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

As far as I am concerned, the notions of historical science versus observational science are rubbish terms thrown out by Creationists in a vain attempt to divert attention away from their nonsensical claims.It's the functional equivalent of their micro-evolution and macro-evolution tirades. Adjusting goalposts and skirting the issues in a last-ditch effort to save face.There is only science. Period. End of story. And for the record, saying one believes in micro-evolution and not macro-evolution is the functional equivalent of saying that one believes in yards but does not believe in miles.

LOLSo much for civilized discourse.Incidentally, isn't a flat out insult like that in violation of forum guidelines? Just sayin'

I noticed. And apparently, they adhere to a different set of Laws of Physics, Chemistry and Biology. I am surprised she didn't revert to all capitals. That is also one of her modus operandi. And sorry for diverting topics RAZD. Hard to engage in dialog when all I have as a rebuttal is a one word response.

Yes, this was brought up on the other forum thread. I guess they demarcate based on 'recent' historical versus 'very old' or 'ancient' historical.I guess that also begs the question: if ' historical science' is unreliable, as Creationists stipulate, then how can they have such a dogmatic adherence to what is written in the Bible?That book was, afterall, written long after the events it portrays. If we are dealing semantically here, then one cannot simply dismiss out of hand what is considered 'historical science' whilst simultaneously indicating that everything written regarding things like the Genesis account or Exodus are fixed absolutes.

Granted, I realize that is a common response. However, we are speaking in strict scientific terms here. So for one to invoke 'god', one would have to stipulate how god factors into the overall equation.From the standpoint of this thread, Ken Ham (and Faith as well) originally indicated that there were essentially two types of science: Historical and Observational.To invoke god, one would have to ascribe god to one of those two definitions. According to Ham, the 'real' science is observational. So in order to invoke god as being observational, one would have to produce evidence of an experiment that is both testable and repeatable to prove the existence of god. My suspicion is no one will be able to do that. (Faith, you are welcome to provide a counterpoint when you come back from suspension)Now if god cannot in fact be ascribed to observational science, then he/she will need to be relegated to the historical science arm, along with the bible. And as per the original definitions provided at the start of this thread, historical science is untestable and therefore, any evidence provided by Creationists regarding biblical interpretations must, by their own definitions, be categorized as historical science.So ironically, when Creationists put forth this argument of historical versus observational science, or the 'you weren't there' stance, they have in actuality undermined their own view.Edited by Diomedes, : Fixed typo