Should intellectually honest fundamentalists live like the Amish?

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.

Not on topic, merely an aside in answer to your off-topic point.

Assert it all you like, it hasn't been shown to be the case. Example after example shows that the element of age is of no practical importance despite its thoroughly entrenched acceptance as an article of the faith as it were. Instead of just calling your opposition names, you'd do better to try to show that in fact, in the examples given, deep age has a direct bearing on the problem being discussed.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-14-2005 08:35 PM

Seems to me that demonstrating the falseness of a point of view should count for something scientifically speaking. If falsification is supposed to be an important criterion of science, well, I'm doing some falsifying here. Upon seeing that part of the theory doesn't hold together, I would expect the scientific heavies to do the work of rethinking the model, not li'l ol me.Interesting how you keep avoiding the point of the discussion, jar.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-14-2005 08:54 PM

You are really getting into the old Unsupported Assertion mode here jar. Thought that was out of bounds.My, how evasive you are being. The current topic to which you are allegedly responding concerns how oil is found. If you'd rather answer the OP from another angle you are certainly welcome to do so, but don't address your replies to me in the middle of this other context.I've been challenging actual facts, jar, and your insinuation that I've been appealing to faith and mysticism and religious texts is Straw Man to the Max. Kindly address what I've actually said and try to show that I'm wrong.

This is simply background assumption. ALL the geo column is assumed to have taken millions of years to form, so a particular formation's having taken so many multiplied millions is meaningless in context. You haven't shown any of this to be of any practical use in the actual work of looking for oil. I'm not even sure you grasp the problem. When it comes down to the practical work of looking for oil or anything else, as has been shown in the various examples given here, the assumption of great age is not of any actual use in the process. It could be ignored without affecting anything. The formations you mention can be identified without reference to age -- their age is merely an incidental feature as it were that is tagged onto them. The ball is in your court, not mine. You have not addressed the fact that age is not really a functional factor in the practical seeking of oil. Physical considerations such as depth, position, composition and hardness of rock etc. are the useful factors, and the conventional labels of the various strata such as "Paleocene" and "Cretaceous" and "Mississippian" are no doubt also of use for identifying the conditions favorable or unfavorable to the location of oil or anything else. Age is really quite incidental to the process in all the descriptions so far given. But that is not my argument. I've consistently focused on the presented facts, which you have failed to address.

Exactly what is it you claim I have overlooked? Please repost. If I haven't addressed it adequately I will. The evidence demonstrates what I said it does, that age is not of substantive value in any of the examples given, merely circumstantial or incidental labeling. Please repost and I'll show it again.

You are polite, that helps. But you go over my head with your math formula. I did, however, read it all pretty carefully. Yes, so holmes and jazz have said. I get it. But in their examples I saw no *necessity* for the time factor, though it was implicit or assumed. But as holmes says, maybe I didn't give the examples enough consideration. It's evident from your links that millions of years are ASSUMED, but "required" isn't so certain. That the OE time spans are used is apparent in the graphs at the BasinMod site, although I really can't tell what importance those graphs have. IN one graph they show that particular strata or time periods (Jurassic etc) are at a particular depth but that's a physical thing, not a time thing. But I suppose this is just my naivete talking.The only thing in your post that suggests a real USE for the millions of years is the math, the formula you give for calculating basin depth, but since I can't follow the formula it's as good as meaningless to me. But since the whole model is built around the assumption of millions of years, that's not surprising. Yes, that is exactly what I would say. Put it this way: If something convinced them that a young earth was the reality after all, you can bet they'd scramble to correct their models wherever they appear to be wrong. Math is only as good as its assumptions/premises/givens anyway. Maybe because the existing methods do the job well enough, especially in an area of investigation where exactness isn't likely with any model. As I keep saying, the practical work of geology seems to proceed efficiently in spite of the OE assumptions. There are obviously many relevant variables taken into account in the exploration apart from the age factor and I really still can't see the usefulness of the age factor, but perhaps that's because I can't follow the math. I suppose it's only the "argument from incredulity" again but existing volcanoes cool down within human time, creationist sites are always showing that "deep time" isn't needed for many processes etc. etc. Pressure you need for some, heat and cooling you need, and you need to be able to predict these things, but the time factor? Perhaps you can show exactly what that math does to make it clearer?Edit to remove too much quoted material
================================================
{Edit: From the first link I see that the accumulation rates for various strata are calculated, under Burial History, based I gather on the known thickness of each and its assumed millions of years of age, but I'm unable to understand why this rate is useful although it is said to be crucial.The following section discusses Thermal History, but in terms that need explanation if you want me to understand them. "Input data included:bottom-hole temperature [I understand both the importance of this and how it is known],present-day geothermal gradient [I read the definition but I forget: this is the gradation of temperature from bottom-hole to surface?],present day heat flow [Not completely sure what "heat flow" describes but if it's present-day I assume it's measurable or easily calculated from knowns],vitrinite reflectance [By the sound of it nothing I'd have a problem with],thermal alteration [sounds necessary. To this point nothing has involved millions of years],Tmax [I did read a LOT, not only your links but various others, including a hydrocarbon glossary, but I don't know what this is; but it doesn't sound like it involves millions of years],paleogeothermal gradient [OK, this one needs the millions of years to calculate],paleoheat flow [ditto MOY],thermal conductivity [Sounds straightforward, no need for the MOY?],total organic carbon [no need for MOY?], andkerogen type [MOY?]"A total of eleven items of input data, only two of which appear to involve anything to do with age/millions of years. But you can correct me -- perhaps others on the list do too.I'm just trying to get a feeling for how important the age range supposedly is in the model. There's an awful lot that doesn't involve age.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-17-2005 01:18 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 08-17-2005 07:32 PM

I won't get to all of your post here, but I think the conversation is about over anyway. For one thing I always opt out of discussions of radiometric dating, saying only that creationists dispute its accuracy. For another, nothing really describes what the procedures are so that I could think them through, as in the AFTA section (except for establishing maximum temperature by the fission tracks)-- merely sketches out the objectives. Also, this isn't a science thread and you are getting pretty deep into science. TrueCreation could discuss all this but his views got dismissed anyway, so far be it from me to attempt it beyond the most general statements.Yes I know you had said that the physical processes themselves demand deep time interpretation, but as a YEC I am sure that is not so, and in any case it appears to me from the sites linked that MOST of the processes that are discussed are straightforward measurements that don't involve age calculations, which I understand to mean that MOST of the study that goes into predicting the best risks for finding oil or anything else doesn't involve deep time. As for the parts of the study that do, it is hard to get a clear idea of how it is used. You want to understand things like the highest temperature certain strata have been subjected to, and for this purpose deep time assumptions enter into the calculations in some way, but since the point is to get the physical history and deep time is speculative in any case, I keep thinking the time factor gets cancelled out somewhere in the process. YEC posits many conditions that would drastically speed up processes OE uniformitarianism lengthens out, but the sequences would be the same.Just some notes:
====================== What does "measured age of the probe" mean? The probe goes to a DEPTH, not an AGE. The age is an additional supposition. What's of use in the exploration is the physical conditions at that depth. How exactly does supposed age help you determine those conditions above and beyond what the physical measurements tell you? I really can't tell. I can tell that in some facets of the investigation that it is used but exactly how I can't tell. Yes I got that that was your point, but 1) there appears to be not a great deal of actual use of the time factor, as I said -- I noted the very few measurements performed on OE time assumptions -- and 2) the math supposedly expresses these processes and I would like to see how it works. But not if I have to get a degree in geology for the purpose. There's no YEC dispute with the observation of the pattern and the determination of cooling as its cause, as far as I know, as there rarely is with any of the measurements and observations of science, just with the time factor, and since I can't do the math to get a sense of how this is arrived at, and I always concede radiometric measurement anyway, I guess the conversation is pretty much over. 1) Seems to me there isn't just one creationist theory about these things, so I wonder what creationist model you are comparing, and 2) again, I pass on radiometric and other forms of dating, noting only that creationists dispute their accuracy.======================I didn't answer your entire post but at this point I get that deep time is used to some extent in these investigations though exactly how and how much isn't clear; and of course as a YEC I have to conclude that that's not a good thing. While most of the everyday science is perfectly good, deep age isn't testable or provable in any way, and in any case I know that the earth is not millions of years old because God's word says it's not, and I don't know how this affects your calculations but it looks like maybe not drastically as age doesn't seem to be REALLY all that huge a part of them, BUT to the extent that it is I would expect them to be in error at those points.======================
Not really in answer to bernd, just a musing to myself on the creationist position: It's a copout for any Christian to accept deep age and that includes all the ID stuff. All the rationalizations of how great age can be fit into Genesis just don't wash. Scientists are mere fallible human beings and calculations can be wrong for many reasons but God can't be wrong. Perhaps in the end I simply have to fall back on jar's formula and say my faith in God's word trumps all of it, and in fact sometimes that's all that traditional Bible-believing Christians can do.All the claimed contradictions with science are speculative when it comes down to it. We know there were once dinosaurs, we see their bones. But we have no idea how old any of it was, that's all speculative, even with radiometric dating. Creationist ideas can be wrong too, as all science can be. We know there was a worldwide Flood but we don't know exactly how it played out geologically despite many interesting hypotheses, and despite recognizing the patent absurdity of the geo timescale. We know that human beings started with one couple with no precursors and that death did not exist before the Fall. Yes we KNOW this, this is a rockbottom indisputable Premise. Faith has to be in God's word, not in any particular explanation science comes up with, and however long we have to go without proof, the waiting is necessary and worth it, knowing that eventually it will all be made clear. The futility of arguing these things with people who don't share this faith is already becoming only too clear, however. Edit to add commas and separate paragraphs This message has been edited by Faith, 08-21-2005 04:47 PM

That's a backhanded nomination for "finally some honesty" Jazz. A YEC's scientific arguments are not dishonest just because they are based on a premise that today's science doesn't recognize. When strictly arguing scientific questions I haven't committed the error of appealing to the Bible anywhere as part of the argument, but now you are calling that dishonest of me. I brought it up in that post simply because this is not a science thread and I'm essentially ending the discussion. (Although I would still like bernd to explain if he can exactly HOW deep time is used in these investigations, because really, despite the references to deep time, its use is not explained, except in the one place where the upper limit of temperature experienced at a given location is determined by fission lines -- and that's useful information regardless of the assumed time factor.)The constant refrain at EvC about how holding onto the Bible against science is intellectual dishonesty is exactly what Bible-believing Christians need to learn to live with patiently without compromising our faith. It is fine to learn science and I hope more young Bible-believing Christians will go that direction -- and learn it better than everybody else too, because they are going to have to learn both evolutionism and creationism and doublethink everything they encounter in order to do it right, besides having a profound spiritual life to sustain them through it.So what I wanted to affirm in that post is that Bible believers have to learn to accept -- and EXPECT -- being called dishonest and stupid and every other rotten thing for holding on to their faith above anything science or the world has to say. I certainly did not intend it to be a capitulation to the idea that there is a fundamental discontinuity between science and faith that is held by so many at EvC, which is how you seem to be taking it. I expect science eventually to verify the Bible's revelations. If a young earth is what the Bible presents, then a young earth is *scientific* fact that will some day be verified *scientifically.*In other words, while I'm glad there are creationists out there working to answer the claims of the evolutionists, and I believe they've done great work in exposing the fallacies of evolutionism, nevertheless I suspect we are at a point where our faith is being tested and we simply have to hold onto it in the face of all kinds of ridicule and seemingly rational objections.It's fine for Christian children to learn all the work of the creationists in other words, but I worry that kids who grow up learning that exclusively are not being prepared for the assault against those very creationist premises they will encounter at college. They need to be getting a way better inoculation than that. They need to be establishing the kind of faith that can withstand the most plausible assault on it, the ridicule, the accusations of intellectual dishonesty, in order not to become the kind of casualty that is so frequently attested on this very site.I am declaring that NO compromise is acceptable. You can't give up part of your faith simply because somebody is going to call you names for holding on to it, or call your thinking unscientific when you know you haven't brought in any nonscientific points, or simply because you are incapable of answering all the doubts and questions that evolutionism raises, or for any other reason. If God spoke, then God spoke. Getting along with the world's views is NOT our calling as Christians. Being unable to disprove a scientific claim is no cause for compromising your faith. And Christian faith is not something that floats nebulously in thin air twenty feet above solid ground, just because we like this or that idea or think it makes sense on some basis apart from the Bible, it's faith in the living God who has given us His revelation. If we think we love Him then how can we deny ANYTHING He has told us?What YECs are doing here, at least the clued-in ones -- the few who venture here or stick it out for any length of time -- is playing with the opportunity to try to make a case for the young earth scientifically, without reference to the Bible, because ultimately that case WILL in fact be made scientifically and without reference to the Bible. I deny that the evolutionists have honestly defeated as much of the case as they claim to have done -- as I've said many times it really comes down to a war between plausibilities and speculations or untestables and unfalsifiables -- while at the same time I acknowledge that the case hasn't yet been made and I don't know what it would take to make it. No, creationism doesn't have all the scientific answers yet but they do have many that the establishment simply will not recognize because of their own prejudices.So, my post came out of the recognition of the tremendous temptation to compromise the faith in favor of what science is saying, and my sadness at the fact that so many have made that very compromise, and even go on to criticize the very few who refuse to give in, expressing even the most denigrating attitude toward the "fundies." The hardest thing for Christians to survive in all this is the criticism of other Christians, and not just the nominal Christians who are far from true belief, but the real Christians who have allowed themselves to compromise for the sake of supposed rationality and make all kinds of cases for how God didn't REALLY say this or that.===============
None of this is cause to keep a YEC off the science fora, as it is quite possible to argue scientific points without reference to any of this. AND the use of deep time in exploring for oil still appears to be simply one among dozens of considerations, most quite reasonably simple physical measurements, and some of the OE use also appears to come down to establishing physical principles that don't really depend on the OE assumption in any case -- and whatever really does depend on it is going to be wrong because the earth is not millions of years old.

