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

What you are saying makes absolutely no sense to me. What he described was a straightforward analysis of physical geology. He was doing observational science and not historical science, which is what I always supposed working geologists had to be doing in the field. Some of you have said the ancient age is necessary in the field, especially for finding oil, but then along comes petrophysics in Message 235 and describes what he does and, guess what, nothing about the ancient earth, it's ALL observation of the lie of the land, the relationships between the rocks. The ancient earth stuff is NOT necessary. Historical science is just windowdressing, just a theory pasted onto the facts. I'm sure it's necessary to know the order of the deposition of the rocks, to know their relative age in other words, for some calculations, but so far I have seen nothing from the geologists here that shows that Old Earth assumptions have anything to do with it. And you haven't said anything to show otherwise.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

What you are saying makes absolutely no sense to me.

---

But it is a simple and obvious truth. There is nothing in the methods as described that relies on history. It will obviously work just as well when applied to events in the prehistoric past as the historic past.

quote:

---

He was doing observational science and not historical science, which is what I always supposed working geologists had to be doing in the field.

---

Please explain why reconstructing past events is not an example of historical science. Isn't that the defining feature of what you call historical science?

Clearly. I can present you with the facts, I cannot make you smart enough to understand them. The most I can do is show you the facts again.So let's do that. In petrophysics post, he writes, among other things:* It is obvious that whatever deformed/bent A did the same to C.* Therefore C clearly filled in the thickness variations in B.* There are really only 2 possibilities here. Either B was mounding up while it was being deposited creating the highs and lows or it was eroded away and I am looking at an unconformity with topography on it creating the highs and lows.* So the B formation was eroded awayThese are all reconstructions of the past history of the strata, and not merely descriptions of what they look like now. Petrophysics has concluded that A was deposited, then B was deposited, then B was eroded, then C was deposited, and then A, B and C were deformed. This is historical, it is not descriptive.If you are now prepared to admit that these inferences about the history of the rocks are legitimate, that's great. If you aren't, you could try to argue for that. But what you want to do, it seems, is admit that they're legitimate but deny that they're inferences about the history of the rocks. This is the stupidest thing you've done since the last stupid thing you did.

All that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact tha HISTORICAL GEOLOGY is about the reconstruction of the rocks back a few billion years -- abe theories about their origin, how and when etc /abe--- plus all the lore about how each of the layers with its fossil contents reflects a certain environment of a certain time period, and theories about how the dinosaurs went extinct and that sort of thing.
\
Reconstructing how the rocks got moved around underground so you can figure if they are in a position that might harbor an oil cache has NOTHING WHATEVER to do with these principles of Historical Geology. That is all the normal thinking one would have to do in understanding the physical situation of the rocks in the present.Good grief, have you really not understood that this is what is meant by Historical Geology and the difference between historical and observational science? The theories of the ages as presented on the Geo Time Scale constitute the former in Geology, whereas the lie of the rocks, the cross sections, the analysis of the landscape, the folding of the strata, and so on and so forth are all the observational science.SO the question I've had is whether any of the theories about the ancient past of the rocks and the fossils, THEIR SUPPOSED ACTUAL AGES IN PARTAICULAR, enter into the finding of oil or any other endeavor of practical working Geology, and petrophysics for one has shown that, at least in that one presentation of what he does in the field, IT DOES NOT.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Good grief, have you really not understood that this is what is meant by Historical Geology and the difference between historical and observational science?

---

Since the difference you see between historical and observational science seems to be unique to you, perhaps you would like to explain it.

That may be what you mean by it, but it is not what is meant by it. Reconstucting the history of the deposition, erosion, and deformation of the rocks is by definition historical science and in particular historical geology. If you want a special term meaning "those facts about the histories of rocks which Faith wishes to deny", then I suggest that you invent one. The term "Historical Geology" is taken --- geologists are using it --- and the term "historical science" is pretty much self-defining, and cannot at your whim be redefined to mean only-those-aspects-of-historical-science-that-Faith-has-taken-a-dislike-to.

I'm not sure why you ask this question again. You have been given several examples before and yet, I now see you posting the very same question.Do you really think the answer is going to change, or that we are going to continue spending time and effort to answer again and again? Yes, that would be one instance.So what?

You have to understand how the land came to lie that way and how the rocks came to have that relationship before you can understand how the oil got there. When you understand how, there's no way it could happen except slowly.Young-earthers have no explanation for how the oil could get there so fast, which is why they're not the ones who are finfing the oil.

To be entirely fair (in a damning-with-faint-praise-kinda-way) creationists can explain everything. If all else fails goddidit is their explanation. Barring that there will be some bizzarre set of events that cannot be disproved but which no-one has any reason to think actually occurred.The key to scientific endeavour is to provide an explanation that then allows predictions to be made. Young-earthers have no explanation for how oil got where it is known to be that could possibly predict where new oil can be found.

I'd call that an excuse for not having an explanation.

