Should intellectually honest fundamentalists live like the Amish?

It has already been shown to you that relative age issues alone, that is by spotting a formation and identifying it as older than another sequence, has resulted in the OE paradigm.Certain structures need time to build, and when you have specific crossing or layering of beds you can end up vastly increasing the necessary age of the earth. Its all fine and dandy if the earth was all solid horizontal stripes and so each layer could form at about the same time, but once you start looking at actual geological structures that prove they could not have formed at nearly the same time, you get OE.Its just like the same principle of that guy who added up ages of people that were in the Bible based on references to their ages. They have relationships which necessitate an addition. Same goes for geological strata.And this is not to mention flood issues, where relative ages indicate the flood could not have been responsible for all sedimentary structures.

---

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

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

This message has been edited by Phatboy, 08-11-2005 11:37 AM

Your arguments are baseless, illogical, and don't make a lick of sense.YOU are the one with the problem. Not the people who have spent a considerable amount of time and energy trying to conquer that gutless idiocy you presume to call reason. Of course you deny the existence of paleolandscapes, Faith, you acknowledge 'configurations,' NOT LANDSCAPES. Big difference.You mean 'interesting random patterns in the subsurface.' I mean 'landscapes,' as in the ancient surface of the Earth... as in deserts, oceans, braided stream environments.We're talking GEOLOGY here, Faith, not Faith-ology. Your wacky definitions or deliberate mis-translations have NO place in this discussion. This is why you are so damn annoying. I have a very fixed definition of what a landscape is and what I am discussing, and it does not include the term 'configuration.'Stop de-railing the discussion before it even gets started. You can "acknowledge the physical reality of these landscapes" all you want, but it's entirely obvious you haven't a clue what defines them or what they represent.To you, these configurations are nothing but rocks, in their most generic sense. For all I know, your understanding of rocks might be limited to categorizing them as skipping rocks, bludgeoning rocks, and rocks too big to pick up.To call the Navajo Sandstone or a volcanogenic massive sulfide deposit a 'configuration' is simply idiotic and laughable. Every formation is characterized by very specific rocks, textures, mineral compositions, internal structures, fossils, alterations, and morphologies; which in turn are the result of various depositional environments, all subjected to various amounts and degrees of diagenesis and/or metamorphism and deformation.These configurations are not interesting, random assortments of rocks and minerals. Instead, they exhibit cross-bedding, grading, sorting, fossils, vegetation, lenses, changes in composition, etc., which are all repeated elsewhere in hundreds of other rocks and formations. These characteristics indicate that depositional PROCESSES are responsible for their existence.What are your suggestions for modes of deposition/formation in your random-assortment-of-rocks model? What process is responsible for creating cross-beds, channels, or grading in the subsurface? Can't answer that? Refuse to?Well guess what? There are mountains of literature available to anyone who cares to understand WHY geologists think the Alamo breccia and the Sudbury Basin are ancient impacts, or why tillites are interpreted to be glacial. YOU, on the other hand, have offered nothing other than ill-conceived child-like incredulity to support your position. You are not only denying that paleolanscapes represent millions of years of deposition, but also that they exist at all.Even if we determined tomorrow that each one of the thousands of formations in the geologic record took no more than a hundred years to be deposited, you still would not, COULD not, acknowledge paleolandscapes exist. If you did, you're disingenuity would reveal itself.Deep age is a fact based on the presence of hundreds upon hundreds of buried landscapes in the geologic record, as well as the recognition that what we see, ain't all that was there.Fact is, the geologic record is more gaps than rock. The geologic record is a woefully INCOMPLETE record of ancient landscapes. It's akin to taking ten steps forward (i.e., deposition) and 9 steps back (erosion).THAT is why we are pretty damn confident in our determination that the earth is billions of years old. It has nothing with how long ONE measly little braided stream environment took to form and deposit its sediment. It has to do with the QUANTITY of braided stream environments in the rock record and the fact that they are interspersed and stacked one atop the other with hundreds of other marine- and continent-deposited rocks.Deep age was/is a logical and valid conclusion. If you don't agree, then give reasons why we are wrong. Reasons that don't include "could've." No, not difficult to convey. Your points are just so damn stupid we have a hard time coming to grips with how any sane and intelligent person can adhere to such idiotic positions. NO ONE can follow your insane ramblings because they're moronic and you don't know what the hell you're talking about. It's not because your brain is so much more advanced than everyone else's.Your incessant whining about the lack of generic terminology available to you is hilarious. We use the term paleolandscape because that's what we mean - and we can show you why we've determined that. When we're on the side of a mountain and say, "look at that reef complex," that's what we mean - it's a freaking REEF with fossils of corals, sponges, brachiopods, etc.The science, methodology, and success of geology is borne out of the our recognition of deep age. You cannot accept modern geologic science and its methods and then turn around and discard what those methods reveal about our geologic history. Or at least no sane and reasonable person could.Edited for clarity. And then again for grammer, spelling, punctuation.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 08-11-2005 02:17 PMThis message has been edited by roxrkool, 08-12-2005 05:19 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.

