Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
pantodragon

Geology and Wagner

28 posts in this topic

The fundamental principles upon which Geology is founded are assumptions, not facts. In other words, the science of geology is nothing more than a piece of fiction.

One of these basic principles is that the oldest layer of rock in horizontal strata is at the bottom, the youngest at the top. That is no more than an assumption, yet it is so fundamental to geology that if it were found to be false, the entire structure of geology would fall like a house with foundations built on quicksand.

Consider the age of the earth. It is currently estimated at 4600 million years old. The immense age of the earth was first proposed in the late 18th century, the theory being based largely upon observation of the processes of erosion and deposition e.g. soil being washed off a field and silting up a lake. Since erosion and deposition happens slowly, then “obviously” (???!!!!) the earth must be phenomenally old since how else could mountains be built? I mean, it’s “obvious”, isn’t it? Just as “obvious” as the relative ages of the individual layers of horizontal rock strata (oldest at the bottom; youngest at the top), eh?

Furthermore, the same geologist who proposed the immense age of the earth (Hutton), also proposed the principle of Uniformitarianism: that the geologic processes occurring in the world today are the same as they were in the past (the geologic past being millions of years ago); and that these changes are slow and constant. The principle of Uniformitarianism is, by and large, the accepted view today. Yet it is nothing more than conjecture. It is an assumption. (It is exactly the same sort of assumption-taken-for-fact made by physics when it asserts that the laws of physics are the same throughout the universe. This too is nothing more than conjecture.)

Last century, attempts were made to calculate the age of the earth using lead decay calculations. The earth rocks/materials are so impure as to render useless any results, therefore scientists turned to outer space for an answer. The current accepted of the age of the earth was arrived at using “primordial lead” found in meteorites. This “currently accepted” age of the earth is also riddled with assumptions: the assumption that material from outer space can provide reliable evidence for the age of the earth; that “primordial lead” contained in meteorites is the kind of lead found in the solar system when it was first formed --- not to mention whatever assumptions atomic physics is riddled with.

As we have seen, then, geology is quite happy to borrow from the other sciences when it wants results that it can’t arrive at itself. And the other sciences are also quite happy to borrow from geology when needs must. So, when Charles Darwin could not find a mechanism for his theory of evolution, he turned to geology (Lyell’s Principles of Geology), and the newly established theory of the great age of the earth. It gave Darwin the time-scale necessary to explain his theory of evolution. But think about it: Darwin arrived at his theory of evolution using a geological theory riddled with assumptions!!! If the geology is wrong, where does that leave the theory of evolution???? Where does that leave genetics? Where, in fact, does that leave science?

Today, Hutton’s theory of Uniformitarianism is modified to include the odd catastrophe or two i.e. the steady, constant geologic processes were interspersed with intense periods of, say, volcanic activity. This, quite simply, is the Hegelian dialectic at work. (Thesis + anti-theses = synthesis.) Hutton’s Uniformitarianism is the thesis, Catastrophe theory the anti-thesis, such that today the accepted theory is simply the synthesis. Science is littered with this sort of mechanical way of arriving at “new” ideas.

The Hegelian dialectic has also been at work in evolution. There are two competing theories: one is that evolution happens at a steady rate, while the other, “punctuated equilibrium”, is the evolutionary equivalent of geology’s catastrophe theory. I’m not sure which one is dominant at the moment, but I have no doubt that the synthesis is on the way if it hasn’t already arrived.

So, what’s wrong with using the Hegelian Dialectic, then? It is everywhere. It is used in all the academic subjects, in politics etc. When one sees the Hegelian Dialectic (HD) driving the system, as one does so frequently, it is indicative of people who are not interested in truth. The HD is simply an easy way of generating theories (why come up with a new theory if don’t need one?) that some scientist can stick his/her name to and become famous. In fact, the use of the HD is typical of extremely competitive people who just want to enter a dog fight with the competition – in other words, it’s about winning, not about truth.

So, geology is founded on assumption and conjecture. It borrows theories, also founded on assumption and conjecture, to prop itself up, when geology cannot provide its own answers.

Finally, what has geology got to do with Wagner? Wagner took the higgledy-piggledy tales that are the Norse myths and legends and converted them into a coherent whole - a story, upon which he based his Ring Cycle. In the same manner, geologists have constructed a neatly tied together piece of fiction – the science of geology -- based on nothing more than their higgledy-piggledy observations of the earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Logically the earth has to be older than the rocks that form on it.

