JohnW
Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006
|
| Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 16 2015,16:00) | | Quote | If this were true (which it is not) then no scientific evidence at all for an old Earth ever needed to be presented, just a philosophical argument like "finding a rabbit in the Cambrian would falsify geology theory too" was all that was ever presented.
I'm shocked that a false-flag operation that is making a mockery out of science goes on and on and on while the so called science defenders go along with a warm and fuzzy scam that is taking them (and science) down. |
It is sometimes difficult to believe how completely clueless you are. No, a philosophical argument would not have ended the era of "biblical geology". With respect to Noah's flood alone, the idea of Noah's flood was falsified by detailed studies of "The Drift", which turned out to be inexplicable as deposits of floods or floating icebergs, but which matched known glacier-related deposits in all their details. There turned out to be multiple layers of "drift" deposits, not just one. Stratigraphic studies also showed that these were restricted to northern latitudes on the margins of the areas of scouring by accumulation of great ice sheets. Fossil distributions disagreed in many ways with the expectations of distributions of fossils left by a global flood. And so on. That's extensive falsification of bible-based expectations, which ultimately caused the rejection of bible-based geological theories.
Just to spell out the procedure, because you really don't seem to grasp it, a lot of science proceeds by considering multiple, mutually exclusive, potentially falsifiable, hypotheses; then considering logically valid implications of those various potential explanations (making predictions), and then gathering evidence that allows us to reject the inferior explanations. Ideally, the rejected ideas are rejected because they have been disproved, but at times they are merely abduced to be significantly worse fits to the available evidence.
You aren't even providing any relevant evidence, let alone assessing it properly. |
In addition: this is an example of a specific hypothesis being falsified without being replaced by an equally specific one.
"The Earth is about 6000 years old." -> fossil record, unconformities, aeolian deposits and other non-marine sediments, understanding of time requirements for lithification -> "No it isn't. It's much, much older than that."
YEC was rejected long before we knew how old the Earth was.
--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers
There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
|
