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

Except that's not what Dr. A said. Take it up with him.

Two mistakes in one short sentence. Your arguments do not support the flood and even more telling, not one shred of evidence, no single observation supports you fantasies.Every single observation supports the fact that the earth is old, more than 4 billion years old and that the geological processes of deposition and erosion, vulcanism and subduction have been going on for almost as long as the earth has existed.There are literally hundreds of flaws in your arguments that have been pointed out many, many times and that you refuse to address or explain. Explain the layering of the sediments, Faith.
Explain the sorting of the fossils.
Explain the meanders in the Grand Canyon.
Explain the erosion between the layers that you say is not there, but that anyone with eyes can see.Explanations take evidence, not made up fantasies. The bible doesn't explain geology.We understand why you feel the need to ridicule geology. Your argument is so flimsy that you think if you can cast doubt on real science it will somehow bolster your argument. Sorry, but no one is convinced. Really?Insulting and arrogant is probably correct, but the ignorance is all yours.Enjoy.

Lotta assertion there. Deal with what I've already said. Changing the subject is very bad form.I ridicule Geology where it is ridiculous of course.And I know you don't like being insulted by a Creationist, you'd rather be the one doing it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You could at least pretend to have an argument. Y'know, put up some inane smokescreen of verbiage, some feigned and unconvincing imitation of rational discussion.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

In the straw man version in your head. And you are right, that deserves ridicule. I don't mind being insulted by someone who doesn't have a clue what they are talking about. I object to your insulting manner when you talk about people who are making a living as scientists and who are using science to make discoveries about the universe. You mis-characterize their knowledge as faulty and them as stupid or crazy for using that knowledge to learn more. If you were speaking from a position of greater knowledge then there might be some validity to what you say, but by your own admission you refuse to study the science and then whine when they use technical terminology.Carry on.Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Except that's not what Dr. A said. Take it up with him

---

The post to which he was replying had nothing to do with Doctor Adequate said either.

Least extreme actions be done.Adminnemooseus

To which "he" was replying? Who is "he?" I was replying to a post by Dr. A in which he said To which I responded that obviously scientists can't be wrong. That's what he's implying. Why would anyone dispute it?I could have answered as well that I am not using the methods of religious apologists but actually doing quite a good job with scientific method. Since nothing I say gets any kind of honest assessment here, there is absolutely no point in trying to be nice about it either.

No it isn't. Literacy. You could also have answered that you're a small china hippopotamus with singing rhododendron bushes growing out of your porcelain nostrils, it's a free country.

quote:

---

To which I responded that obviously scientists can't be wrong. That's what he's implying. Why would anyone dispute it?

---

No, he's implying that the scientific method applied to the evidence that we actually have would lead to a single set of conclusions. Which does not necessarily imply that those conclusions are true (if science were missing a vital piece of evidence, for instance, it could be wrong). I would not go that far, but in some cases -like the fact that the Earth is old - it is true.So we dispute your intepretation because it is obviously false. So again you demonstrate how you cause your own problems.

quote:

---

I could have answered as well that I am not using the methods of religious apologists but actually doing quite a good job with scientific method.

---

And that would be obviously false, too.

quote:

---

Since nothing I say gets any kind of honest assessment here, there is absolutely no point in trying to be nice about it either.

---

By which you mean that you feel justified in abusing people because your arguments get honestly assessed.

Why not? You can test to see if "what WOULD have happened" actually happened -- this is the foundation of the scientific method Faith:1. Observation/evidence
2. Hypothesis to explain (1)
3. Test A: what would have happened if (2) is true
4. if "what would have happened in A" is observed (2) is affirmed
5. Test B: what would have happened if (2) is false
6. if "what would have happened in B" is observed (2) is invalidated As long as all you have are one line denial of other posts you don't have refutation of the points made --- because you have failed to address the points made.Here is Message 154 again:

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.

​

No it doesn't. Extreme pressure would not remove the debris caused by this turning motion, it would just grind and crush the particles smaller so you would have sand instead of gravel in the interface. This material is ABSENT and that is the critical problem to this hypothesis -- that is what makes the actual evidence invalidate the concept.

