otseng wrote:micatala wrote:
The SG predicts exactly what we find in the geological record.
Now are you happy?
And I am only being half facetious here.
I would hope that you're being entirely facetious.
I must own up and so, no, not entirely, but we can leave it at that. I'll address at least some of your points from this post.
THe SG would predict that if you find trilobites below dinosaurs which are below flowering plants which are below sea urchins of a certain type which are below mammoths in one area, then when you find the same kinds of fossils in another area, you will find them in the same sequence. This is what we see.
I would be curious to see evidence of this.
I will track it down from within this thread in my next post.
The SG predicts that when igneous rock layers are in a sequence from low to high and show no evidence of massive movement, the lower ones will date older than the higher ones. This is what we see.
Why do you specify
igneous rock layers? Shouldn't all rock layers regardless of composition be like this?
Because igneous rocks are the ones we can date via radiometric dating. Sedimentary layers are not typically amenable to this as they do not necessarily contain radioactive material, which can come from magma. We can date sedimentary layers approximately by, for example, dating any igneous layers that are above and below them.
The SG makes predictions concerning where one is most likely to find oil and natural gas. Energy companies use the SG because its predictions work.
How do they predict this? What are the predictions?
I will see if I can find more on this. It is referred to in my Williston Basin link. As I recall, one way to look for oil or gas is to try and locate areas of impermeable rock (eg. granite or other metamorphic rock) that has been folded in such a way as to form a dome or upside down bowl shape. Oil and gas tend to migrate through permeable rock to the surface, and based on geologic time, most of it has already made it to the surface and dissipated, unless of course it gets trapped by layers and formations it cannot rise through.
otseng wrote:When grumpy asks you to provide more parameters for making the prediction, you seem to demur.
OK, let's put it this way. The FM is able to make a general prediction on the appearance of stratas regardless of the location. SG is not able to do this. According to Grumpy, it can only make a "prediction" when a specific location is pointed to. This makes falsification of SG impossible since it will then predict exactly what we see.
I agree, the FM is more amenable to making global predictions.
However, the FM is inconsistent with large amounts of data.
Furthermore, you seem to be making the criteria "the theory is able to make global or general predictions" as more important than other criteria or even essential. The fact that the SG is not amenable to doing this is
not necessarily a weakness of the theory as you seem to believe.
Also, it is not true that an inability of the SG to make this type of global prediction means it is not falsifiable. For example, the prediction I gave earlier concerning where fossils of certain types are or should be found could be used to falsify the SG. If we found a layer that could be reliably dated to 10,000 years ago but which had dinosaur fossils in it and then below that we found trilobites in layers of a million years, and then humans in layers of 2 million years ago, then the SG would be in significant trouble at least.
You keep pointing to this expectation that the SG should include the possibility that there are layers formed, then folds in these layers, then layers on top of these. We agree.
Not only a possibility, but this should be the norm and not the exception.
Again, I see absolutely no reason to jump to the conclusion that what you are looking for should be "the norm and not the exception." You are making a huge assumption about what the SG should lead to, not taking into account the length of time required for formations, how often and where techtonic forces create folding and faultings, etc.
You keep pointing to this expectation that the SG should include the possibility that there are layers formed, then folds in these layers, then layers on top of these. We agree.
You have NOT shown that this does not exist.
I do not claim that they do not exist. I only claim it would not be frequently found.
Again, I am not sure what basis there is for this assumption nor what you mean by "not frequently."
What should be frequently found according to the FM is that the vast majority of folds should affect all the layers.
I would agree. Where we disagree is how often this would also happen under the SG.
And I've presented evidence for this. And what I'm saying is that plates are moving all the time according to SG. Bends, faults, folds should be seen throughout the stratas, and not just simply affecting the entire strata sequence. I think perhaps where we are differing is exactly how often should this be seen. I don't think every layer necessarily should have evidence of folding or faults (though perhaps erosion). But, the distribution of them should not favor affecting the entire strata sequence.
Yes, i think we are differing on exactly how often this should be seen. We are also probably differing in how often you would be able to find evidence for this, since the examples we are looking for would be found below the surface, potentially very deep below the surface. Again, you are making what is an unjustified assumption in saying what should "normally" be found.
otseng wrote:
I assume you mean this image:
Here's another image that gives a better perspective:
http://www.jamesgunderson.com/roadtrip2/default2.asp
This diagram shows that a huge section of layers were formed first. Then folding. Then fault and erosion. There is little evidence of folding while all the layers were formed. And there is little evidence of erosion between the layers while all the layers were formed.
Thanks for getting the graphics in. We now can look at both a wide perspective, and a more narrow one. I'll say more about this in the next post, but will point out that exactly what you are looking for is found in the areas labelled 4a, 4b, 4c etc. an also the tilted layers in 1 and 2.
HOW ARE THESE CONSISTENT WITH A GLOBAL FLOOD!!!!!!!
You are refusing to consider the most relevant evidence until the less relevant evidence has been gone through ad nauseum.
I would totally disagree with this. Does not the OP itself ask about predictions? It is the
only reason I'm harping on this issue. If it did not ask about predictions, I would not keep on trying to bring this issue up.
The OP asks about what predictions the FM would make, not the SG, and also talks about evidence. My apologies if I appear frustrated, but in pushing for predictions without considering the more relevant evidence that would falsify the FM, it seems you have things backwards. We usually wouldn't bother using a model to make predictions unless we first cleared up major challenges to the theory presented by the actual data.
Further, I have addressed many issues that have been brought up: Siccar Point Unconformity, Oceanic ridges, magnetic anomolies, Iridium and KT, Chicxulub impact, Plate Tectonics, tree rings, large animals, uniform climate, etc. It is not that I have only been trying to talk about the prediction.
I ackowledge you have discussed these issues, but I am not sure you at all adequately addressed them. You seemed to dismiss the whole issue of the KT boundary and the iridium layer based on a few dinosaur fossils that
may have been formed
slightly above the KT boundary.
I do not recall that you provided any explanation as to how the iridium layer could have been formed by a global flood.
However, we can readress some of these if need be. However, I would agree, as long as we are on the grand canyon, let's stick with that, with the caveat that I will go back to the trilobite and related fossil issue I brought up earlier. We may even be able to allude to trilobites from the grand canyon area.
But, I'll do this. I'll go ahead and start addressing the issue of ice cores.
Very good. This will limit us to three rabbits by my count.
However, it is doubtful such a model could ever, by itself, allow one to predict exactly when and where you would find evidence for wars in the historical or archeological record, unless you knew what the circumstances were at particular times and places in the past .
However, in the case of the FM, it is able to make a generalized prediction
without even knowing about the particular location. On this basis, the FM prediction is more powerful.
True, but again, I would say the generalized nature of the prediction is not the most important scientifice criteria.
One could say that astrology is a more powerful and generalized predictor of human behavior and the circumstances we face than what is provided by psychology and anthropology. This doesn't make it truer or better.
But, as I mentioned to Grumpy, if one place is required in order for you all to make a "prediction", we can discuss the Grand Canyon area first.
Very good.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
