N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 10 2016,23:42) | | Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 10 2016,12:13) | | Quote | | Where not taken seriously by giving it all the scientific respect given to other "theories" |
|
Now the violin music starts.
| Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 10 2016,12:13) | Once again, "theories" do not deserve respect simply because someone proposed them. They have to earn respect, every single step of the way, by passing tests, making sense, and/or offering a better explanation or a broader explanation than previous theories.
In fact, a "theory" does not become a theory until it has earned some general acceptance. (A good rule of thumb, albeit usually broken in current practice, would be that no one should be allowed to call their own proposal a theory.) |
The only way to keep science in harmony with the way things are is to accept that "theories" like this exist and their theorists don't care what you say about whether it's a theory or not. What matters is how useful a theory is for explaining how something works or happened. Theories that fail become one more "failed theory" added to the pile along with the others evidence ultimately went against.
It's easy enough to sort the wishful thinking from scientifically useful. Arguing over whether something is a theory or not justs wastes time. Pass out hammers and chisels to those who need to take a look for themselves. Whatever should support the theory in question helps test it.
Not treating all theories the same makes you an enabler for those who would rather not be held to the same accountability, anyway. Expect further development of flood geology theory to explain the geological evidence at locations like where I live.
| Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 10 2016,12:13) | "Flood Geology" has a very specific meaning that is NOT "geology of any sort of flood". The Noachian "Flood Geology Theory" no longer has any standing in modern science as it has been exhaustively disproved - it runs contrary to even the most trivial lines of evidence, such as every single one of your dinosaur footprints.
However, it is worth discussing in terms of public education. For that purpose, one can simply say that all the evidence opposes it and no actual geologists support it, but appeals to authority often fail to be effective, so a far better approach is to say, "If 'Flood Geology' is correct, then we should see X, but if it isn't then we should see Y, and here's what we see...." (after all, that's how we do science). This could indeed include exhibiting your fossil footprints and explain how they are not in accord with the idea of all strata being deposited in a single global flood.
Nonetheless, "Flood Geology" does not inherently "deserve respect".
Your Not-a-Theory is similarly not deserving of any respect until you demonstrate why it deserves some. |
Whatever becomes of what's eventually left of "flood geology" is an unknown. But with rising sea levels eventually being a serious problem for many people the Ark story is at least in that way appropriately metaphorical. And after watching the Rachel Platten video a few times over I could not miss the resemblance with this mixed in with the metaphor:
Sheryl Crow - Soak Up The Sun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....GA_rIls
I can agree with Rachel, faith is helping to reason. And you have yours, making sure your way of reasoning helps guide our way too.. |
Calling your pile of crap and "Flood Geology" 'theories' wouldn't help you, and demonstrates that you are clueless about science. "Flood Geology" is already a failed concept, and your pile of crap hasn't even made it to the starting gate. Theories and hypotheses have to earn respect by presenting confirmatory evidence and providing better explanations, etc. Your idea and "Flood Geology" fail miserably: Flood Geology because it is so exhaustively contradicted by the evidence, and yours because it is illogical and self-contradictory, because you have no confirming evidence, because you don't understand the basics of the fields you are trying to revolutionize, and because too much of the time it's impossible to tell exactly what the heck you are trying to say. Neither your ideas nor "Flood Geology" have indicated that they have any usefulness at all.
Ideas do not deserve respect just because someone proposed them. They have to earn acceptance.
| Quote | | Not treating all theories the same makes you an enabler for those who would rather not be held to the same accountability, anyway. |
Complete BS. Proper scientific procedures strongly recommend not wasting time on failed and fruitless ideas. I'm using the same standards for evaluating all proposals - you are the fool who wants to set standards aside for your pet ideas.
| Quote | | for many people the Ark story is at least in that way appropriately metaphorical. |
That's irrelevant. Science is not about metaphor - once again you fail at Science 101. If science was satisfied with metaphors, scientists would still be talking about phlogistons, Ptolemaic epicycles, and Noah's Flood.
|
