Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should intellectually honest fundamentalists live like the Amish?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 46 of 303 (231364)
08-09-2005 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Faith
08-09-2005 11:23 AM


THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU! I could kiss your feet you dear sweet smart thing! Somebody on the evo side who can THINK!
What the hell are you talking about? Can think? How are two people whom admittedly don't know anything about a subject, and thus coming to the same errant position on a subject, an example of thinking?
Me either. It's strictly a point of logic.
Geology is not just logic. It is logic applied to obesrvations of natural phenomena to come up with theories. Those theories are then applied in a logical way to make predictions.
Now anyone can start digging holes and making well logs and learn that after a certain sequence they are likely to hit oil. Thus when they are digging and hit a sequence they can predict oil.
That would be an expensive procedure. Geologists allow you to estimate where to place wells based on deposition/formation of structures, some visible and others testable. Why don't either of you two explain how one does that without appealing to OE geological theories.
The funniest thing, and this is where we are wholly on topic, is people who will make use of geological models which are based on OE, and then simply say we know they are true as is, and discard the model which was necessary.
To put this another way, one can make a cross section and predict areas based on how structures are deposited and formed. If "the flood" is the answer to every sedimentary structure we see, and sorting is because of willy nilly or local geographical settling rules, then no structure could be estimated laterally past a few feet. Anything would go.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 08-09-2005 11:23 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Faith, posted 08-09-2005 12:54 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 08-09-2005 1:36 PM Silent H has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 47 of 303 (231368)
08-09-2005 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Silent H
08-09-2005 12:26 PM


Whoaaaaaa... maybe I missed something, but I though the flood was always described as miraculous, even by its proponents. Are you claiming that the worldwide flood as stated in the Bible occured according to normal mechanics and required no miraculous intervention by God to occur and cause certain phenomena we see today?
Your wording is a bit hard to follow but I believe the answer is yes. And the point is off topic in this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Silent H, posted 08-09-2005 12:26 PM Silent H has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 48 of 303 (231371)
08-09-2005 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Faith
08-09-2005 12:38 PM


You determine the presence of oil or diamonds or whatever by knowing the formations themselves,
This makes no sense given the topic of exploration.
Annafan gets it, why don't you?
I don't get it because I took a couple years learning geology and what you two are doing is making up shit. Annafan understands YOU, not geology.
Maybe I should dig out my stratigraphy exercises and you can predict where you will find oil given certain well logs. It will be an empty map except the logs. You will have to construct the map from the logs, but there will be large stretches of unknown areas. How will you complete the map to make the prediction without ideas of how structures are formed? How will you know how structures are formed without OE geological models?
Poor Faith, no oil.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Faith, posted 08-09-2005 12:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 08-09-2005 1:26 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 96 by Annafan, posted 08-10-2005 3:37 AM Silent H has not replied

paisano
Member (Idle past 6423 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 49 of 303 (231372)
08-09-2005 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Annafan
08-09-2005 11:18 AM


I have to agree that Faith does seem to have a point in the geological column - drilling oil issue.
Well, no she doesn't. It isn't just a matter of what the static stratigraphy is today. It's how the reservoir rock formed and why oil is there in the first place. This involves dynamic processes that, at least according to conventional geology, require millions of years to happen. The organic rich source rock has to be present, the reservoir rock has to be in the right place, and there has to be trapping rock that's less permeable to oil, or it would seep out. All these different types of rock have different sound speeds, which is why 3D seismic imaging works.
I've yet to see a credible YEC scenario that explains petroleum reservoir formation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Annafan, posted 08-09-2005 11:18 AM Annafan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Faith, posted 08-09-2005 1:05 PM paisano has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 50 of 303 (231375)
08-09-2005 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Silent H
08-09-2005 12:41 PM


Nobody is suggesting "digging holes." I'm talking ONLY about legitimate geologically sound stratigraphic methods. I'm saying that their usefulness (which is unquestioned, although at least one geological website I found said that other methods are more used these days), does not in any way depend upon a knowledge or theory of the age of the relevant formations. If you know what they are composed of and how they are arranged based on knowledge of the general consistency of the geo column, where certain fossils are normally located etc., you can predict from that knowledge alone just as accurately without reference to your theory about their age. You simply need to understand their physical ordering and arrangements. Their age is irrelevant, a circumstantial bit of baggage you can do without.
{EDIT: Maybe this will make it clearer. The point is that thinking in terms of depth or location in space rather than in terms of time is all that is needed. So instead of thinking "pre-cambrian = oldest" you think "pre-cambrian = lowest" and you will have just as much accuracy. In fact I think that's how geologists really think anyway, the age bit is just tacked on.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-09-2005 12:57 PM
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-09-2005 12:59 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Silent H, posted 08-09-2005 12:41 PM Silent H has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 51 of 303 (231378)
08-09-2005 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by paisano
08-09-2005 12:48 PM