It was never denied, it has been implicit in everything I post and more than once explicitly acknowledged. It is the premise from which I argue everything I argue about science, as does any YEC.Sorry I don't appreciate compliments accompanied by an accusation of dishonesty, and I could do without a POTM nomination too, as no post *I* would consider deserving would ever be nominated.Also, you should look up the word "tirade." There is only one post on this thread that deserves the description and it wasn't one of mine.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-20-2005 07:53 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 08-20-2005 11:47 PM

Hello bernd:Just a few points:I am not permitted to post in science forums, which includes Dates and Dating -- which is a forum I would never post in even if I could -- and since this is a science topic there may not be any way to have the discussion you want to have. But the one I want to have I will continue here for the time being, since it seems to me that the accusation of fundamentalist rejection of science and intellectual dishonesty puts it enough on topic to continue now that it has gone this far.You have shown that the OE time factor is used in some procedures involved in finding oil. But showing that it is used, that is, that the concept is described on a list of factors that are measured or tested in the exploratory process, is not the same thing as demonstrating that it is truly useful.For one thing as I've said a number of times, it appears to be only one of many factors that are used, and by my count on one list only two out of eleven factors require any reference to time at all. I would think it would be hard to show the particular usefulness of this factor simply because so many others that are independent of time appear to be at least equally important. Even with the most sophisticated model and techniques, predictive success is far from a sure thing, though higher than earlier or less sophisticated techniques, isn't that so? Simply continuing to insist that deep time is important and is used in this or that calculation really doesn't prove its usefulness. {Edit: All it really proves is evolutionist belief in its reality and in its efficacy as a predictive factor, but where's the evidence of that efficacy?} Truly, if it is useful, it ought to be possible to describe in *plain English* exactly *how* it is used and *how* it is useful, as well as showing that results based on it are reliable.I'm willing to be wrong about this, but so far there has only been evidence that deep age is USED, though not to any great extent, and otherwise only assertions about its USEFULNESS, without any real evidence of its actual usefulness.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-20-2005 11:42 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 08-20-2005 11:51 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 08-20-2005 11:53 PM

Yes, sorry, I do forget, and thanks for the appreciation.

Well, that's the dogma for sure, but in fact a hunch is EXACTLY how the interpretation of the fossil record was arrived at, by nothing more than a mere impression of how it appears, as a sequence of life forms from primitive to complex. The impression was compelling to many minds, although there are many things about the actual fossil sequence that should have given them pause and still should -- the association of particular fossils with particular sediments for instance being a big clue that something's amiss with the time interpretation. Despite an utter lack of corroborating evidence, the interpretation of genetic relatedness/evolution from one to another up the geo column has remained nothing but an interpretation with absolutely NO scientific support for the interpretation. It LOOKS LIKE a sequence, and that's IT for the entire "scientific" interpretation of the fossil record. All subsequent scientific corroboration has been nothing but the assumption of the sequence and the cramming of data into the interpretation. A fine romantic tale that in the case of evolution and the geo timescale is not borne out in reality for the simple reason that these are nothing but interpretations that in themselves are not subject to proof or falsification. As long as you can keep cramming data into them they are not questioned. They ARE nevertheless questioned by some who do see the absurdities and the ill fit with the data, and eventually the whole thing may come tumbling down from such whistleblowing, but since no actual test/proof/falsification is possible they'll stand until more and more recognize the absurdities. Pot kettle black. Neither the ToE nor OE is a "testable hypothesis."This message has been edited by Faith, 08-24-2005 02:45 PM

That is an illusion. Design actually explains the available data at LEAST as well as the ToE. Unsupported assertion. Name one that directly corroborates the ToE. You have what I said you have, data that is crammed to an ill fit. The OE is untestable in itself, as is the ToE. They are both merely imaginative constructs that cannot be tested at all. One simply interprets until one finds a plausible fit, or more commonly every new piece of data is simply described from the getgo with all the ToE assumptions piled on thick. SO thick that trying to find out what the new data IS as raw phenomenon takes herculean efforts to remove the language accretions and track down possible earlier reports, which usually don't exist because ALL such finds are immediately buried in ToE terminology. Not basing anything on my YEC premise at the moment. I'm challenging the scientific merits of YOUR argument, of which there are none. So where are YOUR scientific examples pray tell? Only by assumption and interpretation do they make this evidence support the ToE. Discussions about these things at EvC as well as in just about every report that can be found show how the terminology carries the assumption of the ToE along with it. It is a semantic nightmare, but there is very little ACTUAL evidence that supports the ToE and OE better than the design and flood explanations.