Faith, as I was reading thru Rox's post, I thought to myself, she is losing it and probably needs a cooling off period. Then I get to your post and your assumption that admins will do nothing because Rox is an evo.I'm going to be totally honest here and tell you that when people make assumptions about my(collective) behavior and motives it makes me want to sit back and say "Ok, if that is what you think then that is what you will get." It makes me feel that if I do suspend Rox now it will seem like I am kowtowing to some implied pressure.I do my damnedest to be fair around here and I don't appreciate people making assumptions about motive or bias just because they don't agree with any of the decisions made.My suggestion is to talk to Percy about becoming a moderator yourself...put up or shut up. We have a wide range of beliefs among the mods here and to tell you the truth, I can probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of actual admin posts made by most creationist moderators here.Yes, I am going to suspend Rox for 24 hours, but I wanted you to know that you aren't helping anything around here with snide assumptions and remarks.

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

24 hour time out for ad hominem remarks.Take any further discussion of this decision to the appropriate thread in my signature box.

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

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

They are not ad hominem. They are direct insults to the individual not an attack on the conclusions of the individual based on who they are. It does deserve a time out of course. It is also an excellent post which summarizes Faith's problem with geology. Then, wonderfully, Faith comes in and claims to know something about geology while admitting to not being a geolgist and does this while arguing with a trained geologist. This is exactly what the "creationists learning" thread is about. There are only two ways to react to this: one is with amusement but I'm glad that this time Rox was not able to take that route.

