Reply With Quote
Two great minds in a interesting debate, To bad only one can be right.
I thought it was obvious that your assumption is incorrect.
Two great minds in a interesting debate, To bad only one can be right.
It is apparently not obvious to me what the correct starting assumption should be then if older layers cannot be assumed to be generally deeper than new ones. My apologies.
What then is the correct starting assumption, ruling out the assumption that deeper layers are generally older than shallow ones.
The age of the layers are distributed randomly.
or
The age of the layers are younger as they get deeper.
Not really.
It is entirely possible for both of us to be right. An intelligent designer could use the process of evolution to create humans.
The two theories are not inherently mutually exclusive. It is only when one adds specific religious dogma of biblical literalism and a young universe that they become mutually exclusive.
Since z0sa has stated he is not a biblical literalist, we can avoid that rather messy theological arguement and stick to science and logic.
My exact thoughts.
RandomGuy: If the Geological Column is based on the theory the deeper you go, the older the strata and rocks will be, and this is simply not true, how can scientists base their assumptions of life's ages on it?
This is the biggest piece of evidence against evolution there is, IMO, besides DNA of course. The Natural record does not point meaningfully towards science's primary theory on Nature.
It is apparently not obvious to me what the correct starting assumption should be then if older layers cannot be assumed to be generally deeper than new ones. My apologies.
What then is the correct starting assumption, ruling out the assumption that deeper layers are generally older than shallow ones.
The age of the layers are distributed randomly.
or
The age of the layers are younger as they get deeper.
I am truly very sorry that I am unable to understand your previous answer. I could not find where you had answered the question.
If you are really committed to critical thinking, no small part of the generally accepted principles of critical thinking requires intellectual honesty and fairness.
I have fairly apologized for not being able to answer your question, and asked that you please clarify it for me.
This is the most intelligent question you have asked so far.
The answer is:
They cannot.
IF the starting assumption that deeper layers tend to be older is false then you cannot base any reliable conclusions on that.
Note that it is a starting assumption, NOT a theory. Theories are composed of starting assumptions, observed data and reasonable predictions based on those starting assumptions and reasonable data.
Layers are completely random no matter where you look on earth. If you could find 25% of the assumed layers on top of each other in correct Column form, it'd be one of the biggest geological discoveries ever. Layers simply do not go top to bottom, ever.
Which leads us back to the question:
To be fair I left out one additional possibility:What then is the correct starting assumption, ruling out the assumption that deeper layers are generally older than shallow ones.
The age of the layers are distributed randomly.
or
The age of the layers are younger as they get deeper.
The layers are all the same age.
(begin edit)
z0sa has now made the starting assumption that the layers are randomly distributed. We can proceed to examine if this is more reasonable that what the geologic column is based on.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 02-20-2009 at 04:47 PM.
No scientist has ever claimed they do. This is a strawman logical fallacy by the way.
You cannot disprove the geologic column by distorting what it is then showing the distortion to be incorrect.
If layers of soil are completely random no matter where you look on earth, then how do you explain the tens of thousand of observations over the course of hundreds of years that almost without variation find certain layers above certain other layers?
If the distribution was truly random, then we would expect a normal distribution of layers together. This is not what we have observed. That is the scientific fact.
Dude, CMON. If the layers themselves are in random arrangements, their ages must also be random. They cannot all be the same, we have seen strata change pretty remarkably within recording history from natural disaster.
It's balancing an equation. You have one of those as your avathingy, I assume you are aware of how they work.
The layers' arrangements come from natural catastrophe throughout history, which is why some small sets (much less than even 25%) are "in order". I want you to do some deduction here: if science has no chance of proving that the layers were ever in any order of ages, what does this mean for the Geological Column and its methodology of assigning ages by surrounding strata?
Then, going back to my previous example, the observed order of the layers, were they distributed randomly, would have produced data points similar to:
D
H
A
B
P
C
OR
B
O
H
I
E
The odds that 995 observations of the layers would produce data points that show the same order of layers approaches zero.
Since we have not observed in tens of thousands of digs, and over the course of 200+ years of observations that the layers are indeed randomly distributed, we can only assume that there is some order to it.
THAT is scientific fact.
It would mean that basing dating on the geologic column would be erroneous and pointless.
The starting assumption that layers are consistantly put down in a specific order is supported by available evidence, and not only by a little evidence, but by hundreds of years worth of data from thousands of people and from sites that cover the explored world.
