Should intellectually honest fundamentalists live like the Amish?

Message 62 and Message 64

You have not described this process in any way a person could visualize, but I venture to guess that "depositional environments" have nothing to do with it, merely knowledge of predictable stratigraphic formations -- PHYSICAL configurations, not fairy tale explanations of how they got that way.

I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS SIMPLE!!! You are just making stuff up. You can't read, you think you know what you are talking about but you haven't addressed a thing I've actually said, you just keep babbling about your own fantasies. Well fine, continue to babble to yourself.

I think we need to get some terminology straightened out. "OE paradigm" is not the problem. I KNOW that everything is based on OE in the sense that OE is the theory that guides the research and also in the sense that its basic concepts and terminology define the whole geological shebang. This is in fact what makes it so difficult to try to point out what I'm trying to point out. That is, the OE concepts and terminology are so wedded to the factual physical reality or data, that separating them to discuss the problem is almost impossible and so far here just IS impossible to get across.Obviously "depositional rules" are needed and used, and they are derived from OE because it was under the influence of OE that they were established, and there is no other source of them.But what I'm trying to say is that their practical utility rests in their being DESCRIPTIVE of the depositional situation rather than EXPLANATORY of it. Descriptively there is no problem, no argument. Descriptively it is all the same because it is factual. That is, descriptively there is neither OE nor YEC, just the actual strata sequences and the rocks and the fossils and the hardness and softness and so on.As long as the terminology merely describes the actual physical characteristics of the strata configurations in a particular region, we have no argument, as we are simply discussing the objective facts. But since the terminology derives from a theory about the historical origins of these facts, those historical origins are often treated as synonymous with those facts.What I am trying to do is to SEPARATE the facts themselves from the theory of the origin of those facts. I have no problem whatever with the facts themselves, or with the methods of understanding and determining those facts, the configurations of the strata, the well logs etc, or even with the OE-derived terminology when it is used strictly to describe those facts.ALL I have a problem with is the idea of the historical origins OF those facts. For instance, what is called a "marine environment" may describe a certain kind or range of sediments and fossil contents in a particular stratum or sequence of strata. These are facts, OK? Facts. On the other hand "marine environment" or "deltaic environment" or "aerial environment" are interpretations or hypothetical explanations of those facts.NEVERTHELESS, they may be useful terms for calling to mind the characteristics of sediments and fossil contents for particular purposes, including oil exploration, and for helping one to visualize the underground terrain, BUT whether there ever really was an ancient time in which that location WAS in fact a marine environment or any other kind of "environment", such as we now see on the surface of the earth, is purely hypothetical.Are you following me?In other words, even the terminology of the "depositional environments" may merely be used to describe the objective underground formations that exist apart from the implicit explanation of their historical origins.The OE explanations of the origin of the physical phenomena, in the idea of "depositional environments" that purport to describe actual surface topography during an actual ancient time, however useful such concepts no doubt have been for describing actual subterranean geological phenomena, as I have amply acknowledged, nevertheless are in themselves superfluous to any practical purpose beyond this instrumentality.In fact, again beyond this mere terminological utility, they are not needed and are not used in the practical operations of looking for oil because they are not relevant. The term "depositional environment" isn't even found in most well log discussions. I DID find it in three well log discussions online, very rare occurrences (google: "well-log depositional-environment"). There were really only two as the first two were separate publishings of the same thing:http://aapg.confex.com/aapg/da2004/techprogram/A87966.htm
Page not found This is simply explaining a terrain in evolutionist terms, the aim being to describe the supposed historical "landscape" and the well log merely supplies data for this purpose. In other words it is an academic discussion of the expectations of the OE theory rather than a practical plan for finding oil.and: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/...j.1365-3091.2003.00600.xThis second link does, however, use the concept of ancient depositional "environments" in discussing the mapping of the sequences of strata in a particular area. However, the way the terminology is used is DESCRIPTIVE OF THE PHYSICAL UNDERGROUND TERRAIN, and the interpretation of that terrain's supposed previous existence as a surface topography over a great span of time is merely implicit in the terminology itself, and not of any practical relevance to the aim of discovering oil. You are simply eliding the practical uses of the OE terminology as I'm discussing it above, with their implicit assumption of an ancient historical surface environment. The practical uses as description are acknowledged as necessary, the interpretational assumption is dispensable. Nobody is offering a different model for these practical purposes. Despite the tendentious derivation of the concepts and terminology from OE theory, they are instrumentally very useful for practical science, as has been said over and over, and nobody has ever disputed that. ALL that has ever been in dispute is the theory itself of the origin of these terrains that are being mapped. AGAIN, That they ARE mappable underground terrains is not disputed. Certainly they are. Only the explanation of their ORIGINS is disputed. And in fact in the practical work of science those historical origins are truly irrelevant.More to follow, I should live so long.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-10-2005 06:26 PM

