Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9045 total)
363 online now:
kjsimons, PaulK (2 members, 361 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,360 Year: 5,006/14,102 Month: 604/707 Week: 2/157 Day: 2/22 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5552
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(1)
Message 149 of 614 (731813)
06-30-2014 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Faith
06-30-2014 3:44 PM


Re: Siccar Point
Try out the angle of repose kit you already have first.....

Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 3:44 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 3:58 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5552
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(2)
Message 350 of 614 (734826)
08-02-2014 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by Faith
08-02-2014 12:17 PM


Re: working geologists do observational science
You are mistaken. You really, really need to know if you have a rock that was capable of forming and/or holding oil before you go spending a few hundred million dollars on randomly boring holes in the earth's crust. You really, really need a model of how and where that rock (those rocks, really: source, reservoir, and seal) was deposited and perhaps deformed before you set a platform 150 miles from land in mile-deep water.

And let me concede something that will shock you, Faith. A petroleum geologist does NOT need to know that the top of the Permian is 251,000,000 years old to find oil. But the ages of that magnitude are still there, largely as a byproduct of us oilys' doings. The Horseshoe Atoll down beneath my house is a humungous reef - grown in place - that grew there before the Permian ended. It's a reef, Faith: 600 feet thick, 120 miles long. It was deeply eroded in places before it was buried by 6500 feet of evaporites, limestones, and sands/clays. That did not happen in 4300 years. It didn't happen in 4.3 million years. It took a Long Time. And the only viable models that find oil RELY on millions of years for it to have arrived where it is now.

Spindletop and Drake's Folly were then. We are in now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Faith, posted 08-02-2014 12:17 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by Faith, posted 08-02-2014 9:37 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5552
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(1)
Message 391 of 614 (734993)
08-04-2014 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by Faith
08-03-2014 10:02 PM


Re: working geologists do observational science
Radiometric dating appears to work for establishing the order of things whether the actual dates are of any validity or not.

Think on that a while with me. In your Flood model, much of the sediment on Earth was deposited in about a year at most - the early parts of the flood. That would mean that in order for radiometric dating to get "the order of thing" correct, its methods would have to be able to tell that Ordovician rocks are older than Cretaceous rocks, and to distinguish ages between those two. So 4301 years would have to be measurably older than 4300 years by one or more of those radiodating schemes.

The problem is that radiometric dating isn't that good. The Tunnel of Siloam (ol' Hezekiah's work from 2 Kings) has been dated with very close attention to detail, and returned dates of 2823 +/- 13 years at their best accuracy. The destruction of Pompeii, similarly, was dated to an accuracy of +/- 94 years.

So how would it be that a floodist age of 4300 years plus 360 days could return a old-earth radiometric date of 450,000,000 years, while 4300 years plus 300 days gives a Cretaceous date of 66,000,000 years? If radiodating can actually return the correct order of things, those things must be spread over more than one year of flooding.

http://www.berkeley.edu/.../berkeleyan/1997/0924/dating.html
http://www.nature.com/...al/v425/n6954/full/nature01875.html

Edited by Coragyps, : add refs


This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by Faith, posted 08-03-2014 10:02 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 9:08 AM Coragyps has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5552
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(2)
Message 395 of 614 (735058)
08-05-2014 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 393 by Faith
08-05-2014 9:08 AM


Re: working geologists do observational science
I have to assume some sort of systematic error, that's all, that really isn't about time at all. If I ever figure it out I'll let you know.

Post it over on "Age Correlations and An Old Earth." RAZD has been waiting there seven and a half years for the first substantive suggestion as to what sort of error that would be.

http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=6288

And you won't figure it out, Faith, because the "systematic error" ain't. RAZD showed that already, right here in our little corner of the internet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 9:08 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by Faith, posted 08-05-2014 10:43 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5552
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(1)
Message 591 of 614 (746180)
01-03-2015 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 590 by Percy
01-03-2015 8:01 PM


Re: thought experiment and turning this into an example of science
I see a Dalek dressed up for some really odd Mardi Gras parade.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 590 by Percy, posted 01-03-2015 8:01 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 592 by Tangle, posted 01-04-2015 3:37 AM Coragyps 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