Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: The Rutificador chile
Post Volume: Total: 919,503 Year: 6,760/9,624 Month: 100/238 Week: 17/83 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 241 of 614 (732046)
07-03-2014 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Faith
07-03-2014 2:50 AM


Re: The Quest For The Rational Basis
So I can't expect people to keep in mind the context I would expect to be kept in mind from dozens of previous discussions of the same content, but I mean the PREHISTORIC past, not the recent past but the past that is before there was any possible witness to its events. You can't know what would have happened if there could not have been any way of knowing what would have happened, but in the case of yesterday there are many ways of knowing what would have happened.
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?
In this case one might expect that erosion should be present in a certain situation but since you can't know all possible ways that situation could play out you can't know for sure what would have happened, so to claim as a fact that you do know is wrong.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 2:50 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 3:18 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 1058 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 242 of 614 (732047)
07-03-2014 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Faith
07-03-2014 2:50 AM


Re: The Quest For The Rational Basis
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?

Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 2:50 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1701 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 243 of 614 (732048)
07-03-2014 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by Dr Adequate
07-03-2014 3:12 AM


Re: The Quest For The Rational Basis
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2014 3:12 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2014 5:39 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17919
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 244 of 614 (732049)
07-03-2014 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by petrophysics1
07-03-2014 2:08 AM


Re: More BS to deal with
I must congratulate you on getting Faith to cave immediately and so completely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by petrophysics1, posted 07-03-2014 2:08 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 3:22 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1701 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 245 of 614 (732050)
07-03-2014 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by PaulK
07-03-2014 3:20 AM


True Scientific Geology vs. Historical Interpretive Geology
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by PaulK, posted 07-03-2014 3:20 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by petrophysics1, posted 07-03-2014 3:43 AM Faith has replied
 Message 247 by PaulK, posted 07-03-2014 3:56 AM Faith has not replied

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 246 of 614 (732051)
07-03-2014 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Faith
07-03-2014 3:22 AM


Re: True Scientific Geology vs. Historical Interpretive Geology
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 3:22 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 8:28 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17919
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 247 of 614 (732052)
07-03-2014 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Faith
07-03-2014 3:22 AM


Re: True Scientific Geology vs. Historical Interpretive Geology
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 3:22 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by petrophysics1, posted 07-03-2014 4:14 AM PaulK has not replied

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 248 of 614 (732054)
07-03-2014 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by PaulK
07-03-2014 3:56 AM


Re: True Scientific Geology vs. Historical Interpretive Geology
He's interpreting evidence to reconstruct what happened in the unwitnessed prehistoric past.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by PaulK, posted 07-03-2014 3:56 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 249 of 614 (732056)
07-03-2014 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Faith
07-03-2014 3:18 AM


Re: The Quest For The Rational Basis
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 3:18 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 8:33 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1701 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 250 of 614 (732062)
07-03-2014 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by petrophysics1
07-03-2014 3:43 AM


Re: True Scientific Geology vs. Historical Interpretive 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by petrophysics1, posted 07-03-2014 3:43 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1701 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 251 of 614 (732063)
07-03-2014 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Dr Adequate
07-03-2014 5:39 AM


Re: The Quest For The Rational Basis
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2014 5:39 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by jar, posted 07-03-2014 8:40 AM Faith has replied
 Message 268 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2014 1:16 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 95 days)
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 252 of 614 (732067)
07-03-2014 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Faith
07-03-2014 8:33 AM


More utter nonsense from Faith.
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.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 8:33 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 8:52 AM jar has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1701 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 253 of 614 (732070)
07-03-2014 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by jar
07-03-2014 8:40 AM


Re: More utter nonsense from Faith.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by jar, posted 07-03-2014 8:40 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by jar, posted 07-03-2014 10:04 AM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 95 days)
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 254 of 614 (732076)
07-03-2014 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Faith
07-03-2014 8:52 AM


Re: More utter nonsense from Faith.
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.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 8:52 AM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 668 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 255 of 614 (732106)
07-03-2014 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Faith
07-03-2014 2:50 AM


Re: The Quest For The Rational Basis
Faith writes:
... I mean the PREHISTORIC past, not the recent past but the past that is before there was any possible witness to its events.
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.

"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 240 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 2:50 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 12:52 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