That is not factual at all.
There is zero facts proving there ever was an original rock or strata which was built up on originally. I would highly doubt there is even 25% of a single supereon in any one stratum or pile of strata.. you cannot reasonably deduce there ever was, and THAT is scientific fact.
Since it is impossible to deduce the ages from the strata since it displaced; since it impossible to deduce the ages or evolutions of the creatures in the strata if you have no idea which strata came before another; since The Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy) clearly goes against evolutionary "policy" concerning the origin of life (thus meaning geologists cannot reasonably say simple life came before more complex lifeforms), it is safe to assume one cannot trust the fossil record for more than it is: the remains of plants and animals. You cannot infer ages of any animal or plant from it, which is a very strong argument against transitional forms.
How so? Order does not come from randomness - the original argument against evolution. In order for order to exist, design is imminent.Since we have not observed in tens of thousands of digs, and over the course of 200+ years of observations that the layers are indeed randomly distributed, we can only assume that there is some order to it.
Last edited by z0sa; 02-20-2009 at 05:11 PM.
Since we have ruled out the starting assumption that the layers are indeed randomly distributed as being not supported by available evidence, and we know that the layers are in a specific order, we can then limit ourselves to examining one other possibility for a starting assumption:
Deeper layers are newer.
For this to be the case, we would have to discover ruins from the 18th and 19th century beneath Roman villas and shops, and Ming dynasty forts beneath Chou dynasty trading posts.
This also is not supported by available observations.
That makes the starting assumption that older layers are deeper than newer ones the ONLY starting assumption that is supported by our observations.
This is how science works.
That is incorrect.
You don't even know what the second law of thermodynamics says, how can you state that it goes against the theory of evolution?
Here is my main problem:
You have sucked up all of this propaganda from creationist websites and not asked yourself ONE hugely important question:
"Are the people posting this telling me the truth?"
It is rather obvious, based on your continual factually incorrect statements that you have assumed that these websites are telling you the truth about "evolution" and science.
Is it logical to assume that scientists who believe in evolution are the only ones lying?
Creationists certainly have as much motivation to lie, if not more so. It is logical to admit at least the possibility.
Another incorrect statement.
If I were to draw the numbers 1 through 5 from a hat long enough, I would eventually get the following ORDERLY PATTERN:
1,2,3,4,5.
It would be highly improbable, but it would indeed be order from randomness.
Now you're understanding.
Those things are within the tiniest fragment of earth's supposed timeframe, buddy. You created your own straw man.For this to be the case, we would have to discover ruins from the 18th and 19th century beneath Roman villas and shops, and Ming dynasty forts beneath Chou dynasty trading posts.
This also is not supported by available observations.
If your analogy was based on the 200+ years of observation and digging you speak of, it would go something like this:
1) All the houses are in random orders, with no evidence they were ever in a set order.
2) The houses are arranged in pieces and are sometimes connected together with other houses. This occurred from natural disasters destroying the houses and flinging them all around together over and over for billions of years.
3) During time, creatures died in these houses and their bones were fossilized into walls. As the houses were destroyed and put together again by natural disaster, the bones continue to fossilize until discovered. When discovered, the bones are in a brand new house than the one they died in, except for the piece of wall they took their final breath on.
Since the house obviously is composed of different pieces (the different types of rocks and rock formations which fossils are found in) than when the fossil 's wall first came around, how can you assume the wall's age based on the house itself? You cannot deduce what time period any piece of the house came from without using circular reasoning.
Show me some proof. When going back eons of time, it is simply common sense to know you can't base anything off rock formations or combinations. They have been jumbled up so many times its impossible to say "this rock is deeper, it must be older."That makes the starting assumption that older layers are deeper than newer ones the ONLY starting assumption that is supported by our observations.
This is how science works.
you actually compare drawing five numbers out of a hat to the statistical impossibilities of life coming about by random means? That analogy is better wasted on the willing follower of deception, not the factual discussion we have going on here.
I have never visited one creationist website in my life without a specific thing in mind. I don't believe in science to save your soul, I want the facts, and those websites only tell one side of the story just as evolution does.
In other words, I only compare two sides of an argument together, and decide on my own which is more sound.
Not from what I have seen. You have never put the creationist websites' claims up to any scrutiny.
If you had, you would not have continually said things that were factually incorrect.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions