Should intellectually honest fundamentalists live like the Amish?

I'm sick of your deceit. I'm sick of your refering to everything as a strawman when it most clearly is your position, as you then go on to repeat the same damn position. At best you create strawmen of my position in order to claim I am making one of yours.It occurs to me that you are either lying, or you simply have no idea what I am saying. See that is what is called a strawmen. I didn't say that and in fact said quite the opposite. What is true is that it is important to oil exploration, as your own citation proved. It is not necessary, as your citation showed quite clearly NO GEOLOGY is necessary to find oil. But the OE paradigm is useful.That no other paradigm is useful, and the YE paradigm would be counterproductive, speaks volumes, but only to someone that doesn't use bibles as blinders and earplugs. See, another straw man. I wasn't talking about description. I was talking about identifying sediments at the surface coming from a specific depositional environment. And I later connected that to making predictions of the behavior of a strata due to characteristics we know about those surface environments. Those predictions being used to MAKE MAPS.Describing a layer from 100 to 300 feet of porous sandstone at a 15 degree slant, will not allow you to make a map of a region regarding that strata. Not even with another well log, unless you make assumptions based on the possibilities of its original depositional environments.If you think that base physical characteristics of rock will tell you how an entire strata would have to layer, or what other layers of surrounding rock might be comprised of without a depositional paradigm, then you are totally bullshitting yourself.For example, according to your theory how would you begin to tell the difference between sandstone that has been pushed up into a vertical alignment, and sandstone formed by sand that lodged into a less than vertical faultline before burial? They could have the exact same internal properties, but what one would expect to find around them or the bed itself doing would be different.And according to your non OE non YE paradigm it seems like every supposed strata is up for grabs as to what it would do, because no one can actually say what formed them, yet from the simple property of a rock we'll know exactly what it does.This is absurd.If I am wrong then all you have to do is answer two questions:1) At what depth do we stop identifying depositional environments, and why?2) Describe how you predict where a strata will go and what features to expect around it, based solely on composition of the strata, and no idea what caused the formation of the strata, such that you can make a map with unknown areas (gaps in well logs). That is to ask you to show how you go from descriptive to predictive, especially in areas without info.Good luck.

---

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

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)

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 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)

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)

(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)

I honestly do not understand why rox got censured for simply blowing a gasket, when the reason was a poster who is blatantly being dishonest. Look at the continued mischaracterizations:1) "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. "Not only did I describe how OE can and did arise from practical study of rocks and wholly without background assumption regarding their formation, but I posted links on the subject which showed that to be true. Yet without addressing any of the info provided, Faith has routinely reasserted this same claim.I think its time someone did start taking a stand for honesty here. Have I or have I not shown that the OE paradigm DID NOT EXIST as background assumption in geology and stratigraphy, and instead was generated in those fields using logical inductions (which is the exact opposite of presumption) based on practical observations of formations?If Faith has a problem with the histories I have linked to it appears that she has the duty to make her case against those citations, beyond reasserting her original position. Perhaps some direct references showing how geologic pioneers presumed age to come to their conclusions.If I have not made my case regarding the presumption of OE in creating geology and stratigraphy, then I want to know what else I need to show, beyond the histories of those fields which I have already linked to.2) "You haven't shown any of this to be of any practical use in the actual work of looking for oil... 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."Although perhaps less clear cut than the previous point, more than one person has delivered this exact evidence, and with solid examples. In no case has Faith actually managed to address questions or examples other than to say "Nuh-uh" and reassert her position.The fact is that if the prediction of how a bed lies or what might be found around it requires identification of origin within a specific despositional environment, then by logical necessity both age and nature are part of the assessment. One does not logically get to claim one can use it, because it is necessary to the practice, and then not actually need it.At the very least Faith should be required to give practical examples, perhaps from other fields.I realize that any reasonable person reading these posts can figure out who is being honest and who is not, but it is beginning to get ridiculous when people upset with consistent dihonesty get knocked and the dishonest people continue to break forum rules without any sanction.Whether she believes something to be true or not is of no concern to me, but to restate that she has dealt with any factual evidence given to her (particularly historical citations regarding OE not having been a presumption), or that she has provided any factual evidence (particularly when at every turn she admits she has no knowledge of geology and is only discussing "logic") for her "theory" of how geologists do, or could do, their work, is bordering on the intellectually obscene.

---

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

You have summed up my feelings nicely, and provided an accurate analogy, though you should have given yourself the credit by using yourself instead of me.You've definitely gone beyond the call of duty working on this particular brick wall.

---

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

Nice post. I've already tried the first point you made, so its unlikely to work. Your second point (temperature/cooling) is an interesting one and something I thought of going into (though I was going to use cooling/age for mines) right before totally giving up on Faith. Hopefully it will work as it is nicely constructed.This message has been edited by holmes, 08-15-2005 05:33 PM

---

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

Jazzns already expressed my own feelings on reposting to you, as well as what you are missing in this whole discussion. I mean the fact that you are asking for reposts when you yourself can go back through the thread and find the links I posted, shows how "real" your intention is to do anything.If you ever want to think about what I and others have been trying to tell you, and don't feel like combing through the thread, you can start by going to this page. Read the sections on the history and principles of Geology.You will note that nowhere did the founders of geology assume great age. The principles themselves do not assume anything about actual age. It was the application of the principles that have firm logical reasons (and no presuppositions) to actual physical evidence which resulted in conclusions about age. Thus refuting (once again) one of your prime repeated assertions.There is no need to respond to this at all as I really don't want to know how ignorant you intend to stay on this topic.This message has been edited by holmes, 08-15-2005 05:52 PMThis message has been edited by holmes, 08-16-2005 04:21 AM

