Moral relativism is the theory that moral standards vary from society to society, and from time to time in history.
The millions of years hypothesis is only about 150 years old, so your model is the one changed.
Debates between proponents of gradualism and catastrophism have been ongoing for some time.
It looks as though there is no such thing as peaceful and calm Planet Earth. It has been hit and reshaped by asteroids, earthquakes, floods, explosions, while continents emerged and submerged in catastrophic manners taking all kinds of animal and plant life with them.
The whole solar system also is and has been a very violent place, constantly bombarded with big asteroids, even planets colliding, and what not.
What facts? What are those? You just stated that all science was based on speculation therefore how can it be factual?
That is basically a homogeneous term you put forth. You need to do a deeper study on this term such as Derridaâs âthere is no outside the textâ to fully understand how this term is used when truth and facts become subjective! âAll things become subject to interpretation when it comes to the use of language and making such arguments! Itâs not theory when itâs put into practice on a daily basis.
Right letâs put more videos up and base everything on that! Letâs stop reading books altogether according to your logic!
May not been formed in days, but it might have been created during single ice age/ice event much like Dry Falls of Washington state. Where north American ice sheet 20 thousand years ago dammed up. When the ice dam broke it created Dry falls practically over night.
Some visual pleasure for you of Dry Falls Washington.
I am open to that as being a possibility. What is not supported however is taking one geographical area such as Mt St. Helens that has an entire different geological makeup than that of the Grand Canyon and try to apply the same theory to it, when evidence of the surrounding areas, such as Bryce Canyon, Capital Reef, and Arches, etc., were all formed through erosion. The Grand Canyon is basically the same with a river at its center. Take all the elements over time together and you basically have what is today the Grand Canyon.
Well I wouldnât use Mt St. Helen as example in my opinion. Now remind you Iâm not an expert on this subject, but it does fascinate me.
When I said single even I was using Dry Falls as example. But we know that wasnât only time of massive ice/melt/flow. Greenland for example is longer but not deeper or wider then Grand Canyon in SW.
Now it may not have formed in single ice age event. It might have been several ice age expansion and retraction over course of time.
But if we are using continental drift, their might not have been time for that to happen. Ice expansion and retraction etc. Again Iâm just speculating here because Iâm not an expert, but IMO it was curved out in single event like melting of massive north American ice cap over hundreds if not thousands of years. But that still would be consider a single event.
I hope that makes sense.
Mt St Helens is only a reference.
As long as people will see that drastic geological changes can occur in a single day, or even three hours, as mentioned in the video I attached, that is good enough for me.
You are either misreading what I wrote or are deliberately twisting what I wrote to fit your belief.
The definition of Science is knowledge. Science can not âtell usâ anything, people interpret evidence based on their biases and beliefs.
Forensic science is the research of past events, interpreted by people with biases and beliefs.
The empirical âscientific methodâ as developed by Newton, Galileo and Kepler is a way of interpreting data with physical and measurable evidences. This requires observing those evidences, testing the hypothesis and repeating the processes to assure the result was not an anomalie.
Neither empirical science nor historical or forensic science (since it can never be observed) can explain the formation of the Grand Canyon without a personâs underlying personal paradigm.
So a question for you; what observable evidences do you see to explain unequivocally the millions-year-age hypothesis?
The catastrophe at Mount Saint Helens showed observable, testable recorded evidence of the hypothesis that erosion from a single event does carve out massive amounts of rock and sediments in a short period of time and how that happens. There is no possibility of observing millions of years of erosion. Comparing what has been observed with the evidence presented at past similar events would prove or falsify the forensic evidence.
1 Like
Uh no, I basing it on what you stated previously and you contradict facts with speculation.
Why are you insistent on being fixated on observable and trying to invalidate other methodologies being employed that provides logical explanations along scientific disciplines ?
Whether itâs observable or not, you need to go back to your original assertion such as the Grand Canyon was formed in days and prove that you are correct. Like I said before if you are that adamant about your hypothesis then publish your theory for peer review and see how it measures up. My original position is same, in regards to your assertion of comparing two events as the same, I simply disagree based on what the circumstances are and what the science provides as an explanation. I didnât watch some shitty video that someone posted to know that either.
Because that is how scientific research is done. Why are you denying how research is conducted?
Then present your evidences if you have any.
I am not denying anything! Now who is purposely being obtuse here? You failed to answer my question.
I did already, and itâs available as widely accepted theory by most geological Scientists.
You failed to answer my question, so I guess that is the standard.
Science is not by consensus. 97% of any group are often wrong. What evidences can you produce that bolster your belief system of millions of years.
1 Like
You failed to answer my question so I Guess that makes us even.