Young Earth Geologist? How the hell....

[nd_n8]

@tdn

I must say, you have an interesting take on reading comprehension, my friend.

You quoted Cece very selectively there. You seem to have ignored all of the other evidence he presented for a round Earth.

And that article says not word one about whether a flat Earth was ever a serious scientific theory. So you dodged the question.

I did not ignore all of the other evidence presented, the arguements in the article had little to do with my original point. I felt my point was neatly summed up in the one simple sentence so I quoted it. In fairness, the only unarguable evidence offered in the article (aside from extraterrestrial observations, mentioned in the first sentance) is traveling around the globe documenting shifts in the positions of constellations relative to the horizon. Not being Captain Cook, I doubt that I will have the oppertunity to do this any time soon. Also not being Alan Shepard, I don’t think I will have the unique experiance of viewing the earth from an astronomical perspective. But, in the interest of not dodging the question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

It is commonly assumed that people from early antiquity generally believed the world was flat, but by the time of Pliny the Elder (1st century) its spherical shape was generally acknowledged.

So, yeah, the concept of a flat earth predates the concept of scientific theory and about the time scientific methods came on the scene, the whole flat earth thing was the first to go. Although a bad example on my part, it is still incorrect to say that no one believed the earth was flat, ever.

@tdn

Wrong.

The definitions in that dictionary were delimited by numbers, meaning that they were seperate and discrete definitions. You took out the numbers out and ran all the definitions together in order to make your point. Naughty naughty.

And it is my reading comprehension that is in question here? Before I ran all the definitions together, I offered them seperatly, although without numbers. A bit of lazyness on my part there, but still they were intact with, what I was trying to point out as the key words highlighted. After the initial listing, I did group all of these key words together to emphasize their consistancy within the broader definition.

@tdn

This one:

“A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.”

Sure. The thing is, though, most Darwinists don’t do that. They take the attitude of "This theory is the best explanation we have so far. If you’ve got something better, we;d love to see it."

Science, is, by its nature, open minded. It’s how we got the the ToE in the first place. We never would have come up with it had scientists just taken an a priori assumption and held onto it without question. If they had, they’d have come up with…creationism.

A theory is just a theory. The attitude you describe above reflects that, and also reflects my point. An attitude of “This is the best explanation we have so far…” is a lot more productive than “Evolution by natural selection that was started by a chance chemical reaction is the only possible answer, deal with it” or the ever popular “Things are the way they are because God made them that way, and that is that”. Neither of these are good arguements.

@mrklutz

Using the dictionary to support the idea of “theory” in science as wild speculation is unwise, to say the least. What you cite from the ditionary are common-usage definitions, which differ vastly from the meanings used within scientific disciplines.

Let’s take “work”, for example. I can spend 16 hours at my desk, cranking out massive amounts of computer code to accomplish some pretty remarkable things. After that kind of a day, I would say that I have done a tremendous amount of work (common usage). A physicist would look at what I’ve done, though, and tell me that the elevator I rode to the 13th floor in this morning did far more “work” than I did all day (scientific usage).

A theory, in science, is a set of explanations based on rigorous testing and fact. Gravity is a great example of a theory. Disbelieve gravity all you like, but if you act on that disbelief, it’s likely to leave some bruises.

I’m not saying that theory is “wild speculation”, just that holding true to a theory is limiting because a theory is not a fact. Even in your definition you state that a theory is a set of explainations, not a set of truths or a set of facts. Gravity is a great example, as you mentioned. I drop an egg, gravity works. I see the moon not falling on me, gravity works. That gravity works is a fact, that gravity exists is a theory. It would be a fact to say that “something” exists to which we assign the propertys of gravity, but what is it? Does it push or pull? Is it a particle or a waveform? Can it, or it’s effects be accurately replicated completely independant of the original phenomena (good luck with this one)? These are the holes that make the theory of gravity a theory instead of a proven fact. Different observers might come up with equally plausable, and equally unprovable explainations for gravity. These are theorys. The earth is round is a proven fact. Surface observations combined with external observations have dealt with this. Black Holes are a theory, something is out there doing things with light, we can observe and measure the effects, and theorize what that something might be, but not see it directly, we cannot interact with it, experiment on it. Someday we might be able to, but not today. Until then they are a theory, an explaination of observable, testable and repeatable facts. But not facts themselves…yet.