Answer to holmes' full-of-schist post pt. 2 A lost cause as nobody here has proposed a YE model or disputed the PRACTICAL applications of studies done under the OE model, only the OE theory itself. Please try to keep this in mind even if it doesn't make sense to you because it really is what I mean even if I may later find better words to get it across. I love maps and have in fact looked at that one before, but it is frustrating for me as the legend is on a separate page and I don't have a color printer. A map I have wanted to see for some years now is one that shows the mapped sequences of the geo column down to bedrock from sea to shining sea, a sort of peelable onion-layer map you can see into layer by layer. But I suppose all regions aren't mapped yet so it will be a while before I get to see that. However, because of my interest in the formation of the Grand Canyon, well before I came to EvC, I would look at the maps of the surrounding regions, particularly the Great Basin with its north-south system of aquifers and the Colorado river source area.Anyway.As for asking me for explanations of some formation or other, if I had geological knowledge I would even as a YEC use exactly the same methods and explanations OE evos use because none of the methods are in dispute. I would even use the disputed concepts where necessary, while mentally converting them to description from interpretation. And just to say it again, nobody has suggested the use of ANY "OTHER METHODS to detect the presence of or find pockets of oil" than the methods derivable from OE theory. There is nothing in that entire passage (with one exception that is only apparent and not real) that does anything but describe sheer physical realities which are not in dispute by anybody. NONE of it (again with that one exception) describes a historically ancient terrain or "environment" but ONLY the actual physical features of an actual depositional terrain, age undetermined, that can be mapped. The one exception mentioned is the term "old shorelines." Clearly this invokes the OE theory. NEVERTHELESS it is used in this context as description and its supposed historical actuality is irrelevant to that purpose. OE terminology always contains such assumptions, but in fact they are not practically necessary and ANY theory of age whatever would not change the actual physical picture or the methods for exploring its characteristics. Have done no such thing. Where do you think I said that? Everything I have said has acknowledged the legitimacy of stratigraphic methods. Yes, as I've acknowledged above, and I didn't catch that term the first time around. But again, it is the only clear reference to the theory of ancient "depositional environments" and again, it is used purely descriptively, to encapsulate the characteristics of that particular part of the underground terrain. (And, if it helps to know how I can accept such an idea while denying an OE, I assume that the Flood would have left MANY "shorelines" in its slow retreat.) They do use them, as discussed. Nobody has objected to stratigraphy or even palaeogeography, stratigraphy merely describing the practical work of mapping underground geological formations no matter what their theoretical origins, and palaeogeography addressing the objective fossil contents of the various strata, all objective facts, simple factual description, none of which is in dispute, merely the assumptions of old age the theories contain, and that doesn't have a practical use in these explorations (despite appearances since it is taken for granted). But this is true no matter how old the rocks are. Nobody disputes such a common sense formulation. I've quoted the Law of Superposition myself on this site. And I corrected that ridiculous misrepresentation of my point. My point was that instead of describing the phenomena in terms of time, it would be more useful to describe it in terms of space and physical characteristics, and since pre-cambrian rock is USUALLY way at the bottom of most formations there's nothing wrong with it as a casual reference to make the point, and the strata are considered to have characteristic locations in the column anyway, right, which is where the idea of time came from in the first place. So instead of describing it in terms of time, I'm saying it would be more useful simply to describe it in terms of its basic physical characteristics, its fossil contents if any, its relatedness to other strata and rock formations and its characteristic position in the geo column etc. Correction: It requires understanding the geological phenomena that are (tendentiously/question-beggingly) DESCRIBED as depositional environments. Sure, theoretically according to OE, but not in any sense demonstrably, at least in terms of extremely long ages and I haven't yet seen a practical use for this idea. Yes, all that is well known. It created the whole evo catastrophe. It is the theory under dispute. And in this case, I see no practical applications from it and you have as yet shown none. Which nobody has disputed, merely the theory of the creation of the depositional "environments" as ancient landscapes. Historically quite correct. It is contested. Not at all foreign to some flood hypotheses, and you have not shown that there is any practical usefulness in the dating methods. As with all the OE concepts they no doubt inform a background mental set that has fed the various practical methodologies, but the methodologies stand on their own despite their embeddedness in question-begging terminology, and the theory itself is of no real practical utility and may well be false. The methods used are not disputed by creos. Only the theory that they are unfortunately embedded in. There are many nutty flood theories, and the older ones that were overthrown by OE theory certainly deserved to be overthrown no matter what I think of OE theory. I don't subscribe to any of them. But the idea that such a world-wide catastrophe would be discoverable only in some difficult-to-find layer is ludicrous to my mind, but in this discussion I am not interested in anything having to do with flood theory. I am simply trying to conceptually separate out the useful practical methodologies that have sprung up within the OE theoretical framework from that framework itself. I'm not sure what particular concepts would be different in their thinking from OE thinking, but it's an interesting thought. It's also interesting of course that OE only has 1 in 50 hits at finding oil, which may or may not be the fault of the theory, since the geological mapping ought to be quite useful in any case, and certainly any actual association between actual oil finds and particular structures would be useful, regardless of the theory of how it all got that way. But if the poor record of finds is a flaw in the theory, that would be interesting to know. I guess we'll just wait and see. Not following. But the other author didn't claim to be working for an oil company, he said he didn't get the job and went on to work for ICR didn't he?. So you mean THAT guy who didn't work for an oil company challenged THIS guy who claims he did lo these many years of supposed investigations into flood theory? Does this serve your purpose here? Doesn't this suggest that the guy who is obviously in the process of debunking flood theories was lying? This same guy who goes on as you quote: But didn't you just show that this guy who is reporting these supposed interviews was lying about his years in the industry?I can well imagine how crises of faith come about. Sorting out all the facts is obviously not easy. Once again, as you sit there with that straw man reduced to shreds all over the place where you have to beat him straw by straw, NOBODY has said the OE paradigms aren't used or don't work!! They are useful for making maps. As long as they are describing actual objective physical realities there is no problem. As soon as they start taking themselves seriously as descriptions of ancient landscapes I protest. I guess you gathered those poor tattered straws back into a bundle for another go round. No, nobody has any problem with any science that is testable and replicable like chemistry, only with far-out imaginative scenarios like the ToE and the geo time scale, that are glued onto the data rather than organically related to them. Science goes on in SPITE of these theories, not because of them except in the most superficial instrumental way, whereas chemistry and atomic theory have a long history of tested established principles that have built upon one another and are used every single day in doing more chemistry and atomic theory. Poor poor straw man.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-10-2005 09:42 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 08-10-2005 09:44 PM

