|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9189 total) |
| |
Michaeladams | |
Total: 918,943 Year: 6,200/9,624 Month: 48/240 Week: 63/34 Day: 0/6 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1634 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 1048 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
I don't know what a specifically YEC approach to finding oil would be, but I don't see why it isn't possible since OE absolute dating is not necessary to it. Just as a simple example of the difference between a "YEC approach" and traditional geological methodologies... much of the high quality coal was formed during the Carboniferous period and is found in Carboniferous aged formations. As such, there is no real need to assign an absolute age of 299 mya to 359 mya to formations in order to identify them as potential coal bearing layers, but there does need to be a methodology to identify formations of the proper "age" that belong to the appropriate period. YEC has no method or model that ties Carboniferous formations together. Essentially, the YEC "model" is to assert that coal would have formed during the flood due to the billions of dead creatures that died. This "model" does nothing to describe where these deposits would occur, or what types and "ages" of formations we should look in. If you examine your own points on what a global flood would do, you would see there is no discernible pattern or consistency that would allow one to predict where a coal seam should be found. If you identify Carboniferous formations by the fauna (such as index fossils) and by the presence of coal, those are really just traditional geological methodologies - you would just deny the absolute ages (which denial of old ages is pretty much the whole of YEC methodologies). Oil is a bit more complicated since it involves permeable and impermeable rock units that act to trap the oil. However, the same idea applies. Flood geology has no working model that produces any sort of consistent pattern that would allow one to predict where these formations are most likely to occur. Traditional geology can make predictions based on processes that form the types of rocks that are of interest in oil exploration. Predictions about what type of formations would be found in an area can be made based on knowledge of surrounding areas and the processes that build those formations. Flood geology has nothing like that... no predictive power what-so-ever. If you believe that a flood model CAN predict these types of things then explain, using a flood paradigm, why we find major coal deposits between Permian deposits and Devonian deposits. Your answers in the past have been along the lines of "the flood waters just carried material around where ever it did and deposited it where ever it did." Not much of a consistent, predictive model, now is it? A good predictive flood model would be something like "the Devonian was the basal surface of the flood and the organic matter was present on this basal surface and subsequently covered by sediments." **However, even though that model might explain coal formation, it creates other problems. Not only is there the problem that organic matter would not settle out before the huge amount of sediments that covered it, but also the deposits below that "basal surface" need to be explained without means of a global flood.** There is just NO predictive flood model - just a lot of "the flood can explain everything rhetoric." If you disagree, present the flood (YEC) model that explains coal and oil AND predicts where it would be found. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 1048 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
Don't know what you mean "tie Carboniferous formations together." Isn't most identification possible through fossils and the order of the layers/ What makes Carboniferous formations 'Carboniferous'? In traditional geology, Carboniferous formations were all deposited during the same time period. They are all related by the time period in which they were formed. What makes Carboniferous formations related to one another according to YEC thinking? Nothing. What makes them in the "right" order? What makes Carboniferous formations always come after Devonian formations and why should they? If you are only looking at the order of layers, what do you do when layers are "missing"? If you are only counting layers and considering the order they are in, why would you ever consider a layer to be "missing"? In other words, why are there no Ordovician or Silurian deposits in the Grand Canyon?
But there is an observable pattern that a YEC can't deny even if there is no way to explain it by the Flood: simply studying the rocks, knowing that the fossils occur in a certain order, which a Floodist could ascertain as well as anyone else, -- aren't these the ways the rocks are identified? A YEC would be looking at the physical arrangement under relative dating. So in other words, a YEC geologist would use traditional methods and just deny the old ages. OK, but the problem is that traditional methods don't fit within a global flood paradigm. It's not just a matter of speeding the processes up 100,000,000 times, but it is completely throwing out traditional explanations. If that is the case, then using traditional methodologies simply could not work. Instead what you do is say we can use traditional methodologies but simply reject the implications of those methodologies. It's not about the absolute ages, per se, but about methods. What methods would a YEC employ that are different than traditional geologists? The same methodology, you say? There is just no way that the same methodology would work for two diametrically opposed theories. Just no way.
