Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 121 (8783 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-22-2017 8:36 PM
332 online now:
Coragyps, GDR, Modulous (AdminModulous) (3 members, 329 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,780 Year: 21,386/21,208 Month: 1,819/2,326 Week: 274/881 Day: 99/97 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2324
25
2627
...
41NextFF
Author Topic:   SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.
edge
Member
Posts: 3904
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 361 of 614 (734889)
08-03-2014 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 357 by Faith
08-03-2014 1:33 AM


Re: working geologists do observational science
I'd be deducing it from what I gather from what is said by you all.

On what principle(s) do you deduce this?

It looks from what everybody has said, not from something I'm making up but from what you all have said, that the main way Old Earth concepts are used in practical Geology is through radiometric dating, ...

No. We are saying it is one tool (that you ignore, by the way) that can be important at times.

... and what that does is help you determine the relative ages of different rocks, ...

Among other things. But yes, if I have the dates on two rocks, I can often determine their relative ages if they are distinct and the data is precise. However, in some cases, the absolute age of the rock is very helpful regardless of its relative age to another rock. I was just giving you a real-life example.

the absolute age really not being relevant. Yes or no?

Actually, no. I believe in the example you refer to, I needed to have the absolute age. I was only pointing out that if you have absolute ages than you also have the relative ages. Sorry to confuse you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 1:33 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 9:53 AM edge has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25897
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 362 of 614 (734892)
08-03-2014 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 360 by herebedragons
08-03-2014 7:54 AM


Re: working geologists do observational science
Old Earth concepts are things like the theory that the dinosaurs went extinct due to a meteor hit. Radiometric dating is not an OE concept, it's a methodology/

ABE: 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. Much of this is written with appropriate scientific inconclusiveness, but I often find presentations that are dogmatic assertions of such things as fact. Maybe I can find some of those. Come to think of it I think I'd probably find that tone in discussions of the evolution of this or that creature. I'll look later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian

It is thought that the Earth itself coalesced from material in orbit around the Sun roughly 4500 Ma, or 4.5 billion years ago (Ga), and may have been struck by a very large (Mars-sized) planetesimal shortly after it formed, splitting off material that formed the Moon (see Giant impact hypothesis). A stable crust was apparently in place by 4400 Ma, since zircon crystals from Western Australia have been dated at 4404 Ma.[3]

Excluding a few contested reports of much older forms from USA and India, the first complex multicellular life forms seem to have appeared roughly 600 Ma. The oldest fossil evidence of complex life comes from the Lantian formation, at least 580 million years ago. A quite diverse collection of soft-bodied forms is known from a variety of locations worldwide between 542 and 600 Ma. These are referred to as Ediacaran or Vendian biota. Hard-shelled creatures appeared toward the end of that time span. By the middle of the later Cambrian period a very diverse fauna is recorded in the Burgess Shale, including some which may represent stem groups of modern taxa. The rapid radiation of lifeforms during the early Cambrian is called the Cambrian explosion of life.[6][7]

While land seems to have been devoid of plants and animals, cyanobacteria and other microbes formed prokaryotic mats that covered terrestrial areas.[8]

The Cambrian Period marked a profound change in life on Earth; prior to the Cambrian, living organisms on the whole were small, unicellular and simple. Complex, multicellular organisms gradually became more common in the millions of years immediately preceding the Cambrian, but it was not until this period that mineralized hence readily fossilized organisms became common.[8] The rapid diversification of lifeforms in the Cambrian, known as the Cambrian explosion, produced the first representatives of all modern animal phyla. Phylogenetic analysis has supported the view that during the Cambrian radiation metazoa (animals) evolved monophyletically from a single common ancestor: flagellated colonial protists similar to modern choanoflagellates.

The Cambrian explosion, or Cambrian radiation, was the relatively rapid appearance, currently dated around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record.[1][2] This was accompanied by major diversification of other organisms.[note 1] Prior to the Cambrian explosion,[note 2] most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years, the rate of diversification accelerated by an order of magnitude[note 3] and the diversity of life began to resemble that of today.[5] Many of the present phyla appeared during this period,[6][7] with the exception of Bryozoa, which made its earliest known appearance in the Lower Ordovician.[8]

The Mississippian was a period of marine ingression in the Northern Hemisphere: the ocean stood so high only the Fennoscandian Shield and the Laurentian Shield stood above sea level. The cratons were surrounded by extensive delta systems and lagoons, and carbonate sedimentation on the surrounding continental platforms, covered by shallow seas.[2]

In North America, where the interval consists primarily of marine limestones, it is treated as a geologic period between the Devonian and the Pennsylvanian. During the Mississippian an important phase of orogeny occurred in the Appalachian Mountains. It is a major rock building period named for the exposures in the Mississippi Valley region. The USGS geologic time scale shows its relation to other periods.[3]

In Europe, the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian are one more-or-less continuous sequence of lowland continental deposits and are grouped together as the Carboniferous system, and sometimes called the Upper Carboniferous and Lower Carboniferous instead.