Sorry, duplicate postThis message has been edited by Faith, 08-10-2005 08:31 PM

Sure it's hopeless but might as well go out fighting.

Actually most of my argument has pretty much been involved with trying to extricate my argument from various straw man arguments. Tedious and time consuming but necessary. In the process I have to repeat the simple point I'm trying to make many times because it's not being heard. I do NOT AT ALL DENY "buried paleo landscapes." This is another straw man. I'm going to extreme lengths in the effort to get across that I acknowledge the *physical reality* of these "landscapes" (though the term is unfortunately tendentious) as the subject of the actual science that nobody disputes. These "landscapes" are the underground configurations that are described by the various methods that I've also been accused of denying but don't deny at all, such as stratigraphy etc.I'm denying only the entrenched IDEA THAT THEY REPRESENT ANCIENT SURFACE TOPOGRAPHY THAT LASTED MILLIONS OF YEARS. That they are "landscapes" *in a sense* is undisputed, though the term "landscape" is tendentious so I try to avoid it. That they were ever the surface topography of the planet for millions of years IS what is disputed, not that they actually exist as buried configurations that are describable in such terms. STRAW MAN!!! I do not AT ALL deny that such geological physical configurations EXIST, AS I HAVE SAID OVER AND OVER, I only deny that they ever were surface topography, and I regard the language used to describe them as problematic for that reason. I've tried over and over to emphasize my acceptance of the *physical realities* you describe, and even acknowledge that they can be described by the terminology in use. But that terminology is tendentious and question-begging. Even so I've acknowledged that such terminology no doubt has the utility of making certain formations visualizable. But that it is the theory that *explains/interprets* the supposed ORIGIN of these "landscapes" in terms of ancient surface landscapes lasting millions of years that is in dispute. It's a simple point, merely extremely difficult to convey. Yes my mind is made up on this simple point. But I'm not criticizing *geology* or actual *science* at all. I haven't objected to anything having to do with the actual geological methodology, I accept it all as valid. I don't feel the need to understand a whole lot about the geological particulars because I'm not ADDRESSING the geological particulars, I have no ARGUMENT with the geological particulars.Sorry you can't follow the argument. It's difficult only because of the way all the terms have been historically associated with each other. I don't have that handicap since I reject the theory. Not the actual science, the theory. It doesn't take genius, merely conceptual freedom from the encumbering theory itself.

