Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 110 of 614 (719297)
02-12-2014 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Faith
02-12-2014 6:04 PM


Re: Science? Ha!
There is not one useful constructive thing you can do with the ToE. All the genuine sciences it affects are merely corrupted by it, but they manage to contribute valid information in spite of it.
Pretty amazing, eh? Now, can you tell me how evolution corrupts geology?
But the ToE is a lie, the most pernicious delusion ever foisted on humanity, supported nevertheless by a whole battalion of scientists who pride themselves on their ability to think but can't think their way out of this tissue of cobwebs, this sheer fantasy. They just go on believing in it because there is no clear way to prove it wrong, because it IS all nothing but imaginative interpretation, so every fact that comes to hand gets swallowed up by it.
Good theories usually can accommodate new facts. That's the reason that creationism was abandoned long ago.
And meanwhile it goes on destroying culture, human dignity, social stability, the meaning of life, and Truth. And you all aggressively defend it.
Please provide an example of this destruction. All I see here is a bunch of assertions by yourself, with no supporting evidence.
You misinterpret DNA, you misinterpret mutations, you misinterpret the fossils, you misinterpret the strata, you misinterpret the archaeological record, you misinterpret history, ...
Well, I'm sure you would know...
... you get it all wrong but you hate those so much who try to show it to you there's no saving you from it.
I love it when a YEC tells me what I think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 6:04 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 111 of 614 (719298)
02-12-2014 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Faith
02-12-2014 5:47 PM


Re: How about forensic science?
Your dating ignores the Bible witness. That's the end of that.
The Bible does not say how old the earth is...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 5:47 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 115 of 614 (719361)
02-13-2014 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Faith
02-13-2014 3:54 PM


Re: Science? Ha!
And I can say all that again:
Yes, you can. But that doesn't make it true.
You misinterpret DNA, you misinterpret mutations, you misinterpret the fossils, you misinterpret the strata, you misinterpret the archaeological record, you misinterpret history, you get it all wrong ..
Generalizations. You have yet to do more than make broad assertions without support.
This is what we creationists argue, what else would you expect me to say..
Normally, we would expect you to support your assertions; but then you are a YEC...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 02-13-2014 3:54 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 307 of 614 (734711)
08-01-2014 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by Faith
08-01-2014 6:53 AM


Re: working geologists do 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, ...
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?
... and petrophysics for one has shown that, at least in that one presentation of what he does in the field, IT DOES NOT.
Yes, that would be one instance.
So what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Faith, posted 08-01-2014 6:53 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by Faith, posted 08-01-2014 10:29 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 318 of 614 (734747)
08-01-2014 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by Faith
08-01-2014 9:44 PM


Re: whatever you call it, some Geology is testable and some isn't.
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, ...
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
And they are, repeatedly.
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.
Actually, there is. We compare well data all the time. And ultimately, the proof is in the results.
All of which should be reasonably categorized as observational science IMHO and all that.
I think you will find that the world is way ahead of you on this.
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.
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.
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Faith, posted 08-01-2014 9:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by Faith, posted 08-01-2014 11:16 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 320 of 614 (734749)
08-01-2014 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by Faith
08-01-2014 10:12 PM


Re: working geologists do observational science
Finding out how the land came to lie that way and how the rocks got into their present relationship is NOT Old Earthism, it's normal science.
And that science is telling us the earth is ancient.
What you don't need to know to do that work is the origin of the rocks themselves or their actual age, or how it got there so fast or slow or whatever you think. You can find it just by knowing the disposition of the rocks and how oil is normally associated with certain formations, that's all. You do NOT need to know how it got there or how long it took. According to everything that has been said about it so far.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Faith, posted 08-01-2014 10:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by Faith, posted 08-01-2014 11:36 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 321 of 614 (734750)
08-01-2014 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by Faith
08-01-2014 10:29 PM


