Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 356 of 614 (734873)
08-03-2014 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by Faith
08-02-2014 9:37 PM


Re: working geologists do observational science
I'm sure you USE the OE models, and you know what, I also suppose that they work for your purposes, but what I wonder is if they are really necessary. You really haven't said anything here that proves that.
I like how you qualify the argument with a 'really necessary'. I suppose that you would be the one deciding what is 'really necessary'.
Certainly, a lot of geology was done before radiometric dating, so it's possible to do many things in the science. The thing is that absolute dating does make a lot of other conclusions possible such as what I have discussed here earlier, and on the geological column thread. So, what is 'really necessary? To an Archean geologist I'd say that such dating is critical to solving certain problems. But you'd probably say that's not all that important. That's a judgement call and everyone can have an opinion, but for you to dismiiss other peoples' opinions on the topic is nothing more than arrogance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Faith, posted 08-02-2014 9:37 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 1:33 AM edge has replied

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


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 replied

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

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


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 replied

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

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


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 replied

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

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


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 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

  
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

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


(1)
Message 399 of 614 (735069)
08-05-2014 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 394 by Faith
08-05-2014 9:17 AM


Re: working geologists do observational science
I've been puzzled all along why this distinction between interpretive and observational science isn't obvious to you all.
I'm puzzled as to why this is such a big deal to YECs. When you understand that their science is constrained only by biblical myth, they hardly have a complaint about sciences that collect and analyze hard evidence from past processes and events.
You can make all of your comparisons about 'hard' and 'soft' sciences, but they are both hard as diamonds compared to YEC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 9:17 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 12:50 PM edge has replied

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


Message 402 of 614 (735093)
08-05-2014 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 400 by Faith
08-05-2014 12:50 PM


Re: working geologists do observational science
It's a real distinction that you all keep glossing over.
A distinction without relevance to this discussion, as shown here by your inability to address the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 12:50 PM Faith has not replied

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


(1)
Message 450 of 614 (735958)
08-28-2014 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 449 by PaulK
08-28-2014 2:36 PM


Of course, the hard sciences are full of inductive reasoning. EVERY "natural law" is identified by inductive reasoning because there is no other way to do it. Even the hardest science cannot proceed by deduction alone. That was settled a long time ago.
As usual, Faith doesn't understand what she is talking about,
Faith is one confused person.
I like this statement from Wikipedia's article on inductive reasoning:
"Unlike deductive arguments, inductive reasoning allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false, even if all of the premises are true.[4] Instead of being valid or invalid, inductive arguments are either strong or weak, which describes how probable it is that the conclusion is true.[5]"
It elucidates some of the differences between the way that we look at the world, allowing for uncertainty, whereas there can be no uncertainty for hard-core YECs. That is why they seem to adhere to deductive reasoning, since it is authoritative and derives from (guess what)... the Bible.
Further from Wikipedia:
While the conclusion of a deductive argument is supposed to be certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is supposed to be probable, based upon the evidence given.[1]
Note the phrase "supposed to be certain". This fits in with the entire viewpoint of YEC. The know that the Bible is absolute truth (and its interpretation is not questionable, of course).
This makes a mockery of the argument that YECs, who apparently adhere to 'deductive reasoning', and the certainty that it provides, are the 'open minded' ones; as opposed to the scientists who understand the tentativeness of inductive conclusions and have a willingness to entertain new ideas as data flow in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by PaulK, posted 08-28-2014 2:36 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 451 by PaulK, posted 08-28-2014 4:54 PM edge has not replied
 Message 452 by PaulK, posted 08-29-2014 10:23 AM edge has not replied

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


Message 454 of 614 (735985)
08-29-2014 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 453 by Tangle
08-29-2014 10:30 AM


What's this, debate by proxy?
If she hasn't got the courage to debate it here - leave her to preach to her converted, you're just feeding a remote troll.
Heh, heh ...
That is kind of dysfunctional isn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by Tangle, posted 08-29-2014 10:30 AM Tangle has not replied

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


Message 528 of 614 (736622)
09-11-2014 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 527 by Percy
09-11-2014 6:50 AM


Re: Faith responds about "proof"
I don't think so. First she said, "All it really means to say you can't prove something is that you don't have the evidence you claim to have." When it was pointed out that she was wrong and that we do have the evidence we say we have, unable to concede error she instead compounded it by insisting, "It isn't evidence if it doesn't lead to the conclusions you claim for it." She believes we have no evidence for what we claim, but since we obviously do have evidence for what we claim (even if we're wrong) she makes up a definition of evidence where it refers only to that which supports a claim. This is a common fallback tactic for Faith, to play word games when the evidence isn't in her favor.
What is closest to what Faith said that happens to be true is that a claim can't be considered proven (successfully subjected to a technical testing process) until persuasive evidence has been gathered in its support. But Faith won't embrace a definition like this because it is just too obvious that science *has* gathered persuasive evidence in support of its claims, has, in effect, proven its claims.
I think that when Faith says that we have no evidence, she misspeaks. Facts are facts and they cannot be simply dismissed. I think what she means is that the interpretation of those facts is wrong.
Never mind that she then fails to support that statement. It's an easy, throw-away argument: 'you have no evidence!'
On the other hand, Faith does in deed provide no evidence other than feelings and made-up stories about how the world ought to be, with none of those stubborn little fact to stumble over.
When she does present facts, such as her cross-sections of the GC and Colorado Plateau, she has no framework in which to interpret them, so they invariably end up supporting her addled opinion: e.g., all intrusive rocks are of the same age and since some cut the youngest sediments, then they all are young.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 527 by Percy, posted 09-11-2014 6:50 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 529 by NoNukes, posted 09-11-2014 9:08 PM edge has not replied
 Message 531 by Percy, posted 09-12-2014 7:23 AM edge has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024