|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1658 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1697 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You are arguing a different point. The point I'm arguing is that there is no need to know the origin of the rock in order to do the work of practical Geology, finding oil or ore or whatever else geologists do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 665 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
I know it's a different point. The point is, once again, that practical geology goes hand-in-hand with an old earth. The practical geology leads to an understanding of how the rocks formed and that formation required long ages. The practical geology produces the long ages as a byproduct. You are arguing a different point. The point I'm arguing is that there is no need to know the origin of the rock in order to do the work of practical Geology, finding oil or ore or whatever else geologists do. Everybody doing practical geology has the same understanding of how the rocks formed over long periods of time. You can't separate practical geology from the implications of practical geology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
You are arguing a different point. The point I'm arguing is that there is no need to know the origin of the rock in order to do the work of practical Geology, finding oil or ore or whatever else geologists do.
And you would be wrong. In some situations, you don't need to know anything about the geology. In others, it's bit more complex.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
I don't reject Aeolian sandstone JUST because it conflicts with the Flood scenario but because the only way it resembles dunes is in the crossbedding; ...
Wrong. I can think of several other differences off the top of my head. One would be tetrapod tracks. How would you create those in a marine environment where there are obvious water-saturated sands and high currents? Then there is the grain-size distribution of the sands and their purity. And the presence of ventifacts formed by sandblasting of the rocks.
... otherwise you are cramming a hilly wavy mass of sand into a square flat block of rock with a straight flat cliff front and straight flat bottom and top, not at all a duney sort of thing.
Actually, it is because dunes eventually get planed off. I have shown you pictures of this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 987 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined:
|
You are mistaken. You really, really need to know if you have a rock that was capable of forming and/or holding oil before you go spending a few hundred million dollars on randomly boring holes in the earth's crust. You really, really need a model of how and where that rock (those rocks, really: source, reservoir, and seal) was deposited and perhaps deformed before you set a platform 150 miles from land in mile-deep water.
And let me concede something that will shock you, Faith. A petroleum geologist does NOT need to know that the top of the Permian is 251,000,000 years old to find oil. But the ages of that magnitude are still there, largely as a byproduct of us oilys' doings. The Horseshoe Atoll down beneath my house is a humungous reef - grown in place - that grew there before the Permian ended. It's a reef, Faith: 600 feet thick, 120 miles long. It was deeply eroded in places before it was buried by 6500 feet of evaporites, limestones, and sands/clays. That did not happen in 4300 years. It didn't happen in 4.3 million years. It took a Long Time. And the only viable models that find oil RELY on millions of years for it to have arrived where it is now. Spindletop and Drake's Folly were then. We are in now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You are right that I need to come up with a principle that will say what I want to say so I'll try to do that ... Er, yes, you try to do that. (Or you could save time by adopting the principles of the scientific method, but you wouldn't enjoy that at all.) But until you have a principle, you should stop pretending that you are acting on the principles that you do not in fact have.
I don't reject Aeolian sandstone JUST because it conflicts with the Flood scenario but because the only way it resembles dunes is in the crossbedding; otherwise you are cramming a hilly wavy mass of sand into a square flat block of rock with a straight flat cliff front and straight flat bottom and top, not at all a duney sort of thing. Perhaps in between trying to acquire some principles, you could find out some stuff about sand and sand dunes and aeolian sandstone. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3971 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
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. I think that knowing how to make observations includes being able to interpret smaller observations and consolidate that into a larger observation. By that I mean, what a knowledgeable and experienced geologist can observe is because s/he can interpret the details. Example of how 3 different people could observe the same plutonic igneous rock sample:
4 year old child - Oh, it's a hard thing having shiny colored parts. Beginner geologist - I'm pretty sure it's an igneous rock. Experienced specialized geologist - It's a piece of {insert obscure highly specialized rock name}. They're all looking at the same thing, but the experienced specialized geologist is seeing (observing) so much more. S/he's observing so much more because s/he knows how to interpret all the details that make up the rock, and is subconsciously doing such. Thus, what would be a simple observation for one person, would be far beyond the ability of the 4 year old child, and would at least require a substantial effort of conscious study and interpretation for the beginner geologist. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1697 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You are mistaken. You really, really need to know if you have a rock that was capable of forming and/or holding oil before you go spending a few hundred million dollars on randomly boring holes in the earth's crust. You really, really need a model of how and where that rock (those rocks, really: source, reservoir, and seal) was deposited and perhaps deformed before you set a platform 150 miles from land in mile-deep water. So you need to know what sort of rock it is and how it was deformed in relation to other rocks and all that, but I don't see anything about a need to know its age here.