Anyway I thought you left to bless another forum with your diatribe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fundamental principles upon which Geology is founded are assumptions, not facts.

So what are the implications of this? Are you proposing something different, pointing out a mistake, or just sounding off?

One of these basic principles is that the oldest layer of rock in horizontal strata is at the bottom, the youngest at the top.

This is a principle, not a law. At least two exceptions were known way back in the 60s when I took rocks-for-jocks.

1. The Colorado Overthrust Belt. In western Colorado one tectonic plate road up on top of another, producing two sets of strata of the same age, one set on top of the other with some older rocks on top of younger ones. The sequences are right-side-up, but part of the column is repeated.

2. In Wyoming is a butte with the strata inverted. Again, an overthrust situation. One plate road up on top of the other and overturned. Surrounding material eroded away leaving an upside-down butte.

This is not something new. It was known before plate tectonics were known. The issue is settled, except for some fundamentalists who specialize in closing their eyes and shouting "Does not!"

Doug

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what are the implications of this? Are you proposing something different, pointing out a mistake, or just sounding off?

This is not something new. It was known before plate tectonics were known. The issue is settled, except for some fundamentalists who specialize in closing their eyes and shouting "Does not!"

Doug

I'm pointing out a fatal error in geology. It is such a basic part of geology that it means the whole structure is unsound. As you say, the issue is settled, but only in the manner of all problematic issues in science: make a guess and tally-ho regardless.

And, BTW, I have got a different explanation for things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pointing out a fatal error in geology. It is such a basic part of geology that it means the whole structure is unsound. As you say, the issue is settled, but only in the manner of all problematic issues in science: make a guess and tally-ho regardless.

And, BTW, I have got a different explanation for things.

It's not an error and there are plenty of ways of determining if a sequence is the right way up (graded bedding, internal structres etc.)

If you have an alternative theory, I suggest you present it. Because, your misunderstandings aside, what science does is accept the only theory not disproven. So unless you can come up with a scientifically sound one, we'll stick with the one that works.

As for you first post, it's late and right now, I don't even know where to start...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pointing out a fatal error in geology. It is such a basic part of geology that it means the whole structure is unsound. As you say, the issue is settled, but only in the manner of all problematic issues in science: make a guess and tally-ho regardless.

And, BTW, I have got a different explanation for things.

If it's fatal, I don't see how. Could you explain this, please? I know of several exceptions to the rule of juxtaposition, but these do not overturn it; rather, they strengthen it.

If you have a different explanation, please post it. It will take a lot of work to overturn established theory, but it wasn't that long ago that plate tectonics was discovered, so who knows?

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hahaha I love this topic it make me laugh. Thank you pantodragon.

Where to start.. I'll try tomorrow, its late here in Europe. I have actually said this a lot, but I promise to reply to you tomorrow. Because this make me laugh, I'll dicuss you thoughts with some geologist at lucnh tomorrow.

Btw a quick comment to Doug, yes it only about 60 years? Ago it was accepted, but pretty sure it is over 150 years ago the idea was given to the rest of the geology community.

Edited by BFB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw a quick comment to Doug, yes it only about 60 years? Ago it was accepted, but pretty sure it is over 150 years ago the idea was given to the rest of the geology community.

My Freshman geology prof didn't believe plate tectonics. That was in 1968, so I think it had been seriously discussed recently at the time.

My daughter is a production geologist. I can guess what she'd say and it wouldn't be pretty.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Freshman geology prof didn't believe plate tectonics. That was in 1968, so I think it had been seriously discussed recently at the time.

Btw a quick comment to Doug, yes it only about 60 years? Ago it was accepted, but pretty sure it is over 150 years ago the idea was given to the rest of the geology community.

It was first proposed in early 20th century by Wegener then confirmed around 1950-60 by observing seafloor spreading. Basically, Wegener had the idea but not the mechanism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To all:

You are all so besotted by science --- your faith makes you blind. There are other theories inside and outside of science, but science is a competitive world, and the literature of science is littered with losers. My preference is, in fact, for a theory outside of science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To all:

You are all so besotted by science --- your faith makes you blind. There are other theories inside and outside of science, but science is a competitive world, and the literature of science is littered with losers. My preference is, in fact, for a theory outside of science.

I repeat: state your theory so it can be considered. I'm afraid saying 'hahaha I have all the answers but I'm not telling you!' isn't very convincing.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I repeat: state your theory so it can be considered. I'm afraid saying 'hahaha I have all the answers but I'm not telling you!' isn't very convincing.

