Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 376 of 614 (734966)
08-03-2014 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by herebedragons
08-03-2014 9:59 PM


Re: working geologists do observational science
Radiometric dating appears to work for establishing the order of things whether the actual dates are of any validity or not.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by herebedragons, posted 08-03-2014 9:59 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by herebedragons, posted 08-03-2014 10:12 PM Faith has replied
 Message 383 by edge, posted 08-03-2014 11:52 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 391 by Coragyps, posted 08-04-2014 9:13 AM Faith has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 377 of 614 (734967)
08-03-2014 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 376 by Faith
08-03-2014 10:02 PM


Re: working geologists do observational science
Why do you think that is? Why do you think that radiometric dating largely confirmed ages established by conventional means?
ABE: And why does it work in the Archean where there is not firmly established sequences?
Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

Whoever 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 10:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 10:15 PM herebedragons has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 378 of 614 (734968)
08-03-2014 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 377 by herebedragons
08-03-2014 10:12 PM


Re: working geologists do observational science
I don't know because the conventional means were so idiotic, subjective, based on wild guesses and such things as getting it all wrong about how angular unconformities are formed, there is no rational basis for any of that. So for all that subjective idiocy to be confirmed by radiometric dating just suggests some kind of weird systematic error that hasn't yet been detected.
abe I must have missed the information about how it's used in the Archaean so I don't have an opinion about that.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by herebedragons, posted 08-03-2014 10:12 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by herebedragons, posted 08-03-2014 10:26 PM Faith has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 379 of 614 (734969)
08-03-2014 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by Faith
08-03-2014 10:15 PM


Re: working geologists do observational science
Or maybe it's a trick of the devil.
Or maybe there is a more rational, logical explanation ...
I must have missed the information about how it's used in the Archaean so I don't have an opinion about that.
I don't think he expounded on it too much, just mentioned that to work on Archean rocks he needed to use radiometric dating to help resolve an issue (is how I think he put it).
HBD

Whoever 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 10:15 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 10:33 PM herebedragons has replied
 Message 384 by edge, posted 08-03-2014 11:56 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 380 of 614 (734970)
08-03-2014 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by herebedragons
08-03-2014 10:26 PM


I donRe: working geologists do observational science
I don't appreciate snark talk about the devil, which is not based on anything I've ever said here. There could be a systematic error and there definitely has to be some kind of error.
That figures that he didn't explain it. Edge makes assertions, which is just fine because it's edge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by herebedragons, posted 08-03-2014 10:26 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by herebedragons, posted 08-03-2014 10:43 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 385 by edge, posted 08-03-2014 11:57 PM Faith has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 381 of 614 (734971)
08-03-2014 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by Faith
08-03-2014 10:33 PM


Re: I donRe: working geologists do observational science
Your right, sorry. I shouldn't have snarked. But honestly, it being a trick of the devil is as silly a reason to me as:
There could be a systematic error and there definitely has to be some kind of error.
But still I shouldn't have snarked. I will try to watch it.
Edge makes assertions, which is just fine because it's edge.
Now is this snark, because you say this right after saying:
and there definitely has to be some kind of error.
Just seems kind of ironic to me.
HBD

Whoever 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 10:33 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 382 of 614 (734974)
08-03-2014 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 370 by Faith
08-03-2014 9:19 PM


Re: working geologists do observational science
Just because you associate a certain time period with a certain number of millions of years doesn't mean I do. The effective result of the date could just be the position in the stack, relative age in other words, that's why I asked. I know to you there is no difference, but your mind ought to be agile enough to make such a distinction, unless it truly is so ossified you really truly can't think at all.
abe: Besides which, of course, you wouldn't want to admit it if the relative age was all you needed, since you wouldn't want to give me that ammunition.
This is all irrelevant. If I know that a certain age of intrusive is more prospective, then that's what I look for, even if you don't agree with the method of getting the age.
If I'm looking for a pluton of 12my age, then that's what I'm looking for. I have nothing to compare it with for a relative age.
I knew this would confuse you...
This is exactly the kind of thing that convinced me to be an atheist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 9:19 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 11:59 PM edge has replied

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


Message 383 of 614 (734976)
08-03-2014 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 376 by Faith
08-03-2014 10:02 PM


Re: working geologists do observational science
Radiometric dating appears to work for establishing the order of things whether the actual dates are of any validity or not.
Not really. I might know the order of all intrusions, but if they are all the wrong age, then I can expect bad results.
I'm not sure why this is so hard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 10:02 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 384 of 614 (734977)
08-03-2014 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by herebedragons
08-03-2014 10:26 PM