Fine. I don't understand why you felt the need to mention them but fine, all accepted and never in dispute. Raises no questions at all. I've acknowledged that it formed under the OE paradigm. I'm not even questioning the UTILITY of the paradigm up to this point. But what I DO object to in the theory, the ancient ages, is not in fact of any practical geological use, as relative age within short time-periods of formation will do just as well for "explaining" the "landscapes" being studied. Which seems to me to call the paradigm into question, although I'm not complaining about it at the purely descriptive level, only about its begging the question of ancient age. The FORMATIONS do NOT "present challenges" to anything having to do with YE conceptions. The actual *objective* *physical* *formations* are NOT IN DISPUTE. Only the INTERPRETATION OF HOW THEY CAME ABOUT is in dispute. There is no rule of evenly distributed burial of "environments" is there? It is tendentious to call them buried "environments." Various formations get buried in places and not in others and I would assume I would be describing this or that buried PHYSICAL characteristic, particular sediments, characteristics of rocks etc. rather than "environments." And when it comes to digging deep into supposedly ancient "landscapes" I will no doubt also not use the concept of "environments" in the OE sense you do, I will use it as DESCRIPTIVE only, if I have to and I may not have to. But if I do I'd use it as descriptive of the buried physical configurations themselves while "jettisoning" the baggage that claims they were once ancient surface landscapes that lasted millions of years. That they may have been short-lived surface configurations is possible, or that they never saw the light of day but were formed in the midst of a great upheaval as layer piled on layer is also possible, but I'm not offering these theories, merely objecting to the current theory. They may be similar in a descriptive sense. The same geological factors are no doubt in play. There are underground rivers and rocks in formations that could be described as "hills" and "valleys" and so on. (But as a matter of fact I don't think oil explortation terminology involves such concepts. They tend to speak in terms of "overcrops" and "compartments" and "barriers" rather than "environments" and "landscapes.") Which I have acknowledged. This is the utility factor I have acknowledged over and over, merely trying to keep it separate from its conceptual birth in the theory I dispute, which is the idea of old age.When people say *you have to accept the whole baggage of OE in order to find oil* or that *without the OE you can't find oil* I balk. That's what this conversation is about. You do NOT have to accept the whole baggage of OE, which means accepting the whole theory of ancient landcapes that lasted millions of years, in order to find oil, AND you also don't have to jettison the PRACTICAL science that has been developed WITHIN the OE paradigm either. NOBODY is disputeing that useful methods and objective observations have been developed UNDER this theory and USING its terminology and concepts, and that at a purely DESCRIPTIVE level there is no problem with this at all. (The problems come in only with its question-begging tendentiusness with regard to the mother theory). Since I DON'T know geology I don't know how accurate you are being in making the analogy from the one surface example to the other deeper example, but assuming the analogy holds up in its particulars I don't have a problem with calling the deeper formation a "shoreline", only I would not be lugging the conceptual baggage of *ancient landscape* along with the description, would use it purely descriptively to indicate the physical characteristics involved. I have to suspect that there's a bit of imaginative fudging going on in this example. For one thing I really doubt that being sure it was once horizontal is going to give you significantly improved mapmaking accuracy as you claim, and for another thing I don't see that anything other than the actual physical characteristics of the formation are of value in your predictive ability, as opposed to the concept of "shoreline," to describe them. I mean, what's of importance is the depositions themselves and the condition they are found in for predicting what might be in their vicinity. "Shoreline" might be a handy shorthand for the whole configuration (and if "zoreline" labels *exactly* the same characteristics I would think it would have equal utility). But from what has been said here, this