Well, no she doesn't. It isn't just a matter of what the static stratigraphy is today. It's how the reservoir rock formed and why oil is there in the first place. This involves dynamic processes that, at least according to conventional geology, require millions of years to happen. The organic rich source rock has to be present, the reservoir rock has to be in the right place, and there has to be trapping rock that's less permeable to oil, or it would seep out. All these different types of rock have different sound speeds, which is why 3D seismic imaging works.
You do not need to know HOW it happened. You do not need to know HOW LONG it took to happen. You ONLY need to know the physical particulars. You are trying to locate a WHERE, not a WHEN, and to locate a WHERE you need to know about PHYSICAL ARRANGEMENTS. I know that the theory of how it all came about is cognitively glued to the facts in such a way as to be nearly inextricable, but it really is not necessary to the PRACTICALITIES of locating oil. This is about the location of things in SPACE, not in TIME.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by paisano, posted 08-09-2005 12:48 PM paisano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 08-09-2005 1:10 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 57 by paisano, posted 08-09-2005 2:03 PM Faith has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 52 of 303 (231382)
08-09-2005 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Faith
08-09-2005 1:05 PM


As I said, willfull ignorance.
You do not need to know HOW it happened. You do not need to know HOW LONG it took to happen. You ONLY need to know the physical particulars. You are trying to locate a WHERE, not a WHEN, and to locate a WHERE you need to know about PHYSICAL ARRANGEMENTS. I know that the theory of how it all came about is cognitively glued to the facts in such a way as to be nearly inextricable, but it really is not necessary to the PRACTICALITIES of locating oil. This is about the location of things in SPACE, not in TIME.
It is not necessary to ask the question of how it came to be therefore thou shalt not use the brain GOD gave you to ask questions or determine the answer.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Faith, posted 08-09-2005 1:05 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 53 of 303 (231383)
08-09-2005 1:14 PM


Finding oil is a PRACTICAL matter
Simply as a practical matter, oil prospectors do NOT even BOTHER to mention anything about the OE theory of the geo column. They describe the whole process of looking for oil in terms of PHYSICAL CLUES. Here are two sites I looked over yesterday on this subject. Neither one of them gives the slightest nod to OE theory. It's all a discussion of HOW YOU FIND OIL, and the theory is IRRELEVANT.
quote:
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/.../online/articles/OO/doo15.html
Oil is formed when organic material is subjected to pressure and high temperatures, usually at a depth of several kilometres beneath the surface of the land or the ocean bed, Professor Martin Langer of the Bonn Institute of Palaeontology explains. From there the oil passes through the strata of rock above as if through blotting paper, until it is prevented from rising further, for example by a layer of clay, which acts as a kind of lid. Whether the deposit is likely to yield a lot of oil basically depends — apart from the shape of the lid — on the storage capacity of the rock strata involved.
quote:
Funktion neu entdeckter Zellorganellen aufgeklrt – Innovations Report
A final method of exploration is the study of stratigraphy. Stratigraphic exploration consists of establishing correlations between wells, matching fossils, strata, rock hardness or softness, and electrical and radioactivity data to determine the origin, composition, distribution, and succession of rock strata. Sample logs, driller's logs, time logs, electrical logs, radioactivity logs, and acoustic logs help geologists predict where oil bearing strata occur. Sample logs, compiled from well cuttings and cores, are used to identify key beds and lithologic sequences. A core is a narrow column of rock that is taken from the top to the bottom of a well and shows rock in sequential order as it appears in the ground. Core samples also provide information on porosity, permeability, and saturation of rock in the well. Cuttings are not a continuous record like core samples, but provide a means for identifying sections within larger thick layers through fossil and mineral deposits.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-09-2005 01:19 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Silent H, posted 08-09-2005 3:07 PM Faith has replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 54 of 303 (231384)
08-09-2005 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Faith
08-09-2005 12:34 PM


Faith writes:
It is not a matter of disagreement. You are not following the argument.
Oh I see. Faith thinks it. Faith said it. That settles it.
Well ok then. Why didn't I see that before? What happened to "we will just have to agree to disagree?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Faith, posted 08-09-2005 12:34 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 55 of 303 (231392)
08-09-2005 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Silent H
08-09-2005 12:47 PM


Annafan understands YOU, not geology.
Annafan is on the evo side and doesn't know me from Eve, and actually agrees with the proposition of this thread that creos {edit: fundies} should be excluded from the use of modern technology, which is a little problem in her(?) thinking I am willing to overlook because of her(?) fine grasp of logic in the current dispute.
Maybe I should dig out my stratigraphy exercises and you can predict where you will find oil given certain well logs. It will be an empty map except the logs. You will have to construct the map from the logs, but there will be large stretches of unknown areas. How will you complete the map to make the prediction without ideas of how structures are formed? How will you know how structures are formed without OE geological models?
See my Message 53
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-09-2005 01:30 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Silent H, posted 08-09-2005 12:47 PM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Annafan, posted 08-10-2005 3:46 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 56 of 303 (231399)
08-09-2005 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Silent H
08-09-2005 12:41 PM


