Faith comment: Hey Moose: I didn't know it was possible for an admin to post in a member's name like this, kind of unnerving frankly.
I'm not sure I'm ready for this thread right now either. Siccar Point was just one of the examples that came to mind to illustrate Historical Science, and I'm not sure there's much more to say about it. I was hoping others would have opinions about the steps of scientific method I just threw out. Instead they just made blanket condemnations of the whole idea.
Anyway right now I don't feel up to this. I'd like to just put it on hold for a while if that's all right with you.
I'll take this comment down if I get back to trying to make something of this thread proposal./Faith comment
Following posted by Moose from earlier thread:
=================================
HISTORICAL SCIENCE:
Siccar Point:
Hypothesis: took millions of years to form.
Observation: vertical and horizontal sections of strata.
Reasoning/Assumption: upper horizontal section was laid down after lower vertical section was tilted.
Evidence: None
Replication or testing: Nothing to replicate or test. Other angular unconformities subjected to the same reasoning, also based on no evidence. It's all theory, no proof.
(All this was already treated as fact before radiometric dating came along and that too is unprovable.)
Siccar Point was interpreted by one man looking at it and arriving at his conclusion. He argued others into accepting his conclusion. That's all there was to it.
{Note: 2nd paragraph added from message 127, from the same source topic as the previous material. - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change topic title.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Remove non-Siccar Point material from message. Modify topic title (add "Historical science(?):" to what I previously changed the title to. Added 2nd paragraph as commented on in red.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.