophisticated in their techniques, and their accuracy is extremely good.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/paleosols.asp.
"Scientific" articles found on answersingenesis.org mean nothing. They are apologetics, not science.
And I can claim that TO is nothing more than apologetics for evolution.
There, see how easy that was. You didn't have to answer a single point. Just claim that you don't have to.
Congrats.
You ignoramus.
Radiocarbon dates are extrapolations. They are measuring the amount of C14 and extrapolating a date based on numerous assumptions from the unobservable past.
"Radiocarbon dates are measurements,..."
What a fool.
That's right. All theories work that way, evolution is just untestable because the time frames are too large for the assumption to be accurately tested.
The molecular sequence data is before us. The implications of common descent with respect to the data are laid out explicitly in the link I provided. No time machines needed.
Instead, we get assumptions based on very very short time-frames that are then extrapolated. Nothing 'scientific' about that.
Uh, yeah. Again, there's nothing to do with "time frames". Except of course as they may lead to deductions from common descent. For instance birds share a more recent common ancestor with crocodiles than with other reptiles, or than with any other animal. This particular component of the larger common descent theory leads to DEDUCTIONS (not "extrapolations") about what CURRENT molecular sequence data should look like, and prohibits certain patterns. But it doesn't require that we have a time machine. It's entirely deductions from the theory and CURRENT data that is relevant.
Again, correct on what facts are. And since no *fact* uniquely supports evolution, it is merely which interpretation you prefer.
Unrestrained intellectual relativism rejected.
I also provided a link which comes to the exact *opposite* conclusion on the same facts. Therefore, these 'facts' do not uniquely support evolution.
So if I provide a link to a holocaust revisionism site then "therefore" all the facts normally considered to uniquely support the holocaust lose all such significance? All I need to do is point the mere existence of a PUTATIVE contradictory interpretation, which is all you did? And even if my contradictory interpretation is comprehensively refuted, as yours was, and even I absolutely refuse to engage that refutation, as you did, I can still claim that there are no facts uniquely supporting the holocaust?
Gee, that's easy.
That's my point. There are no *facts* that uniquely support evolution. Stop pretending that your interpretation is the only possibility and you will get more respect.
I don't pretend that for a minute. Nor does the site I linked, "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution". It explicitly recognizes that other interpretations are possible, but different interpretations have different implications as to what the facts should (or should not) look like.
Of course both I, and the author of that webpage, reject your radical intellectual relativism.
And yes I did ask for a *fact*. See post #292. You are Stultis, right? That post was to Stultis, right?
#292 was not in this chain of replies. Check for yourself. This chain started with you asking for evidence that uniquely supports evolution, me citing the "29+ Evidences," and etc.
Besides, tying ANY scientific theory to just ONE fact is too silly. Any theory depending on ONE fact would be incredibly weak, or so narrow as to be utterly useless
Ah, now that I look at it: In #292 you were asking a different question then that under discussion between us now. You were asking not for a fact that SUPPORTED evolution but for one that FALSIFIED young earth creationism. That makes more sense, actually. A theory might conceivably be falsified by a single fact (although multiple patterns of falsifying facts is much better).
That particular exchange petered out however, terminating in my #312. Go there and click back through the "To" links to confirm this for yourself.
If you become confused again and are unable to follow one of your own conversations, just let me know. I'll be happy to help.
Now tell me which *fact* uniquely supports evolution or admit that you have none.
The facts of the molecular sequence data, e.g. DNA sequences, compared among various organisms, uniquely support evolution (common descent). There is no other extant proposal that comes close to accounting for the facts as well, on a many points, and in as much detail, as does common descent. In addition -- in fact even more importantly -- there are innumerable opportunities for this data to have CONCLUSIVELY FALSIFIED common descent, and yet is has failed to do so.
Of course "uniquely supports" must be qualified with the proviso that someone in the future may come up with a theory that explains the facts even better than common descent. This possibility is part of the very nature of science, and always active for all scientific proposals. But as yet no one has.
Watch it. You'll kill the thread.
Unless you're trying to do so?
You are letting your religious zeal overcome your manners.
Go outside and play for a while and you'll feel better.
Fine, discuss why molecular sequence data uniquely supports common descent.
I responded with a link that laid out explicitly why the molecular sequence data did not uniquely support common descent.
Your statement that birds 'share a more recent common ancestor with crocodiles than with other reptiles' is itself a deduction, not a fact. You cannot tell the difference.
Go ahead, provide some *facts* or tell me how my link was refuted. Just claiming it is so doesn't make it so.
But I see that you acknowledge that there are no such facts. That's good, because that is true. And whether you and the author of the page reject my position is just as relevant to me as it is that the author of my link and I reject your position is relevant to you. You gettin the idea here?
OK, so now you have moved from claiming that I didn't ask for a fact to that I didn't ask for a fact 'in this chain of posts'. The request was to you, I did make it, but you make some lame excuse. Good job.
And it wasn't me that chose the subject. It was you. If you have a better one. Let's hear it.
Again, the molecular sequence data doesn't uniquely support common descent. A common designer works just as well as an explanation.
And you are fooling yourself if you think that common descent could have been falsified through the molecular sequence data. There are plenty of areas where genomes don't match well. Guess what. The claim then becomes that these areas 'evolved separately'.
The common descent data is only used where it supposedly agrees. When it doesn't agree, it is ignored as having evolved after the reputed split.
See how easy it was to make the theory unfalsifiable?
You think you can post lame C14 claims and get away with it.
You screwed up and you know it.
Now you want to avoid answering for it with some smart remarks.
Good job.
Yes. It's a deduction or inference from (historically) fossil evidence and comparative anatomy of living organisms. BUT it was one made many decades before ANY molecular sequence data was available. Therefore it separately carries implications wrt to the sequence data and that data can be used to independently test the claim.
You WERE told this, in point by point detail. Your response was to refuse to even read the refutation, much less address it, for the purely ad hominem reason that you didn't like the FReeper who posted it (linked one systematic refutation, and wrote another himself).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.