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

This from the blindest most kneejerk undiscriminating poster at EvC.

Oh far from true. If you have no feeling whatever for what a creationist is doing you have nothing true to say about it. Your comments are trash. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

No.

Petrophysics said absolutely nothing that is not knowable from the position of the rocks themselves. He did not say one thing to interpret the prehistoric past.ABE: Here's what you think I should object to: What does this have to do with interpreting the prehistoric past? This is normal sleuthing of what can be seen of the physical situation of the rocks by one's very own eyes. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If you can find the old earth in what I quoted from petrophysics, or in anything he said, I'd have to conclude you're hallucinating.

If you think that, you are hallucinating same as coyote. He said not one thing that implies a prehistoric past. But not a word about that happening in the prehistoric past, and such an inference is completely uncalled for in anything he said.He ended his post with this: And this is true and there is nothing in his conclusion that involves the prehistoric past. If he were now to say it does I could only answer that he's imposing that bias on his own procedure. The procedure itself does not lead to the prehistoric past.

What you are saying makes absolutely no sense to me. What he described was a straightforward analysis of physical geology. He was doing observational science and not historical science, which is what I always supposed working geologists had to be doing in the field. Some of you have said the ancient age is necessary in the field, especially for finding oil, but then along comes petrophysics in Message 235 and describes what he does and, guess what, nothing about the ancient earth, it's ALL observation of the lie of the land, the relationships between the rocks. The ancient earth stuff is NOT necessary. Historical science is just windowdressing, just a theory pasted onto the facts. I'm sure it's necessary to know the order of the deposition of the rocks, to know their relative age in other words, for some calculations, but so far I have seen nothing from the geologists here that shows that Old Earth assumptions have anything to do with it. And you haven't said anything to show otherwise.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

All that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact tha HISTORICAL GEOLOGY is about the reconstruction of the rocks back a few billion years -- abe theories about their origin, how and when etc /abe--- plus all the lore about how each of the layers with its fossil contents reflects a certain environment of a certain time period, and theories about how the dinosaurs went extinct and that sort of thing.
\
Reconstructing how the rocks got moved around underground so you can figure if they are in a position that might harbor an oil cache has NOTHING WHATEVER to do with these principles of Historical Geology. That is all the normal thinking one would have to do in understanding the physical situation of the rocks in the present.Good grief, have you really not understood that this is what is meant by Historical Geology and the difference between historical and observational science? The theories of the ages as presented on the Geo Time Scale constitute the former in Geology, whereas the lie of the rocks, the cross sections, the analysis of the landscape, the folding of the strata, and so on and so forth are all the observational science.SO the question I've had is whether any of the theories about the ancient past of the rocks and the fossils, THEIR SUPPOSED ACTUAL AGES IN PARTAICULAR, enter into the finding of oil or any other endeavor of practical working Geology, and petrophysics for one has shown that, at least in that one presentation of what he does in the field, IT DOES NOT.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OK, if the definition is already established I will have to be clearer about what I mean. It's surprising to me of course since the whole point of my argument is that reconstructing the prehistoric past can only be interpretive, such things as their supposed deposition hundreds of millions of years ago, the "era" in which they were deposited being characterized by their fossil contents, the supposed extinctions being determined by a thin layer of iridium and the absence of expected fossils above a certain level. All stuff that is pure theory and can never be tested.That is what I've had in mind. But if your definition is not confined to this I'll just start calling it Old Earthism again.As for erosion and deformation and all that, a great deal of it is visible in the present and the interpretations are subject to others' observations. Petrophysics' descriptions of the rocks he is studying should certainly be easily enough verifiable by others. Then there are core analyses, seismic tests and that sort of thing. All physical determinations done in the present, even if they include interpretations of how a rock got where it is, which is literally "historical" but not about the prehistoric past where there is no way to test anything. All of which should be reasonably categorized as observational science IMHO and all that.Sorry to hear the terms don't clearly differentiate this but I guess I can go back to Old Earthism versus something like Practical or Physical Geology, or maybe Observational Geology is still viable.In any case everything petrophysics described is testable science, and he mentions nothing at all about a rock's age in supposed millions of years, so I'm still waiting for somebody to show me that those specific ancient ages matter at all in the finding of oil or anything else -- as opposed to knowing that one rock was deposited before another, or their relative age.It was asserted a long time ago here, by you among others I believe, and now by edge, that the actual age of a rock does matter in some cases, having to do with working out temperatures that can be important in finding oil.

abe And I am VERY glad you did that because it confirms what I thought had to be the case: you DON'T deal with the Old Earthist nonsense in your work, it is not necessary. What is necessary is knowledge of the position of the rocks themselves. The only thing useful that is contributed from Old Earthism is the names of the eras, which for practical use do identify the order of the rocks, that is, their relative age, and their fossil contents. Physical stuff. The ancient age is really irrelevant from everything you've said. Which is what you clearly described. Well, your own descriptions confirmed what I was saying about how it's done. /abe Depends on the definition. You haven't said one thing that verifies Old Earthism as necessary to anything you do and that's the part that is all interpretation that can't be verified, which so far, judging only from your descriptions, you clearly DON'T do in the work of locating oil.As for unconformities, some of them, particularly angular unconformities, are just a physical arrangement of the rocks that of course you'd need to be able to identify in the field, but there is no problem for how they got there in the Flood scenario as I see it and no need for you to take their origin into account in the work you do.ABE: In other words, you don't NEED to know how the rocks were originally formed, whether gradually hundreds of millions of years ago in successive environments, mostly oceanic, or a few thousand years ago in the Flood. It makes no difference to the practicalities of studying their relation to each other now, which is what leads you to likely sources of oil. It also doesn't matter if an angular unconformity was formed over millions of years or in one tectonic movement: all you need to know is its physical presentation now.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No I do not use those words that way. The point is only that they cannot be subjected to testing or verification, which means that they are open to other interpretations. This is not the same thing at all as being able to determine that an angular unconformity exists, which others can verify.

Finding out how the land came to lie that way and how the rocks got into their present relationship is NOT Old Earthism, it's normal science. What you don't need to know to do that work is the origin of the rocks themselves or their actual age, or how it got there so fast or slow or whatever you think. You can find it just by knowing the disposition of the rocks and how oil is normally associated with certain formations, that's all. You do NOT need to know how it got there or how long it took. According to everything that has been said about it so far. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You're a busy man, if you don't want to take the time that's up to you. I remember that you asserted that Old Earthism did apply in some of the work of finding oil but I don't recall you explaining how that works so that I could judge it for myself. Considering that it's been so often asserted here that Old Earthism is NECESSARY to finding oil, getting even one good description of how oil is located that does not involved Old Earthism is important evidence that it is really not all that necessary.

Well I just got through answering your earlier post, but it's always so nice to get posts from you with your gracious polite style it should be a pleasure to have to deal with yet another: Nothing at all, it's essential. With respect to the prehistoric past, however, it's ALL you've got, no way to verify it. And that's all a Floodist has too as I've said many times. This is a war of plausibilities when it comes to theories about the origin of the rocks and so on, it's not testable science, that's the point. Which needs to be differentiated from the practical situation in the field, which so far clearly doesn't need any of the Old Earth stuff but is instead true observational and testable scientific work. Do remember that what I'm questioning is only the Old Earth stuff, not what you do in the field. And of course I question the Old Earth because it contradicts God's word. And from there I've followed some creationist thinking and my own observations to try to come up with a Floodist view of the origins of the rocks. These theories may not be correct, but Old Earthism certainly isn't. The only thing that I KNOW is correct is that there was a worldwide Flood about 4300 years ago. Far as I can tell from what you and petrophysics and Pressie and rox have said, all this pure theory about when and how the rocks formed has NOTHING to do with your expertise in the field.If you had to face the fact that the Flood was the cause, it shouldn't alter anything you actually do in the field, just some of your mental categories about some of it. The thing is, we have the same evidence you have and all that evidence is subject to other interpretations (For instance, like volcanic ash, iridium could have settled out of the atmosphere or floated on the water during the Flood, just for a quick guess, and of course the presence or absence of certain fossils in any given sedimentary rock is just the luck of the draw in the Flood, nothing to do with separate eras in which they supposedly lived). But other interpretations in the field should be much more quickly resolvable, being all about physical facts, such as what the lie of the land in the present can tell you about the potential presence of oil. These are observations that can be verified and tested in the present. But all that theory about how the rocks originally formed cannot be verified or tested and the Flood is a really good alternative explanation for them. No, the point here is that as long as ALL you have is interpretation and no way to test any of it you can just go on building a web of interpretations that is plausible but could be completely false. Which can't happen in the field where you ARE dealing with testable facts and have to be because you have to be able to find what you are looking for. Old Earthism isn't going to help you there. Have no idea what you are referring to, sorry. Good show, what I would expect of a true observational science. Well, if you are just going to assert such things without explanation that's hardly any proof that Old Earthism is useful. No reason wells should show actual age as opposed to relative age. You love to be as cryptic as possible and all I can do is roll my eyes and shrug it off when you do that. I would hope so, but EvC doesn't seem to be able to sort it out. This is not clear. "They" are important? What is important? Actual age or relative age? And again you are being awfully cryptic with that "no cross=cutting or stratigraphic relationships." I conclude you really don't want to communicate anything or prove anything. Perhaps you are too busy, that's understandable, but mentioning it, asserting it, is not proving it. If I can't understand what you are saying it's as good as if you hadn't said anything. Well, there you are saying it again, without demonstrating or evidencing it. What's to say that a relative thermal history based on relative age isn't sufficient for this purpose? (Since I'd guess there's really no way to know anything about actual temperatures in actual time frames anyway.) Sorry, have no idea what your point is here.And overall I'm afraid nothing in this post clearly demonstrates a need for Old Earthist time frames for anything having to do with the practicalities of locating oil.

Sigh.I do NOT deny that angular unconformities exist.\Sigh.I just disagree with the usual theory about how they formed.Sigh.