Well the problem with all this, you don't have an actual process of how the layers got laid down like they did. And the evidence is not empirical if what you claim is not observable or testable in a lab. The layering, through hydrologic sorting, is observable.
Do you read the actual words I write? I have never mentioned any process. I am trying to get some creationists to just look at the evidnce. I will accept hydrological sorting if you feel you need to have a theory to comfort you.
The evidence of the five points is empirical. The evidence of any theory that explains them is not necessarily so.
Can you see the difference between these two ponts:
1. There are layers of fossils and particular fossils are always found with other ones.
2. Layers of fossils are lain down over millions of years.
Look carefully. The first one is something that you could show a child with no knowlegde of science. Point 2 would require justification to back it up and explanations.
I am only talking about point 1.
Can you show me an actual process in which the layers go there any other way? One where you can actually test it in a lab? Now that would be empirical. But words of what happened only make it to half way of being empirical. Anyone can find something and make up a story about what happened and how it got there. But when you can back it up with actual observable process, then you can claim empirical.
I am not explaining anything, just looking at what there is to explain. Answer whether you agree or disagree with points 1 Ã¢â‚¬â€œ 5, please.
Also, if you take a fossil that is only 4 thousand years old, bury it in a layer that dates 4 million years old. The dating markers are going to cross contaminate the fossil and make the fossil date the same as the layer. So is a fossil that dates the same as the layer really 4 million years old, or is it cross contaminated by the age of the layer which "makes" it date that old?
Great, so the explanation that you have said that I hold is incorrect. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll go along with that, I canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t explain it, but are trilobite fossils only found in rocks that we label as cambrian -> permian?
It's like the problem with the big bang and age. If I take a rock that dates 12 billion years old, and blow it up. Will the fragments of that rock date 12 billion also, or will they date ages ranging from 1 billion and up? And what would make the fragments date different from the source of those fragments (the original rock)? Or in the case of the big bang, the original dot? So you see, measuring time through the age of how something dates is flawed because you cannot tell me how or why it dates as old as it does. You take it as that date because it conveniently dates just right for what you want to be true.
The Big Bang is irrelevant to a discussion about rocks and fossils (though if you think anything with mass blew up then you misunderstand the physics).
You have convinced me, though. The dates are wrong. I hold up my hands and say I will not accept the dates of the rocks without better evidence but are trilobite fossils only found in rocks that we label as cambrian -> permian?
Real empirical evidence does not require interpretation to fill in the blanks. Observing the actual process of the interpretation of the evidence would make it empirical. I love the way you guys are quick to throw around the word empirical, yet you cannot even list what parts of your evidence is actually empirical. So I will do it for you. Here are the things of a fossil that are empirical.
1) You can observe what layer it's in.
2) You can date it's age.
3) You can usually determine it's species.
Fantastic. This is actually more than IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve asked for. I take it you agree that trilobite fossils are only found in rocks that we label as cambrian -> permian?
The rest of what is claimed is all just words with zero observable processes. So that makes the so called empirical evidence supporting your claims totally only make it to the halfway point. Unless you want to start showing us these processes of the claims that are made?
YOU ARE PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH! What claims have I made? Read what I havbe written.
You see when it comes to doing what you actually said you would do, you fail. Instead of listening to what anyone else has said to the point you would claim you would, you immediately go into protection mode in defense of what you already believe because you saw that what I said has some merit. And you were afraid that if you did not post in defense of what you currently believe, that someone might actually give it some thought.
All I said was that for you to accept that the 6,000 years you have to assume the laws of physics have changed:
see his last post about us not knowing the laws of physics are have always been the same, where he has taken the Biblical timeline of 6,000 years and now must find ways to change the laws of physics to show that this is correct
Science cannot prove that the laws of time, nor the laws of physics stayed the same through out time.
See, I just repeated what you have said. That isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t going on the defensive.
Even if my ideas are ingrained, it does not stop these being true:
This is why I did not believe you when you claimed you could do away with what you currently believe to look at what others believe. It's ingrained into your mind what is a true fact and a absolute. So for you it's impossible to do.
1) There are layers of rock that contain fossils.