sort of prediction is far from an exact science despite the obvious need to muster whatever clues you have available. I have no problem with the name DESCRIPTIVELY, merely with the idea that it implies something that lasted millions of years in an ancient "landscape." No problem with thinking it was a short-lived shoreline in a short-lived "landscape." The physical characteristics fit both scenarios. Again I don't have a problem with the concepts PURELY DESCRIPTIVELY, only with the baggage of the idea of millions of years. Clearly there are strata and upended strata and so on, and they have identifiable demarcations or "surfaces" that can be described as "landscapes" in a *certain* sense.However, it does seem awfully odd to me as usual that there would have been discrete layers that could be described as "environments" given a theory of gradual buildup over millions of years per stratum. On that theory every inch or two should constitute a discrete separate "landscape," rather than the depths of strata we in fact see on whose surfaces are found these "landscape" features such as "fluvial environments" and so on. What magic makes a certain demarcation a landscape and all the increments that built up to it not landscapes? The REASON there ARE such features that can be described as "landscapes," or to put it another way, that you can even DESCRIBE such "landscapes" at all, is that that scenario of gradual buildup over millions of years COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. That is, what you actually have is RAPIDLY DEPOSITED sediments in layers to some depth, whose *surfaces* were then acted upon in ways that you describe as "landscapes" and which, after deposition, were also often subjected to tectonic pressures that rearranged them. What you have is one rapidly deposited layer on top of another rapidly deposited layer of some completely different sediment, with some kind of break in between of probably relatively brief duration. There is NO WAY the individual layers were gradually built up over time. If they were, then you'd have a "landscape" at every teeny weeny increment of buildup. That's because every inch or two represents at least hundreds of years, or even thousands depending on the millions assigned to the particular layer. But that's not how the geo column is described. It is only the SURFACE of an individual stratum that is described as a "landscape," with its erosion and its "fluvial environments" or its "desert environment" or whatever, even if that stratum is hundreds of feet deep. But I include ALL those factors in the necessary physical description, not just the "composition of the rock" but also the ways it formed and how it was tilted and so on and so forth. ALL the physical characteristics are included. Nobody is suggesting removing "depositional paradigms." They are obviously descriptive of the physical reality. NOBODY IS DISPUTING THESE THINGS, only the idea that they represent millions of years of previous ancient landscapes. (And what I say about that a couple of paragraphs above shows that the actual objective physical formations do not fit such a scenario anyway, but fit a rapid deposition scenario much better, with short periods of "landscape" formation on the surface of rapidly deposited sediments). You are wearying the same old straw man here. I believe I've answered this sufficiently above, and I'm getting too worn out to do it again in any case. Straw man. See above. I concede that radioactive dating is the main -- in fact only real -- stumbling block to YE ideas. Nevertheless there are experts who do contest it. There is no problem with relative ages, that's plain common sense, only with the absolute ages OE theory posits. I only wish you'd be amazed at the rest of the straw man arguments you impute to me. It took me hours to get through that post as it was. Sorry. OK. So the story was presented with the real facts as you quoted it. Too bad. Yeah I knew I set myself up for that, but if you had grasped what I was saying to this point you would not be pushing this same old straw man again. I ACCEPT THE SCIENCE aspects. I DISPUTE NONE OF THEM. I DISPUTE NO ACTUAL GEOLOGY. But while the science developed during the hegemony of the OE model and using its terminology and concepts, NEVERTHELESS I DISPUTE THAT MODEL as such. Answered above. No dispute with actual science. Getting very tired of this straw man though I am beginning to get why I keep running into the fellow. Getting very tired period. Have no more energy to write another word. A good thing I'm at the end of this one.