​

Increased pressure also does not account for the generally leveled surface of the turned material: there is no rational reason for such an end result of arbitrary turning a lower layer.

​

What shears off the top AND where did the sheared material go?

​

What causes the lower layer to turn but leaves the upper layers level? Magic?

​

Erosion explains it very simply: erosion of an exposed surface not only levels the top but transports the material away.

​

It also provides time separation between the turning of the lower layer to the deposition of the upper layer so no magic is needed to keep it from turning.

​

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

​

You don't need to interpret whether there is debris or not -- it is observed that the debris is missing.

​

The BEST explanation covers ALL the evidence.

---

And seeing as you have NO mechanism to cause this internal turning nor ANY explanation for the missing debris ... you don't even have AN explanation, so ANY explanation is better than you fantasy.Especially ones that have been tested by observation per the scientific method.You can also do a thought experiment: if you took your conceptual process and ran it in reverse what would you expect to see as a pre-condition to the turning event:If you took the near vertical layers at Siccar point and turned them flat what would you expect to see?Multiple sedimentary layers that all abruptly ended all at precisely the same location? Is that observed anywhere? Would that make any sense?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : typo

You really honestly don't see that your post is nothing but speculations? Interpretations, guesses, suppositions? Not a shred of actual fact, actual test? I guess you don't."It is observed that the debris is missing" you say, but missing from what? Only from your supposition that it should be there, not from anything you can show to be the case.You guys are really a riot.By the way the lower level doesn't "turn," that's a really misleading word. It is pushed laterally (that means "from the side") into vertical folds. Calling that "turning" -- or "rotating" in Dr. A's wording -- completely misrepresents what happens.There is no lack of mechanism for this, that would be tectonic lateral force. Happens a lot you know, buckles strata all over the place.As for where the eroded material went, MY speculation is -- yes at this point all there is is speculation on my side too; too bad you can't see it on your side -- anyway MY speculation is that the eroded material was simply not preserved in this very small slice of the formation, it got pushed somewhere else along the line.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I missed this one.In Faithworld, falsifying a hypothesis by means of making observations incompatible with its predictions isn't testable science.In the real world, it's the defining feature of science and the one thing that makes it testable.It is now actually not possible to be more wrong about a thing than Faith is about the scientific method. The phrase "you couldn't be more wrong" has ceased to be hyperbole and is merely the literal truth.

Well, here we go again with the absurd pronouncements made as if they were fact. In no real universe does what WOULD have happened, or any other supposition, hypothesis, wild guess or etc., constitute scientific evidence or testable fact, but apparently it does in Evofantasyland.If you had an actual example where this actually happened that would be different, but you don't, this is sheer wild speculation. Science, ha!Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not so. The structure is not KNOWN or provable but rather it is an ACCEPTED fact. The structure is accepted because it explains the evidence, not because it proves anything. The evidence of the structure of DNA absolutely DOES require interpretation. Look at those images again... There is nothing straightforward about interpreting those images. Even the actual photograph is not unambiguous, do you actually see the two strands, the sugar backbone, the double helix, or the individual nucleotides? NO, you don't. If you look at the photograph you can see that the section the author blew up is the only place in the photograph where the lops are clearly visible. How's that for ambiguous? You don't think that requires interpretation? You think that image PROVES the double helix?Does anything in those images look like this? This is a model of the structure of DNA based on the evidence presented in the images above. (there is more evidence but it is more mathematical in nature, these are the primary images that I know of) How do we go from the two images above, the actual evidence, to the image below?While we don't refer to the structure of DNA as a "theory," that is essentially what it is; a theoretical construct based on available evidence that explains known features and characteristics of the DNA molecule. Future evidence could overturn our model of DNA - it seriously could.My point is not to discuss the structure of DNA, but to use an example of something you accept to illustrate how scientists come to conclusions when that cannot physically observe something. They draw conclusions based on model that describe and fit the evidence. Most molecular biology works this way.Geology works in the same way. All your rhetoric about not being able to test it is just nonsense. Geologists test their theories with models, logic, observations and they try to explain ALL available evidence. It is not that far removed from how the structure of DNA was determined.HBD