Scientific Fact versus Interpretation

Perhaps Buzz can start a new topic on it. He could present the individual pieces of ICR evidence one at a time.

That would be nice.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Actually, I am curious, though I know you are a geologist, what is your area of study? Since you said the paper helped, are you working on "big picture" research regarding history of formations/landscape, or "smaller picture" ways of identifying/classifying depositional environments of structures?This message has been edited by holmes, 03-17-2006 11:58 AM

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Hello Mr Buzsaw,Your pardon sir but I must question to your assertion. You are saying that there is a difference in how the conjecture on the events of Henry Tudor's life is concluded from the evidence and how the idea of a mulit-billion-year-old Earth is concluded from the evidence.
Could you be more specific? I mean, in what ways are the evidences for each differently interpreted?
Is it deception in one case and honesty in another?
Is it complete misunderstanding on the part of geologists and physicists about how the physical world works, while historians are fully capable of accurately assessing the veracity of documents and forensic evidence?According to you, one investigation results in truth and the other does not, so there must be a real difference between the conduct of the investigations. So, I ask again, what is it exactly the you feel is happening in one case that is not occuring in the other?

My background is economic geology, specifically mineral exploration/mining work in the precious metals industry. That's where I started out and I later went back for a Master's when the price of gold took a dive in the late 90s (when many geos were laid off).The paper you linked discusses regional structural trends/shear zones in Colorado that are probably related to arc accretion in the Proterozoic.One of my projects is an intrusion located in southern Wyoming about 15 km south of the Archean-Proterzoic suture. In the past, I was unaware of the presence of those two thrusts located up north as they are not present on any of the maps I have.The second project is located in the vicinity of the Black Canyon. I've been mapping pediment surfaces (and structure when I can find it) out there in an attempt to reconstruct the geomorphic and erosional history of the area, basically paleolandscape reconstruction. The pediment surfaces, which are comprised of unconsolidated gravels up to boulder size, occur at different elevations similar to river terraces, and probably represent different pulses of stream formation/deposition at the end of at least two glacial periods.The pediment project is only one portion of a larger project involving studying rocks deposited in the Western Interior Seaway. We recently recovered 500+ feet of core drilled into Cretaceous rocks (located near the Black Canyon) that were deposited in the seaway and I am logging that right now.The paper you linked specifically discusses structure in the Black Canyon area. Just based on a quick perusal of the paper, the authors appear to have re-interpreted some of the major structures, so it will be interesting to see why.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 03-17-2006 09:40 AM

The coal example seems an excellent vehicle for pursuing the thread's topic. This thread is about interpretation, and I think Jar is indicating an interest in exploring the reasons for your difference in interpretation.I can already see one possible reason. Jar believes your flood scenario requires a single global layer of coal. I think you've interpreted this to mean one or more layers of coal, but that's not what he meant. He said in Message 59 that "there should be an identifiable layer all over the world with a band of coal that was all laid down at the same time." You haven't identified any such band that I'm aware of, so your comments like "Your scenario proves the Flood. Nice going!" are puzzling.You may want to explore with Jar whether he's right to conclude that your flood scenario implies a world-wide coal layer of the same age, because if he's correct then it would present a significant problem for your viewpoint, since no such layer has ever been found.Interpretations of fact and the implications of theory are what I thought this thread would be about, so I think exploring this is very appropriate for this thread.--Percy

For the flood we don't need one layer or many layers, but the "Carboniferous Period" does exist as presumably A layer in the geological column, no matter how it happens to be distributed across the earth, and that is what I meant. His notion that there HAS TO BE just one layer OR ANY PARTICULAR FORMATION for that matter, is just the usual evo strawmanning of flood geology, anyway.But the existence of the Carboniferous Period, however it is distributed, IS great evidence for the flood which would have provided ample conditions for coal formation -- AND would possibly have transported already formed coal deposits as well. The Carboniferous Period is conspicuously present. And it does constitute a LAYER in most places where it is found. What jar thinks the flood "implies" beyond this is not something I care to explore. The Carboniferous Period layer or layers does very nicely for the purpose, and does give the evidence he says doesn't exist. Certainly he can rationalize it away. Of course. No, this thread was supposed to be about the SPECIFIC examples I gave in the beginning about what is a fact versus what is an interpretation. I consider my examples to be quite sufficient to get across the point and all the caviling raised since then is just too discouraging to deal with. Just once I'd like to see anyone at EvC just GET something as simple and obvious as that.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-18-2006 12:57 AM

My post #82 dealt only with your specific examples from the OP. To summarize, it is not clear what is interpretation v factual statements according to you. Examples of both kinds contained the same thing, scientists describing what they believe to be true about something based on examination/testing, with no direct explanation of what tests they did and so how they made such assignments. I gave direct quotes from your OP in my earlier post but will leave them out here for brevity.In all cases they gave citations to literature one could go to in order to see what they did and so how they made their classifications. While you asserted that one group of statements were wholly conjecture, you never addressed the studies cited to show in fact that it was wholly conjecture on their part. That means it is conjecture on your part, that that is what they engage in.I went to look up the studies cited in your example, but being a bit lazy settled for a similar paper by the same author. It is the same general topic and would have the same methodology, and is very recent, showing how the author has moved on from previous research (this study actually cites the study I was originally looking for). Here is a link to that paper. Please examine it and show examples of how they engage in sheer speculation, and do not allow for testing of their hypothesis... indeed that they do not engage in testing themselves.It is only by addressing the actual research underlying claims made by science can one make statements as damning as the ones you have made.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This isn't the Grand Canyon, buz. It's Canyon de Chelly.How could a massive worldwide flood possibly form this rock spire?:

What I was trying to say needs no such investigations. It is quite clear on the face of it, holmes. I identified all those examples so that a person could get what I mean.I am not saying they had no evidence for their conjectures, in fact I believe I said more than once that of course they do. The whole point is that what is conjecture is nevertheless frequently presented to nonscientists as if it were fact. This is actually more often encountered in presentations of the scenarios of supposed ancient life that develop from the ToE.I believe the examples illustrate just fine what I wanted to illustrate and that ought to be sufficient. If it's not, it's just another case of evc miscommunication and it's not worth the energy it takes to keep trying to deal with it.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-18-2006 09:13 AM

Receding waters from a massive flood could have carved all the strange shapes seen throughout the Southwest -- something to do with the direction the water took over the terrain, and something to do with the hardness or softness of various parts of the landscape. Of course the very thin tall shapes have been sculpted a great deal by yearly weathering and erosion since the flood, which probably left them in a much sturdier condition than we see now.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-18-2006 09:11 AM

Predictions:1)Faith will not look at the paper and will ignore this reply.2)Faith will look at the paper, will decide she doesn't want to bother trying to understand it, and just decide that this discussion isn't worth her time.3)Faith will accuse you of "needling" her and then condemn all people who question her as being dishonest or somesuch.

You are right, I ignored the paper. It is completely irrelevant to what I had to say. What I said is sufficient on the face of it, and that's that. Take it or leave it.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-18-2006 09:14 AM

That's because these things are facts under the definition of fact that is used by science, ie a conclusion that is supported by all the evidence, refuted by non and preferably has as many independent lines of evidence agreeing with it as possible.Clearly you are using some other definition of fact (it seems you are using fact to mean 'data'). Almost everyone is capable of distinguishing between scientific data and scientific conclusions based on data...what is the problem? Are you saying that when talking to a laymen scientists ought to continously stress that the conclusions they are discussing are not data? Is there any point? What would it achieve? You seem to be saying that the difference is so obvious to anyone who looks that it isn't necessary to expand on it further - so if it's so obvious why bring it up?I'm earnestly trying to understand your position, but I have to say you are making it very difficult.

Faith, that is the language of science. Geologists speak and write about geology in the present tense. If the geologic community overwhelmingly accepts a theory based on the weight of the evidence, then we speak as if it is fact. If less data exists to support a theory, then we add words like "indicates," "suggests," etc.Additionally, calling scientific theories 'conjecture' is misleading if not patently false. Because you personally refuse to acknowledge the data, is not a good enough reason to impugn the intellectual capabilities, professional integrity, and motives of all scientists who don't follow your particular brand of logic.