OK, so there are some age-related considerations. But nothing you've said suggests the necessity of millions of years of age, merely differences in relative age.

And you go on strawmanning that position as usual. It is a common idea and expressed frequently, if not by you then others. The whole point of this thread is to accuse fundies of ignoring the necessity of OE concepts in modern technologies, including petroleum technology (see OP). Which I have acknowledged. There is not a YE paradigm in existence, so you can hardly say it "would be counterproductive" as you have no idea what it would consist of, and I certainly have not proposed a YE paradigm. And for the umpteenth time, YEs have no objection to the practical methodologies derived from the OE paradigm. And I haven't mentioned the Bible. Speaking of straw man arguments. What you said at that point was unclear to me and I probably shouldn't have answered it at all. However, you ARE using the idea of a "depositional environment" in a descriptive sense here, which is not a problem as long as it doesn't bring in OE theory beyond that point, though I don't like the terminology because it invokes the OE theory. But I may very well have missed what you were saying and am still missing it. That I believe I grasped clearly enough. No, I assume you need to know the whole "landscape" to do that, (so your assumption that I'm asking for MERE description is another straw man), and that you need to include ALL the formations in the vicinity, not just one, and again, I accept the term "landscape" as description, which is how it is used in the practical work of mapmaking.But again, thinking of my orange colored paragraph, the notion that buried "landscapes" can be described at all works against the OE assumption of ancient gradual buildup over millions/billions of years. No problem if these are used as descriptions of buried terrain, as I've been saying all along. I object to using the terminology as evidence for the enormous ages OE theory implies, but not as description. "Depositional environments" is loaded with OE implications of previous existence as an ancient landscape, but if it's used descriptively of what in fact now exists and that is clearly understood, no problem. No, you are strawmanning as usual. You are missing the point that I am objecting to the tendentiousness of the terminology to imply millions of years of surface existence as a "landscape" but not objecting to the terminology, even "landscape," if it is used merely descriptively of the buried formations you are mapping. Which has been my theme song from the beginning of this bizarre argument. Sorry this HAS to be so tediously repetitive but it obviously does, as you are not getting what I'm saying. I don't HAVE a different paradigm, I have been ACCEPTING all the descriptive concepts and methodologies derived from the OE paradigm and I cannot understand how you can be so obtuse as to keep missing this point. Descriptively you HAVE "landscapes" you are mapping. Nobody is arguing with that, ONLY WITH THE MILLIONS-OF-YEARS INTERPRETATIONS OF THEIR FORMATION. Good grief, why is this so complicated? That's an understatement. YOU DON'T STOP IDENTIFYING "DEPOSITIONAL ENVIRONMENTS" UNLESS THEY STOP EXISTING. THIS IS A TERMINOLOGICAL DISPUTE AT THIS POINT. I simply object to the tendentiousness of the TERM "depositional environments" to imply that these so-called "environments" were ever surface topography that endured millions of years which is what OE theory says. PURELY AS DESCRIPTION OF THE PHYSICAL REALITY THAT ACTUALLY EXISTS I HAVE NO OBJECTION. YE wouldn't come up with anything different. It would most likely merely regard the "depositional environments" as very short-lived surface terrain that was rapidly covered by another stratum of different sedimentary content, and use terminology that didn't imply ancient "environments" etc. but the actual physical characteristics being described would be IDENTICAL. THIS IS A STRAW MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I HAVE SAID OVER AND OVER AND OVER THAT THE DESCRIPTIVE CONCEPTS AND METHODOLOGIES IN USE NOW WOULD NOT CHANGE FROM AN OE TO A YE CONTEXT. HOWEVER YOU DO IT NOW IS HOW A YE WOULD DO IT.Where the differences between OE and YE theory come into this is something to be considered well past this sticking point here. It would probably have to do with different ideas about how oil was originally formed and therefore possibly more accurate ideas about where to locate it in these "landscapes." That is, since OE methods don't have a terrific record of prediction PERHAPS YE ideas would do better. But I do not know and it isn't relevant to this discussion.IT WOULD NOT CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT THE ACTUAL PHENOMENA CALLED "LANDSCAPES" OR THEIR CONCEPTUALIZATION *AS* "LANDSCAPES" IN A DESCRIPTIVE SENSE.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-11-2005 03:17 PM

