Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 196 of 614 (731962)
07-02-2014 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Faith
07-02-2014 7:44 AM


More Faith bullshit and really stupid misrepresentation.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 7:44 AM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 197 of 614 (731964)
07-02-2014 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Faith
07-02-2014 7:37 AM


Re: Siccar Point ... as the rock turns -- science vs denial
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.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 7:37 AM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 198 of 614 (731969)
07-02-2014 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Faith
06-30-2014 3:44 PM


Re: Siccar Point
Faith writes:
There may not be any creationists quite crazy enough to be interested in this idea except me.
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.

"I just rattled off that post not caring whether any of it was true or not if you want to know." -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 3:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 12:03 PM ringo has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 199 of 614 (731970)
07-02-2014 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by herebedragons
07-02-2014 7:57 AM


Re: Siccar Point
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by herebedragons, posted 07-02-2014 7:57 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by jar, posted 07-02-2014 12:22 PM Faith has replied
 Message 203 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2014 12:44 PM Faith has replied
 Message 256 by herebedragons, posted 07-03-2014 12:35 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 200 of 614 (731971)
07-02-2014 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by ringo
07-02-2014 11:45 AM


Re: Siccar Point
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by ringo, posted 07-02-2014 11:45 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by ringo, posted 07-02-2014 1:12 PM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 201 of 614 (731973)
07-02-2014 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Faith
07-02-2014 11:56 AM


Faith continues to post really stupid misrepresentations.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 11:56 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 12:37 PM jar has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 202 of 614 (731974)
07-02-2014 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by jar
07-02-2014 12:22 PM


Re: Faith continues to post really stupid misrepresentations.
Show me where you see strata formation going on over an exposed uplift.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by jar, posted 07-02-2014 12:22 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by jar, posted 07-02-2014 2:56 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 203 of 614 (731975)
07-02-2014 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Faith
07-02-2014 11:56 AM


Re: Siccar Point
quote:
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.
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:
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
Based on the fact that it explains the evidence well, and there is no viable competing alternative.
quote:
Parts of the sequence of thought about it can be questioned and I question them
And if your questions fail to produce valid objections - as so far they have - what then?
quote:
Just because there is no visible erosion at Siccar Point doesn't prove anything. There is erosion at other angular unconformities
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:
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
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 11:56 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 12:51 PM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 204 of 614 (731976)
07-02-2014 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by PaulK
07-02-2014 12:44 PM


Re: Siccar Point
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2014 12:44 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2014 1:17 PM Faith has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 205 of 614 (731977)
07-02-2014 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by PaulK
07-01-2014 4:12 PM


Re: Science or Apologetics ?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2014 4:12 PM PaulK has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 206 of 614 (731978)
07-02-2014 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Faith
07-01-2014 5:37 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Faith, posted 07-01-2014 5:37 PM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 207 of 614 (731979)
07-02-2014 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Faith
07-02-2014 12:03 PM


Re: Siccar Point
Faith writes:
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?
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 just rattled off that post not caring whether any of it was true or not if you want to know." -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 12:03 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Coyote, posted 07-02-2014 1:34 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied
 Message 212 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 3:17 PM ringo has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 208 of 614 (731980)
07-02-2014 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Faith
07-02-2014 12:51 PM


Re: Siccar Point
quote:
Because the force was strong and direct at that level.
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:
I've answered this many times before. Balance of forces. The point where the weight above balanced out the force of the buckling below.
That doesn't answer it at all. In fact it leads us to expect to see a gradual transition.
quote:
And I think different textures between the layers probably facilitated movement at the particular level where it occurred.
That doesn't seem very plausible either. I've asked you for support for that assertion, too.
Why would different textures help movement?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 12:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 3:22 PM PaulK has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 209 of 614 (731983)
07-02-2014 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by ringo
07-02-2014 1:12 PM


Why don't creationists...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by ringo, posted 07-02-2014 1:12 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 210 of 614 (731984)
07-02-2014 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Faith
07-01-2014 6:50 AM


Re: Siccar Point
Faith writes:
They can be tested by looking at the evidence.
Not if the evidence has to be interpreted, which Siccar Point does.
Try telling a BASIC interperter that any old interpretation will do. There are correct interpretations and incorect interpretations.

"I just rattled off that post not caring whether any of it was true or not if you want to know." -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 07-01-2014 6:50 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 3:24 PM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024