Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9045 total)
326 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK (2 members, 324 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,360 Year: 5,006/14,102 Month: 604/707 Week: 2/157 Day: 2/22 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.
Inactive Member

Message 235 of 614 (732038)
07-03-2014 2:08 AM

More BS to deal with
Creationists are not the only ones to have noticed that the sciences that deal with the unwitnessed or prehistoric past depend on interpretation and can't be tested.

I have three formations, from bottom to top A, B and C.

I take well data and I map the top of Formation A, it's elevation in regards to sea level.

I take well data and I map the top of Formation C.

I compare the two and find that I have the same high spots and low spots in both Formation A and Formation C. The numbers are of course different but a 75' high in A is a 75' high in C.

It is obvious that whatever deformed/bent A did the same to C.

Now I map the top of Formation B which is between A and C. It should have the same structure as A and C, but it does not. This is not physically possible unless the map on the Top of Formation B includes something in it BESIDES the structure we see in A and C.

So I need to remove the structure from A, B, and C. The easiest way to do this is to make an isopach map of A, B, and C, not an isochore map, but a map of the actual thicknesses of these formations. I want to look at the stratigraphy not the structure, if you don't understand you need to think about it.

So I find that A is almost constant but both B and C vary by 165 feet. The thin areas in B correspond to the thick areas in C and the thick areas in B match the thin areas in C.

Therefore C clearly filled in the thickness variations in B.

Now I notice that in the lower part of B I have a small shale break which I can follow from well to well across the area I'm mapping, let's call it the Shale B marker.. I map the structure on this and see that it agrees with the structure on A and C. So the actual structure inside of B is the same as A and C, it's just the top that is different.

There are really only 2 possibilities here. Either B was mounding up while it was being deposited creating the highs and lows or it was eroded away and I am looking at an unconformity with topography on it creating the highs and lows.

Let's find out which it is. I'm going to make stratigraphic cross sections and isometric block diagrams which I'm going to hang on the Shale B Marker as it's the closest thing I have to a time line. If I had an ash fall/bentonite I'd use that. What I'm doing is removing the structure so we can look at the stratigraphy/deposition.

What I find is that I can follow the Shale B marker everywhere but the rock sequences above that can be followed from hill to hill but are missing in the thin spots/stratigraphic lows in the B Formation.

This is just like looking across the Grand Canyon and noticing that the same rock sequences occur on both sides but not in the middle where it was eroded away.

So the B formation was eroded away but who cares?

Well I noticed that the sand deposition in Formation C tends to occur where Formation B is thin. This means that the topography on Formation B is influencing the deposition of sand in Formation C and those sands produce a lot of oil and gas.

The influence of B on sand in C is not the only thing going on here but you need to understand this to explore for oil and gas in the Eastern Colo., Ks., Tx-Ok Panhandles in the Morrow Formation which is Formation C. B is the top of the Miss, sometimes Chester, sometimes St. Louis, since B To C is an angular unconformity. (The Chester is eroded away in Colorado and only the St Louis is left.)

If you followed that tell me where I made an interpretation rather than observing, measuring and mapping things which FORCED me into a logical conclusion of what happened with no other physical possibility.


Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 2:29 AM petrophysics1 has not yet responded
 Message 244 by PaulK, posted 07-03-2014 3:20 AM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 246 of 614 (732051)
07-03-2014 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Faith
07-03-2014 3:22 AM

Re: True Scientific Geology vs. Historical Interpretive Geology
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.

What went over your head is that what I did is how ALL geology is done.

You don't get it. I just proved that an unconformity, a thing which can not exist if all the rocks where deposited by a flood, does in fact exist and you don't need to interpret anything to figure that out.

Let's go for time seven. Tell me your scientific procedure for figuring out the depositional environment of a formation.

You have determined they were all deposited by a flood how did you do that?

Tell me what you did so I can rip it to shreds.

What you don't know about geology coupled with the stuff you know which is wrong would easily fill the Library Of Congress.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 3:22 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 8:28 AM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 248 of 614 (732054)
07-03-2014 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by PaulK
07-03-2014 3:56 AM

Re: True Scientific Geology vs. Historical Interpretive Geology
He's interpreting evidence to reconstruct what happened in the unwitnessed prehistoric past.

I am collecting data which then FORCES me to a logical, rational conclusion about what had to have happened.

I am a geologist, I do this the way all other geologists do it. Geology has nothing to do with the way Faith thinks it's done (or most of the other people here for that matter, basically people don't know what I do so they should stop explaining it to me.)

