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

So it's OK for someone to say that I wasn't eaten by a lion yesterday, but if someone also proposes that I wasn't eaten by a lion in 10,000 B.C. then they've gone too far? Well, see my remarks in post #229. Even in the case of the elephant in the room, we can imagine that there might be special circumstances preventing me from seeing it --- though we can't imagine what these circumstances might be. All facts, no matter how certain, are subject to this sort of vague speculative conjecture. And yet this doesn't stop us from saying, of a room that looks empty, that there is no elephant in it.

So if DA wasn't mauled by a lion in the middle of nowhere it can't be proven one way or the other since it is not possible for anyone to have witnessed it? But if he wasn't mauled at a zoo, that changes everything because zoos carry the possibility of witnesses?

But in the case of the absence of erosion at that particular spot you don't have any way of knowing if that is really proof against the idea that the strata were all in place before the unconformity formed. It's a reasonable hypothesis but you cannot know it with the certainty you claim.

I must congratulate you on getting Faith to cave immediately and so completely.

What an odd thing to say. Petrophysics isn't doing historical interpretive Geology, he's doing valid physical study, which I've said many times is the valid work of Geology. True testable science. As I just said to Ringo, finding molybdenum I have no problem with, it's pontificating about the age of the Earth I have a problem with.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What went over your head is that what I did is how ALL geology is done.You don't get it. I just proved that an unconformity, a thing which can not exist if all the rocks where deposited by a flood, does in fact exist and you don't need to interpret anything to figure that out.Let's go for time seven. Tell me your scientific procedure for figuring out the depositional environment of a formation.You have determined they were all deposited by a flood how did you do that?Tell me what you did so I can rip it to shreds.What you don't know about geology coupled with the stuff you know which is wrong would easily fill the Library Of Congress.

quote:

---

What an odd thing to say. Petrophysics isn't doing historical interpretive Geology, he's doing valid physical study, which I've said many times is the valid work of Geology

---

He's interpreting evidence to reconstruct what happened in the unwitnessed prehistoric past. You keep trying to tell us that that's not valid science.

I am collecting data which then FORCES me to a logical, rational conclusion about what had to have happened.I am a geologist, I do this the way all other geologists do it. Geology has nothing to do with the way Faith thinks it's done (or most of the other people here for that matter, basically people don't know what I do so they should stop explaining it to me.)I am not the one pontificating and blowing smoke out my ass after having looked at a post card of the Grand Canyon.

But I am not claiming more certainty for this than anything else.Like every falsification, it is subject to the possibility of us daydreaming: "Maybe there's some mechanism --- even if we can't think of it right now --- maybe there's some mechanism which makes the hypothesis still true, but just makes it look false. Maybe the elephant is in the room, but something, who can say what, is making it invisible. Maybe the lower strata did three back flips and a double somersault under the upper strata, and the upper strata stayed flat and level for reasons beyond our ken, as a result of forces and mechanisms I can't even think of."We can always think like that about anything. Absolute, complete certainty must therefore always lie beyond our grasp. And because this is always true of everything, it is not particularly an objection to propositions about geology.

All I said was that what you described deals only with physical phenomena and I have no problem with that. That's how science ought to work.Certainly angular unconformities exist, but I have a different idea about how they formed than standard Geology does, and you haven't said anything to show that it matters how they were formed as far as your work goes.I was hoping that you'd eventually do the thread about finding oil because it is often said that the ancient age of rocks has a part in that process and I'd like to see how that could be.But as far as your recent post goes you said nothing about age or dating, it was all physical description which is what I'd expect of geological science. If you have something to say about age or dating as a consequence of all that you haven't yet said it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Certainty suits knowledge of the structure of DNA, and probably Einstein's formula too, and the law of gravity and what happens if you combine certain chemicals and no doubt all kinds of other things. Experiments can be done by many people to prove such theories. Many researchers can confirm them. All you have in the case of Siccar Point is convincing others of your reasoning. That is not the same thing.

Have you or anyone else been able to present the alternative model, process or method that explains what is seen at Siccar Point as well as the conventional geological explanation?If so, please give us a link to where that model, process or method was presented.

Yes I've presented my alternative model many times and described a test for it that I may or may not be able to do eventually.

No, you have not described a model, method or process and to claim you have done so simply shows you are ignorant of what the words model, process or method mean.If you had you could provide a link to the post where you showed what happened, how you know it happened and evidence that it could happen that way.What you have presented so far (just as you do with what the Bible says) is just assert what you wish was true.

According to your fairy tale, there is no prehistoric past.Unless you count the five days before Adam was created. But since Adam wsn't there to witness them, by your own reasoning you can't know anything about them.