otseng wrote:micatala wrote:As I have pointed out, the assumptions have been checked using ongoing observations and that each dating method has been checked against multiple other dating methods.
How about this? You all can provide your closing case for ice cores and I'll then give my closing case on ice cores.
Agreed. However, be prepared for a very long post with many links.
otseng wrote:So far, we have had essentially no evidence at all to support many of the FM assumptions, including that the "chambers of the deep" ever existed, or that the proposed mechanism for creating continental plate movement works
I would disagree that
no evidence has been presented that subterranean water chambers existed. I've
provided evidence that in the Kola Superdeep borehole that water has been found at a depth of 40,000 ft. Since the chambers have collapsed and would not exist now, indirect evidence can only be provided.
Yes, I acknowledge this was presented. However, this still counts as "essentially no evidence" that the chambers of the deep ever existed. This evidence by itself would never lead one even to the hypothesis that there were "chambers of the deep." At best, it is one piece of evidence that could be considered consistent with the hypothetical chambers.
We could just as easily say the Kola borehole is evidence that earth has a liquid core, or that rocks have the capacity to excrete water, or that water has the capacity to spontaneously generate in a given location out of nothing.
To be a good model, the model has to be consistent with ALL the evidence, not isolated phenomenon. I have said before that one can find isolated phenomenon or facts that are consistent with almost any model one can imagine.
otseng wrote:
micatala wrote:We have no evidence a vapor canopy ever existed. We do have evidence (from ice cores predominantly!!!) that climate was different in the past than today, but no evidence a vapor canopy existed or was necessary to produce these climactic changes.
The water vapor canopy would be pre-flood, so it would not be in the same timeframe as the ice cap formation.
The vapor canopy is only proposed to explain the dramatic climate difference before the flood and after the flood.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 508#251508
And here is another one:
Fossil DNA Proves Greenland Once Had Lush Forests; Ice Sheet Is Surprisingly Stable
The question is how can this be explained? The FM proposes an explanation for this with the water vapor canopy.
I agree, a water canopy could explain a warmer climate in the past. But now you are confusing "evidence for" with "consequence of." Now, I would agree that having a model which makes a prediction that turns out to be true provides a certain amount of evidence for the model.
However, this is different than evidence which actually suggest the existence of the water canopy.
Also, quite a bit of evidence was presented that any significant "water canopy" is physically impossible, or would have hugely catastrophic consequences on the earth.
If A explains B but is inconistent with D, E, and F then it doesn't matter if A explains B.
Remember the thread is partly about which model better explains what we see. If we do not expect the same level of evidence for the different models, if we give the assumptions and speculations upon which the FM is based a free pass or an easy pass, and yet skip over or downplay evidence for the SG, then we are going to get an extremely skewed view regarding which model is better.
I would agree.
Very good.
The problem is we have offered a variety of predictions but they have not met your arbitrary standard of being "global predictions" but rather, have been predictions concerning what we would find under particular conditions. It has been pointed out repeatedly that your standard is not necessary, and not the kind of prediction that is typically made.
I don't think my standards are arbitrary. OK, I'll ask this then, at the
Grand Canyon, what would SG predict that we should see?
Again, I think we have some misunderstandings concerning the SG and science in general.
What the SG does for us, with respect to the grand canyon, is it allows us to explain why the grand canyon is the way it is. Based on what we see, we can discern what processes layed down certain layers, what life existed at that time, how old a given layer is, etc.
Now, we could use the SG to explain what would happen in a particular area if a certain sequence of forces or other geological events occurred. We could probably come up with a number of scenarios under which the grand canyon would form.
In fact, there is some uncertainty about some of the aspects of its formation. Here is SG explanation, cited on page 58.
See http://www.bobspixels.com/kaibab.or ... _geol.htm
I'll get to the next website and its discussion of fossils soon.
http://www.t-rat.com/Pages/GeologicalHi ... nyon.html
I have since found some information in print that will amplify this.
But then you need to explain how the techtonic movements that created the supergroup occurred without the mechanism you proposed as part of the FM.
What I propose is that the tectonic force that caused the tilting of the supergroup is from the initial splitting of the crust.
Where is the split that supposedly produced this tilting? So far, I only recall reference to an alleged water created split along the mid-Atlantic ridge.
Where is the evidence that water splitting the crust from below can cause such phenomenon in the first place?
To close, I will make a couple more comments on the use of models. Some of this has been noted before.
Scientific models are created on the basis of data, not in the abstract. The SG came to be what it is today because of what geologists were finding in the field. It has been adapted as addtional data has been collected and as additional investigative techniques (e.g. radiometric dating) have been developed.
Now, once one does have a model, one does consider what predictions can be made. I have allowed we could do this for either the FM or the SG. If a model has a statement X as an unavoidable consquence and X is true, that provides support for the model. If a whole bunch of such X's are true, we get more confidence in the model.
If one X is incontrovertibly false, we must adapt or discard the model.
Looking only for predictions of a model that happen to be true is a backwards way of doing science . Scientists would always look first for ways to falsify the model, and they would especially consider first the easiest predictions to falsify. This only makes sense, as they would not want to waste time considering a model which other scientists would be able to falsify.
You have focused on the "global predictions" the FM makes and tried to insist the SG make the same kind of prediction. It has been pointed out that it is not necessary for valid scientific theories to produce these kinds of global predictions. The most important criterion for a scientific model is that it be consistent with all the data that we have.
Now, I had thought that the ice cores would provide evidence that no one could dispute that a global flood never occurred. Since we have left that subject (save our closing arguments) I will move onto the next sure fire FM killer.
Fossils.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