The funniest thing, and this is where we are wholly on topic, is people who will make use of geological models which are based on OE, and then simply say we know they are true as is, and discard the model which was necessary.
You might have a point about how the theory led to the useful models, I'm not sure, but that's another subject from the usefulness of the models without reference to the theory. The theory could be wrong and still have produced a useful model, and in any case the model {Edit: theory} is not needed for the actual practical work of locating oil and as a matter of simple fact is not USED in that work. Also, stratigraphy is only one of the methods used for locating oil and the others have nothing to do with OE theory at all. See my Message 53
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-09-2005 01:47 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Silent H, posted 08-09-2005 12:41 PM Silent H has not replied

paisano
Member (Idle past 6423 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 57 of 303 (231421)
08-09-2005 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Faith
08-09-2005 1:05 PM


By claiming time does not matter, you are assuming the strata remain unchanged throughout time, and the oil "just happened" to be placed there, and remained there, undisturbed, along with the unchanging, undisturbed sediments, until drills reached it.
I suppose, given your YEC views, this is not surprising. You are indeed sort of forced into this viewpoint. Or you could try to come up with a scenario of how oil was formed after the flood, but that's been done, and refuted, before. The idea that the oil was placed there sometime during the seven days (although where is this in Genesis- but then where is oil-after-the-flood in Genesis?) is probably the better option of the Hobson's choices of YEC geology.
Nevertheless, this isn't consistent with the evidence. The evidence
favors the view that the Earth does change slowly over large amounts of time, and under the right conditions, structures can form that trap petroleum generating rock.
One then has to take into account the proper relationship of the location of source rock, reservoir rock,and trapping structures, and this inevitably does lead to a consideration of the changes in these positions over time. And the OE position is the one that most reasonably fits the evidence.
You objection that your online references "don't explicitly mention OE" is irrelevant. So what? It's assumed, because the evidence is so overwhelming that nobody working in the field seriously questions it.
Just as civil engineers assume Newtonian mechanics is valid at the scales they work at. You won't see "By the way, we are assuming F=ma is still true" or basic elasticity theory, repeated in every paragraph of a paper on bridge design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Faith, posted 08-09-2005 1:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Faith, posted 08-09-2005 2:24 PM paisano has not replied
 Message 59 by Faith, posted 08-09-2005 2:56 PM paisano has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 58 of 303 (231446)
08-09-2005 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by paisano
08-09-2005 2:03 PM


By claiming time does not matter, you are assuming the strata remain unchanged throughout time, and the oil "just happened" to be placed there, and remained there, undisturbed, along with the unchanging, undisturbed sediments, until drills reached it.
I am not assuming anything and certainly if I did it wouldn't resemble anything you've suggested. I am explicitly eliminating ALL theory about origins and saying that finding oil is a practical matter that requires no reference to the theory of its origins whatever.
I'm sure it IS assumed but not in any way that enters into the calculations.
Newtonian theory is actually USED in designing bridges. OE theory is NOT used in finding oil.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by paisano, posted 08-09-2005 2:03 PM paisano has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 59 of 303 (231462)
08-09-2005 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by paisano
08-09-2005 2:03 PM


Here's an example.
Say you left an extremely crucially valuable item (ECVI) on a desk in an upstairs room in your house when you went out, and while you were gone an earthquake seriously rearranged the house almost down to bits and pieces. Despite the fact that you now have a lot more to worry about than the loss of this ECVI, you nevertheless absolutely MUST find that ECVI. How are you going to go about it? Are you going to sit down and theorize about why there was an earthquake and how the earthquake forces affected the structure of the house in order to cause it to collapse in the particular configuration that it did?
Or are you going to try to figure out what happened to the part of the house where you left the ECVI by looking at the structural clues to find that particular room and its contents, furniture for instance, and where force and gravity threw those contents, so as to know where to look for your ECVI?
You are not going to need to know HOW the earthquake caused anything, only WHAT it caused. You track the clues of where it threw recognizable items until you have a pretty good idea where to start moving things around in order to find your ECVI.
In the case of oil, it is known to occur most frequently in certain kinds of underground arrangements and be related to certain kinds of fossil contents in the strata. You don't need to know *how* the rock got that way, you just need to be able to recognize the arrangements themselves to determine if there is the likelihood of an oil deposit there or not. You also don't need to know *why* oil is deposited in such configurations, just that it tends to be. Nobody knew these things when finding oil started out being a big deal early in the last century. They didn't know such things for years -- see my Message 53.
And the theories about why and how the oil got where it is FOLLOWED from recognizing the coincidence between known oil deposits and certain features of the strata, NOT the other way around.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-09-2005 03:01 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by paisano, posted 08-09-2005 2:03 PM paisano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by deerbreh, posted 08-09-2005 3:04 PM Faith has replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 60 of 303 (231468)
08-09-2005 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Faith
08-09-2005 2:56 PM


faith writes:
And the theories about why and how the oil got where it is FOLLOWED from recognizing the coincidence between known oil deposits and certain features of the strata, NOT the other way around.
And you know this how?
In some cases, yes, maybe in most cases, but not in all cases.
And by the way, you don't need to keep repeating your arguments in different ways. I get your argument and I suspect the others do also (as hard as that is for you to believe), I just don't agree with you.
Edit: accidentially posted before finished.
This message has been edited by deerbreh, 08-09-2005 03:11 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Faith, posted 08-09-2005 2:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 08-09-2005 4:18 PM deerbreh has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024