Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should intellectually honest fundamentalists live like the Amish?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 166 of 303 (232725)
08-12-2005 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Silent H
08-12-2005 4:01 PM


quote:
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.
quote:
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.

You've said this before and haven't shown that it is so. Please give more evidence or argument to demonstrate the truth of this assertion. Please discuss with reference to a particular stratum that "how it formed" is necessary to predictability.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Silent H, posted 08-12-2005 4:01 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by deerbreh, posted 08-12-2005 5:26 PM Faith has replied
 Message 168 by Silent H, posted 08-12-2005 5:31 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 167 of 303 (232749)
08-12-2005 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Faith
08-12-2005 4:20 PM


I will probably regret this but let me give this a try. The science of geology is about explaining the minerals, rocks, formations, etc. that make up the earth's crust. To be able to explain and understand geological formations a sense of geologic time is absolutely necessary. If one does not accept geologic time, which young earth creationists don't, it is absolutely impossible for them to have a good understanding of geological formations - some of which contain oil. Now, granted, a person could kind of "suspend their disbelief" of geologic time and use the models and understanding based on geologic time to successfully prospect for oil. But to say that supports your position is kind of like saying one could be a successful physician without actually believing the germ theory of disease - and believing that disease is caused by sin and/or demons. Sure it is technically possible - but at some point the physician is subconsciously going to say to himself/herself -"well, I don't believe in germs anyway, so when no one is looking I will just not bother to take the time to thoroughly scrub my hands between patients." Theory and practice go hand in hand. In the same way there will come a time when the YEC oil prospector is going to subconsciously think "The model says there is a slim possibliity of finding oil here but flood geology suggests that it is here so I think we should drill here." When working with scientific models there is always a degree of uncertainty - scientific models use probablility to deal with the uncertainty and quantify it. So there will be times when certain predictions are a "close call". It is those times when it is absolutely imperative that the scientist not be influenced by some sort of bias, religious or otherwise.
On edit: The history of the world is full of examples when some kind of bias influenced what should have been a decision based on scientific understanding - and tragedy resulted. The Titanic sinking (ship owner's hubris) and the Challenger disaster (desire to stay on schedule) are two examples which come to mind. And of course there are many examples of tragedy resulting from Christian Scientists not fully accepting the germ theory of disease.
This message has been edited by deerbreh, 08-12-2005 05:36 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Faith, posted 08-12-2005 4:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Faith, posted 08-12-2005 5:40 PM deerbreh has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 168 of 303 (232755)
08-12-2005 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Faith
08-12-2005 4:20 PM


You've said this before and haven't shown that it is so. Please give more evidence or argument to demonstrate the truth of this assertion. Please discuss with reference to a particular stratum that "how it formed" is necessary to predictability.
Yes I have. This will be the last time I explain it.
But first I want to correct you on something, you say here that I have made an "assertion". I am trained in geology, other people with training in geology have told you the same thing. Others have also told you the same thing (though I am unsure what their background is).
Your own source actually suggested exactly what we have been saying but you are so painfully ignorant of this topic you do not understand what it all means. And what's worse is we tried to explain what it means and you pretend as if we are making things up while your "interpretation" of that handbook is correct.
You are the one asserting a possibility to people who are trained in that field and telling you and explaining to you why you are wrong. So remember that. You don't know geology and have no experience with it. We do. Perhaps we are saying something you should read and try to understand before replying to defend your assertion...
Here we go:
Any deposition of material (sediment, lava, ash, etc) at the surface gets buried by more material. Certain environments continually deliver (deposit) material of a generally specific nature. The nature of that environment will determine by simple laws of mechanics, how that material will be deposited. As the environment changes one will see changes in the material deposited and how it looks as a deposit.
Here are theoretical examples for simplicity.
At a shoreline sand will build up, and as it moves out you will get a layer of sand moving out. Following behind it is the beach front which is soil. Thus layer of soil over layer of sand as it moves out. Then as the shore moves back in you get the opposite. Thus if one sees this banded structure and identifies it as a shoreline, one can predict it will remain in that it is naturally horizontal and deviation from that indicates something has happened to it. Yet one does know that it should be a straight banded structure.
At a fault line (lets say in some catastrophic event like the flood) a large, flat but non horizontal crack opens and all sorts of sand and soil pour in and maybe by chance it can create a banded feature just like what one sees at a shoreline.
So we have a well log which finds a band of sand clay sand stone which is not horizontal. Another well log further away shows the same structure but at a different depth.
If it is a shoreline, then the geologist can predict that the banded structure moves in a specific way between those two points, and more well digging will prove that true.
If it is a zoreline (the faux shoreline created by the fault environment) then the geologist has no way of knowing how that striated structure behaves between those two points. Only a consistent depositional environment can allow one to predict that it will not suddenly jut out somewhere else, or in some other shape, or contain vastly different material somewhere in the middle (huge igneous boulders could have surged into a fault).
Thus when looking at the two logs it is imperative that the geologist work with a paradigm of how the material was laid down, to predict what it does between the two points. Without the paradigm anything could happen and predictions no better than rolling dice.
You can see from this example that a zoreline would nullify predictability completely between two points.
And again this is not to mention nonconformities. Those are important, but according to your "system" they could never be identified. They'd have to each have a novel explanation of why beds formed that way in situ, rather than assuming they were a regular depositional environment that has had something occur to it. I mention this, but perhaps it is too much to discuss at this point in time.
Read the above carefully and try to figure out how you connect two well logs to create a map, without assuming some way that that the material was deposited. If you need an example imagine that something that could be a shoreline and so known how it would move, or a zoreline where it could go anywhere, between the same two points.
How do you predict without an idea of what placed the material?

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 166 by Faith, posted 08-12-2005 4:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Faith, posted 08-12-2005 5:42 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 172 by Faith, posted 08-12-2005 9:06 PM Silent H has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 169 of 303 (232759)
08-12-2005 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by deerbreh
08-12-2005 5:26 PM


I will probably regret this but let me give this a try. The science of geology is about explaining the minerals, rocks, formations, etc. that make up the earth's crust. To be able to explain and understand geological formations a sense of geologic time is absolutely necessary. If one does not accept geologic time, which young earth creationists don't, it is absolutely impossible for them to have a good understanding of geological formations - some of which contain oil. Now, granted, a person could kind of "suspend their disbelief" of geologic time and use the models and understanding based on geologic time to successfully prospect for oil.
That is a fine testimonial or assertion, deerbreh, but I'm afraid that's all it is and it has been declared many times on this thread. I am asking for EVIDENCE that the ancient age concept is actually used, either in the mapping of buried terrains or in the finding of oil, as opposed to "the models and understanding based on geologic time" (such as descriptive "depositional environments" or "landscapes") which it seems to me are what are actually used, while the idea of ancient ages is just background assumption. In other words, the models derived from the OE assumption so far show no *actual* dependence on that basic assumption, only that it is taken for granted and the terminology derives from it.
I'm asking that this *actual* dependance and *application* or *usefulness* be shown, not for just another testimonial that it is useful and necessary -- but evidence that it is so. Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by deerbreh, posted 08-12-2005 5:26 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by deerbreh, posted 08-12-2005 8:55 PM Faith has replied
 Message 174 by paisano, posted 08-12-2005 11:33 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 170 of 303 (232760)
08-12-2005 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Silent H
08-12-2005 5:31 PM


I don't believe this. Just more of the same, and most of it focused not on answering the question but on the "zoreline" straw man. Fine, I will take a LONG break and think about it VERY HARD before answering.
{edited to remove insulting word)
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-12-2005 05:48 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Silent H, posted 08-12-2005 5:31 PM Silent H has not replied

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


Message 171 of 303 (232813)
08-12-2005 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Faith
08-12-2005 5:40 PM


What you are really asking for is a geology course.That is kind of beyond the scope of a discussion board. If you really want answers to your questions I suggest you sign up for a basic undergraduate geology course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Faith, posted 08-12-2005 5:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Faith, posted 08-12-2005 9:12 PM deerbreh has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 172 of 303 (232816)
08-12-2005 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Silent H
08-12-2005 5:31 PM


