Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: The Rutificador chile
Post Volume: Total: 919,503 Year: 6,760/9,624 Month: 100/238 Week: 17/83 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.
nwr
Member
Posts: 6484
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 31 of 614 (718447)
02-06-2014 5:16 PM


Dear Mr Ken Ham
Dear Mr Ham,
Your Bible was written by 100 monkeys randomly pounding away at keys.
You think I am wrong? Were you there?
--------
His "were you there?" argument works just as well against what he wants to believe. It's a ridiculous argument.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2228
Joined: 07-15-2003


(2)
Message 32 of 614 (718465)
02-06-2014 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by RAZD
02-06-2014 5:08 PM


Re: How about forensic science? -- not on prehistoric unwitnessed events?
RAZD writes:
When you get back to the point where DNA samples are not obtainable then this line of evidence is not so useful.
However, using DNA-comparison, we can for example determine the time when the last common ancestor between any two species must have lived, and with reasonable certainty too. DNA can tell us a lot, even if we don't have samples from extinct species.
If I can make an hypothesis from observations of existing data (fossils, sedimentary layers etc etc etc) and then TEST the hypothesis to see if it is valid or invalid then it is science yes?
It is indeed.
What Faith (and Ham and other creationists) apparently claims is that IF the events in the past can not be REPRODUCED that then they cannot be tested.
They fail to understand that is is not the events themselves that need to be repeated, but the research into them needs to be repeatable.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 02-06-2014 5:08 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 998
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(1)
Message 33 of 614 (718467)
02-06-2014 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by ooh-child
02-06-2014 4:33 PM


Re: How about forensic science?
Let me play devil's advocate here - the Bible is the inerrant word of God, silly. Says so right in the book. Everything in it is inspired by a perfect being, therefore, it is perfect. Besides, God was there.
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

"Our future lies not in our dogmatic past, but in our enlightened present"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by ooh-child, posted 02-06-2014 4:33 PM ooh-child has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 668 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 34 of 614 (718537)
02-07-2014 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Faith
02-06-2014 3:51 PM


Re: How about forensic science?
Faith writes:
You can't compare this to the sciences involved in trying to explain things from the UNWITNESSED PREHISTORIC past where there are no testable clues because there are no witnesses, again meaning any kind of documented knowledge as well as human witnesses.
I agree with you that there is a distinction between "kinds" of evidence. The problem is that eyewitnesses and documents - the only evidence you seem willing to accept - are the worst possible kinds of evidence.
Witnesses lie or are mistaken. Documents can be forged. What makes good evidence is the absence of any opportunity for human tampering.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 3:51 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10302
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.1


(4)
Message 35 of 614 (718539)
02-07-2014 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Faith
02-06-2014 3:51 PM


Re: How about forensic science?
As has been discussed recently already, forensic science does not deal with the PREHISTORIC UNWITNESSED PAST.
That is completely arbitrary. Whether it was unwitnessed yesterday or 50 million years ago, there is no difference. It was unwitnessed.
The whole point is that we use observational science to test our theories of what happened in the past. We test the ratios of isotopes in rocks. We compare genomes. We compare features between living and fossil species. All of this is in the present and is observational science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 3:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 02-07-2014 7:37 PM Taq has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1661 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 36 of 614 (718607)
02-07-2014 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by RAZD
02-06-2014 4:51 PM


bump for faith
Thank you Faith.
As has been discussed recently already, forensic science does not deal with the PREHISTORIC UNWITNESSED PAST. There are witnesses of all kinds (I count written documents that relate to the crime to be witnesses) and ways of checking everything that has to do with the crime with people and documents and all kinds of known information about similar crimes. Anything that occurred in the historical past or the past shared by living people can be tested in all kinds of ways. ...
I am curious as to the actual extent of this and the criteria for deciding. Let me make an example to use for discussion:
Sample #1: the "Methuselah" tree a bristlecone pine living in the White Mountains in California.
We can observe this tree today, and we can make core samples and observe the ring patterns of dark, small cells and light, large cells that have grown in the tree.
Now I can count tree rings in this living tree and get a number of 4845 rings.
Now it is commonly known that trees produce growth rings every year. So what can we conclude from this data that we observe today?
Do you agree that counting the tree rings is witnessing the empirical data in the tree?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 02-06-2014 4:51 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1701 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 37 of 614 (718614)
02-07-2014 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Taq
02-07-2014 12:03 PM