The sad issue for creationists is that they effectively seem to think the same thing.Which is why they go to such ridiculous lengths to avoid the explicit statement that God just did it that way and instead come up with convoluted yet unfalsifiable explanations as to how things are as they are. Explanations which have no predictive power at all and which are superficially "scientific" at best.

Dr.A,You are correct. Although I'm not sure if you know why I gave that explanation.I got tired of all this "It's just interpretation" crap, and I needed a simple example of what myself and all geologists do. I measure things and then am forced into logical conclusions based upon my observations.Of coarse it is necessary to know how to make observations, things like identifying minerals, rocks or fossils and accurately placing them in 3-D space. A thing which I've seen no evidence of Faith or any other YEC doing. This means there is NO data, everything they say is a speculation backed up by nothing.I have asked Faith 7 times to tell me what she does to determine how rocks were deposited. She has somehow determined they were ALL deposited by a flood, but she will not answer and gets pissed off because it goes right to the root of all the insane stuff she says about geology. She doesn't know crap about how geology is done but refuses to admit it, and even worse pontificates about it and how it's done.So I've shown one way to determine an unconformity exists, which BTW proves there was no worldwide flood which deposited all of the rocks in the geologic column. I only needed to do it in one place but can do it in hundreds. BTW Faith in agreeing with me didn't realize she destroyed her own arguments, both the one about the flood and the one about historical geology being all interpretation.So does anyone out there know how to begin figuring out how rocks were deposited? I'm sure you have all read explanations of how rocks we deposited but do you know what to do, how to begin to do it yourself and how geologists actually do it.If someone other than Faith wants to know I'll explain it. As a hint it has an awful lot to do with accurately describing and measuring rocks.Right now, I've rocks to describe, a log to draft and a well to steer in the Three Forks but will be back later.

OK, if the definition is already established I will have to be clearer about what I mean. It's surprising to me of course since the whole point of my argument is that reconstructing the prehistoric past can only be interpretive, such things as their supposed deposition hundreds of millions of years ago, the "era" in which they were deposited being characterized by their fossil contents, the supposed extinctions being determined by a thin layer of iridium and the absence of expected fossils above a certain level. All stuff that is pure theory and can never be tested.That is what I've had in mind. But if your definition is not confined to this I'll just start calling it Old Earthism again.As for erosion and deformation and all that, a great deal of it is visible in the present and the interpretations are subject to others' observations. Petrophysics' descriptions of the rocks he is studying should certainly be easily enough verifiable by others. Then there are core analyses, seismic tests and that sort of thing. All physical determinations done in the present, even if they include interpretations of how a rock got where it is, which is literally "historical" but not about the prehistoric past where there is no way to test anything. All of which should be reasonably categorized as observational science IMHO and all that.Sorry to hear the terms don't clearly differentiate this but I guess I can go back to Old Earthism versus something like Practical or Physical Geology, or maybe Observational Geology is still viable.In any case everything petrophysics described is testable science, and he mentions nothing at all about a rock's age in supposed millions of years, so I'm still waiting for somebody to show me that those specific ancient ages matter at all in the finding of oil or anything else -- as opposed to knowing that one rock was deposited before another, or their relative age.It was asserted a long time ago here, by you among others I believe, and now by edge, that the actual age of a rock does matter in some cases, having to do with working out temperatures that can be important in finding oil.

abe And I am VERY glad you did that because it confirms what I thought had to be the case: you DON'T deal with the Old Earthist nonsense in your work, it is not necessary. What is necessary is knowledge of the position of the rocks themselves. The only thing useful that is contributed from Old Earthism is the names of the eras, which for practical use do identify the order of the rocks, that is, their relative age, and their fossil contents. Physical stuff. The ancient age is really irrelevant from everything you've said. Which is what you clearly described. Well, your own descriptions confirmed what I was saying about how it's done. /abe Depends on the definition. You haven't said one thing that verifies Old Earthism as necessary to anything you do and that's the part that is all interpretation that can't be verified, which so far, judging only from your descriptions, you clearly DON'T do in the work of locating oil.As for unconformities, some of them, particularly angular unconformities, are just a physical arrangement of the rocks that of course you'd need to be able to identify in the field, but there is no problem for how they got there in the Flood scenario as I see it and no need for you to take their origin into account in the work you do.ABE: In other words, you don't NEED to know how the rocks were originally formed, whether gradually hundreds of millions of years ago in successive environments, mostly oceanic, or a few thousand years ago in the Flood. It makes no difference to the practicalities of studying their relation to each other now, which is what leads you to likely sources of oil. It also doesn't matter if an angular unconformity was formed over millions of years or in one tectonic movement: all you need to know is its physical presentation now.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You use the term "interpretive" to mean automatically wrong, much as you use the term "assumption" to mean automatically wrong. And you use the term "theory" to mean wild-ass guess without any supporting evidence."In this, it is you who errs.I'd explain it to you but it would make no difference. It has been explained to you many times before and it is like water off a duck's back.You have shown us you care nothing for evidence, for the standard definitions and usages of science, or for anything else that fails to support your ancient tribal myths.Go back to riding your unicorn through Wonderland. Say, "Hi!" to the white rabbit for us.