|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Should intellectually honest fundamentalists live like the Amish? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Note in the overview the two models that incorporate geologic time eras and depositional environments.
the article: writes: There are two possible models for the tectonic evolution of the Capricorn Basin. One model is that the Capricorn Basin formed during the Late Jurassic to Early Cretaceous from the same extensional event that formed the Townsville and Queensland basins farther north. An alternative model is that the Capricorn Basin formed in the Late Cretaceous as a failed rift arm at the northern end of the Tasman rift system. This second model divides the basin fill into five basin phases: Late Cretaceous to Early Paleocene rift phase; Late Paleocene to Early Eocene late rift phase; Early to Middle Eocene early thermal sag phase; Middle to Late Eocene post-tectonic structural reactivation phase; and a Late Oligocene to Recent late sag/rapid regional subsidence phase. The stratigraphy of the Capricorn Basin consists of continental rift-phase conglomerates and red beds of Late Cretaceous to Early Paleocene age. These are overlain by Eocene age mixed marine and continental quartzose sandstones and lignites, in turn overlain by a thick marine sequence of Late Oligocene to Recent age limestone and marl. Although potential reservoirs and traps appear to be present, the petroleum prospectivity is considered low due to a lack of evidence for burial and thermal maturity of potential source rock intervals. Petroleum prospectivity is also downgraded by the absence of a proven regional seal and the Capricorn Basin's location beneath the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in which petroleum exploration is prohibited. Good example. Certainly they are assuming the great ages of the OE, and speaking of them as if they were relevant, but that only demonstrates what I've been saying, that these things are assumed. Their usefulness is something else. Practically speaking it all comes down to the physical disposition of the area they are discussing and the age factor is extraneous. That is, while the terminology (Cretaceous, Jurassic, etc) invokes the OE 60+ millions of years, the age implied by these labels is in fact irrelevant to their study of the region and to their objectives. It is at bottom purely descriptive of the physical stratigraphic configurations that normally go by those labels. That is, "Cretaceous" just as well describes a particular physical "environment" without any reference to an absolute time factor. The area presumably has physical characteristics normally associated with those *time periods,* meaning really the sedimentary strata identified by those labels, otherwise how would the time factor enter in at all? Seems to me the physical characteristics are always the important thing and the supposed age tells them nothing of use. RELATIVE time is, however, relevant I'm sure, for getting a picture of the terrain. The "tectonic evolution" of the area probably has practical usefulness since it would give clues to the current physical formations they want to identify, but this could be discussed just as meaningfully whether the assigned ages were in the neighborhood of 60 million years or 6 thousand. This message has been edited by Faith, 08-14-2005 07:01 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't respond to those analogies because they are lousy analogies that mean absolutely zip. I reject the claim that there is any relevance. Basically just another version of the straw man arguments. I guess I could answer by saying this much but it hardly seems worth it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'll let my remarks stand too as I've answered you many times as well. It seems a fair standoff. But again, I'm not claiming to do geology, as I've said many times, I'm only objecting to the OE assumption of millions of years, as YE creationists do. Geologists don't need it despite its being so thoroughly embedded in their thinking. They'd do what they do just as well without it.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-14-2005 07:05 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1017 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
You are absolutely correct, geologists do not NEED deep age. We NEED deep age about as much as we NEED ArcGIS to make maps.
Our 'assumptions' of deep age are the result of years and years of geologic research, logical inferences, and inductive reasoning. It's the best explanation for the data based on the data. And today, deep age is a tool. YEC assumptions are based on the Bible. If YECs or you have a better explanation for the data, present it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
And today, deep age is a tool. This is exactly what I'm questioning. It has been asserted many times, but in all the examples given so far, the attribute of age, except for relative age, is not a tool at all, merely a descriptive term for various geologic formations that could be dispensed with as far as its usefulness goes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Arkansas Banana Boy Inactive Member |
It has been shown that geologists use deep age as a tool to figure how rock moved and changed over time to find valuable stuff. You seem to view the landscape as a static entity where things can be found by applying a recipe to the layers observed.
What knowledgeable and experienced people are telling you is that the situation is more complex than one would expect from a scenario where all was layed down in a one short period. Your uninformed hunches count for little compared to the work of science. ABB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Could we also say that geological structures like the Cheddar or Dover Cliffs simply could not exist without a very long period of time for their formation?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Arkansas Banana Boy Inactive Member |
Yes. I have learned a fair amount about limestone formation as regards old age arguments since being here at EvC. I need to look at the chalk formation some more. Such formations indicate that rock was formed from the slow accumulation of sea creatures over a seabed. A nice steady depositional environment forming strata created by critters over time...amazing. Rates of accumulation that we can observe today that obviously extend back to deep time are even today forming the precursors to future rock...outstanding.