–Am I getting warmer???

[nd_n8]

–Crap–

–I knew I should have previewed–

–Is there any way to have a kindly moderator add a backslash in front of the quote directly following the words “Naughty Naughty”?–

–This should make that mess at least readable, if not comprehendable.–

Thank You Very Very Much… N8

[tomndebb]

@nd_n8

more productive than “Evolution by natural selection that was started by a chance chemical reaction is the only possible answer, deal with it”

I’m afraid we dock points for people who insist on conflating evolution and abiogensis.

Evolution by Natural Selection has provided a successful model to interpret every aspect of the historical record of life on earth: fossil, DNA, ecological niches, etc.

Origins of life, whether “chance” chemical reactions or controlled chemical reactions or seeds from the stars or whatever are not part of the discussion of Evolution.

[tdn]

@nd_n8

So, yeah, the concept of a flat earth predates the concept of scientific theory and about the time scientific methods came on the scene, the whole flat earth thing was the first to go. Although a bad example on my part, it is still incorrect to say that no one believed the earth was flat, ever.

OK, got it. The thing was, you originally said that the flat Earth model was a scientific theory, which you now acknowledge was never the case. Glad we got that cleared up.

Your overall point is that it’s wrong to say that evolution is the Way Things Are, period, there can be no discussion. I couldn’t agree more. The thing is, though, I don’t see many people making that argument. Most Darwinists I know are quite open to revision.

Who are the people you are seeing making those close-minded claims?

[bup]

@Homebrew

An Appeal to Authority is not a fallacy when the authority is an authority on the subject under discussion.

That’s fine, so long as the appealer acknowledges that’s what they’re doing. A lot of people think they know things that they actually take on faith from authority - whether it’s a religion or mainstream science.

Creationists see the Bible as authority. Darwinists see modern science as authority. Proving which one is the correct authority is begging the question.

[Yumblie]

@nd_n8

Gravity is a great example, as you mentioned. I drop an egg, gravity works. I see the moon not falling on me, gravity works. That gravity works is a fact, that gravity exists is a theory. It would be a fact to say that “something” exists to which we assign the propertys of gravity, but what is it? Does it push or pull? Is it a particle or a waveform? Can it, or it’s effects be accurately replicated completely independant of the original phenomena (good luck with this one)? These are the holes that make the theory of gravity a theory instead of a proven fact. Different observers might come up with equally plausable, and equally unprovable explainations for gravity. These are theorys. The earth is round is a proven fact. Surface observations combined with external observations have dealt with this. Black Holes are a theory, something is out there doing things with light, we can observe and measure the effects, and theorize what that something might be, but not see it directly, we cannot interact with it, experiment on it. Someday we might be able to, but not today. Until then they are a theory, an explaination of observable, testable and repeatable facts. But not facts themselves…yet.

–Am I getting warmer???

Those examples just seem like a matter of degree, not anything fundamentally different. How do we know the Earth is round? We don’t know it because it’s a fact, we “know” it because the evidence around us makes that the most reasonable explanation. How do we know evolution is responsible for various species of life? Because the evidence around us makes that the most reasonable explanation. There’s nothing fundamentally different from assuming the Earth is round than assuming evolution exists. Certain theories have more “obvious” or more accessable proof, but really, in science there’s no such thing as a fact, just a really good theory (and yes, evolution, and black holes, are considered really good ones).

[nd_n8]

@tomndebb

I’m afraid we dock points for people who insist on conflating evolution and abiogensis.

Evolution by Natural Selection has provided a successful model to interpret every aspect of the historical record of life on earth: fossil, DNA, ecological niches, etc.

Origins of life, whether “chance” chemical reactions or controlled chemical reactions or seeds from the stars or whatever are not part of the discussion of Evolution.

You are correct, I am guilty of compounding two theorys, Evolution and Origins. I think my reaction to the OP and asst. responses was based on an unconscious combination of the two.

Also, it is getting a bit too deep in here for me, at least for MPSIMS, I’ll take it to GD where it belongs.

Thanks for the code correction.

N8 – Who lowers his head and leaves the room