SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.

It cannot possibly be science given your own words.If it were science we would have a hypothesis and evidence based testing. The testing would include both verifying the hypothesis is true and that the null hypothesis is false by using evidence based testing of the hypothesis.According to you though, testing is impossible. So regardless of whether geologists believe that testing actually is possible, I know that you are not even trying to test your hypothesis.So you are not doing science. Science is not telling stories even if the stories turn out to be true.And nobody is afraid of your silly punches.

d.p.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Fingerprints need interpreting, Faith, DNA needs interpreting, so you could try this bullshit on a court and see how far you get.However, in the given example, Siccar Point doesn't need interpreting, it is simply compared with the prediction of the hypothesis. Actually, the test was looking at the evidence, as you can see from my description of how the hypothesis was falsified. Next time I do so, you can thank me by actually reading it instead of making crazy shit up in your head. You can't. That's an interpretation of the X-ray diffraction pattern. Either show your working, or show an experiment. Shit you've made up is not admissible to "falsify" anything. You might as well make up a Fingerprint Fairy to "falsify" fingerprint evidence. "If it please the court, the fingerprints were not necessarily left by my client. They could equally well have been left by the Magic Flying Fingerprint Fairy, which I just made up in my head. This falsifies the fingerprint evidence. Ta-da!" Well, let me put it another way. The sort of dumb excuses you're using in your hysterical attempt to deny obvious facts about geology could be used equally well --- or badly --- to deny any facts whatsoever, no matter how completely true, blindingly obvious, and overwhelmingly well-evidenced they are.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Lol. A punch in the nose? Well its a good thing this is an internet forum where I don't have to worry about being assaulted for having a different point of view.So what do you call it when the methodology works like this:The Bible says ... ( x ), therefore we must interpret all evidence according to that paradigm?Or the evidence suggests ... ( x ), but we know that is wrong because the Bible says something else.What do you call that?HBD

There are, in fact, New Age kooks who talk drivel about the structure of DNA. This doesn't prove that Crick and Watson were wrong. In the same way, the ability of halfwitted religious fanatics to dispute obvious facts about geology does not cast doubt on those facts. You can dispute anything if you're dumb enough.

Faith, the scientific method is the method used by scientists to uncover facts, not the method used by religious apologists to deny them. The latter method is known as apologetics. If you were being scientific, you would come to the same conclusions as scientists.By analogy, if what you make is asparagus soup, you have not been following a recipe for chocolate cake. You may like the soup better, but you cannot reasonably claim that it is more chocolate-y, or a better example of a cake, or that you're the only one who's following the recipe for chocolate cake properly.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well there you have it: scientists are always right, can't ever be wrong about anything, even when the method is merely interpretive and historical.

Doesn't change the fact that DNA structure is absolutely KNOWN, testable and provable and not subject to interpretation, unlike the standard interpretation of angular unconformities and other opinions by geologists. Ya know, this is so obvious and incontrovertible, for you all to be arguing with it is, well, nuts.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Craaaaaaaazy nonsense. What I said is true. For you to deny it is nuts.

The structure is known despite the fact that no one can see the atoms in the individual molecule. The structure is known via the interpretation of test results.On the other hand, the layer structure of angular unconformities is exactly known because we've seen them. Geologists test their hypothesis about how they are formed both by looking for formation evidence and by the absence of observational evidence that would support counter hypothesis. In short they use the scientific method.Why is it that you think your proposals are scientific while those of geologists are not?

The question here is whether Faith's post represents an honest attempt to find the truth or simply an attempt to prop up a dogma against the evidence.

quote:

---

Not if the evidence has to be interpreted, which Siccar Point does.

---

Strike one against Faith, This is a silly objection. It is perfectly possible to work out whether the evidence fits better with one explanation than another. And thus examining the evidence is a valid test. At least for those who are prepared to let evidence change their minds.

quote:

---

It's good enough reasoning for a hypothesis, but there is no place to go from there except just to persuade others that his hypothesis is correct That's the only test there is. People can go look at Siccar Point and follow his reasoning about it and figure he was right.

---

This is obviously false. Looking for more evidence from Siccar Point - a more detailed examination is one possibility. Another is to examine other angular unconformities to see if they fit the patter of Siccar Point or not.

quote:

---

If the upper strata were just a few layers as they are now then you'd expect them to be disturbed. But if the strata were laid down originally to a great depth there would have been extreme pressure from the weight of the strata above and enough rigidity to resist the disturbance. That falsifies his conclusion.

---

In fact the only way to falsify the conclusion is for the prediction to fail or for other evidence strongly inconsistent with the conclusion to be produced. An alternative explanation of the evidence is not sufficient, even if it has no problems.In fact - and if Faith has properly researched the Wikipedia article she knows this - there are ALWAYS alternative explanations. If the simple existence of an alternative was a falsification all of science would be falsified.But back to Faith's explanation - is it really any good ? Pressure increases with depth so how can the pressure on the upper layers be sufficient to stop any bending while the lower strata are heavily deformed ? Pressure increases gradually so how can it explain the sudden transition we see in the rocks ?Without answers to these, obvious questions - questions which should have been considered before the suggestion was even made - we cannot even consider Faith's explanation a reasonable alternative.I really don't see much sign of science in this post. It's up to Faith to provide the missing pieces - to show that her explanation is as good as that of mainstream geology. But how can she do that when she refuses to admit the possibility of the tests that need to be done ?

What is obvious and incontrovertible is that is that your continuous insults and belittlement of anyone who disagrees with you and asks you for evidence, will never convince anyone that you know anything about the subjects that you talk about.You have not demonstrated that you know a single thing about science, about geology, about what can be observed by anyone who looks at the rocks or even the basic understanding of the simplest principals of the behavior of water and sediments.Layered sediments refute your flood, layered fossils refute your flood, the Grand Canyon refutes your flood, Monument Valley refutes your flood, the Grand Staircase refutes your flood. In fact, all the evidence on this planet refutes your flood.You ignore everything that refutes your flood with "Oh yeah, the layers were deposited in water so that proves the flood." That's all you've got. It is a joke.Your silly scenario ignores the bulk of the evidence while ours explains it all. True science, real science accounts for all the evidence, not just the few little dribbles that you want to consider.In the course of these long discussions about geology and biology everything you have said is fantasies made up in your head. You cannot explain any of the details that have been pointed out to you hundreds and hundreds of times and you just keep repeating the same false assertions over and over in every thread.Your insulting, ignorant, arrogance is what is nuts.

Excuse me but the insulting ignorant arrogance has been coming at me here forever. Funny you can't seem to read. The Flood is well supported by the arguments I've made. You'll never see it of course because you are blinded by bias.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There was a paper about historical and interpretive science that has been linked many times here, which claims that Geology has been regarded by scientists as an inferior science because it is historical and interpretive. The author disagrees but the point is that this is how scientists have viewed it. And it IS inferior because it lacks the kind of testability the hard sciences have. This is easy enough to demonstrate. Hutton's thinking about Siccar Point demonstrates it. But there is such a commitment to pretending this isn't the case but that science is science there is no way to get anyone to recognize this simple fact. Alas. Willful blindness.

Faith writes: Well this is wrong, isn't it?Here's a better way to word it: