|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,418 Year: 3,675/9,624 Month: 546/974 Week: 159/276 Day: 33/23 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Should intellectually honest fundamentalists live like the Amish? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5840 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
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. This just goes to show you have no idea what you actually read. You saw words and they didn't suggest anything related to OE theory and therefore they must not... hurray for you!
Here are two sites I looked over yesterday on this subject. Neither one of them gives the slightest nod to OE theory. Really? Let's just see about that...
"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", The first one is wholly about formation of an oil field and so nothing really about oil exploration per se. As such it doesn't need to deal with age of structures and how they were formed and only its bare physical properties, and of course has nothing to do with what I was talking about. You cannot find oil based on what that person said (in the quote anyway). I will note however that it does discuss (contrary to your claim) OE theory. Note that it suggests organic material (that would be early life) being buried by several layers such that it can move through one form of rock to be trapped by a layer of clay. How long do you think that would take to occur? Life, death, burial, burial, pressure, movement to entrapment? Your second citation is exactly what I was getting at...
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... See that part in yellow? Without the OE paradigm establishing those correlations would be meaningless. It is what allows you to "connect the dots" of wells to create a map. Now it could be said that matching fossils and strata are more or less indicative of relative ages and not necessarily indicative of actual age, but it is assumptions about their formation based on OE which allows you to suggest which strata might link up with any accuracy. Does a bed appear to be a shoreline receding or advancing? That makes a difference when connecting two distant wells. How would one do that using YE which does not believe they are shorelines at all? But lets move on, notice it mentions radioactive data. Do you know what that is used for? Usually age determination. Guess what kinds of ages they are coming up with? YE right out the window. And if you are going to pull the "radioactive dating isn't trustworthy" routine, then you are refuting your own source. I love in an earlier post where you said geologists could say lower instead of earlier. You do understand that strata don't always lay down and stay in one place, right? Sections can be pulled down or lifted up, sometimes pitched at angles, and then eroded, then buried pulled down or lifted up and get buried some more. Heck some structures are folded and some to the point that it appears from logs at certain points that it has been flipped upside down. Whoops. Learn about geology and get with the modern world. Its not just "theory" which predicts OE, it is practical understanding of mechanisms. I invite you to explain how you would determine strata using well logs based on YEC/Flood theories which do not allow for depositional theories of sedimentary strata beyond "shaken and settled column". holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I love in an earlier post where you said geologists could say lower instead of earlier. You do understand that strata don't always lay down and stay in one place, right? Sections can be pulled down or lifted up, sometimes pitched at angles, and then eroded, then buried pulled down or lifted up and get buried some more. Heck some structures are folded and some to the point that it appears from logs at certain points that it has been flipped upside down. Sigh. Give me a break sometimes huh? The point was to illustrate that it's about SPACE and not TIME, holmes, about physical arrangements as they are found, and not about how they got there. I KNOW the strata are not where the ideal geo column puts them. They are tilted and reversed and "missing" and otherwise messed up all over the earth, and in fact are not all that reliable a guide to finding oil or anything else, merely sometimes helpful if you know how to associate what with what.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2914 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
Holmes, you made some good points about shorelines, folds and nonconformities. Hard to see how a YEC/Flood model could make sense of the complex geological structures found in many locations. To suggest that a static model based on the original locations of fossils is somehow going to be enough to find oil/gas in many locations is naive at best. If that were true oil companies wouldn't even need geologists, just a computer program and a good technician.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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... See that part in yellow? Without the OE paradigm establishing those correlations would be meaningless. It is what allows you to "connect the dots" of wells to create a map. Nonsense. All that is simple observable measurable naked phenomena that are meaningful as they point to the probability of finding oil. You can't just assert the necessity of the OE, that's like draping the emperor's new clothes over the simple naked facts. You haven't given one bit of actual evidence for your view.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Funny if you "get" my argument you haven't said a thing to show it. All you've done is criticize my objecting to jar's violations of the forum rules without even understanding what I was objecting to. You say you "disagree" without giving one reason why, while I've given a lot of argument in favor of my viewpoint and some relevant quotes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2914 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
Faith writes: Funny if you "get" my argument you haven't said a thing to show it. All you've done is criticize my objecting to jar's violations of the forum rules without even understanding what I was objecting to. You say you "disagree" without giving one reason why, while I've given a lot of argument in favor of my viewpoint and some relevant quotes. There you go again. Reading my mind. How do you know I didn't understand your objections? As to not giving reasons, I gave some argument in message 42. I see no reason to duplicate the arguments others have made quite effectively, particularly Holmes. And it certainly isn't true that "all I've done, etc". I also objected your characterization of "evos" as not thinking. Remember that? You seem to be able to dish it out but will not admit when you have also violated the rules by resorting to ad hominum attacks and name calling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4920 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
