Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Applying Science to Past Events
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 271 of 354 (144633)
09-25-2004 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by Percy
09-25-2004 9:28 AM


It must be so hard for you to soar like an eagle when you have to work with all those turkeys. I think perhaps you've got an attitude problem and a chip on your shoulder.
Your going to have to believe me, when I say, I DO NOT put myself above others. I have never done that before I got saved, and I certainly wouldn't do it now. All I have is yours, or anyone who wants it from me.
I will take the test, next free chance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Percy, posted 09-25-2004 9:28 AM Percy has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 272 of 354 (144677)
09-25-2004 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Loudmouth
09-23-2004 5:09 PM


It was the baseball analagy we have been contending about. Post 155 then post 170 then post 192.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Loudmouth, posted 09-23-2004 5:09 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 273 of 354 (144678)
09-25-2004 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Percy
09-23-2004 4:42 PM


I don't repeat my premises anymore then anyone else. This is just not correct analysis.
The impact of geology on the oil industry has nothing to do with histiorical geology. Where to find oil is simply based on present geology factors. In fact how and when it got to where it is has nothing to do with oil exploration. Its there and any further ideas of why is another subject for them. first they found it and then came origin speculation.
The archelogy thing likewise is about present evidence and not related to the scientific method.
Unless you could show how. But your track record of the past on these analagies is evidence (though not scientific) isn't promising.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Percy, posted 09-23-2004 4:42 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Percy, posted 09-25-2004 4:25 PM Robert Byers has replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 274 of 354 (144679)
09-25-2004 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Percy
09-23-2004 4:42 PM


I don't repeat my premises anymore then anyone else. This is just not correct analysis.
The impact of geology on the oil industry has nothing to do with histiorical geology. Where to find oil is simply based on present geology factors. In fact how and when it got to where it is has nothing to do with oil exploration. Its there and any further ideas of why is another subject for them. first they found it and then came origin speculation.
The archelogy thing likewise is about present evidence and not related to the scientific method.
Unless you could show how. But your track record of the past on these analagies is evidence (though not scientific) isn't promising.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Percy, posted 09-23-2004 4:42 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Coragyps, posted 09-25-2004 4:50 PM Robert Byers has replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 275 of 354 (144683)
09-25-2004 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Percy
09-23-2004 4:48 PM


The key phrase is tentatively thru the scientific method. (The method is key)
I agree physical laws have never been observed to vary thru time and space.
I agree we can tentatively say what boiling temps were in the past.
BUT and However the past boiling temps you have not shown to have been established by the scientific method or how they could be.
So you havn't made your analagy work for you yet.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Percy, posted 09-23-2004 4:48 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 276 of 354 (144687)
09-25-2004 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Robert Byers
09-25-2004 3:55 PM


Robert Byers writes:
The impact of geology on the oil industry has nothing to do with histiorical geology. Where to find oil is simply based on present geology factors.
You are incorrect, and let me give you my favorite example of geological history's importance to oil exploration. I first learned of this in a book by John McPhee, but the information is available on the Internet. This is from the Conodonts webpage at the Natural Resources of Canada website, but you can find the same information at many websites:
"The microscopic fossils called conodonts are found in rock layers throughout the Cordillera. Conodonts are tooth-like phosphatic structures that represent the only commonly preserved parts of extinct marine animals that were abundant in the world's oceans for 400 million years, but became extinct 200 million years ago. This group, widely regarded as very early vertebrates, is very resilient and survive elevated temperatures and pressures that often destroy other fossils. Their global distribution and rapid evolution enable conodonts to be used to date and correlate rocks very precisely. They also exhibit temperature-dependent colour changes that provide a key to determine the oil-bearing capacity of the rock."
You see, oil forms only under certain very specific conditions of temperature and pressure, and conodont fossils are a key indicator of whether the necessary temperature was present in the past.
The archelogy thing likewise is about present evidence and not related to the scientific method.
So when an archeologist unearths ancient pottery, this is evidence from the present? But when a paleontolgist unearths a Coelacanth fossil, this is evidence from the past? Given the contradiction inherent in your position, perhaps you want to think about this some more?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Robert Byers, posted 09-25-2004 3:55 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Robert Byers, posted 09-27-2004 4:50 PM Percy has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 277 of 354 (144689)
09-25-2004 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Loudmouth
09-23-2004 5:09 PM


What you wrote me was about establishing that there was no difference between now and in the past boiling temps.
This was not showing by this analagy how boiling temps of the past/present can be done by the scientific method.
I understand you believe this is a another way of getting to that point but I feel it is throwing ne a curve ball.
You seem to be saying you are proving past temps are the same as now because you are proving they couldn't be different.
Yet this is not the same thing.
The past temp is still just an assumption and not a result of the method. However reasonable.
Also by the way the Observation part was fine but the Test part was relying on assumptions like since light travels at a certain speed then it did so in this case. etc
The boiling point of water of the past/future must be testable today without assumptions of the very point being tested.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Loudmouth, posted 09-23-2004 5:09 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by crashfrog, posted 09-25-2004 4:34 PM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 281 by Loudmouth, posted 09-27-2004 2:28 PM Robert Byers has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 278 of 354 (144690)
09-25-2004 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Robert Byers
09-25-2004 4:30 PM


You seem to be saying you are proving past temps are the same as now because you are proving they couldn't be different.
Yet this is not the same thing.
Huh?
If I prove that A cannot be different than B, then by definition, I have proved that they are the same.
That's not assumption; that's proof.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Robert Byers, posted 09-25-2004 4:30 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Robert Byers, posted 09-27-2004 4:37 PM crashfrog has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 279 of 354 (144693)
09-25-2004 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Robert Byers
09-25-2004 3:55 PM