If I replied to your posts, injecting comments to others as if they are your own, but they are in fact completely not what you said, you would find it insulting. I too, find it insulting.When used against me, it is a strawman, unlike what you keep claiming is a strawman and is not. Since there is not, that is exactly why I said "would" instead of "is". And unfortunately for you a YE paradigm would by NECESSITY include certain features and exclude certain features. The same is true for a worlwide flood. That is unless you are going to start bringing in miracles.Certain things found in the earth would not be predictable by a YE paradigm by the necessities of formation required by a YE paradigm. Ahem, that's the whole point which appears to escape you. If everyone knew the whole landscape they would not need stratigraphers. What you get are bits and pieces (like that well log) and must create a map from those sketchy outlines. You make PREDICTIONS. That is how those maps get made.You cannot predict from a description. You make a prediction based on an assumed depositional environment, so you can guess how it will look outside of the little spot you know about. I am not missing the point. I am not strawmanning. I get that you are fine with the term "shoreline" as long as it is used to "describe" an area and make a prediction, as long as one does not actual move further to believe that it was actually a shoreline and that it was that actual depositional environment which caused what you see as a formation at depth. Thus anyone can call it a shoreline when in fact it could just as easily be called something else, like a zoreline, with all attributes exactly the same including predictive capability, except that it was actually a shoreline long ago at the surface. Or maybe it could have been a shoreline, but not long ago and its apparent age due to depth is because of some feature of burial unique to the flood.And I am telling you that that is pure semantics. If will give you the analogy again...It is as if I found a family of birds in the churchyard, and I say that it is a family of ducks. And you agree that they do look like ducks found outside the churchyard, and act like ducks outside the churchyard, and agree that I can go ahead and keep calling them "ducks" and make accurate predictions by assuming they are "ducks", your only objection being that I actually believe they are ducks as found outside the churchyard.And why I ask? Because the vicar says there are no ducks in the churchyard, thus they must not be.Open your eyes. If something looks like what is found at the surface and you can identify it as such there, and the best predictive model for mapping is to assume it was such a feature meaning it will exhibit layering properties the same, then there is no reason to assume it is not. Given its orientation and other relations with OTHER features, and I mean in relative ways, the years start to add up. It goes past 10K.Whether it is in as many millions as radioactive dating suggests I will leave open purely for arguments sake, but it is willful ignorance and semantics to say we simply shouldn't make the attribution which is obvious due to its utility and consider it actually something else yet use the same name. I will first note that I did not use the term landscapes. I believe I have universally used the term depositional environment. But more importantly the reason it is so complicated is that it makes no sense.You are saying these things, completely from the safety of some theoretical perspective which would fall apart if you actually started trying to connect the dots yourself in practice. You believe some non OE model can be created, but simply wasn't. That is not true. People went and studied the rocks and strata and discovered that BY NECESSITY... unless miracles of creation are invoked... there is a great age and the reason structures are given environmental names is for very practical reasons, not just to stick it to YECers. No it is not "terminological" it is "semantics". I think the point I have been trying to make to you is that depositional environments don't stop existing. Unless seas dry up, or terrain is accreted, shorelines continue. What do you mean by "stop existing"?Try again. You keep digging down ward at a seashore you know has been moving in and out based on maps for a long period of time. You see the pattern and keep diggning down until stone develops but in the exact same pattern. When do we stop "knowing" that that identifiable pattern is the exact same thing we found at the surface? But in mapmaking they are not just descriptive, they are predictive. That was the entire point of my second question to you. If stratigraphers simply looked at what kind of layer was there and then said "that looks like a shoreline so we'll call it that" then that would be one thing. However what they do is identify a shoreline (or other features) and so predict how it would act beyond the area they can describe as they have no current data of that area.A YE concept will have to BY NECESSITY exclude certain predictive assumptions, as it jettison's formational assumptions, because it is jettisoning the possibility of something older than 10K.You can't just assert that a YE paradigm could be built that has the same exact description, and same predictive ability, yet have a totally different formational explanation... how could it? Apply logic here. What are you talking about? You saw an article from a proven liar, which suggests 1 in 50 is bad, and you accept his assumption that YEC would be better, when as you yourself state there is no such thing as a YEC model?The question to ask yourself is what was the ratio of holes drilled to getting oil, before OE geology was put into effect. The fact that oil companies which previously did not use geologists have ended up using them sort of speaks the the advantage played by OE geological paradigms.Formation of oil may turn out to be something different. There are theories of abiogenic sources, and I have seen one paper suggesting younger deposits are possible using a "catastrophic" model of oil generation (due to meteor impacts).But predicting what the terrain is, and how a strata is likely to look at depth and over an area, remains the same. Map making, prediction of strata formation, is independent of theories on oil formation.Relative age alone, disproves YE and flood concepts. This was shown by men who had no reason to believe YE or the flood were wrong, and no clue that an alternative version of how man came to be would be based on their findings. They were very practical people, doing very practical things.Great age is a PRACTICAL issue, and not some theoretical issue separate from and needless to making maps.

---

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

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

Which seems to me to a tactic to shift over to a parallel strawman discussion. Unless they say 100% effective you are going to poo-poo them.so let's get right into it - how effective do YOU feel they should be?Give us a percentage.

No I don't expect perfection, and I'm not sure holmes is going to be able to differentiate between prediction from known physical characteristics versus prediction from ancient scenarios anyway {edit: because of my inability to describe what I mean more accurately}, but I would think that if there's really anything to the ancient scenarios, prediction ought to be pretty good. How good is pretty good? Don't know without further discussion.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-12-2005 08:38 AM

I have absolutely no way of knowing how and where to begin such a quantification. All I can say is that it is good enough that geologists are hired by anyone needing information about subterranean features, and these geologists are trained (as I was) to analyze logs and contruct maps using that methodology.Your own source said that mapmaking remains a third tool and specifically mentioned identification of underground features as an important part of that process.And of course that is just oil. One does this with other valuable minerals and perhaps more important than that... fresh water. But let us not move onto any other subjects. Forget "ancient" and deal with predictability of what a strata is going to do so you can make a map... then you can answer the question yourself. Without a concept of how it formed there is no predictability. Once it is identified as a particular formation we know by position and orientation that it is ancient.

---

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