Floodists can see the order of the rocks and the fossils as well as anybody else and those ought to be sufficient to guide a person to the right location. Again, it would take someone who had studied the rocks to know where to look for those kinds of rocks where oil would be found. So you might think. But science requires prediction and testing - not just to be considered science, but it needs those things in order to function. Floodology cannot produce valid predictions; instead it would have to rely on the predictions and discoveries of traditional science. I know you don't see the significance of this, but prediction and theory are vital to scientific discoveries. A theory that posits a global flood that deposited ALL the sedimentary layers in less than a year CANNOT make the same predictions as a theory which posits gradual accumulation over long periods of time. They just cannot make the same predictions about anything geological. And yet, that is what you are claiming here; that flood geology and traditional geology would make the same predictions about where they would find oil. Worse than that even, you claim that traditional geology is completely bogus and yet you would propose to use traditional geological methods in the name of YEC to make discoveries. It's really quite unworkable. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 1048 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
The Carboniferous would be related to the Carboniferous by its physical characteristics and fossil contents. There is no "time period" you can point to in any case, that's purely hypothetical. The time period is how traditional geology ties all Carboniferous formations together, hypothetical or not. You say they are linked by their physical properties and fossil contents? So what physical properties do all Carboniferous formations have in common that distinguish them from other types of deposits? And fossil contents you say? Your hypothesis is that the dead things were deposited based on their original location as when you state...
Faith writes: different original locations of the different fossil groups, seems to me to be the best explanation. Are all Carboniferous fossils in the same group? And what properties do Carboniferous fossils have that allow you to identify them as a group? If you don't have a way to group the fossils together, then it doesn't make sense to group Carboniferous strata together based on fossils.
AS I said, the fact is that there IS an order to them, and why is irrelevant. To identify a particular layer only requires knowiong its physical characteristics. Again, what are the physical characteristics of Carboniferous layers? How do those characteristics differ from Permian layers? What is about them that makes them group together and be identifiable as 'Carboniferous'?
And OE Geology does not own science or any scientific facts. They belong to all of us. Whatever is true is mine as well as yours. Don't know what you mean here. I didn't say anything about "OE geology" owning anything. What I am saying is that you can't use traditional geology's explanation for why Carboniferous deposits are in fact 'Carboniferous' and reject the explanation at the same time. Geologists group Carboniferous formations together because they were deposited during the same era; and they use several methods to determine what era they belong to including radiometric dating, index fossils, marker horizons and paleomagnetism. You claim that you can use the same methodologies while simultaneously rejecting all the reasons for using those methodologies. Doesn't make sense. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 1048 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
I don't know what characteristics of the rock would be involved in identifying it as Carboniferous, it's just that Geologists are always talking about this or that layer as being formed in a shallow sea or a lake and so on and so forth. The Carboniferous in the Grand Canyon is limestone, but I'm aware that may not be the case elsewhere. Quite right. So if there are Carboniferous limestones, sandstones, mudstones, siltstones and calcareous oozes and there are Permian limestones, sandstones, mudstones, siltstones and calcareous oozes there is nothing in the physical characteristics of the layer that can, by itself, distinguish Permian limestone from Carboniferous limestone.
As for fossils, each "time period" has its own identifiable collection, right? Sure, but that assemblage is illusionary, remember? Traditional geology claims that those fossils are grouped together because they lived and died and were buried together during the same time period. Flood geology has no reason why those fossils should be grouped together and can therefore make no predictions about what the pattern should be. For example... Lets say we have a geological sequence that lies something like this: ---------fossil D --------- fossil C --------- fossil B --------- fossil A -------- Now at another location we have a similar sequence, but not all of the sequence is exposed. It looks like this: --------fossil D -------- fossil C -------- fossil ? -------- fossil A -------- Using flood geology, what fossil species would you predict should be found in the unexposed (unknown) layer? I am sure you would predict fossil species B; but WHY? Flood geology has NO reason to predict that fossil species B would come between fossil species A and fossil species C. This is where silly ideas like hydrological sorting, differential flight, and the other supposed explanations that Dr. A mentioned in his recent thread come into play. They supposedly allow one to predict what fossil species should be found in the layer between A and C. This is the kind of predictions that needs to be made in order to effectively find things like oil and coal.
You had said I 'had no right" to make use of standard geology or something like that so I said of course I do; OE theory doesn't own science; whatever is true is true for me as for you. You complain about others misrepresenting you and misquoting you, and yet you put 'had no right' in quotes as if I said it (or something like that). But you didn't read what I said apparently. It has nothing to do with your "right" to do it, the point is, it can't work. Flood geology does not have a working model that allows accurate predictions. If you want to go on using "Old Earth" geological models, feel free. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 1048 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
Look, it's Geology, not I, that says the rocks point to particular environments. And I agree with geology, it is you who doesn't. And yet, you are going to examine the contents of the rock to determine that it belongs to the Carboniferous, which has no real meaning to a flood geologist. If the environment and the era have no real meaning to a flood geologist, then there is no point examining the contents of the rock.
If the Carboniferous is marine in one location and terrestrial in another that's their problem, not mine. The problem is how do YOU identify those two deposits as Carboniferous? Traditional geology doesn't have a problem with that... flood geology does.