All I can say about your example is, once again, that I don't dispute the idea of a "shoreline" (or any other "depositional environment") as a predictor of the buried terrain, as obviously it helps to have an overall idea of the formation of a given stratum if you want to make a map of it without being able to actually see it or measure it. Clearly, this amounts to no more than what I mean by a "descriptive" concept as you present it in your example. I have not disputed ANYTHING about the usefulness of having an idea about "the way it was deposited" or the idea of a "depositional environment" or even a "landscape" AND the idea that I deny this IS THE SAME OLD STRAW MAN YOU KEEP IMPUTING TO ME. OBVIOUSLY the strata have identifying characteristics that can be described as an "environment" in the sense of having a certain consistency of characteristics throughout their extent, whether they were long-lived ancient "landscapes" or merely short-lived rapidly-deposited layers. All that is included in the DESCRIPTION I'm talking about.
What I've asked you to show is that any of this is absolutely dependent on an old earth and if the ancient age theory is in any way actually USED in the mapmaking predictions, and I think the answer is only too clear finally: NO, it is NOT. You are showing over and over that what is actually used in this process is the concept of the depositional environments or a working idea of what a particular stratum is composed of etc., and that is not in dispute. I know you THINK you are saying something more than that but I think this is only because of your own strongly-held OE assumptions: You of course assume the OE theory of the origin and duration of those depositional environments, but, again, that theory of its origin is not *actually used* in the calculations though it's no doubt in the back of your head and taken for granted during the process. But these depositional environments/strata/landscapes may in fact have a different origin and yet be describable and usable exactly as given.
To repeat, in everything you have described, NOTHING WHATEVER IS NECESSARILY IMPLIED ABOUT THE AGE of these depositional environments/strata/formations/landscapes (except of course that one is older than whatever is above it unless there is evidence of a reversal of the commonly found order, and that's not even relevant as you present the problem). This complete absence of any reference to actual age, as I keep saying, appears to be the case with all the examples given and discussed so far, and my request to you was to give evidence that the idea of GREAT AGE is of ACTUAL USE in the mapmaking process.
Again, you have not done this, you have continued to show only the use of descriptive depositional environments and that is not in dispute, though you keep wrongly insisting it is.
Again, I conclude that the concept of great age is NOT USEFUL either in mapmaking or in oil finding. Relative age, sure -- the Law of Superposition rules -- but not millions of years or the theory of the OE itself.
And really, holmes, what nonsense for you to keep inventing some supposed "flood" scenario when I haven't said one word about how I think a flood might have occurred (except that some observed phenomena could be explained by it). You actually refer to something you call *my* "system" which doesn't exist. I don't have a system and haven't offered a system, and this is only your own invention, and that's the worst case of a straw man I think I've ever seen committed.
So that post was no answer at all. I ask again: Show me that there is ANY ACTUAL PRACTICAL USE for the idea of millions of years of age in the process of mapping buried terrains. I request that you answer my question instead of posing this problem to me again. I also asked for an indication just how good the maps turn out based on this shoreline model or any other OE depositional environment model -- actually, you've worn out the shoreline idea. It would be nice, just out of curiosity, to see that any other "depositional environment" has such clearcut features from which to predict. Just out of curiosity.
Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Silent H, posted 08-12-2005 5:31 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Silent H, posted 08-13-2005 5:32 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 173 of 303 (232817)
08-12-2005 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by deerbreh
08-12-2005 8:55 PM


No, I'm asking for evidence instead of testimonials, pure and simple.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by deerbreh, posted 08-12-2005 8:55 PM deerbreh has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Arkansas Banana Boy, posted 08-13-2005 3:55 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 174 of 303 (232841)
08-12-2005 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Faith
08-12-2005 5:40 PM


I'm asking that this *actual* dependance and *application* or *usefulness* be shown, not for just another testimonial that it is useful and necessary -- but evidence that it is so.
For my part, I already discussed timing and migration, in which chemistry and physics, specifically techniques like isotope ratio mass spectrometry - which is directly dependent on radiometric ages -are used to evaluate petroleum reservoirs.
You can do a Google search on terms like "petroleum basin modeling" and find plenty of references to this.
This is just one of the hits, a list of paper abstracts from just one conference:
http://gsa.confex.com/...03AM/finalprogram/session_10006.htm
Just about every abstract on this page alone has reference to geologic time scales, and the inferences about it that can be drawn from hard data.
A great deal is also known about how petroleum forms, and what temperatures, pressures, and time scales are needed for different source rocks. Again, this is chemistry and physics, and OE ages are explicitly required.
Again , you can find references.
The analogy made before, that what you're doing is like asserting the periodic table can be understood without reference to atomic theory, is apt.
And your rebuttal was completely weak. Isotope ratio mass spectrometry IS chemistry and physics. Temperature and pressure modeling of petroleum formation in basins is physics as well. Geology is as rigorous an experimental and observationally based physical science as chemistry or physics is.
As Randman pointed out, there are Evangelicals who accept an OE. I can't speculate as to why you feel this is not an option for you. But I don't envy you holding a position so inflexible that in effect, you have to perpetrate intellecual dishonesty against yourself to maintain it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Faith, posted 08-12-2005 5:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Faith, posted 08-13-2005 1:23 AM paisano has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 175 of 303 (232861)
08-13-2005 12:37 AM