The Permian witnessed the diversification of the early amniotes into the ancestral groups of the mammals, turtles, lepidosaurs and archosaurs. The world at the time was dominated by a single supercontinent known as Pangaea, surrounded by a global ocean called Panthalassa. The extensive rainforests of the Carboniferous had disappeared, leaving behind vast regions of arid desert within the continental interior. Reptiles, who could better cope with these drier conditions, rose to dominance in lieu of their amphibian ancestors. The Permian Period (along with the Paleozoic Era) ended with the largest mass extinction in Earth's history, in which nearly 90% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial species died out.[6] It would take well into the Triassic for life to recover from this catastrophe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triassic`

; The Triassic began in the wake of the PermianTriassic extinction event, which left the Earth's biosphere impoverished; it would take well into the middle of the period for life to recover its former diversity. Therapsids and archosaurs were the chief terrestrial vertebrates during this time. A specialized subgroup of archosaurs, dinosaurs, first appeared in the Late Triassic but did not become dominant until the succeeding Jurassic.[5] The first true mammals, themselves a specialized subgroup of Therapsids also evolved during this period, as well as the first flying vertebrates, the pterosaurs, who like the dinosaurs were a specialized subgroup of archosaurs. The vast supercontinent of Pangaea existed until the mid-Triassic, after which it began to gradually rift into two separate landmasses, Laurasia to the north and Gondwana to the south. The global climate during the Triassic was mostly hot and dry,[6] with deserts spanning much of Pangaea's interior. However, the climate shifted and became more humid as Pangaea began to drift apart. The end of the period was marked by yet another major mass extinction, wiping out many groups and allowing dinosaurs to assume dominance in the Jurassic.

The CretaceousPaleogene (KPg) extinction event,[a] formerly known as the CretaceousTertiary (KT) extinction,\[b\] was a mass extinction of some three-quarters of plant and animal species on Earthincluding all non-avian dinosaursthat occurred over a geologically short period of time 66 million years ago.[2][3] It marked the end of the Cretaceous period and with it, the entire Mesozoic Era, opening the Cenozoic Era which continues today.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : fix quote codes


This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by herebedragons, posted 08-03-2014 7:54 AM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by herebedragons, posted 08-03-2014 5:37 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 390 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-04-2014 3:47 AM Faith has responded
 Message 392 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-05-2014 8:07 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25897
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 363 of 614 (734894)
08-03-2014 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 361 by edge
08-03-2014 9:03 AM


Re: working geologists do observational science
I believe in the example you refer to, I needed to have the absolute age.

Why?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by edge, posted 08-03-2014 9:03 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by edge, posted 08-03-2014 10:26 AM Faith has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 3904
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 364 of 614 (734903)
08-03-2014 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 363 by Faith
08-03-2014 9:53 AM


Re: working geologists do observational science
Why?

Because from previous work, we knew that the best-mineralized intrusives were all of a certain age. Relative age of intrusives was not important in this feature.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 9:53 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 3:19 PM edge has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25897
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 365 of 614 (734913)
08-03-2014 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by edge
08-03-2014 10:26 AM


Re: working geologists do observational science
Because from previous work, we knew that the best-mineralized intrusives were all of a certain age.

And would that mean a specific number of years or that they occurred within a certain time period?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by edge, posted 08-03-2014 10:26 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by edge, posted 08-03-2014 8:15 PM Faith has responded

    
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1373
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 366 of 614 (734927)
08-03-2014 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by Faith
08-03-2014 9:42 AM


Re: working geologists do observational science
Ah. So its not "Old Earth concepts" you have a problem with it is old earth conclusions. That makes more sense.

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 362 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 9:42 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3904
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 367 of 614 (734950)
08-03-2014 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by Faith
08-03-2014 3:19 PM


Re: working geologists do observational science
And would that mean a specific number of years or that they occurred within a certain time period?

It would mean a specific age.

That would imply a certain age period.