And let me concede something that will shock you, Faith. A petroleum geologist does NOT need to know that the top of the Permian is 251,000,000 years old to find oil. But the ages of that magnitude are still there, largely as a byproduct of us oilys' doings. The Horseshoe Atoll down beneath my house is a humungous reef - grown in place - that grew there before the Permian ended. It's a reef, Faith: 600 feet thick, 120 miles long. It was deeply eroded in places before it was buried by 6500 feet of evaporites, limestones, and sands/clays. That did not happen in 4300 years. It didn't happen in 4.3 million years. It took a Long Time. And the only viable models that find oil RELY on millions of years for it to have arrived where it is now. I'm sure you USE the OE models, and you know what, I also suppose that they work for your purposes, but what I wonder is if they are really necessary. You really haven't said anything here that proves that. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1697 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Interpretation is involved in all science, and any actual work done in the field by a geologist would also involve interpretation. The point I'm trying to keep in mind is that in that sort of science it's testable and verifiable by others, but interpretations of some events in the prehistoric past cannot be tested or verified. I'm trying to find the best way of defining just what category of events this applies to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2359 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The point I'm trying to keep in mind is that in that sort of science it's testable and verifiable by others, but interpretations of some events in the prehistoric past cannot be tested or verified. I'm trying to find the best way of defining just what category of events this applies to. Biblical myths to start with. Seen any talking snakes lately? That's the epitome of "cannot be tested or verified." Whereas those of us who do study the distant past can readily formulate hypotheses and test them, and all of these are then subjected to testing and verification by our colleagues. And don't think that eager young graduate students coming up aren't looking for any previous hypotheses or theories that they can overturn. That's the quickest way to become recognized. Perhaps your idea that one can't test or verify hypotheses about the distant past is really wishful thinking? You don't like the answers we're coming up with so you are doing your best to denigrate our methods--for purely religious reasons, of course. It appears that you've convinced yourself, but you certainly aren't coming up with any evidence that would convince anyone else here.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
I'm sure you USE the OE models, and you know what, I also suppose that they work for your purposes, but what I wonder is if they are really necessary. You really haven't said anything here that proves that.
I like how you qualify the argument with a 'really necessary'. I suppose that you would be the one deciding what is 'really necessary'. Certainly, a lot of geology was done before radiometric dating, so it's possible to do many things in the science. The thing is that absolute dating does make a lot of other conclusions possible such as what I have discussed here earlier, and on the geological column thread. So, what is 'really necessary? To an Archean geologist I'd say that such dating is critical to solving certain problems. But you'd probably say that's not all that important. That's a judgement call and everyone can have an opinion, but for you to dismiiss other peoples' opinions on the topic is nothing more than arrogance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1697 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I like how you qualify the argument with a 'really necessary'. I suppose that you would be the one deciding what is 'really necessary'. I'd be deducing it from what I gather from what is said by you all. It looks from what everybody has said, not from something I'm making up but from what you all have said, that the main way Old Earth concepts are used in practical Geology is through radiometric dating, and what that does is help you determine the relative ages of different rocks, the absolute age really not being relevant. Yes or no? Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Interpretation is involved in all science, and any actual work done in the field by a geologist would also involve interpretation. The point I'm trying to keep in mind is that in that sort of science it's testable and verifiable by others, but interpretations of some events in the prehistoric past cannot be tested or verified. I'm trying to find the best way of defining just what category of events this applies to. I'm thinking talking snakes would come high on that list. But nothing in geology is going to. You know why not? Because it's practiced by scientists. They're not allowed to arbitrarily make stuff up. The other scientists would notice. And point and laugh. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17913 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
quote: Here's a starting point for you Faith. The fact that the Earth is very, very much older than 10,000 years has been thoroughly tested and verified. Multiple independant lines of evidence confirm this, and the idea that they are all badly wrong - and yet agree to a great extent - is hopelessly implausible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 1110 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
the main way Old Earth concepts are used in practical Geology is through radiometric dating In all seriousness Faith, could you make a list of what you consider to be "Old Earth concepts?" I am having trouble with the idea. For example, is radiometric dating a "Old Earth concept?" If we used radiometric dating and it indicated the earth was 6,000 years old, it would then be a "Young Earth concept." So I see radiometric dating as just a concept, that yields results that suggest the earth is old. Uniformitarianism would be one that maybe is an "Old Earth concept." Because a "Young Earth concept" would have to be that things in the past, including the laws of physics, operated completely different than they do today. HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024