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

Hutton's book is of course just a lengthy assertion in a sense. What you presented is so hard to read I can't easily break it down into the categories I had in mind, Observation, Evidence, etc, but that's what I'd like to do with any example of scientific thinking, historical or testable or whatever it should be called. Observation is involved in historical science so that term doesn't seem appropriate for the other kind of science.The Geology that deals with the past is historical and interpretive though, it is different from testable science. It depends on what you're trying to prove what counts as evidence, so I'll concede that evidence is involved but it depends on the project. The thing that's missing is testability or replicability. You can of course go around and look at lots of angular unconformities and be convinced of Hutton's theory about how they were formed, but if you can't test it you could be wrong because all you have is the reasoning process, and of course "you weren't there," it was a one-time historical event and nobody saw it happen.I think you ought to concede this, it's pretty obvious. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If I get organized to do either one I'll do both.

Not if the evidence has to be interpreted, which Siccar Point does. It's good enough reasoning for a hypothesis, but there is no place to go from there except just to persuade others that his hypothesis is correct That's the only test there is. People can go look at Siccar Point and follow his reasoning about it and figure he was right. That's far from the kind of test that allows you to actually see that DNA is a double helix.Thanks for laying out the steps of the method as follows: If the upper strata were just a few layers as they are now then you'd expect them to be disturbed. But if the strata were laid down originally to a great depth there would have been extreme pressure from the weight of the strata above and enough rigidity to resist the disturbance. That falsifies his conclusion. I have an experiment in mind that I hope I will be able to set up eventually, using clay slabs for strata. The word "rotate" isn't a good one here though, it suggests lateral or horizontal twisting, but what happened is that the lower strata were buckled by lateral movement that pushed them into vertical folds, and then the upper rounded folds were worn away. In some cases they remain in their folded condition with horizontal strata on top of them. Lyell has some good illustrations of this process, even from the Siccar Point area. NO idea what you are talking about here.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Whatever the proofs of the double helix are, nobody disputed them because they were testable and replicable.

As long as all you have is "what WOULD have happened" you do not have a testable science.

The state of geology today is mostly a matter of radiometric dating. Otherwise it's still the same science of interpretation of past events that cannot be tested or proved. Hutton's interpretation of Siccar Point is that the bottom part had to have been made vertical before the upper part was laid down, but there is no way to test that and I hope to prove it eventually with a real test, which I hope is possible for the idea that the lower strata were buckled while the upper were in place.As for Darwin, his observations are all of microevolution and do not prove the ToE. His finches are just varieties of finches, his Galapagos turtles just a variety of the mainland turtles and so on.

HBD needs a good punch in the nose for calling science apologetics.

I've read a ton of apologetics, the point is that we're talking about science here and what I've said IS scientific and calling it apologetics deserves a punch in the nose.

Well there you have it: scientists are always right, can't ever be wrong about anything, even when the method is merely interpretive and historical.

Doesn't change the fact that DNA structure is absolutely KNOWN, testable and provable and not subject to interpretation, unlike the standard interpretation of angular unconformities and other opinions by geologists. Ya know, this is so obvious and incontrovertible, for you all to be arguing with it is, well, nuts.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Craaaaaaaazy nonsense. What I said is true. For you to deny it is nuts.

Excuse me but the insulting ignorant arrogance has been coming at me here forever. Funny you can't seem to read. The Flood is well supported by the arguments I've made. You'll never see it of course because you are blinded by bias.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There was a paper about historical and interpretive science that has been linked many times here, which claims that Geology has been regarded by scientists as an inferior science because it is historical and interpretive. The author disagrees but the point is that this is how scientists have viewed it. And it IS inferior because it lacks the kind of testability the hard sciences have. This is easy enough to demonstrate. Hutton's thinking about Siccar Point demonstrates it. But there is such a commitment to pretending this isn't the case but that science is science there is no way to get anyone to recognize this simple fact. Alas. Willful blindness.

Except that's not what Dr. A said. Take it up with him.

Lotta assertion there. Deal with what I've already said. Changing the subject is very bad form.I ridicule Geology where it is ridiculous of course.And I know you don't like being insulted by a Creationist, you'd rather be the one doing it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.