--never mind, post cancelled--This message has been edited by Faith, 08-11-2005 01:41 PM

I used "configuration" to get across the fact that I reject the OE context of millions of years of "landscape" formation while accepting the term "landscape" as description. I was not proposing the substitution of the term. It was an attempt to keep the point I was trying to make from being buried in the assumptions of the opposition.And I've read quite a few online discussions of the formation of rocks and strata and could sling some terminology myself, not as an expert which I've never pretended to be, but to show that I haven't ignored the knowledge I'm accused of ignoring. But it's not relevant to what I'm trying to say so I don't try to invent ways of fitting it in.Besides being 1) a personal attack, which I have avoided myself on this thread as I have been suspended in the past for same, and for which you should be suspended, your post is a repeat of the same 2) straw man attributions to me, and is also nothing but an 3) assertion, a testimonial to your beliefs, which is also a violation of forum guidelines, but I'm sure Admin understands your massive temper tantrum as justified and will just pat you on the head because you're a Scientist.

Thank you. I will refrain from such suppositions in future. Much appreciate attention to the problem.

I think I'll just boil this down to one question:How good IS the predictive ability based on OE models for mapmaking, OR in other words, how good are those maps?{Edit: Unfortunately I realize I need to be more specific. I really would like to know to what extent you really are claiming that these maps are based on predictions drawn from the OE theory of ancient environments, as opposed to the merely objective physical characteristics of the geo column. No matter how you describe this I don't see the actual ancient age entering into the practical mapmaking, as it seems to be translated into an understanding of the objectively known physical characteristics and their objectively known frequent association with other formations, all practical matters. That is, I can see that if certain strata are known to occur frequently in certain predictable patterns, that that would be useful in predictions in mapmaking. But if these ancient scenarios really do enter into it as you seem to be claiming then I'd really like to know just how successful these scenarios are at predicting the as-yet-unmapped underground terrain. I hope you understand my question well enough to give a truly clear answer.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-12-2005 08:17 AM