Re: working geologists do observational science
You're a busy man, if you don't want to take the time that's up to you. I remember that you asserted that Old Earthism did apply in some of the work of finding oil but I don't recall you explaining how that works so that I could judge it for myself.
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.
Considering that it's been so often asserted here that Old Earthism is NECESSARY to finding oil, getting even one good description of how oil is located that does not involved Old Earthism is important evidence that it is really not all that necessary.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by Faith, posted 08-01-2014 10:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 322 of 614 (734752)
08-01-2014 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by Faith
08-01-2014 10:08 PM


Re: interpretive, assumption ad nauseum
No I do not use those words that way.
Why am I not surprised?
The point is only that they cannot be subjected to testing or verification, ...
But the are tested. Everytime we gather new data and make a prediction based on the model.
... which means that they are open to other interpretations.
Well, then make another interpretation.
And be ready to support it.
This is not the same thing at all as being able to determine that an angular unconformity exists, which others can verify.
AFAICS, you are the only one denying that angular unconformities exist. Seems to me like there is plenty of verification.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Faith, posted 08-01-2014 10:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by Faith, posted 08-01-2014 11:18 PM edge has replied
 Message 330 by Faith, posted 08-01-2014 11:40 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 326 of 614 (734756)
08-01-2014 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by Faith
08-01-2014 11:16 PM


Re: Old Earthism versus Practical Geology
Sorry, have no idea what your point is here.
I'm sure you don't.
And overall I'm afraid nothing in this post clearly demonstrates a need for Old Earthist time frames for anything having to do with the practicalities of locating oil.
According to whom?
Well, if you are just going to assert such things without explanation that's hardly any proof that Old Earthism is useful.
I do not intend to do that. Why would I bother explaining things to you?
No reason wells should show actual age as opposed to relative age. You love to be as cryptic as possible and all I can do is roll my eyes and shrug it off when you do that.
I have no intent to explain anything to you. I have found that to be fruitless.
No, the point here is that as long as ALL you have is interpretation and no way to test any of it you can just go on building a web of interpretations that is plausible but could be completely false.
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.
Which can't happen in the field where you ARE dealing with testable facts and have to be because you have to be able to find what you are looking for. Old Earthism isn't going to help you there.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by Faith, posted 08-01-2014 11:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by Faith, posted 08-01-2014 11:53 PM edge has replied
 Message 333 by Faith, posted 08-02-2014 12:31 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 327 of 614 (734757)
08-01-2014 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by Faith
08-01-2014 11:18 PM


Re: interpretive, assumption ad nauseum
Sigh.
I do NOT deny that angular unconformities exist.\
Sigh.
I just disagree with the usual theory about how they formed.
Sigh.
But your theory defies the facts. We have been over this...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Faith, posted 08-01-2014 11:18 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by Faith, posted 08-01-2014 11:37 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 335 of 614 (734767)
08-02-2014 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by Faith
08-01-2014 11:53 PM


Re: Old Earthism versus Practical Geology
The point is if you aren't going to explain things then you can't object if I ignore your assertions.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by Faith, posted 08-01-2014 11:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by Faith, posted 08-02-2014 2:38 AM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 336 of 614 (734768)
08-02-2014 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 332 by Faith
08-01-2014 11:54 PM


Re: working geologists do observational science
A good clear explanation about how absolute dates are used, if in fact they are, is exactly what is needed here.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by Faith, posted 08-01-2014 11:54 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 337 of 614 (734769)
08-02-2014 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 333 by Faith
08-02-2014 12:31 AM


Re: Old Earthism versus Practical Geology
Typical edge retort. And you wonder why I stop reading your posts? You clearly have no interest in communicating anything so why waste my time? Yet now you are complaining that I dismiss your explanations.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Faith, posted 08-02-2014 12:31 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by Faith, posted 08-02-2014 2:57 AM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 348 of 614 (734817)
08-02-2014 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by Faith
08-02-2014 12:17 PM


Re: working geologists do observational science
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Faith, posted 08-02-2014 12:17 PM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 349 of 614 (734819)
08-02-2014 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by Faith
08-02-2014 12:15 PM


Re: Try Again
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by Faith, posted 08-02-2014 12:15 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024