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

To which "he" was replying? Who is "he?" I was replying to a post by Dr. A in which he said To which I responded that obviously scientists can't be wrong. That's what he's implying. Why would anyone dispute it?I could have answered as well that I am not using the methods of religious apologists but actually doing quite a good job with scientific method. Since nothing I say gets any kind of honest assessment here, there is absolutely no point in trying to be nice about it either.

You really honestly don't see that your post is nothing but speculations? Interpretations, guesses, suppositions? Not a shred of actual fact, actual test? I guess you don't."It is observed that the debris is missing" you say, but missing from what? Only from your supposition that it should be there, not from anything you can show to be the case.You guys are really a riot.By the way the lower level doesn't "turn," that's a really misleading word. It is pushed laterally (that means "from the side") into vertical folds. Calling that "turning" -- or "rotating" in Dr. A's wording -- completely misrepresents what happens.There is no lack of mechanism for this, that would be tectonic lateral force. Happens a lot you know, buckles strata all over the place.As for where the eroded material went, MY speculation is -- yes at this point all there is is speculation on my side too; too bad you can't see it on your side -- anyway MY speculation is that the eroded material was simply not preserved in this very small slice of the formation, it got pushed somewhere else along the line.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, here we go again with the absurd pronouncements made as if they were fact. 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.If you had an actual example where this actually happened that would be different, but you don't, this is sheer wild speculation. Science, ha!Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

HBD, that is just a lot of pedantic nitpickery. It doesn't matter whether the DNA can be actually seen or not, but others can replicate the data for study and it DOES "explain the evidence" and that is why it is as good as proven. It works and nobody doubts it. There are no competing theories of its structure, right? It's a done deal. It's been confirmed in lots of ways by lots of researchers.Siccar Point, however, a past event, can only be interpreted from the position of the present. How angular unconformities develop is certainly accepted as fully understood but simply on the basis of persuasion. Parts of the sequence of thought about it can be questioned and I question them. Just because there is no visible erosion at Siccar Point doesn't prove anything. There is erosion at other angular unconformities. The claim that the upper strata would have been distorted if the lower had buckled while they were in place is not likely if the upper strata were very deep at the time. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

In the case of trying to create an angular unconformity setting up the experiment would not be easy. Even at a tiny scale, which is all I could manage, I'd have to get it all to the right degree of dryness and hardness/softness, which could take a number of tries, which I probably won't have the means to do.I also think I need to consider the different sediments involved, what that would contribute to the effect, because there would be textural differences that I think figure in how the unconformity was formed. How am I going to simulate or reproduce limestone?

Show me where you see strata formation going on over an exposed uplift.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Because the force was strong and direct at that level. I've answered this many times before. Balance of forces. The point where the weight above balanced out the force of the buckling below. And I think different textures between the layers probably facilitated movement at the particular level where it occurred. At Siccar Point this is only two different kinds of sandstone, but that is where the break occurred.This what a properly constructed experiment might be able to demonstrate.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The creationist "community" isn't into this particular issue, only I am that I know of.

Sure, because all these things are worldwide and the tectonic forces occurred in the same time frame, somewhere around the end of the Flood. I think volcanoes also and other things also occurred in the same time period. Proving it of course is something else I suppose. Shouldn't. Point of equilibrium, above which weight keeps strata stationary, below which strata buckle. Makes good sense. I've given some support in the past. But the fact is that I'm just too intuitive for you. Seems obvious to me.

Yes there are correct and incorrect interpretations, but the point is that when you are dealing with past one-time events ALL YOU HAVE is interpretation, you DO NOT HAVE a method for testing if your interpretation is correct.

I don't know if they would agree with me or not, I haven't tried to persuade them. But many of them do have the strong opinion that the Flood began after the Great Unconformity in the GC occurred, so it might be as hard to persuade them as anybody here.

Do I have to keep repeating for the dull of memory, THE PREHISTORICV UNWITNESSED PAST? I guess so.

Not yet. Neither has the ToE, but it never will. If Geology stuck to finding molybdenum instead of pontificating about the age of the earth I wouldn't have a problem with it either.

Sigh. No they aren't.

I've been arguing in good faith. I haven't been putting a lot into it because I've argued all this before and I know what I'm up against, which isn't worth all that effort any more, or at least right now. But I haven't said anything out of line despite the impression given by the denunciations of what I've said. 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.The example of the elephant is in the present, not the unwitnessed past. ABE: The question is whether there SHOULD be an elephant there, or in the case of Siccar Point, whether you are right to expect erosion there and its lack has the implications you claim. The point is, that expectation may be false because erosion may not always appear and all you have is your supposition that it should, you can't prove that it should. /aBEAs for gay marriage, it's opposed by the Bible, which means opposed by God, and there is no other reason than that. Really weird that anyone would try to make anything else out of it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.