Re: working geologists do observational science
I don't think he expounded on it too much, just mentioned that to work on Archean rocks he needed to use radiometric dating to help resolve an issue (is how I think he put it).
Shield geology is far from being like a layer cake, and lots of times the rock exposures are few, so that cross-cutting features that give us relative dates can be very difficult to find. On top of that the lengths of time are that much greater so that there can be a large number of volcanic belts of different ages that look a/most identical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by herebedragons, posted 08-03-2014 10:26 PM herebedragons has not replied

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


Message 385 of 614 (734978)
08-03-2014 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by Faith
08-03-2014 10:33 PM


Re: I donRe: working geologists do observational science
I don't appreciate snark talk about the devil, which is not based on anything I've ever said here. There could be a systematic error and there definitely has to be some kind of error.
According to whom?
That figures that he didn't explain it. Edge makes assertions, which is just fine because it's edge.
Most of the time I support my statements. However, I'm not sure why I bother.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 10:33 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 386 of 614 (734980)
08-03-2014 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by edge
08-03-2014 11:48 PM


Re: working geologists do observational science
You don't say enough to understand how you arrived at your conclusion. Like why you need to find a pluton of that particular age or an intrusive of a particular age. However, you don't need to answer. I'm trying to leave this place. It's hard to do, I keep coming back to read the posts, but I really want to leave and never come back.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by edge, posted 08-03-2014 11:48 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by Coyote, posted 08-04-2014 12:09 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 388 by edge, posted 08-04-2014 12:15 AM Faith has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 387 of 614 (734982)
08-04-2014 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 386 by Faith
08-03-2014 11:59 PM


Leave or stay
I'm trying to leave this place. It's hard to do, I keep coming back to read the posts, but I really want to leave and never come back.
Whether you leave or stay will probably depend on why you are here in the first place.
If you are here to preach and gather converts to your particular beliefs, you are doing poorly. Your style of posting is better suited to those who already believe, rather than those who are looking for evidence-based arguments.
Or, if you are here to learn, then of course you should stay. But unfortunately the evidence from your posts suggests that you are not willing to learn anything that contradicts your particular beliefs.
I for one will miss you if you leave. You have generated a huge percentage of the post/responses here of late. It would be rather dull without you.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 11:59 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 388 of 614 (734983)
08-04-2014 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 386 by Faith
08-03-2014 11:59 PM


Re: working geologists do observational science
You don't say enough to understand how you arrived at your conclusion.
I seriously doubt that things will ever be explained enough for you.
I said that from previous experience, we know that certain age Intrusive rocks are more prospective.
Why is this so difficult?
Like why you need to find a pluton of that particular age or an intrusive of a particular age.
Because not all plutons are as prospective as others.
However, you don't need to answer. I'm trying to leave this place.
Promises, promises.
It's hard to do, I keep coming back to read the posts, but I really want to leave and never come back.
That wouldn't be too hard for me at all.
Maybe your ego is too involved here. That would explain some things...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 11:59 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 389 of 614 (734986)
08-04-2014 1:21 AM


Historical Geology
If we find a channel in the top of a bed, and if it has a lot of rounded pebbles in the bottom, the reasonable conclusion is that something like a river flowed through it.
And if sediment from the next layer up fills the channel, on top of the pebbles it follows that this stratum was laid down after the channel had formed.
This seems simple and objective enough. Any objections ?

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 390 of 614 (734991)
08-04-2014 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 362 by Faith
08-03-2014 9:42 AM


Re: working geologists do observational science
Some examples from Wikipedia of what I meant by "historical Geology" or "interpretive Geology" and now call Old Earthism, which are all Scenarios about the past that are based on what has been found in particular rocks, pure fantasy that cannot be verified or proved in any way and utterlyl outlandish. This is what I mean by Time Periods in slabs of rock, and if you read through the following you will indeed find that they connect the time periods to actual rocks.
Faith, if such claims "cannot be verified or proved in any way" then how do you suppose scientific consensus is reached? If what you're saying was true, then you'd get one guy saying that a stratum represented a time 100 million years ago when there were dinosaurs but no trilobites, and another guy could say that it represented a time 1 million years ago when leprechauns roamed the Earth, and a third guy could say that it represented a time 4,000 years ago when a magic flood was caused by an invisible genocidal wizard who lives in the sky; and scientists wouldn't believe any of them, 'cos of the lack of proof and verification.
Obviously the scientific view does have proof and verification. You seem dimly aware of this yourself, since immediately before you denounced science as "pure fantasy that cannot be verified or proved in any way" you admitted that it was "based on what has been found in particular rocks". Looking at the rocks is the proof and verification.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 9:42 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 9:17 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024