I refer you to my post: Pantodragon's world in a nutshell. (Philosophy and Psychology.) I would also point out that, like it or not, there are other established ways of "knowing" which lead to other theories beside my own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I refer you to my post: Pantodragon's world in a nutshell. (Philosophy and Psychology.) I would also point out that, like it or not, there are other established ways of "knowing" which lead to other theories beside my own.

The difference between a working hypothesis and a wild screwball idea is that you can test the hypothesis. How can your idea be tested?

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I refer you to my post: Pantodragon's world in a nutshell. (Philosophy and Psychology.) I would also point out that, like it or not, there are other established ways of "knowing" which lead to other theories beside my own.

Uhuh... Read it...

I take it you weren't a science teacher then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The starting point of plate tectonics was noticing how well Africa, Europe and America fitted into a super continent. There is no other explanation than continental drift which adequately explains this observation, coupled to deep sea rift spreading it makes for a very compelling argument.

There are to many examples where rock strata is not chronological, and magma uplift and subduction offers an explanation to why, for the opening observation to be taken seriously as even a critique of geology.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The starting point of plate tectonics was noticing how well Africa, Europe and America fitted into a super continent. There is no other explanation than continental drift which adequately explains this observation, coupled to deep sea rift spreading it makes for a very compelling argument.

There are to many examples where rock strata is not chronological, and magma uplift and subduction offers an explanation to why, for the opening observation to be taken seriously as even a critique of geology.

Br Cornelius

Nonsense! Bunkum! Humbug! And ignorance to boot! And on top of all that, my beef in the OP was the basic premise upon which geology is based a la Hutton, though if things had gone differently, if Germany had been in the ascendant rather than britain at the time, I might have been saying "a la Werner" who had a different theory from Hutton. Then again, if France had been in the ascendant..........Buffon? Cuvier? Who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between a working hypothesis and a wild screwball idea is that you can test the hypothesis. How can your idea be tested?

Doug

You insist on being a scientist. I insist on not being a scientist. For further elucidation, see my 2 new posts: Science: the fatal flaws and Towards a better world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhuh... Read it...

I take it you weren't a science teacher then?

You obviously have missed the threads where I was challenged concerning the extent of my life experience where I revealed that I had been a professional scientist (physicist).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You insist on being a scientist. I insist on not being a scientist.

I guess we're stuck with that, then. I'll do my thing, you do yours.

For further elucidation, see my 2 new posts: Science: the fatal flaws and Towards a better world.

Is one of them about the world in a nut's shell? Interesting choice for a title.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense! Bunkum! Humbug! And ignorance to boot! And on top of all that, my beef in the OP was the basic premise upon which geology is based a la Hutton, though if things had gone differently, if Germany had been in the ascendant rather than britain at the time, I might have been saying "a la Werner" who had a different theory from Hutton. Then again, if France had been in the ascendant..........Buffon? Cuvier? Who knows?

You may say so, but I am just reporting the almost universally accepted interpretation of the Geological data. Since then continental drift has been empirically verified by measurement of Atlantic and Pacific spreading at the continental junctions. Plate tectonics explains every geological process which has been measured.

If you choose to ignore it then don't be surprised when people disagree with you.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You obviously have missed the threads where I was challenged concerning the extent of my life experience where I revealed that I had been a professional scientist (physicist).

So you claim. Sorry, but I'm not inclined to believe you. No self respecting scientist would think the following an appropriate approach to debate:

Nonsense! Bunkum! Humbug! And ignorance to boot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So you claim. Sorry, but I'm not inclined to believe you. No self respecting scientist would think the following an appropriate approach to debate:

Have I not yet made myself clear: I am not a scientist. I do not pretend to be a scientists. I express so little admiration for science I am surprised you could think I would want to be one.

I WAS a scientist. There is life beyond science, and a better one to boot! Or it would be more correct to say, there was life BEFORE science.

Edited by pantodragon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may say so, but I am just reporting the almost universally accepted interpretation of the Geological data.

"IT is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." (Jane Austen)

Personally, I have never found that universal acknowledgement makes a lie true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"IT is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." (Jane Austen)

Personally, I have never found that universal acknowledgement makes a lie true.

God complex since I doubt your a genius :whistle:

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God complex since I doubt your a genius :whistle:

Br Cornelius

Doubt away, but keep your eyes on the heavens: that bolt of lightning's on the way!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.