2) Particular fossils are always found together in rocks .
3) It is possible to identify a rock formation from the fossils found in it, for example Devonian rocks can be identified around the world by the particular fossils found within those rocks such as Prototaxites which is characteristic of the Middle Devonian period.
4) The layers of rock with different fossils are nearly always found in the same relation to different layers (for example fossils of the Devonian Prototaxites is always found in layers below the Carboniferous Cycadophyta)
5) In the cases where the layers are found the opposite way round, obvious distortion of the rocks are seen.
Do you get this? No theory is involved in the above five points. Show me how evolutionist assumptions can affect the position of Cycadophyta in relation to Prototaxites?
Do you know the main reason it failed?
1) If the idea you despise most gets a upper hand and looks feasible. You go on automatic defense mode to protect your idea.
2) You take offense to anything that would dare to challenge what you believe.
3) You have already made up your mind on what is true.
This sounds so much like projection to me.
To do what you claimed you would, you would have to:
1) Become totally neutral on the subject.
2) Not take offense when someone posts what they believe. What we debate here is not going to change the evolution vs creation controversy. And until you realize this, you are not going to be able to do this. Because if you did allow a creationist to make a point here, do you not think another atheist at another forum would knock it down? Do you think that someone would read what was said here and go: O my gosh. The atheist allowed the creationist to make his point and now evolution has been totally proven wrong. Never happen. But you are so afraid that it will, you cannot do this without reverting back to defending what you believe every time a creation point is made.
3) The thing you will hate most, which is to ask questions to push the creationist to answer to support what is claimed. How else are you going to find out what it is you claim you want to find out?
4) Quit fearing being converted. If the evidence is that convincing that you could convert, why would you fear the truth? Because as so many evos claim, creation has no evidence so what's to fear unless the claim is untrue?
First and foremost, I have no fear of conversion. My mind and opinions change so often that I tell people that I collect paradigms. I have been told that nothing I can do, being so mired in sin, can make me right with God. It is the miracle of GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s grace that saves us and nothing we can do can earn it. At the moment I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t believe, but if GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s grace falls on me then I will. No problem at all.
Next, read my posts. Continually I have said I will accept the Biblical account, flood geology and within this post hydrological sorting. If that isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t being neutral (for an evo) then what is?
I havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t taken offence at anything apart from where Cass called me a liar. Your position as a YEC is not something that I find personally offensive. Read the last few posts in this thread (http://www.evolution...opic=3320&st=80
) and you will see that I am asking questions of a creationist to try and understand something that is way over my head.
The other thing you put, your point 3, confused me at first but I get it now. You think I am afraid of the creationist arguments and that is why I wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t talk about theories. Understand, I have been debating this subject for 10 years. I have heard them before. What I have only once heard is a creationist say they will look purely at the evidence, and that was Bobabelever on this site.
So as you see, doing what you want in this thread is not as easy as you try and make it seem. How I know is because I debated a subject that I really wanted truth on for 3 years. It did not become clear to me until I took a neutral stance and allow what I deem as the thing (the Bible) that guides a person to truth to show me. It was a scary thing to allow something else to guide me through it instead of allowing what I was already taught as truth. But now it's so clear that I can now debate anyone on this idea and prove them wrong to the point they leave the debate. Just got finished with a debate on youtube on this subject. And because I made the point using scripture and he did not want to be corrected. He left the debate and said he did not want to debate me ever again. It's on Biblical doctrine in case you are wondering.
That sounds like you are just ramming your point home until people get tired and walk away rather than engaging in debate. I wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be proud of that record, personally. I am proud that Bobabelever listened, and I am proud that people on this site have said IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not like any other evo. My aim is purposeful dialogue. Already I have learned from Cass that some creationists donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t believe in Natural Selection and frpm Alan I am learning about recombination and selection and ultimately (I hope) get my head around some of the maths he is talking about. That will be a long process, though.
I have learned so much from creationists on this site, even though I have only been here for about a week. I hope to learn a huge amount more. I will listen to your ideas when we discuss them. I will listen to your objections when we talk about processes, until we start discussing them, can you say categorically whether you agree with my five points?