Re: How about forensic science?
Sorry if I haven't been clear but I'm not talking about the mere absence of a witness to a particular crime, I'm talking about the fact that the crime has occurred in HISTORIC time where there are many "witnesses" in the sense of clues that have a shared understanding and that sort of thing so that you have many ways of checking up on any line of reasoning. You may still not be able to solve the crime, but that's not the point.
The "unwitnessed past" simply means the past before human beings, when no witness was possible at all and you have only the physical data to figure out. You can know some things but your theories of how animals evolved genetically one from another, about how the dinosaurs died, and that sort of thing are untestable and unprovable, should not be treated as fact but that's what you all do nevertheless. You should treat it as hypothesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Taq, posted 02-07-2014 12:03 PM Taq has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1701 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 38 of 614 (718616)
02-07-2014 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by RAZD
02-06-2014 4:51 PM


Re: Let's use an example to explore this further
Obviously we have to hypothesize that the pre-Flood world produced tree rings at a greater rate. In fact the idea is that there weren't even seasons back then, so the trees just grew according to some internal clock of their own, and when the climate changed after the Flood the production of rings would have been tied to the seasons.
If the scientific conclusion contradicts the Bible, we assume the fault is in the science. Way it goes, RAZD.
Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) - creation.com
Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings. As a tree physiologist I would say that evidence of false rings in any woody tree species would cast doubt on claims that any particular species has never in the past produced false rings. Evidence from within the same genus surely counts much more strongly against such the notion. Creationists have shown that the biblical kind is usually larger than the ‘species’ and in many cases even larger than the ’genus’see my article Ligers and wholphins? What next?.
Considering that the immediate post-Flood world would have been wetter with less contrasting seasons until the Ice Age waned (see Q&A: Ice Age), many extra growth rings would have been produced in the Bristlecone pines (even though extra rings are not produced today because of the seasonal extremes). Taking this into account would bring the age of the oldest living Bristlecone Pine into the post-Flood era.
As far as the discussion about the prehistoric past goes, you are interpreting the tree ring count on the basis of uniformitarian principles, but you have no way of testing or proving whether your principles apply past a certain point, you simply assume they do. You call it proof when it's nothing but the usual speculative guesswork. If things were appreciably different before the Flood, as we believe, then your assumptions don't hold water. As it were.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 02-06-2014 4:51 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Coyote, posted 02-07-2014 8:19 PM Faith has replied
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 02-07-2014 8:52 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 47 by Parasomnium, posted 02-08-2014 4:54 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 62 by roxrkool, posted 02-08-2014 1:13 PM Faith has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2362 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 39 of 614 (718619)
02-07-2014 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Faith
02-07-2014 7:52 PM


Re: Let's use an example to explore this further
Obviously we have to hypothesize that the pre-Flood world produced tree rings at a greater rate.
With no evidence. And you claim science is bad?
In fact the idea is that there weren't even seasons back then,
Again, no evidence.
so the trees just grew according to some internal clock of their own,
Again, no evidence.
and when the climate changed after the Flood the production of rings would have been tied to the seasons.
No evidence for either the flood or the change in how rings are laid down.
If the scientific conclusion contradicts the Bible, we assume the fault is in the science.
But then you claim it is science. You should be disqualified from ever having an opinion within science because you don't accept the scientific method, and you have no evidence.
As far as the discussion about the prehistoric past goes, you are interpreting the tree ring count on the basis of uniformitarian principles,
For which we have evidence.
but you have no way of testing or proving whether your principles apply past a certain point, you simply assume they do.
Wrong, as usual. We do have evidence. You just refuse to see it.
You call it proof when it's nothing but the usual speculative guesswork.
No, we call it evidence, hypothesis, and theory. Scientists don't use the term "proof" as that is a very specialized term limited to very specialized uses. Amateurs and creationists use that term, as they don't know any better. It is an instant give-away for a lack of training in science, or a complete disregard for the scientific method.
If things were appreciably different before the Flood, as we believe, then your assumptions don't hold water. As it were.
But there is no evidence for a flood, hence no way things could have been different before. And your belief is not evidence, nor in any way related to the scientific method.
After the above comments you dare criticize science for not having data, making unwarranted assumptions, and coming to faulty conclusions? What a joke!

