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

Pretty amazing, eh? Now, can you tell me how evolution corrupts geology? Good theories usually can accommodate new facts. That's the reason that creationism was abandoned long ago. Please provide an example of this destruction. All I see here is a bunch of assertions by yourself, with no supporting evidence. Well, I'm sure you would know... I love it when a YEC tells me what I think.

The Bible does not say how old the earth is...

Yes, you can. But that doesn't make it true. Generalizations. You have yet to do more than make broad assertions without support. Normally, we would expect you to support your assertions; but then you are a YEC...

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?

First, I'd like to know what is intrinsically wrong with interpretation. Then I'd like to know how you arrived at a superior interpretation considering that you have no evidence and not training, while we have worked with the evidence for decades. Yes, those things would be called 'evidence'. You should try it once in a while.The point here is that the preponderance of evidence supports all of those things that you disagree with; and not that anyone is 'making an interpretation'.If you have a problem with the interpretation of the age of the targets in the Williston Basin, this would be a good time to make it known. Quit making vague assertions about those terrible interpretations and be specific about your complaint. And they are, repeatedly. Actually, there is. We compare well data all the time. And ultimately, the proof is in the results. I think you will find that the world is way ahead of you on this. I have mentioned this several times. They are important where there are no cross-cutting or stratigraphic relationships. this would often involve igneous rocks. It is also of necessity in Precambrian rocks. That was one specific example related to the oil and gas business. the thermal history of a basin and its source rocks might be very important in determining the best location for an oil reservoir.In the large, well-known fields that have been drilled for a hundred years, you hardly have to know the names of the formations to drill successfully. But that doesn't support your notion regarding absolute ages.

And that science is telling us the earth is ancient. If we are making genetic models, all of these things are necessary. Sure, you could wildcat all over the place, but with basin analysis, you increase your chances of finding oil. That's why companies invest so much in geology and geologists. They tip the odds a little bit more in favor of the company, and that's a lot of dough.

I'm sure you are correct.And it's not really a matter of time. It's more the energy spent. only to have you dismiss it.But it does apply. And I gave you examples. You can deny that if you want, but you undermine your own argument that way. No one said that it's always necessary. But then, I suppose for an absolutist that would be a requirement for any explanation. No, there are times when knowing the absolute age of an intrusive rock might influence the oil exploration model for a given location.

Why am I not surprised? But the are tested. Everytime we gather new data and make a prediction based on the model. Well, then make another interpretation.And be ready to support it. AFAICS, you are the only one denying that angular unconformities exist. Seems to me like there is plenty of verification.

I'm sure you don't. According to whom? I do not intend to do that. Why would I bother explaining things to you? I have no intent to explain anything to you. I have found that to be fruitless. As I have said before, my plausible is better than your implausible.And all you really have to do is prove them false. Why are you unable to do so. As it is, your are just whining. How do you know this? Absolute dates helped me to interpret some Archean geology that was relatively impenetrable with out them.But, I'm sure that Faith knows best.

But your theory defies the facts. We have been over this...

The real point is that I don't really want to waste too much of my time repeating facts to you. I gave you numerous examples of volcanic rocks being deposited during the period that you would call the flood on another thread and you completely ignored every example. Here you want me to prove the absolute ages are always necessary for oil exploration. That is a strawman argument, completely irrelevant except in your own distorted logic.

I gave you an example and you ignored it. Then you moved the goal posts to require an explanation of how absolute ages are (always) necessary.

I put things out there. If you are interested, you could ask questions. If not, then you can just complain. As it is, I don't see much use in putting out the effort to a dogmatist who is adamant about denialism.I have used absolute ages in oil exploration, mineral exploration and in Archean stratigraphy. I'm not really concerned whether that is a good enough explanation for you.

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.

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. Actually, it is because dunes eventually get planed off. I have shown you pictures of this.