This is to answer a certain post without addressing its author
I do NOT AT ALL DENY "buried paleo landscapes." This is another straw man.
Of course you deny the existence of paleolandscapes, Faith, you acknowledge 'configurations,' NOT LANDSCAPES. Big difference.
I am willing to call them landscapes, as I've said, but only if it is understood that when I use the term I am hypothesizing something a lot more recent and short-lived than the term means to someone who believes the OE theory, and the only reason I use the term "configurations" is as a generic to avoid the OE assumption of ancient age, to acknowledge that I recognize a landscape pattern but without the usual theoretical baggage. The term is inadequate of course and if it's all that objectionable I'll just not use it.
You mean 'interesting random patterns in the subsurface.'
No, I mean by it exactly what geologists mean by it, merely trying to avoid the ancient-earth connotations.
I mean 'landscapes,' as in the ancient surface of the Earth... as in deserts, oceans, braided stream environments.
Yes, you do, and as description of existing buried landscapes I have no problem with it, only with the idea that they were ever all that ancient or even were the surface of the earth for any great length of time. A desert "environment" can very well describe a certain stratum, without implying a multi-million-year period, ditto "ocean" ditto "braided stream environment" -- none of which had to endure any great length of time to exhibit those features that are characterized by those names.
We're talking GEOLOGY here, Faith, not Faith-ology.
Yes, well I'm truly sorry it appears that I'm challenging geology as I don't consider myself to be doing that at all. Obviously there's a lot of emotional investment in this OE theory that I dispute, apart from all the practical models derived from it that I accept and do not dispute. Truly makes it impossible for a discussion to occur between creationist views and evolutionist views when the evolutionists have such an emotional reaction, and when it's rewarded by the community as well. But in this case it really is just about impossible even to get across what I continue to believe is a simple point I'm making.
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.
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.
That is correct, I have only a general idea, but I do have at least that general idea, having to do with the characteristics of the strata which have led to ideas about how they were laid down, whether in water, or rising and receding water or desert dryness and other conditions. While it would no doubt at least command some respect if I could use the concepts precisely, I know that they are not necessary to the point I'm trying to make, and I'm stubborn enough to insist on taking the disrespect since I know they are not necessary. Which isn't to say I refuse to learn about these things but as a matter of fact my efforts to track down particular geological information have been timeconsuming and not often very successful, though I've picked up some general terms and concepts in the process.
To you, these configurations are nothing but rocks, in their most generic sense.
Not exactly. I can picture that you are picturing an actual landscape with landscape features like streams and deserts and valleys and dunes and seashore and the like. I get the picture and I've acknowledged its usefulness.
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.
Exactly. I have the picture. I have no dispute with the picture. I understand its usefulness. I grasp its derivation from the characteristics of the various strata.
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.
Believe me, that has been clear from the beginning, from at least the Great Debate if not before. I get the picture. I was already ridiculing the idea of "landscapes" before the Great Debate as I recall, meaning the idea of the millions of years of their supposed duration. As description of what is actually observed in the strata there is no problem, only the interpretation of how they got that way and how long it took.
These characteristics indicate that depositional PROCESSES are responsible for their existence.
Certainly. Not disputed. All this is the actual science. The theory is not.
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?
