You keep spouting the need for evidence, but your history on the site argues that you have no interest at all in any kind of documentation, you only use those claims to shut up certain individuals you feel have no right speaking on the Forum.
CW, that is what it feels like to you, but it is not true. You have a history of making unsubstantiated comments in this Forum. When we ask you for the documentation on which you based your comment, you take offense and go off on a rant, like the one above, about others having "no interest at all in any kind of documentation". Our requests are not attempts to "shut up certain individuals you feel have no right speaking on the Forum" (i.e. it's not an attempt to shut CW up).
We are interested in honest communication. You make an unsubstantiated comment and we ask for substantiation of your comments. That is part of the communication process. Instead of providing the substantiation, you destroy the communication process by going off on a rant because we are not willing to just accept what you say.
SO once again, I politely ask: if you're NOT interested in honest communications, kindly SHUT THE HELL UP and stop abusing the participants, so those with an honest desire to learn can!
Now that is a Trump-like attempt to shut someone up.
All of us in this Forum have the right to express a differing opinion. We are interested in learning and chatting about different topics. It is just that we aren't going to just accept what you and others say without something to backup what is said. We are not that gullible.
It's the same with demanding proof every time someone makes an assertion on these forums.
Assertions made without adequate substantiation are assumptions. If you provided what you base your assertion on, we would not have to ask for substantiation. What you call "us demanding proof" is us asking for substantiation of your apparent assumption.
Yes you are right that we can go out and try to find articles on a subject. Some of what we find will contradict your assertions. We just want to know which of many possible articles you are basing your assertion on. We aren't mind readers and like you we have better things to do with our time than read a dozen or more articles to find one that substantiates what you say.
I read the Live Science article but not the others, so my following comments are based on that one article.
An example of why we don't want to just accept what you say is, you said -
Yes, but the gold was formed (into a solid state) deep underground in mountain streams which boiled away during earthquakes.
What the article said is the gold deposits were formed in faults, not streams. Streams is your interpretation of what the article said.
What part of the scientific process do you not get?
The kind of research we're talking about can only be done on a purely theoretical basis
The Scientific Process starts with a factual baseline. Then through observation and experimentation, facts are added to the baseline. Eventually, a new theory or factual understanding of the subject is formed.
Theory is not fact. It is an assumption that has some basis in fact, but it is not a proven fact. When you start out with an unsubstantiated theory (i.e. the article stated "scientists suspect") and make assumptions regarding that theory, the resulting so-called theory is actually an assumption.
allows us to understand what we currently see and observe (i.e. direct empirical evidence) around us.
Definition of EMPIRICAL
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience
• empirical data
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
• an empirical basis for the theory
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
• empirical laws
Sorry CW. Nothing has been seen or observed in this instance by us or the scientists. The article is about a bunch of guesses that the scientists are making.
Empirical research? Like, digging up an entire mountain, to a depth of possible one or two miles underground . . .
Yes, if that is what it takes to gather evidence for an empirical theory. Otherwise the theory is just an assumptions.
This research helps explain the processes involved,
The Oxford dictionaries say that research is the systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions.
When you start with an assumption that there are gold deposits in what you believe are faults caused by earthquakes and then assume the gold deposits are there because the water boiled off, your resulting "theory" is not valid because you did not do the research on which you can base a new theory. If you read the article carefully, you will find that other scientists have alternative theories.
What I got out of the Live Science article is Weatherley explained how earthquakes create faults and carbon dioxide, water, silica, and gold can be found in these faults. Then due to extremely high temperatures, the water instantly vaporizes leaving behind what nature turns into gold bearing quartz. However, the article also said one of Weatherley's peers (see quote below) said scientists have suspicions regarding the link between gold deposits and faults, and Weatherley's theory takes the idea to the extreme.
The main thing about this article that creates a problem for me is - it contains words like suspected, could, and may:
While scientists have long suspected that sudden pressure drops could account for the link between giant gold deposits and ancient faults, the study takes this idea to the extreme, said Jamie Wilkinson, a geochemist at Imperial College London in the United Kingdom, who was not involved in the study.
this process may be the primary driver for the formation of economic gold deposits
explaining that the 'long gold and silver reserves' were once underground streams, and that repeated earthquakes converted the mostly pure water into solid form over eons
That is not what the article said. The article explains the theory, but it does not prove the theory is factual. You need to stop confusing an explanation and fact.
Does the evidence support the conclusions? Obviously, especially since no other proposal explains what we've long observed.
The article does not provide evidence of there being gold in a buried streambed (or fault). Assuming there is gold there, the article does not adequately explain how the gold came to be in the streambed (or fault). Just because you are not aware of a competing theory, doesn't mean there isn't one. In fact, the article indicates that other scientists have competing theories.
But demanding 'empirical proof' is akin . . . It's simply NEVER going to be possible!
And that is the heart of the problem. If it is impossible to gain proof of a theory, then that theory is an unfounded assumption.