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

I did think it interesting, however, that he actually considered the possibility that the vertical strata had been broken and set upright while the upper horizontal strata were in place, something nobody here will admit as a possibility as I've brought it up many times.

Yes, like us he considered it and since he could find no model, method or process that could do that he, like us, rejected it.

Now perhaps you can present the model, method, process that could do that?

In no real universe does what WOULD have happened, or any other supposition, hypothesis, wild guess or etc., constitute scientific evidence or testable fact, but apparently it does in Evofantasyland.

You really need to try to stop posting such obviously false crap.

If a shooter hits the target there would be a hole in the target.

If there is no hole in the target the shooter did not hit the target.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner. Actually more like non-topic garbage.

How angular unconformities develop is certainly accepted as fully understood but simply on the basis of persuasion.

Utter nonsense and bullshit. We can see angular unconformities developing now. We see the process at every exposed uplift. It is going on today and in millions of years will look like Siccar Point.

You really need to stop posting really stupid assertions that everyone can see are just silly.

It is not just a matter of persuasion unless you mean that the evidence is overwhelmingly persuasive.

Good grief.

Everywhere there is an exposed uplift.

See the dirt, plants, grasses? That is the next strata forming.

All you have in the case of Siccar Point is convincing others of your reasoning. That is not the same thing.

Have you or anyone else been able to present the alternative model, process or method that explains what is seen at Siccar Point as well as the conventional geological explanation?

If so, please give us a link to where that model, process or method was presented.

No, you have not described a model, method or process and to claim you have done so simply shows you are ignorant of what the words model, process or method mean.

If you had you could provide a link to the post where you showed what happened, how you know it happened and evidence that it could happen that way.

What you have presented so far (just as you do with what the Bible says) is just assert what you wish was true.

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.

But geology makes no such claim, nor does the TOE.

What is and has been said is that the idea of the Biblical floods has been considered and totally refuted.

If you wish to show the earth is young have at it. Science is always searching for a better explanation. Science is always subject to change when new data or better explanations are presented, unlike your position which is fixed in fantasy and irrationality.

Edited by jar, : -'+.

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.

And as has been pointed out to you numerous times, we can test and see what it is not.

The idea of a Biblical Flood causing anything has been tested again and again and again and again and the result has been "Nope, a Biblical Flood did not cause that."

It really is that simple. It's a done deal. The Biblical Floods were just stories, myths.

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

It's the same when she is discussing the Bible; she gets upset when you point out that what the Bible actually says refutes what she misrepresents it as saying.

This runs through all of Faith's posts. All she needs to do is say, "I find this plausible," and she is done. No need to support any interpretation with a comprehensive set of evidences and mechanisms. Nope. Just say that it's plausible for no apparent reason, and move one.

That holds true beyond Faith's positions on science and includes all of Faith's Biblical assertions as well. She denies there are contradictions in the Bible, that there is only one Flood story in the Bible, that prophecies have been fulfilled and that there are Old Testament Prophesies about Jesus...her fantasies simply continue and no amount of actual evidence or reality seems to intrude.

There was Noah and his three sons but they had 120 years to build the sucka. Noah was almost 500 years old when they started.

I doubt a crane would be needed. The easy way would be to build a sand ramp instead and let the rain wash it away. Still, with just four worker bees even a 120 year schedule requires some flat humping.