Straw man. I do not HAVE a random-assortment-of-rocks model. I can visualize the topography of a stratum as it exists just fine. And the processes are not the topic of the discussion, the idea of how it all originated is the topic of the discussion and my claim is that it is superfluous to the actual science that is done. It may have been the catalyst to it, but in fact it appears not to inform any of the actual scientific work. And please don't scream. That supposition of mine is apparently borne out not only in the websites that discuss oil exploration methods, but in holmes' discussion of mapping buried terrains and in this discussion too, which is focusing only on the practical descriptive particulars of the landscapes, and in which their origin is obviously irrelevant to the scientific work concerning them.
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.
I'm sure there are mountains of literature, which is too much to ask me to read. But if all a person wants to do is ridicule someone who believes they have reason to think it wasn't so ancient and doesn't have the time or motivation to read mountains of arguments, then kindly tell us not to come to this site and that discussion will only occur with people who have read those mountains or accept the ancient age reasoning.
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.
You are not only denying that paleolanscapes represent millions of years of deposition, but also that they exist at all.
Not at all. I've acknowledged this over and over and am now allowing myself to use the terminology too because trying to avoid it has apparently been such a problem, though using it risks other confusions. I reject only the "paleo" part that implies those millions of years. That's all. I can see with my own eyes that they exist. I can see why they are regarded as landscapes purely descriptively. But I see no reason to believe they are millions of years old or lasted millions of years as surface topography.
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.
I guess everyone likes imputing this view to me that isn't mine, as holmes does though I've worked very hard showing that it isn't so.
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.
Excuse me if while acknowledging their reality I don't find those hundreds of buried landscapes to prove "deep age."
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.
Obviously other interpretations of these phenomena simply do not occur, except to me, and I'm not going to enter into that argument at this point, but that IS the point -- all the phenomena, the landscapes etc that are being described here are not in dispute. They are obviously real. Only the interpretations/explanations of their formation are in dispute. While I can appreciate the braided-stream evidence, for instance, I suspect it wasn't the braided stream that built the stratum.
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."
That is not what this argument is about. Deep age IS one logical conclusion. If a temper tantrum weren't the response to the suggestion that maybe it isn't the best conclusion, perhaps discussion could proceed. I might not be the one to argue all the particulars, but I do know they involve alternative interpretations of all the very same phenomena explained here in terms of ancient age. If this didn't lead to all the insults and screaming and endless repetitious attempts to get across the simple point that isn't being heard, I can guess about some alternative interpretations, but I really think that's something creationist geologists should be doing.
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.
I'm sure you can, and I usually want to avoid the terminology because of the interpretive baggage it carries but if it's the only terminology going then I use it with qualifications.
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.
I'm sure it is. Why the screaming as if I'd disputed it?
The science, methodology, and success of geology is borne out of the our recognition of deep age.
Um, only instrumentally I believe. I haven't yet seen an actual use for the idea in any of the actual scientific observations or methods that have come up here, either from this post or from holmes or on any of the websites. There's no doubt that the science has gone on UNDER this notion, and been inspired by it, but I question its necessity.
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.
Well perhaps someone would like to show how the methods revealed the history, as is claimed, as my impression is that the methods grew out of the supposed history or have developed under the umbrella of the history, but might possibly have developed without it just as well. Actually, it's even possible that the history did make the methods possible even if the history is wrong, because it enabled the visualization of the strata in these landscape terms which does help a great deal -- even if they turn out, properly speaking, not to have been landscapes in the sense the OE paradigm asserts.