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 02-07-2014 7:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 02-07-2014 8:54 PM Coyote has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1701 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 40 of 614 (718622)
02-07-2014 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
02-06-2014 12:09 PM


Ken Ham in his debate with Bill Nye said we need to break science into two parts
1."Observational Science" -- where scientific experiments can be conducted in real time with testable predictions, etc etc ... referring to the application of the scientific method through the use of our senses and what we can measure, etc, and
2."Historical Science" -- where experiments cannot be conducted in the past and thus cannot be properly tested ... and therefore -- according to creationists -- the scientific method cannot be used and results\observations cannot be taken as evidence.
And he wants us to discard "historical science" because "you weren't there"
Or something like that (feel free to correct me if I have misrepresented this).
I assume he means what I've been meaning about the unwitnessed / prehistoric / unobservable past. It's not that you are to "discard" it, because it's all you have for the U/P/U past, but the problem is that you treat it as the equivalent of testable science instead of realizing that it's not. In fact you even call your speculations and imaginations and cogitations and hypotheses about the past "Fact." THAT's the problem. An honest recognition that the past is not knowable with such certainty is what is required of you. Oh not that you can't know some things, which I've acknowledged, the fact that an animal unknown to us today lived in the past for instance, but your scenarios, your ideas about what happened in the past, your theory of evolution, that fossils higher in the geologic column are genetically descended from lower fossils for instance, that's an unprovable leap of imagination, and the problem with that is that instead of recognizing its untestability and unprovability you insist it's true and call it Fact. Though it's only a mental construction. Based on a bunch of fossilized bones.
So what is real science and do these two distinctions above really apply to sciences like paleontology and geology?
They apply to all hypotheses about what happened in the U/P/U past.
quote:
Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. ...
In modern usage, "science" most often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. It is also often restricted to those branches of study that seek to explain the phenomena of the material universe. ...
Certainty and science
A scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered strictly certain as science accepts the concept of fallibilism. ...
Then stop calling the ToE "Fact."
Scientific method - Wikipedia
quote:
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. ...
The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed '
Which can only be done in the "hard" sciences, and not in the historical interpretive sciences about the unwitnessed prehistoric unobservable past.
and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. ...
This is a lot of blah blah. Definitions evade the point I'm trying to make, and that is confirmed by the article Rox posted about how Geology is an interpretative historical science, it's not a hard science, it's not a science that is built on laboratory testing as physics is, as chemistry is, etc. The ToE is at best an hypothesis about the U/P/U past which cannot be tested or proved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 02-06-2014 12:09 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Coyote, posted 02-07-2014 9:02 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 02-07-2014 10:22 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1661 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 41 of 614 (718623)
02-07-2014 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Faith
02-07-2014 7:52 PM


Re: Let's use an example to explore this further
Obviously we have to hypothesize that the pre-Flood world produced tree rings at a greater rate. In fact the idea is that there weren't even seasons back then, so the trees just grew according to some internal clock of their own, and when the climate changed after the Flood the production of rings would have been tied to the seasons.
So you agree that the rings are objective evidence that we can count.
You do realize
  1. that there is no discernible difference in the rings produced, so you are claiming that the "pre-flood" rings magically mimic precisely what we would see from annual rings -- that the evidence was made to lead people to false conclusions.
  2. that the variation in ring thicknesses correlate with climate, so that if there were a substantial difference in climate as you are suggesting that there should be substantial differences in the rings ... unless they are created to portray a falsehood.
  3. that Bristlecone pines do not survive under water for a year, yet this tree and several others in the same area lived continuously through their extensive lives
    1. the "Prometheus" tree (aka WPN-114), with 4862 measured and counted tree rings of when cut down in 1964 for research, however this is a minimum number because the core of the tree is missing,
    2. the "Schulman" tree (my name for the tree because Schulman took the core and he was a pioneer in dendrochronology in the area), with 5,264 tree rings today,
    3. the "Ancient Sentinels" - standing dead trees, with over 7,000 tree rings.
    4. there are pieces of dead wood lying on the mountain top in the same area.
  4. all these pieces of trees and dead wood can be matched ring for ring into a continuous chronology extending to over 8,700 tree rings
  5. the location is not that far from the Grand Canyon, where you posit massive flows laying down sediment, yet there is no such deposits over these trees
And that is just for starters. I notice that there are several rather severe problems for your explanations: to be consistent we should see the evidence of massive sedimentation in these locations that should have buried all vegetation older than the flood, the dead wood pieces that are older than your flood date should have been carried away by the flood, and that your fantasy about a different climate before the flood doesn't explain how this evidence survived the flood ... contradictions Faith that you need to explain, ... or change your hypothesis.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 02-07-2014 7:52 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1701 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 42 of 614 (718624)
02-07-2014 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Coyote
02-07-2014 8:19 PM