The impact of geology on the oil industry has nothing to do with histiorical geology. Where to find oil is simply based on present geology factors. In fact how and when it got to where it is has nothing to do with oil exploration.
Robert, you are making yourself look like an idiot typing nonsense like this. I suggest you quit before Mr Birkeland gets here and gives you 174 references that prove you're making stuff up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Robert Byers, posted 09-25-2004 3:55 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Robert Byers, posted 09-27-2004 4:42 PM Coragyps has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 280 of 354 (145085)
09-27-2004 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Robert Byers
09-21-2004 4:44 PM


Baseball Hypothesis
quote:
Yet it still remains that the hypothesis was not tested here. The culprit ball did not have a test/observation of a prediction of its involvement.
Actually, I did address ways to test to see if the ball on the floor was the culprit. It was embedded towards the end of a paragraph, so you may have missed it. Here it is again.
From message 170:
If there were some oddity about the baseball, such as a strange stitching pattern or the like, then I might be able to test for that as well. I might also look for glass shards impregnated into the ball that would support the baseball as the culprit.
By a "strange stitching pattern" I mean a unique marking on the baseball that might be left on the surface it struck. Secondly, glass shards poking out of the baseball would rule out the glass landing on a baseball that was already on the floor. It would take force to push the shards into the baseball, and therefore the most likely cause would be the baseball striking the glass.
I could do further tests. I could look for yarn from the baseball on the shards of glass and use fiber analysis to link it to the baseball. I could look for striated marks on the baseball that are consistent with the baseball scraping against sharp, broken glass. There are numerous other tests that could link the baseball to a forceful event consistent with the ball breaking the glass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Robert Byers, posted 09-21-2004 4:44 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 281 of 354 (145088)
09-27-2004 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Robert Byers
09-25-2004 4:30 PM


quote:
What you wrote me was about establishing that there was no difference between now and in the past boiling temps.
This was not showing by this analagy how boiling temps of the past/present can be done by the scientific method.
It did show it, and used the scientific method through the whole process. Details below.
quote:
I understand you believe this is a another way of getting to that point but I feel it is throwing ne a curve ball.
You seem to be saying you are proving past temps are the same as now because you are proving they couldn't be different.
Yet this is not the same thing.
It is the same thing. If A, then B. If I can show A to be constant then I have shown B to be constant. If the physical characteristics of atoms are constant, then the boiling point HAS TO BE constant. The link between the physical characteristics of atoms and boiling point was established through the scientific method. The constancy of physical characteristics of atoms in the past is also tested through the scientific method. Everything, all the way through, is tested using the scientific method.
quote:
Also by the way the Observation part was fine but the Test part was relying on assumptions like since light travels at a certain speed then it did so in this case. etc
The speed of light through a vacuum has been established through the scientific method. The distance of stars is established through independent means, such as trigonometry. The presence of a vacuum between the distant star and earth is tested through the scientific method. It is not assumed. The speed of light is not assumed, it is tested. The distance is not assumed, it is tested. Nothing in the equation is used without first being tested through the scientific method.
quote:
Also by the way the Observation part was fine but the Test part was relying on assumptions like since light travels at a certain speed then it did so in this case. etc
The constancy of the speed of light through a vacuum has been tested through the scientific method. Therefore, it is beyond assumption and is instead a well supported scientific theory derived through the scientific method.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Robert Byers, posted 09-25-2004 4:30 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 282 of 354 (145125)
09-27-2004 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by crashfrog
09-25-2004 4:34 PM


Fine. What you said was true.
However this about using the scientific method.
And this method was not used to test the past.
All that happened was a resonable conclusion that the past is the same as the future.
You guys just can't keep this straight. Indeed it is a equation to pay attention too.
Crashfrog either the past is testable or it isn't. Now these other guys seem to be worn out trying to demonstrate the past is testable by using analagys or whatever arguement.
Can you help save your side?
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by crashfrog, posted 09-25-2004 4:34 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2004 4:58 PM Robert Byers has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 283 of 354 (145128)
09-27-2004 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Coragyps
09-25-2004 4:50 PM


What I said I stand by. i know you have read in books that historical geology is used in the oil industry but in OUR discussion I have been demonstrating this is wrong. They only search on basic information on basic findings. They later make interpretations however this has nothing to do with geology theory aiding the search for oil.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Coragyps, posted 09-25-2004 4:50 PM Coragyps has not replied

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 284 of 354 (145130)
09-27-2004 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Percy
09-25-2004 4:25 PM


I understand what books say about historical geology aiding the search for oil but its a mistake.
All these people do is search for oil in the sequence of rocks where they usually find it. Then later they make interpretations of why the rocks hold oil here and not there.
In fact oil is a favourite creationist point to indicate quick creation by events and not slow. The flood event created and stored all oil sources.
When a archeolgist finds pottery of the past it is only a snapshot from the past. A piece of evidence needing interpretation but useful for the scientific method.
It is only a present observation and not a test of the past.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Percy, posted 09-25-2004 4:25 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Loudmouth, posted 09-27-2004 5:02 PM Robert Byers has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 285 of 354 (145131)
09-27-2004 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Robert Byers
09-27-2004 4:37 PM


Can you help save your side?
When its obvious that no argument could convince you? Why bother?
I only argue with people who make an effort to be reasonable. All you do is repeat yourself and dismiss rebuttals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Robert Byers, posted 09-27-2004 4:37 PM Robert Byers 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