I am not the one pontificating and blowing smoke out my ass after having looked at a post card of the Grand Canyon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by PaulK, posted 07-03-2014 3:56 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 312 of 614 (734740)
08-01-2014 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by Dr Adequate
08-01-2014 6:12 AM

Re: working geologists do observational science

You are correct. Although I'm not sure if you know why I gave that explanation.

I got tired of all this "It's just interpretation" crap, and I needed a simple example of what myself and all geologists do. I measure things and then am forced into logical conclusions based upon my observations.

Of coarse it is necessary to know how to make observations, things like identifying minerals, rocks or fossils and accurately placing them in 3-D space. A thing which I've seen no evidence of Faith or any other YEC doing. This means there is NO data, everything they say is a speculation backed up by nothing.

I have asked Faith 7 times to tell me what she does to determine how rocks were deposited. She has somehow determined they were ALL deposited by a flood, but she will not answer and gets pissed off because it goes right to the root of all the insane stuff she says about geology. She doesn't know crap about how geology is done but refuses to admit it, and even worse pontificates about it and how it's done.

So I've shown one way to determine an unconformity exists, which BTW proves there was no worldwide flood which deposited all of the rocks in the geologic column. I only needed to do it in one place but can do it in hundreds. BTW Faith in agreeing with me didn't realize she destroyed her own arguments, both the one about the flood and the one about historical geology being all interpretation.

So does anyone out there know how to begin figuring out how rocks were deposited? I'm sure you have all read explanations of how rocks we deposited but do you know what to do, how to begin to do it yourself and how geologists actually do it.

If someone other than Faith wants to know I'll explain it. As a hint it has an awful lot to do with accurately describing and measuring rocks.

Right now, I've rocks to describe, a log to draft and a well to steer in the Three Forks but will be back later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2014 6:12 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Faith, posted 08-01-2014 9:52 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded
 Message 324 by herebedragons, posted 08-01-2014 11:17 PM petrophysics1 has responded
 Message 352 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-02-2014 7:57 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 342 of 614 (734778)
08-02-2014 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 324 by herebedragons
08-01-2014 11:17 PM

Re: working geologists do observational science
HBD writes:

I for one would be interested in that process. Perhaps you could use as an example a layer in the Grand Canyon that we are familiar with?

I'll return tomorrow afternoon, to explain what you have to do to determine the way something was deposited. I have too much to do right now. I am supposed to be working.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by herebedragons, posted 08-01-2014 11:17 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 437 of 614 (735229)
08-07-2014 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 436 by herebedragons
08-07-2014 1:10 PM

Re: working geologists do observational science
I have not forgotten you but have been very busy and now we have another oil cranker in the Three Forks in N.Dakota.

I’ve read the paper you mentioned and got the same out of it except it is written by a university type. He doesn’t understand that ideas are TESTED every time we drill a well. I predict that if we drill here we will make a well, so my ideas about the past and what it looked like, along with other geologist’s, are TESTED every time an oil company drills a well. None of these ideas include a worldwide flood and they work very well. If someone has a better idea to make money I’m all ears.

Before we go on our oil hunting expedition I need you to do some work so I don’t leave you in the dust. I searched around and found some sites I want you to take a look at.

This is the first, short and sweet. Pay attention to telling the difference between current ripples and ripples caused by waves.


This one shows you some of the different kinds of limestone. Look at these and ask yourself if you think they could all be caused by the same process.


This is an excellent site, and shows you what the rocks look like in various places in numerous depositional environments. I want you to pay attention to cores and rocks that only occur in one place and those that could be formed in different places. You need to know these because we may have several explainations and we are going to use stratigraphy and Walther’s to figure out what actually happened. This will take some time, go to every environment click on it and know the rocks like your life depended on it. My family has lived for close to forty years because I know this like the back of my hand.


This last one is a bit more complex, but please read it for the background. I will be talking about this and can explain it further later. I don’t want you completely lost so a dipmeter is a borehole log which you can get the exact dip of crossbedding off of. These days we use an FMI which gives us a resistivity map of the borehole and from that we get the orientation of the bedding and crossbedding. Pay attention to the DIFFERENT environments of deposition and how they are different and the same.


I have to drive to NY now but will be back and you are going to look for oil with me.

P.S. haven't the time to check for spelling so live with it.

Edited by petrophysics1, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Fix first link.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by herebedragons, posted 08-07-2014 1:10 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 440 by Pressie, posted 08-08-2014 7:54 AM petrophysics1 has not yet responded
 Message 445 by herebedragons, posted 08-11-2014 9:27 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021