I need to search the site and google 'reefs', as I seem to recall that some have been cored and exceed the YEC age limit. ABB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2921 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
Faith writes: 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. No, this will not do. If you are going to make assertions like these you are going to have to do better than to say, "There are explanations as to why the last 100 years plus of conventional geology is wrong, not only wrong but impossible in a funny kind of way but I can't tell you what they are because you wouldn't believe it anyway."You might as well say there are explanations as to why Copernican solar theory is wrong, not only wrong but impossible in a funny kind of way. There may well be but they are worthless in light of what we actually know, aren't they. You see Faith, you are making an extraordinary claim - The last 100 years plus of conventional geology is wrong. So you must come up with some kind of evidence to support that claim - or withdraw the claim. To do anything less is exceedingly dishonest. If you had real evidence you would be willing to subject it to scrutiny on this board. If you do not have the evidence you should not say that you do. If you are not accepting OE geology because it doesn't square with the Biblical account - fine. But don't claim that it is anything more than it is - a belief based on the Bible that is not supported by current geological science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It has been shown that geologists use deep age as a tool to figure how rock moved and changed over time to find valuable stuff. It has SUPPOSEDLY been shown, but from considering the examples given I conclude that it only appears to be so, that the deep age factor is used merely as a label for a particular landscape, but the age itself is not of any actual usefulness. And all you are doing now is asserting this. The understanding that "rock moved and changed over time" is no doubt useful in "finding valuable stuff" but the actual time period isn't, it's merely assumed -- the assumption of it affects nothing useful in the discussion.
You seem to view the landscape as a static entity where things can be found by applying a recipe to the layers observed. I don't view the landscape in any way contrary to the descriptions given. Why would I? I don't think I've said anything more than that deep age is not in fact being used as a tool but merely as a label. That is, for instance, an example describes a formation in terms of an event in the Cretaceous, which implies 60+ millions of years, but there is nothing to indicate that those millions of years have anything to do REALLY with what they are discussing. Its actual use in the discussion is as no more than a label applied to a particular formation, just as the label "Cretaceous" is. None of it shows an actual use for the age in the discussion, that is, none of it shows that 60+ million years affects any of the other parts of the discussion at all. Exactly the same thing could be said with exactly the same predictive or descriptive value if "Cretaceous" merely referred to the position of a particular layer with particular contents most frequently found at a particular level in the geo column. No reason why tectonic processes or anything else affecting that formation couldn't be discussed just as well.
What knowledgeable and experienced people are telling you is that the situation is more complex than one would expect from a scenario where all was layed down in a one short period. Your uninformed hunches count for little compared to the work of science. That is the usual answer to creationists. What can I say? I usually find the views I offer at EvC to be well represented on creationist sites -- so if they're my own hunches I'm in good company. All you are doing is pulling rank, not dealing with the actual objections I repeatedly state, and my objections have in fact been consistently misrepresented in every post of yours and everybody else's. Even insisting that your view is "more complex" is a misrepresentation as I haven't offered a "view" -- of any complexity whatever -- merely persistently pointed out that in fact "deep age" is NOT useful in geological studies, based on the actual examples that have been given here. Again, in sum, you can show that the TERMS are used, but age itself is merely a kind of background assumption that affects nothing of practical importance, including "finding valuable stuff." This message has been edited by Faith, 08-14-2005 07:47 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Why pick on my one little credo statement that wasn't central to the post but merely added on at the end for fun? Not the way to deal with the substance of this discussion. If I'd made it THE argument you'd be right to attack it, but I didn't, it was merely a little taunt tacked on at the end. Address the SUBSTANCE OF THE POST, deerbreh.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Could we also say that geological structures like the Cheddar or Dover Cliffs simply could not exist without a very long period of time for their formation? That would have some SUBSTANCE as an argument about the usefulness of deep age, as opposed to what everybody else is saying here. But creationists have shown that such formations DON'T take all that long to form. In any case, we're sticking to descriptions of the methodology for locating oil.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But creationists have shown that such formations DON'T take all that long to form. Please provide the supporting peer reviewed articles for that assertion. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But that would be changing the subject. I've answered various examples given that supposedly show that ancient age is useful in the processes of finding oil. While the terminology of old age is used, it appears to be mostly window dressing, as the actual processes under discussion are not determined by it in any way, nor affected by it at all. This is what you should be focused on. We aren't having the entire Evolution vs Creation discussion here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Not on topic, merely an aside in answer to your off-topic point.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024