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

Why?

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

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.

I do give evidence and I never said I don't give evidence.Edited by Faith, : get rid of my own evil talk

What you think has been SHOWN me is just part of the Evo Fantasy you all live in.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I have to assume some sort of systematic error, that's all, that really isn't about time at all. If I ever figure it out I'll let you know.

I've been puzzled all along why this distinction between interpretive and observational science isn't obvious to you all. What can I say. The conclusions of the sciences of the prehistoric past are determined by consensus, what makes sense to those who are in a position to make such determinations. That's how Hutton's ponderings were accepted. They were argued in the scientific societies and then championed by Lyell until the majority were persuaded. There is no way to subject such interpretations to tests or any objective standard, it's all persuasion. And there is no way at all to correct the interpretation if it's wrong once it's been accepted by the whole community.abe: Oh yes, I know: radiometric dating. Sigh. The funny thing is there is no way to test radiometric dating either. It's harder to see I suppose but it's the same situation. You have this method that supposedly tells you about the past and it's pretty consistent, but even with all that you cannot test IT either, so if there's some kind of error going on with it you'll never be able to find out. /abeIf the structure of DNA had been determined by consensus, eventually it would have been corrected by objective methods, but there are none possible in the case of a scheme of ancient scenarios. For instance if the strata were all laid down in the Flood and all their contents are just the accidental passengers within the sediments, then all this stuff about climate and type of landscape and other supposed characteristics of some former age would turn out to be pretty silly.You realty have no way of knowing. I would think you would have the ability to recognize this much, but perhaps I overestimate you. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm sure that's a reasonable prediction under the circumstances, but it wouldn't be an easy thing to figure out. Somebody may, however. Even if it takes a hundred years.

It's a real distinction that you all keep glossing over.

Not being able to recognize that you cannot test or prove the scenarios about the prehistoric past shows a real mental problem. I think the distinction in the end comes down to whether there are witnesses or not. And you'll get that all wrong too. You know why? Because you won't let yourselves THINK about what I mean, you''ll just fix on the stupidest possible idea about what the word means and impute that to me and give your stupid answer to it. You'll trot out forensics though I've answered that a million times already.All real science is testable because multiple people can see the result and do the tests themselves. With the scenarios of the past all those multiple people can see the stuff in the rocks that is interpreted that way, they can see the theory in other words, but all they can do is agree or disagree with the interpretation, so it remains a theory forever. Since they've all been brainwashed into the Old Earth assumption they will of course agree, so that's how you get your consensus.There are no witnesses to such a past, certainly no witnesses from such a past, there is nothing but the idiotic interpretation of what's in a rock as the WHOLE basis for a WHOLE idea about a WHOLE other world that can never be proved.So now do your stupid little straw man dance, everybody. Make your idiotic little straw man analogies, Dr. A. Nobody here is capable of following a simple line of argument. Really because of entrenched bias, a lack of willingness to understand anything a creationist would say.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

First stupid knee-jerk unthinking straw man post.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.