It is true that Flood geology has no theory that can predict, but the fact that OE geology can predict isn't because it's right Despite the common rhetoric around this issue, science doesn't really address what is "right" and what is "wrong." What science seeks to do is find the BEST explanation, ie. the BEST model, that describes a particular phenomenon. Prediction is a measure of the quality of the model; so when comparing two models, the one that is able to predict the most parameters correctly is the better model. So traditional geology can predict say 75% of the given parameters while flood geology can predict none of the given parameters - therefore, traditional geology is the better model. It could be wrong, yes, but the point is the model works better than any flood model, much, much better. When a better model is presented, it will be adopted.
In actual fact they can predict things just because they know from acquaintance with their physical occurrences where they are to be found. YECs can do that too, without a theory. That's just not true, maybe wishful thinking, but not a factual statement. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 1048 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
The evidence is neutral and I can use it. This may be a nit-pick, but evidence is not neutral. Evidence is a set of facts presented to support a premise.
quote: Notice the definition says "indicating." In order to indicate something, this body of facts needs to be interpreted. This is not neutral, the body of facts indicate something. Data is neutral. Facts are neutral. By themselves facts and data say nothing about the truth or validity of a premise; it is only when those facts are interpreted that they become evidence.
I reject OE theory about it, their interpretation or explanation of it. I know the old creationist canard "it's just an interpretation." Every bit of data, every fact must be interpreted before it is useful, so of course, if it's presented as evidence, then it is based on an interpretation. The thing is, not all interpretations are equal. See, theories are built to enable us to more easily interpret facts and data. Theories give us a framework with which to understand how the data fits together. Without theories, we would be flailing around in the dark, uncertain what direction to go with a particular problem. Not having a working theory requires a tremendous amount of extra work trying to eliminate all possible explanations. As a simple example: the germ theory of disease allows us to eliminate all other potential sources of disease (look back through history for some of the things people believed caused disease) and skip right to the part where we look for a microorganism. Because of the theory, we assume that disease symptoms are caused by a microorganism and that theory works to fight disease. I think the germ theory of disease is the best known theory that explains the cause of disease (ie. it is "right")
The evidence is mine, you can have the theory. The evidence is NOT yours, since you have no framework with which to interpret the data and can therefore, not make nor test predictions about your interpretation. Your "interpretations" are just random statements intended to support a general narrative about a particular subject. That is not really interpretation, it's speculation. An example is the very thing we have been discussing. You interpret the contents of a rock to indicate that the rock belongs to the Carboniferous "group," but you have absolutely no reason for that interpretation. There is nothing you can point to in that rock that indicates 'Carboniferous' without resorting to traditional geological explanations. However, since you don't agree with traditional geological explanations, you have to strip them of their reason for interpreting the rocks the way they do and so, you leave them with no real explanatory power either. SO basically, you have no way of actually interpreting the contents of the rock, you can only make speculations about them. We could probably do a whole thread or sub-thread on interpretation of data and facts because interpretation is one of the most important aspects of scientific inquiry. But what you are doing is not interpretation, it's speculation. Before you say that is all "old earthers" have is speculation... No. Traditional geology has developed a framework with which to interpret data and facts. This framework has been developed by making and testing predictions. This is how science builds models and theories and uses them to interpret data and present evidence. Evidence is not created by speculation. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 1048 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
Definitely a nitpick there, a pedantic semantic hot-air rant there. Not a rant at all.. what gives?
If you won't let me use the word "evidence" then I'll use the word "data." The data is mine. My argument was not about terminology... did you actually even read it?
I know you want to deprive YECs of any right to say anything at all about scientific questions, but fortunately you aren't the fuhrer yet. No, Faith... you didn't even read my argument did you?
Traditional explanations are science. I don't have to agree with it for it to be science. Science has given certain data that name. I can use the name for that data too. There are lots of words in the English language that have changed meaning over time because of new perspectives on the phenomena they originally described. It's not an argument about WORDS!
See above. And So what? You'd scream even more if YECs made up their own nomenclature for every bit of geological data and came on here trying to debate with you. Or maybe not, eh? Just an excuse to be King. Hey I understand you are Offended to the max at us uppity YECs, and adamantly and unrelentingly think you're Right but that doesn't give you the right to prevent other points of view from even existing. When you eventually find out you aren't right, when it turns out that the whole Geo Timescale is an imaginary house of cards, what then? Who's ranting??? Look Faith, the point is you have no way to interpret data effectively because you have no framework based on flood geology. Flood geology is a random set of explanations that are invented to bolster a particular narrative. Not a framework based on reality. The only time I am "offended" is when you make yourself MY judge (Mien Fuhrer) and declare that I (and others who accept that the earth is old) cannot be true Christians. That is offensive. That you believe the earth is young is not offensive at all. We are discussing / debating the issues regarding the differences between creation and traditional geology and you are the one offended because you don't have a suitable rebuttal to my arguments. 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