my thoughts,
1) Fundamentalists tend to advocate faith ,or mysticism, as superior to reason and the scientific method. I disagree. In fact, I think sometimes fundamentalists over-emphasize reason and try to fit spiritual truths into boxes based on more secular paradigms. I think they often under-emphasize spiritual experience such as mysticism, or revelation, and wind up missing the point of Love, which is only a concept of reason secondarily and first and foremost is an experience and action. I also think that the scientific method is by definition limited by the available technology and so for many matters should not be relied on. For example, I do not think one should or does rely on the scientific method to determine whom to marry. Now, one should use reason, but even here I think there is some signicant qualifications. Reason is not the only means to knowledge and accuracy. I would temper subjective feelings of what is love and right, for example, somewhat by reason. You want to marry the right person, but relying on reason alone and excluding one's "faith" in what they feel is right would be silly. In other words, intuition can be very accurate, and it is reasonable to consider one's intuition. In fact, if one's gut feeling is, for example, that a business deal is not right, but one's reason is that it is, I'd stronglu suggest you ignore your reason and stay clear of the deal. Faith in some respects often begins with intuition, an inward "knowing" or belief of knowing, that something is true. Then, one used one's reason to determine if the intuitive knowledge is correct. Science limits reason in that regard and so in reality science is not really based on pure reason, but on a limitation of reason to current technology, research, funding, etc,...and that is very limited for certain issues. So I'd say fundamentalists do not in fact emphasize reason any less than science. They just have different parameters for how to use reason. In terms of the Amish question, I consider it quite ridiculous any way you look at it. It's not hypocritical, even what you are sayign was true, and in general fundamentalists revere science in many respects, which is why they often quote scientists in defense of the faith. Heck, imo, they put way too much stock in science, not less.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oh hardly. I'm not denying dishing it out when it got dished to me. I let jar have it and when you defended him I let you have it. I haven't denied that. I was half expecting to get suspended for it, as a matter of fact, instead of jar who should have been suspended well before it reached that point. Oh and gee, your objecting to my implying that evos don't think is some kind of plus for your side? Oh wow. Only one evo so far has shown that ability on this simple point. Actually what it is she showed was simple honesty. Everybody else is playing games to obscure the simple truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
--never mind --
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-09-2005 05:00 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
paisano Member (Idle past 6444 days) Posts: 459 From: USA Joined: |
Now that's an original post, and what I had hoped for by starting the thread.
In terms of the Amish question, I consider it quite ridiculous any way you look at it. To a degree, sure. It was intended to be a little bit of an over the top conversation starter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3932 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
I miss Bill Birkeland. He could settle this issue pretty well.
For me it boils down to this. If you don't really believe in things that are crucial to understanding mainstream geology, like the whole concept of depositional environments, then all you are is as smart as a stupid baysian learning algorithm. Everything in geology depends upon discovering the ancient context in which the deposits were created. Without that, you have something only slightly better than random guessing. This message has been edited by Jazzns, 08-09-2005 03:18 PM Organizations worth supporting: Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security) Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights) AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1465 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Nothing but bald assertion there with an insult buried in it to boot. Funny how evos can get away with such crap.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3932 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
What are you talking about? Do you not know what a baysian learning algorithm is? Why else would you think I was trying to be insulting?
Seriously now. If you don't have context, all you are doing is creating a history of previous success and failure from which to gauge future guessing. That is all learning algorithms do. If you weren't so quick to look for insults you might have actually seen that I was at least partially agreeing with you. You can actually do better than random guessing with a learning algorithm but often not much better. When you can identify a Mississippian depositional environment by the context in which it was deposited then you are doing better than what would be accomplished by a learning algorithm. You cannot do that without the concept of depositional environments which is a direct correlary of mainstream OE geology. Organizations worth supporting: Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security) Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights) AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4920 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I'd like to just throw in there that some Darwinists appear to be every bit as much fundamentalists, and throw out scientific data and analysis, if it disagrees with their theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4149 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Ah Bill "tactical assult*" Birkeland - Bill if you read this, hope you are well, your posts were some of the most educational I've ever seen.
* for newer members, Bill's appearance on those sort of matters was like the SAS smashing coming in the window, the creationists arguments were machine-gunned to death.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024