SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.

Not rubbish, but had to be understood in the context of unknowns of the past (where you can't know what would have been the case), which I would have expected. Wrongly obviously. It is what we were discussing, not every possible use of the word "would" that comes to mind.

Your description looks to me like perfectly legitimate study of the physical facts, not interpretive Geology that claims to know unknowables.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So I can't expect people to keep in mind the context I would expect to be kept in mind from dozens of previous discussions of the same content, but I mean the PREHISTORIC past, not the recent past but the past that is before there was any possible witness to its events. You can't know what would have happened if there could not have been any way of knowing what would have happened, but in the case of yesterday there are many ways of knowing what would have happened.In this case one might expect that erosion should be present in a certain situation but since you can't know all possible ways that situation could play out you can't know for sure what would have happened, so to claim as a fact that you do know is wrong.

But in the case of the absence of erosion at that particular spot you don't have any way of knowing if that is really proof against the idea that the strata were all in place before the unconformity formed. It's a reasonable hypothesis but you cannot know it with the certainty you claim.

What an odd thing to say. Petrophysics isn't doing historical interpretive Geology, he's doing valid physical study, which I've said many times is the valid work of Geology. True testable science. As I just said to Ringo, finding molybdenum I have no problem with, it's pontificating about the age of the Earth I have a problem with.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

All I said was that what you described deals only with physical phenomena and I have no problem with that. That's how science ought to work.Certainly angular unconformities exist, but I have a different idea about how they formed than standard Geology does, and you haven't said anything to show that it matters how they were formed as far as your work goes.I was hoping that you'd eventually do the thread about finding oil because it is often said that the ancient age of rocks has a part in that process and I'd like to see how that could be.But as far as your recent post goes you said nothing about age or dating, it was all physical description which is what I'd expect of geological science. If you have something to say about age or dating as a consequence of all that you haven't yet said it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Certainty suits knowledge of the structure of DNA, and probably Einstein's formula too, and the law of gravity and what happens if you combine certain chemicals and no doubt all kinds of other things. Experiments can be done by many people to prove such theories. Many researchers can confirm them. All you have in the case of Siccar Point is convincing others of your reasoning. That is not the same thing.

Yes I've presented my alternative model many times and described a test for it that I may or may not be able to do eventually.

It ought to be a very simple obvious matter to just acknowledge that science that deals with the prehistoric past cannot have the certainty that testable laboratory sciences have. Good grief, even scientists have said that about historical Geology as testified by that article that has been linked more than once.

You are right, there is no prehistoric past, I'm merely accommodating to the OE system when I say that. As long as they are talking about ages in millions of years when there was nobody around at all there is no way to establish anything with the kind of certainty often claimed for it. ABE: And besides, there was only Noah around during the Flood and he was shut up in the ark.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, actually what I mean to be saying is that since it's interpretive it's not set in concrete, that's really all. Hutton's reasoning about Siccar Point is reasonable enough but it's open to being wrong in a way that the double helix is not despite attempts to say it is. It's only a hypothesis really, and I think it's wrong and would like to be able to prove it wrong with a miniature model of strata if possible. In this case I did dream up a model that might work for a test, but for most things in the prehistoric past no test is possible. I came to realize there is a weakness in the methodology because of my commitment to the Flood, of course, and wouldn't have realized it otherwise, but there IS a weakness in the methodology nevertheless and that has to be acknowledged. You'd rather the weakness were just politely glossed over I suppose. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes that's true. Creationism is also interpretive and historical. The complaint is that Old Earth Geology thinks it's got an unbreakable grip on the truth about the past that it cannot possibly have and that needs to be challenged.

The weakness has already been stated a million times here. The weakness is that information from the prehistoric unwitnessed past is not testable -- or let's say very rarely testable since I may have a test for angular unconformities -- and therefore remains hypothetical and unprovable as the double helix is provable and is never going to be found to be a triple helix or something else. It's a done deal,. Siccar Point is not. The case has been made over and over and over. Just stubbornness not to accept it,.

I figure since I was able to dream up a test then sometimes these things are testable, that's all. But most of what has been called a test here isn't a real test.

Ugh. Reading this is a pain. Sorry, I guess it's just hard to take the patronizing attitude, all the more from someone who long ago caved in on the Biblical standard. And the utter lack of ability to see what I AM doing and trying to do here. Blech.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.