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

I've got no clue about scissor point.Could you give some explanation and opinions about your profound knowledge relating to all those different forms of contacts between the the Cape Supergroup and the Karoo Supergroup? It seems as if you studied them all extensively.

Nope. It's because of the history in dealing with creationists.Creationists tend to lack providing evidence for what they claim and assert. They don't follow the scientific method.

Well, we can test whether lavas can turn into coal seams or not. Just go to Hawaii. Solidifying lavas over there have never been witnessed to turn into coal seams. Those lavas have always tended to become some form of a basalt. Witnessed. I think the mental problem lies with the person who is not able to distinguish a basalt from a coal seam.

Lots of witnesses testified than lava would turn into igneous rocks. Not into coal seams. All in peer-reviewed, scientific journals.

So, Faith, are you telling us that those black rocks we call the Drakensberg basalts were not a result of volcanic action; just because no human witnessed them forming?Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

I got brainwashed by the rocks, themselves, into concluding that the earth is very, very old. Just by logging a core through the Springbok Flats Coalfield in my second year at uni.Faith, like all those creationists writing on religious websites, where he gets his so-called information from, struggles to distinguish between the words 'assumption' and 'conclusion'. Just like he struggles to distinguish between a basalt and a coal seam.Wish they could learn the difference. But, seeing that Faith mentioned IQ's of 80, I doubt it.

I read about the author; he's a philospher; obviously not a scientist at all. Philosophy type; not a scientist type. He's never done a day's work in the natural sciences in his life.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.