|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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. You really need to try to stop posting such obviously false crap. If a shooter hits the target there would be a hole in the target. If there is no hole in the target the shooter did not hit the target.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner. Actually more like non-topic garbage.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
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. oh ... and the observed empirical evidence of sheared of tilted layers with not sign of where that sheared off material went ... evidence that this shearing DID not COULD not occur under an overlying layer after that layer formed ... No I do not see that evidence is missing that supports your concept is speculation or interpretation but observed reality.
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. A lateral force that affects a buried layer but not the layer that buries it ... fascinating. One wonders where the material comes from to replace the edges of the compressed layers ... or are those layers growing? However, now that we have this new Faith concept we can investigate what IT would look like if IT had occurred: Compressing layers laterally into lateral folds means that there would be continuous layers under the overlying strata ... they would peak and valley in an accordion pattern. This too is not observed in the world of reality at Siccar Point: the tops of the folds would not be sheared off as we easily observe when looking at the objective empirical evidence and this falsifies this concept. This too would cause rubble from the interface of the accordion layer and the overlying layer, rubble that is still absent ...
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. There is more to the formation than this single location, where the tilted layers are still observed and where rubble is still NOT observed. Science is not done by making up evidence and then saying it isn't there it is done by observing what evidence is there. Does observation match the erosion hypothesis? Yes, in every detail. Does observation match the Faith conjecture? No, not in any instance. FAIL. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
I suspect that most creationists lack the motivation to do experiments because deep down they know they won't get the results they want. As somebody once said, the easiest person to fool is yourself - but few people have themselves so completely fooled that they're willing to stand up for what they (clim to) believe. There may not be any creationists quite crazy enough to be interested in this idea except me."I just rattled off that post not caring whether any of it was true or not if you want to know." -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1693 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
HBD, that is just a lot of pedantic nitpickery. It doesn't matter whether the DNA can be actually seen or not, but others can replicate the data for study and it DOES "explain the evidence" and that is why it is as good as proven. It works and nobody doubts it. There are no competing theories of its structure, right? It's a done deal. It's been confirmed in lots of ways by lots of researchers.
Siccar Point, however, a past event, can only be interpreted from the position of the present. How angular unconformities develop is certainly accepted as fully understood but simply on the basis of persuasion. Parts of the sequence of thought about it can be questioned and I question them. Just because there is no visible erosion at Siccar Point doesn't prove anything. There is erosion at other angular unconformities. The claim that the upper strata would have been distorted if the lower had buckled while they were in place is not likely if the upper strata were very deep at the time. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1693 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
In the case of trying to create an angular unconformity setting up the experiment would not be easy. Even at a tiny scale, which is all I could manage, I'd have to get it all to the right degree of dryness and hardness/softness, which could take a number of tries, which I probably won't have the means to do.
I also think I need to consider the different sediments involved, what that would contribute to the effect, because there would be textural differences that I think figure in how the unconformity was formed. How am I going to simulate or reproduce limestone?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
How angular unconformities develop is certainly accepted as fully understood but simply on the basis of persuasion. Utter nonsense and bullshit. We can see angular unconformities developing now. We see the process at every exposed uplift. It is going on today and in millions of years will look like Siccar Point. You really need to stop posting really stupid assertions that everyone can see are just silly. It is not just a matter of persuasion unless you mean that the evidence is overwhelmingly persuasive.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1693 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Show me where you see strata formation going on over an exposed uplift.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17907 Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
quote: You could say much the same for the formation of angular unconformities. So it's hard to see what your point is intended to be.
quote: Based on the fact that it explains the evidence well, and there is no viable competing alternative.
quote: And if your questions fail to produce valid objections - as so far they have - what then?
quote: More accurately the erosion that is at Siccar point supports the mainstream view over your wild speculations. And if there is the sort of erosion your view predicts at any angular conformity, you haven't shown it.
quote: As you know I have a couple of serious and obvious objections to that assertion. Objections you have yet to answer. Here they are again: The lower strata were even deeper. Why did this supposed effect not prevent them from buckling? Depth is a continuous quantity. Why would it produce a sudden transition between buckled and unaffected strata, rather than a more gradual one? Edited by PaulK, : Corrected the *#^*! Autocorrect
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1693 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The lower strata were even deeper. Why did this supposed effect not prevent them from buckling? Because the force was strong and direct at that level.
Depth is a continuous quantity. Why would it produce a sudden transition between buckled and unaffected strata, rather than a more gradual one? I've answered this many times before. Balance of forces. The point where the weight above balanced out the force of the buckling below. And I think different textures between the layers probably facilitated movement at the particular level where it occurred. At Siccar Point this is only two different kinds of sandstone, but that is where the break occurred. This what a properly constructed experiment might be able to demonstrate. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Not if the evidence has to be interpreted, which Siccar Point does. Strike one against Faith, This is a silly objection. It is a silly objection, but it is also the core objection behind the denigration of geology. The only evidence that needs no interpretation is a direct observation of the phenomena under investigation. No inference of any kind is allowed. In short as long as nobody saw it, where the "it" is something contrary to a belief, we can say that "it" is not science.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
The author disagrees but the point is that this is how scientists have viewed it. That's how some people have viewed it. Seriously Faith, if the standard for convincing was simply providing an opinion paper, there'd be little for you to disagree about. The overwhelming opinion of geology among scientists is that it is a scientific discipline. People are not simply blindly defending the position that geological hypotheses are testable. They are actually providing examples. Responding as if those things had not been provided is the height of denial.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
So why doesn't the entire creationist communty spend some millions on research instead of on propaganda? Why is nothing actually being done in what you call "real" science? I also think I need to consider the different sediments involved, what that would contribute to the effect, because there would be textural differences that I think figure in how the unconformity was formed. How am I going to simulate or reproduce limestone?"I just rattled off that post not caring whether any of it was true or not if you want to know." -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17907 Joined: Member Rating: 7.2
|
quote: So, you are asserting that the force was applied directly to the lower strata and not to the upper strata. Do you have any evidence for that ? Any reason why it should be true not just at Siccar Point, but at angular unconformities in general?
quote: That doesn't answer it at all. In fact it leads us to expect to see a gradual transition.
quote: That doesn't seem very plausible either. I've asked you for support for that assertion, too.Why would different textures help movement?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2354 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
So why doesn't the entire creationist communty spend some millions on research instead of on propaganda? Why is nothing actually being done in what you call "real" science? Because the one time they tried it showed that science was right. The RATE project was financed by over $1 million in creationist money. Here are two reviews: Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review by Randy Isaac:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate-ri.htm Do the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science (in two parts)?:
https://www.softwaremonkey.org/RTB/newsletter/2007-07.pdf https://www.softwaremonkey.org/RTB/newsletter/2007-08.pdf Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
Try telling a BASIC interperter that any old interpretation will do. There are correct interpretations and incorect interpretations. They can be tested by looking at the evidence.
Not if the evidence has to be interpreted, which Siccar Point does."I just rattled off that post not caring whether any of it was true or not if you want to know." -- Faith
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024