---

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

How soon you forget. You were nominated for a POTM by buz, and I seconded it. It was a post that was very much your position and I believe you ended up acknowledging the support at that time.You appear to desire a messiah-like persona, put upon by everyone unjustly, dismissed at every turn, crucified by those that no not what they do.In reality, there are those that can and have respected what and how you write. Despite my avid disagreement and frustration with your willfull ignorance on this topic, I still am impressed with the quality of your writing... just wishing logic and evidence would start getting an upper hand somewhere.Jazz correctly identified your post's conclusion as showing some solid logic, even if it ultimately banishes evidence to hellfire. That may be a bit backhanded to scientists in that it shows in a practical sense you are willfully ignorant and antiscience, but that isn't his fault and it seems you ought to be proud of your post if it is your actual position.

---

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

Just to let you know, you have slipped back to dishonesty. Just stick with "It cannot be because I cannot believe it is so, because my Faith says it can't, therefore there must have been another way". That is the only logical and honest comment you can give.The rest is a complete misrepresentation of the field of geology, which you claim to have read some of yet not know and aren't interested in knowing more. What you say may make sense to you, but only because you are talking to yourself or others that also have no idea what they are actually discussing, and so ANYTHING could make sense.You have not challenged your ideas by testing them against the real world, which is where actual geologists have built up their models. At best you seem focused on the grand canyon which consists of rather simple geology and so could be open to different interpretation. The world is NOT the grand canyon.There are structures which by their orientation and overlapping require an addition of age. It could not be a variety of sifting in a water column. This resulted in an age estimate that is at the very least in the 100s of thousands of years, though more like billions of years. The Billions have been corroborated by radioactive dating. The fact that two methods result in a similar result tends to support the model which predicts both methods would have that result.

---

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

The question is did you read my links. Deerbreh's link (assuming I am understanding which link you are refering to) was a bit of a quick overview with specific focus on fossils.Relative dating can and did use fossils, but that was not all. I gave you links to the actual way in which modern geological theory developed, as well as its fundamental precepts. D's link discussed part, because it was focused, but not all of how relative dating is achieved.Indeed you seem to forget that all rock is not sedimentary. There is igneous and metamorphic. Metamorphic is time and heat altered sedimentary or igneous rock. We can assume for sake of argument that the length of time is not measured and so could be seconds (based on a miracle) or thousands to millions of years (based on known mechanisms of heating an cooling based on actual physical properties). The thing to note is that it requires a certain deposition first and then alteration.Beds crisscross or in other ways intercut which precludes "settling" scenarios. Here is an example, you find an igneous bed sandwiched between two sedimentary beds. There is alteration of the stone on the lower bed but not the upper bed right next to the igneous stone. That indicates directly that the lowest bed had solidified to rock and then had hot igneous rock lay upon that rock and deform it. Then after cooling the upper sed bed was laid down in some way.Then we know for sure the lower bed could not possibly have formed due to sifting at the same time the upper sed bed formed. This is irrelevant of millions of years presumption. It is straight out obvious logic.And so if you find a specific fossil environment in the lower but not in the upper, the reason cannot be sifting. Relative age and specified environment of deposition has been identified. Mere assertion, countered by reallife examples like the one above. There were more (including grand canyon geology) given in my link to the creo geologist who became OE after working in the oil biz.If it is just as easy, then show how easy it has been.Flying the space shuttle through an asteroid field is easy. See how easy it is? Do you believe me? Put your money where your mouth is. Okay, this just goes to show how ignorant you are. First of all sea level can rise and fall and it is not impossible to explain if you realize that water moves from ocean and lakes and is trapped in the atmosphere and ice. What's more the land itself moves up and down... duh... which can cause seashores to move. It can even move relatively upward or downward based on sedimentation issues.If you have a problem understanding this, look into what is happening in New Orleans and the Netherlands. Actually I didn't say that at all. This is a strawman. The GC very well could allow for a YE interpretation. That was my point. It could, but the whole world does not look like the GC. It is elsewhere, in much more complex environments that the age of the earth starts to become more obvious... or I should say that a YE becomes absurd. Who is hedging one's bets? I am discussing estimates originally made based on structures, and there have been various estimates over time as our knowledge of new structures and formational environments increased. I was stating that the SMALLEST FIGURES, based on rudimentary estimates, still places the earth well beyond YE estimates.Each event could be argued to take some short period of time, but added up they ADD UP. It is physically impossible for certain features to form at the exact same time, and can be shown to be impossible based on layering, orientation, and physical properties! Not assumptions of age. Why is it absurd on the face of it? You originally said there could be other equal explanations to OE models, this comments suggests that it is obviously incorrect. Now it simply cannot be totally absurd and yet have excellent practical use, which you have already admitted to. That assertion is absurd.(edited out single profane word)This message has been edited by holmes, 08-25-2005 02:01 PM

---

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

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll change the one single profanity I placed within my post. You let me know if you see that actually change the nature of this debate.I had plenty of posts without them, to no avail. I realize it adds nothing... but I don't honestly see how it can get any worse.

---

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

A couple of these have issues when you deal with the actual physics/chemistry of rock formation, which Jazzns has already mentioned.One other issue is igneous rock intrusions. Deerbreh's example allows for dikes and sills and plumes to move into existing rock, before erosion or more sedimentation on top. Your example would not make sense at all.

---

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