Re: Let's use an example to explore this further
As far as the discussion about the prehistoric past goes, you are interpreting the tree ring count on the basis of uniformitarian principles,
For which we have evidence.
No you do not have evidence for your uniformitarian principles. That's an assumption, period.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Coyote, posted 02-07-2014 8:19 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Coyote, posted 02-07-2014 9:05 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 46 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-08-2014 12:03 AM Faith has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2362 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 43 of 614 (718625)
02-07-2014 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Faith
02-07-2014 8:50 PM


Then stop calling the ToE "Fact."
We don't call the theory of evolution a fact. We call it a theory.
However, it is a fact that organisms and populations evolve. That is a fact which has been demonstrated in many ways.
The theory of evolution seeks to explain that, and many other facts.
Once again, through your lack of study and understanding of science--really, your outright rejection of science--you are getting your terms wrong. It makes for a much more difficult debate when you use incorrect terms.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 02-07-2014 8:50 PM Faith has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2362 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 44 of 614 (718627)
02-07-2014 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
02-07-2014 8:54 PM


Re: Let's use an example to explore this further
No you do not have evidence for your uniformitarian principles. That's an assumption, period.
Uniformitarianism is not a "principle," nor is it an assumption. It is an observation.
One that you don't like but can't come up with evidence to counter.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 02-07-2014 8:54 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1661 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 45 of 614 (718632)
02-07-2014 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Faith
02-07-2014 8:50 PM


Thanks Faith
I assume he means what I've been meaning about the unwitnessed / prehistoric / unobservable past. It's not that you are to "discard" it, because it's all you have for the U/P/U past, but the problem is that you treat it as the equivalent of testable science instead of realizing that it's not. ...
Do you agree that we can make observations of this evidence and form hypothesis regarding it ... hypothesis that could explain it?
... In fact you even call your speculations and imaginations and cogitations and hypotheses about the past "Fact." THAT's the problem. ...
So you do agree that we can call them hypothesis, hypothesis that are based on the observed evidence, yes?
... An honest recognition that the past is not knowable with such certainty is what is required of you. ...
So it's okay with you if we say they are hypothesis?
... Oh not that you can't know some things, which I've acknowledged, the fact that an animal unknown to us today lived in the past for instance, but your scenarios, your ideas about what happened in the past, your theory of evolution, that fossils higher in the geologic column are genetically descended from lower fossils for instance, ...
So you would agree that there are many organisms that lived in the prehistoric past.
Do you agree that the locations of these fossils and layers don't contradict the hypothesis?
... and the problem with that is that instead of recognizing its untestability and unprovability you insist it's true and call it Fact. Though it's only a mental construction. Based on a bunch of fossilized bones.They apply to all hypotheses about what happened in the U/P/U past.
So it's okay to say it is an hypothesis, yes?
Then stop calling the ToE "Fact."
Again I remind you that I don't claim any theory is fact, and the theory of evolution is no different than the theory of gravity or the string theory ... or any scientific theory.
What is fact is that we see the process of evolution in virtually all breeding populations around the world. There seems to be confusion about these two things -- conflating them, rather than distinguishing one as evidence and the other as theory.
Then stop calling the ToE "Fact."
Scientific method - Wikipedia
quote:
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. ...
The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed '
Which can only be done in the "hard" sciences, and not in the historical interpretive sciences about the unwitnessed prehistoric unobservable past.
So if we can let reality speak for itself then it is a "hard" science, yes?
This is a lot of blah blah. Definitions evade the point I'm trying to make, and that is confirmed by the article Rox posted about how Geology is an interpretative historical science, it's not a hard science, it's not a science that is built on laboratory testing as physics is, as chemistry is, etc. The ToE is at best an hypothesis about the U/P/U past which cannot be tested or proved.
Well if we don't agree on definitions then it is difficult to know if we are discussing the same thing in the same way, don't you agree? Curiously, I don't think it is much to ask that words be used to mean the same thing from different camps in a debate.
You do agree that we can form hypothesis to explain the geological formations yes?
Would you agree that if some information contradicted the hypothesis that it would be falsified, shown to be wrong?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 02-07-2014 8:50 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024