What is the point of your question?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 3:19 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by JonF, posted 08-03-2014 8:35 PM edge has responded
 Message 370 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 9:19 PM edge has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3901
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 368 of 614 (734952)
08-03-2014 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by edge
08-03-2014 8:15 PM


Re: working geologists do observational science
She's desperately seeking a way to claim radiometric dating has no practical application. That's her point.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by edge, posted 08-03-2014 8:15 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by edge, posted 08-03-2014 8:53 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3904
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 369 of 614 (734953)
08-03-2014 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by JonF
08-03-2014 8:35 PM


Re: working geologists do observational science
Grasping at the faintest straw, as it were...

I wonder if she thinks that ice cream absolutely necessary. Or maybe poetry.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by JonF, posted 08-03-2014 8:35 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25897
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 370 of 614 (734957)
08-03-2014 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by edge
08-03-2014 8:15 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.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by edge, posted 08-03-2014 8:15 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by Coyote, posted 08-03-2014 9:30 PM Faith has responded
 Message 375 by herebedragons, posted 08-03-2014 9:59 PM Faith has responded
 Message 382 by edge, posted 08-03-2014 11:48 PM Faith has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5944
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 371 of 614 (734958)
08-03-2014 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 370 by Faith
08-03-2014 9:19 PM


This is the Science Forum
Just because you associate a certain time period with a certain number of millions of years doesn't mean I do.

That's just the point. Scientists rely on evidence, data, and all that real-world stuff. You do not.

You have absolutely no business telling scientists what they should and should not be doing, and how they should interpret their evidence. You have told us many times that you do not rely on evidence, so what business is it of yours trying to tell those of use who do how to do things?

You have been treated far better than you actually deserve here in the Science Forums. You have shown over the span of many threads that, as far as science is concerned, you should be told to go back to shaking your rattles and casting your spells, as those are your methodological equivalents.


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 370 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 9:19 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 9:32 PM Coyote has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25897
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 372 of 614 (734960)
08-03-2014 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by Coyote
08-03-2014 9:30 PM


Re: This is the Science Forum
I do give evidence and I never said I don't give evidence.

Edited by Faith, : get rid of my own evil talk


This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by Coyote, posted 08-03-2014 9:30 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by Coyote, posted 08-03-2014 9:48 PM Faith has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5944
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 373 of 614 (734962)
08-03-2014 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 372 by Faith
08-03-2014 9:32 PM


Re: This is the Science Forum
I'm giving evidence you blithering idiot and I've never said I don't use evidence you Snark Faced idiot./

Don't you realize that when it comes to science, scientists are the ones best qualified to both determine what is and what is not evidence, and what the proper methods are with which to treat that evidence?

What you have been presenting here as evidence has been shown to be inaccurate almost all the time.

We can only conclude, from your posts, that you are trying to force the evidence to fit your beliefs, and no amount of non-fit deters you from pressing on even when confronted with solid evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps you would be happier if you just admitted you are doing apologetics, not science? That might be easier on the blood pressure.


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 372 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 9:32 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 9:58 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 25897
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 374 of 614 (734964)
08-03-2014 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by Coyote
08-03-2014 9:48 PM


Re: This is the Science Forum
What you think has been SHOWN me is just part of the Evo Fantasy you all live in.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by Coyote, posted 08-03-2014 9:48 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

    
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1373
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 375 of 614 (734965)
08-03-2014 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 370 by Faith
08-03-2014 9:19 PM


Re: working geologists do observational science
I am pretty sure he explained this quite clearly to you already. If you have two intrusions, how do you know which is older? Just because one is higher in the stack doesn't mean it is younger. And how do you know where if fits into the time sequence? Well you could drill bore holes all over the region until you completely map out the sequence to which he asked you "how much money do you have to waste?" Or you could date the intrusions radiometrically and know almost immediately where they fit into the sequence.

He also gave you the example of Archean rocks, which are highly metamorphosed and/or igneous.

quote:
Instead of being based on stratigraphy as all other geological ages are, the beginning of the Archean eon is defined chronometrically. The lower boundary (starting point) of 4 billion years is officially recognized by the International Commission on Stratigraphy.

So if you're going to work in Archean rocks you must use chronometric dates, relative sequence means little to nothing.

Yes, it is ultimately the relative position that they are looking for when drilling or mining, but using radiometric dates to establish that relative position works. Could the earth be 4.5 billion seconds old rather than 4.5 billion years? Sure, but that is not what the evidence adds up to.

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 370 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 9:19 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 10:02 PM herebedragons has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2324
25
2627
...
41NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017