Bags of Bran

Apologia #4
April 1, 2012, 9:15 pm
Filed under: Apologioi
Curt Ames
Mar 5

to me
 It was a hoax. You could tell because the layers from the original footprints caused the strata to warp. You could demonstrate the same phenomenon by layering different colored clay and stepping on it.  The ‘human’ prints were carved from the underlying strata, leaving clean edges.
Concretion can lead to fossilization- but the key difference is that concretion is a deposit of mineral materials on the outside of the object, leaving the inside unchanged (a process that can take place over years or even months) while true fossilization involves a much more time-intensive process of actual replacement of the original matter with minerals.
Often polystrate fossils are found in areas with rapid accumulation- we can see the same phenomenon in some areas of the ocean floor, where huge amounts of topsoil and dust are depositing several inches of matter a year. In some places in the Sahara there are vehicles from the 1940’s buried by rapidly drifting sand.
I think my main problem is it seems to me that they’ve got the scientific method backwards- they’ve started with their conclusion and are looking for evidence to support it.
Also, the selective footage I watched was a promotional video made by the Discovery Institute. I giggled at the kid riding the baby Triceratops, but then I had a big, big sad. Admittedly I have seen/read material from both sides and so have made some judgements based on information from the ‘opposing worldview.’ However, I put a lot of time into the dissection of the arguments made from both sides, and found that one side consistently came out the better with regards to logic, my own (admittedly relatively meager) understanding of science, and most of all quality-control measures. I think it’s important that one’s conclusion should be able to change with the evidence.
It’s interesting to note that approximately 70% of scientists identify as Christian- these are people who would love to find evidence that supports their worldview.  In fact there are huge monetary awards for anyone who comes up with concrete evidence supporting the biblical account, so they are doubly incentivized. Still, the focus seems to be on finding holes in the planetary evolution theory- which I’m sure you will recognize as a logical fallacy. If I said the sky was a light shade of orange and you insisted it was chartreuse, and I proved without a doubt that there was no possible way that it could be chartreuse, I haven’t come any closer to proving my light-orange hypothesis. In fact I have, in this hypothetical scenario, likely wasted my time, which would have been much better spent studying electromagnetic wavelengths, the properties of light refraction, airborne impurities, and atmospheric interference- building up a solid foundation upon which I could base a testable hypothesis of what constituted a light shade of orange and how it would come about in the sky, which could over repeated testing,  repetition and observation POSSIBLY make it to the level of a scientific theory (as hugely differentiated from the common usage of the word which is often used as a flimflam to confuse and distort the concept) and, hopefully, make it into textbooks. (Well, not in Texas…)
Anyway, I’ve gone off enough. I enjoy this kind discussion, and you’re certainly much more educated than most of the folks I’ve had its ilk with. I’m away to me kitchen to bake me another loaf of that honey-wheat bread. Hope you guys are enjoying it as much as we do!

Also… I’ve got Paint (the old version… it was “redone” [see also: trainwrecked] for Windows 7) on my laptop now, so map-editing should be easier. I’ll try to update again later today.
Chris Ames
Mar 5

to Curt
 The bread was great! The flavor is *just* sweet enough that the yeast complements it without tasting fermented. And you were right, it makes legendary toast! I’m going to try PB&J when I get home
I enjoy them too! And, I’m prepared to continue, if you’re willing.With respect to the scientific method, how do you apply the scientific method without presuppositions in place? Experimentation presupposes that you’re looking for something. If you’re looking for evolution, it imposes an interpretation on whatever data you find. Same with young-earth creation. That’s the point: science cannot prove the age of the earth any more than faith can make it one number or another. It simply is how old it is, and one set of biases read the data one way, and the other set of biases read it the other. Right now, the trend is in favor of billions and billions of years, and the *only* currently observable data are starlight and distance. Everything else is an inference from inferences.

Is evolution observable or repeatable through experiment? Anything that is not observable or repeatable (and I’m talking macro- not micro-evolution) is more properly the domain of history than science, and history is, again, nothing but interpretations.


Leave a Comment so far
Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


Celebrating Revivalism and Other Noxious Pieties


\"If I am immoderate, I am immoderate to God.\" - Bengel


Like sawdust, but edible.

Broad Meadow

I have spoken the truth coldly; who cares for the truth? To be useful, one must be charming, and my pen has lost that art.

Planting churches with the Baptist Confession in one hand and Tolkien in the other

Orchard Keeper

Plucking fruit from the grove of biblical and theological studies

Jubilate Deo

Music in the service of the church


Theology, apologetics, ramblings

Towards Conservative Christianity

Promoting true conservative Christianity


"a changeless sword, By pen and paper lies, That it may moralise My days out of their aimlessness." - Yeats

%d bloggers like this: