Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-21-2019 5:22 AM
22 online now:
AZPaul3 (1 member, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,228 Year: 12,264/19,786 Month: 2,045/2,641 Week: 0/554 Day: 0/113 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.
ringo
Member
Posts: 16851
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


(2)
Message 308 of 614 (734713)
08-01-2014 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by Faith
08-01-2014 5:04 AM


Re: working geologists do observational science
Faith writes:

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.


You have to understand how the land came to lie that way and how the rocks came to have that relationship before you can understand how the oil got there. When you understand how, there's no way it could happen except slowly.

Young-earthers have no explanation for how the oil could get there so fast, which is why they're not the ones who are finfing the oil.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Faith, posted 08-01-2014 5:04 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Straggler, posted 08-01-2014 1:19 PM ringo has responded
 Message 317 by Faith, posted 08-01-2014 10:12 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16851
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 310 of 614 (734718)
08-01-2014 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Straggler
08-01-2014 1:19 PM


Re: working geologists do observational science
Straggler writes:

If all else fails goddidit is their explanation.


I'd call that an excuse for not having an explanation.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Straggler, posted 08-01-2014 1:19 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Straggler, posted 08-01-2014 1:42 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16851
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 344 of 614 (734797)
08-02-2014 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by Faith
08-01-2014 10:12 PM


Re: working geologists do observational science
Faith writes:

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.


Exactly. There's no such thing as "Old Earthism"; there's just normal science.

Faith writes:

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.


My point is not that you "need" to know the origin of the rocks. My point is that when you do know the origin of the rocks, that origin had to be a long time ago. The processes that created the rocks take a long time. Old age is a byproduct of geology, not a prerequisite.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Faith, posted 08-01-2014 10:12 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by Faith, posted 08-02-2014 12:17 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16851
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 347 of 614 (734804)
08-02-2014 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by Faith
08-02-2014 12:17 PM


Re: working geologists do observational science
Faith writes:

You are arguing a different point. The point I'm arguing is that there is no need to know the origin of the rock in order to do the work of practical Geology, finding oil or ore or whatever else geologists do.


I know it's a different point. The point is, once again, that practical geology goes hand-in-hand with an old earth. The practical geology leads to an understanding of how the rocks formed and that formation required long ages. The practical geology produces the long ages as a byproduct.

Everybody doing practical geology has the same understanding of how the rocks formed over long periods of time. You can't separate practical geology from the implications of practical geology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Faith, posted 08-02-2014 12:17 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16851
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


(2)
Message 435 of 614 (735221)
08-07-2014 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 422 by Faith
08-06-2014 9:30 AM


Faith writes:

Well, there's some solace in having my prediction so thoroughly confirmed.


Hm.... You're wrong today. You were wrong yesterday. You were wrong a week ago. You were wrong a year ago.

Based on these observations, I predict you will be wrong tomorrow.

I hope my predction is not confirmed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by Faith, posted 08-06-2014 9:30 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16851
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 456 of 614 (735992)
08-29-2014 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 453 by Tangle
08-29-2014 10:30 AM


Tangle writes:

... you're just feeding a remote troll.


It's the nurturing instinct. We have to feed somebody. If she won't come here, then it's meals on wheels.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by Tangle, posted 08-29-2014 10:30 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16851
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 568 of 614 (746097)
01-02-2015 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 566 by NoNukes
01-01-2015 9:52 PM


Re: thought experiment and turning this into an example of science
NoNukes writes:

And surely we've done enough cantilever problems to be skeptical about a wooden crane?


Wooden cranes are no problem:
quote:
The Roman Polyspastos crane, when worked by four men at both sides of the winch, could lift 3000 kg. In case the winch was replaced by a treadwheel, the maximum load even doubled to 6000 kg at only half the crew, since the treadwheel possesses a much bigger mechanical advantage due to its larger diameter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 566 by NoNukes, posted 01-01-2015 9:52 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 569 by Percy, posted 01-02-2015 2:51 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16851
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 577 of 614 (746141)
01-03-2015 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 569 by Percy
01-02-2015 2:51 PM


Re: thought experiment and turning this into an example of science
Percy writes:

The problem is that boom....


It's a non-problem. The crane doesn't have to lift very heavy loads. The pieces of the ark are no bigger than the pieces of the crane.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 569 by Percy, posted 01-02-2015 2:51 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 578 by Percy, posted 01-03-2015 11:00 AM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16851
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 579 of 614 (746145)
01-03-2015 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 578 by Percy
01-03-2015 11:00 AM


Re: thought experiment and turning this into an example of science
Percy writes:

Such a boom couldn't even support itself.


You're taking issue with a drawing. Maybe the drawing has the wood a little too thin but there's nothing wrong with the principle. I've used wooden A-frames much like that myself.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 578 by Percy, posted 01-03-2015 11:00 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 580 by Percy, posted 01-03-2015 11:49 AM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16851
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 581 of 614 (746153)
01-03-2015 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 580 by Percy
01-03-2015 11:49 AM


Re: thought experiment and turning this into an example of science
Percy writes:

There are no A-frames in the boom....


The boom itself would be an A-frame, although it might not be clear in the drawing. That might reflect on the artist's understanding but not on the viability of the idea. The "mast" from which the boom is suspended would also be an A-frame if seen from a different perspective.

Percy writes:

Wood is just too fragile....


I'm no engineer but in the drawing the load would be along the length of the boom, in compression. There's little bending stress at all.

Percy writes:

It's self-evidently impossible.


As I said, I've used 'em.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 580 by Percy, posted 01-03-2015 11:49 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 582 by Percy, posted 01-03-2015 1:02 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16851
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 598 of 614 (746283)
01-05-2015 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 582 by Percy
01-03-2015 1:02 PM


Re: thought experiment and turning this into an example of science
Percy writes:

That boom seems as self-evidently impossible as this Dr. Seuss building


You're making far too much of a drawing. It's a drawing.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 582 by Percy, posted 01-03-2015 1:02 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 599 by Percy, posted 01-05-2015 11:17 AM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16851
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 601 of 614 (746294)
01-05-2015 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 599 by Percy
01-05-2015 11:17 AM


Re: thought experiment and turning this into an example of science
Percy writes:

You thought you saw an A-frame that clearly isn't there....


As I said, the artist's rendering may not be perfect. Noah would, most likely, have used an A-frame design.

Percy writes:

But I think both you and RAZD would have to concede that the wooden lattice boom I thought was in that image really *is* impossible.


I'm willing to concede that many figments of your imagination are impossible.

My only point here is that there is nothing inherently wrong with the picture.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 599 by Percy, posted 01-05-2015 11:17 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 602 by Percy, posted 01-05-2015 11:51 AM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16851
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 603 of 614 (746302)
01-05-2015 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 602 by Percy
01-05-2015 11:51 AM


Re: thought experiment and turning this into an example of science
Percy writes:

I don't think it's a case of missing and eventually forgotten details that were intended to be added later....


Neither do I. I think it's a case of the artist not knowing much about wooden cranes. We could probably find a lot of other things to nit-pick in the drawing - or we could give our heads a shake and remember: it's a drawing. A few details in a drawing are a complete non-issue.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 602 by Percy, posted 01-05-2015 11:51 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 604 by RAZD, posted 01-05-2015 12:11 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply
 Message 606 by herebedragons, posted 01-05-2015 1:17 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16851
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 614 of 614 (746391)
01-06-2015 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 606 by herebedragons
01-05-2015 1:17 PM


Re: thought experiment and turning this into an example of science
herebedragons writes:

It looks to me as though Monty Python provided the inspiration for that crane design.


I'm afraid your point is lost in the poor illustration that you chose. A Trojan bunny is quite plausible from an engineering point of view.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 606 by herebedragons, posted 01-05-2015 1:17 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019