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 176 of 303 (232878)
08-13-2005 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by paisano
08-12-2005 11:33 PM


For my part, I already discussed timing and migration, in which chemistry and physics, specifically techniques like isotope ratio mass spectrometry - which is directly dependent on radiometric ages -are used to evaluate petroleum reservoirs.
I simply have to concede anything having to do with radiometric dating and leave that to others who know more.
You can do a Google search on terms like "petroleum basin modeling" and find plenty of references to this.
This is just one of the hits, a list of paper abstracts from just one conference:
http://gsa.confex.com/...03AM/finalprogram/session_10006.htm
Just about every abstract on this page alone has reference to geologic time scales, and the inferences about it that can be drawn from hard data.
Sigh. Well. Although paleo- formations are referred to and of course they describe an actual reality, and although particular time periods on the geo time scale are named and discussed, and although the author believes these things have objective reality in an ancient past, nevertheless it seems to me that what's really being discussed is physical location in the geo column and the various physical characteristics that attach to that position. "Reference to geologic time scales" and even "inferences" from them may in fact be merely terminological or practical concepts that really don't depend on the millions-of-years assumption. This is hard to get into words but it's what I keep trying to say. I wish I could think of an analogy to something else to get it across.
I did google "petroleum basin modeling" myself and checked the first two sites to come up and neither speaks of millions of years. The second mentions thousands of years. They may use all the terminology of the geo time scale otherwise, the names of the time periods and so on, but to my mind these are mainly names for physical locations and properties in a stack of hardened sediments, (that do have very specific defining characteristics of course), and from this perspective are more useful than the time interpretations, and so far it seems that although time SEEMS to be the focus in many a discussion, I'm really not getting the impression that in reality it is, but that it's the physical properties that are the real focus. http://www.oiltracers.com/basinmodeling.html
Just a moment...
A great deal is also known about how petroleum forms, and what temperatures, pressures, and time scales are needed for different source rocks. Again, this is chemistry and physics, and OE ages are explicitly required.
Unless they are merely assumed and the temperatures and pressures are calculated to accommodate the assumption.
And your rebuttal was completely weak. Isotope ratio mass spectrometry IS chemistry and physics. Temperature and pressure modeling of petroleum formation in basins is physics as well. Geology is as rigorous an experimental and observationally based physical science as chemistry or physics is.
I have no doubt, as I believe I've said many times, except about the millions of years.
As Randman pointed out, there are Evangelicals who accept an OE. I can't speculate as to why you feel this is not an option for you. But I don't envy you holding a position so inflexible that in effect, you have to perpetrate intellecual dishonesty against yourself to maintain it.
Yes, well I do actually believe there's an intellectual way through this even if I won't ever find it, because not only do I see that there is simply no way to honestly reconcile the OE with the Biblical account, but that there are objective problems with OE interpretations of the physical reality of the strata, that are to my mind glaring impossibilities and actually funny, though getting it across appears to be impossible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by paisano, posted 08-12-2005 11:33 PM paisano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Arkansas Banana Boy, posted 08-13-2005 4:11 AM Faith has replied
 Message 189 by deerbreh, posted 08-14-2005 5:52 PM Faith has replied

Arkansas Banana Boy
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 303 (232917)
08-13-2005 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Faith
08-12-2005 9:12 PM


Ignorance
It is hard to interpret evidence if you don't know the science. It is even more difficult to apply your brand of logic to this problem when you can't understand the premise. Precise logic with a faulty premise can lead to the exact opposite of the truth.
ABB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Faith, posted 08-12-2005 9:12 PM Faith has not replied

Arkansas Banana Boy
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 303 (232918)
08-13-2005 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Faith
08-13-2005 1:23 AM


Example: Aussie oilfield
Perhaps to your mind time periods are synonomous with locations, but to the geologists who put together this report https://www.ga.gov.au/bin/htsqr?file=oracle/provinces/web... they are clearly speaking about time periods.
Note in the overview the two models that incorporate geologic time eras and depositional environments.
ABB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Faith, posted 08-13-2005 1:23 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Faith, posted 08-14-2005 6:40 AM Arkansas Banana Boy has not replied

Arkansas Banana Boy
Inactive Member


Message 179 of 303 (232920)
08-13-2005 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Jazzns
08-10-2005 10:38 AM


Faith has not responded to similar analogies before
Jazzns said... "Here is another one, what if I came up to you and said that Jesus was a tall east-asian roman soldier and I listed as my reference the Gospel of Brian which is right after Luke. Wouldn't I be completely betrying my complete ignorance about what is actually in the Bible?"
Faith has failed to comment on similar Biblical analogies before. Perhaps the hypocrisy is too glaring even for her.
ABB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Jazzns, posted 08-10-2005 10:38 AM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Faith, posted 08-14-2005 6:44 AM Arkansas Banana Boy has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 180 of 303 (232921)
08-13-2005 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Faith
08-12-2005 9:06 PM


(deleted post that was one part blowing a gasket and 3 parts continuing to beat my head against a wall trying to explain geology to Faith)
I have decided to let my comments stand. I answered your questions already and if you don't understand it, my saying more will do no good. Thus I will let my mere "assertions" stand.
If you feel confident with your incredibly insightful and absolutely perfectly logical analysis of how geology does and should work, including your brilliant and groundbreaking nonmethod methodology, which accepts everything about OE paradigms except accepting OE paradigms, then you need add no more either.
I'm sure everyone can figure out from our positions that I am totally in error, and you are the future of geology. I can't wait to see your publications.
This message has been edited by holmes, 08-13-2005 07:43 AM

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 172 by Faith, posted 08-12-2005 9:06 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Faith, posted 08-14-2005 6:52 AM Silent H has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024