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

Good logical point. I always thought of the same, it seemed a double standard in my own mind, when I thought the same. I don't think it is that forensics have no validity or value, it depends on each particular case because life is immensely complicated. Most often, there is a large trial in the court, because of the weakness of historical induction.My view would be that historical science should be separated in quality because of the obvious advantage of present day experimentation. Sometimes it looks like it is because deductive reasoning is more powerful than inductive reasoning, but even that isn't entirely, "it" is it? Because exotic air, although operationally proven, is inductive and deductive. We deduce that the rat under the bowl runs out of oxygen but we induce the same result. So it's somewhat mysterious to me as to why operational science has this advantage. Perhaps I'm just not clever enough to see why.I believe the point Ken Ham would really be making is that to prove exotic air exists, we can place the mouse or rat, back under the container, once again. Whereas to prove some sort of land mammal evolved into a whale, after an already absurd belief that marine creatures became amphibians, became reptiles, became mammals, actually, is much more WEAKER science logically, not only because it is a massive claim but because you can't repeat the event. You CAN repeat the exotic-air event. Logically this is deductive PROOF there is a value-difference. That this does not favour evolution, doesn't present a problem to Parasomnium because the same finding does not favour creation.This is because of the axiom that deals with large claims and small claims.Now I could argue that historically, my great grandfather could fly like superman, and had all of the abilities of superman and I could show you my inductive, historical evidence. I could show you where he punched holes in the wall of my house, photographs of him flying and so forth, but if he still existed today, would you say there would be no difference in the quality of the science if we were to put such claims to the test?Now a man as clever as you has no reason to not see the difference. Also, because of your acute logical skills, as proven by our past encounters, you should also be able to see that the things I have just said, do not fight against evolution in particular and that this post in fact, has nothing to do with any specific theory. I hope you can appreciate that.Even if evolution did make the best fist of the facts, and who am I to be dogmatic? Then I would still stand by those points I made, because the size of the claim means that the burden of proof is upon it even more - we rightly demand more from it. I wrote about this in one of my blogs, you won't agree with the blog in all likelihood but I would love it if you took something from it.Creation and evolution views: The Burden Of Proof(Good to see you're still around)Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

I should have made the blog-entry clearer. Really that entry is only highlighting the difference of two positions.1. To not accept evolution, which fits with the known world of direct facts of reproduction and the law of identity.
2. To accept evolution and claim it, which requires EXPONENTIALLY more burden and relies on tenuous, fragmentary inductive "evidence".And that is the evidence you are now pointing to. Logically it is not sufficient.A bit like saying, you can believe humans can't fly and you can believe they can. Showing fragmentary evidence that they used to fly requires much more burden, logically, because the claim that favours reality, requires no evidence by comparison, because it's just "there". All I have to do is point at our lack of wings.The reason why evolution has the burden of proof on it, is because you are saying that billions of diversified complex morphologies are related, but I'm not. I'm saying that the reality you see, humans begetting humans, is simply the reality that has always been.What do I have to prove for my claim? Think about it. Nothing. Nothing is the answer, but what do you have to prove if you say that billions of morphologies are ultimately related?Since I don't have to prove anything at all except to show you the world around us, then to not accept all morphologies are related, is not a huge thing. It is a tiny thing, like to accept that humans don't fly. It is not even a big deal.

With the Stegosaurus, the bones are not history, they are an element of the present, operational, experimental. Notice in your strong example, we could repeat the bone structure through reconstruction. In the same way we can repeat history, by placing the rat under the bowl, in regards to exotic air experiments, or the same exact environment because that environment is still there.We can also trace that the continents fit, and used to be Pangea. Because they are present. We can only go on what we have, and when we don't have, our picture is a more tenuous one.Things that are still present are not truly history, as they are part of the present also. Just because the bones are of a dead creature doesn't mean that they are not here in the present.

There's no point in continuing to talk to you at this stage. You disagree, I am wrong about everything in your mind.Ok.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

I don't know what you mean by "observable", this sounds like Dawkins' sound-bite that people deride. That you can see an event you are proposing took place.You can't prove logically, a relation between lifeforms from looking at events you can't observe. If you were referring to inductive, fragmentary evidence, then what you are observing is extinct creatures that you propose were related.You're therefore equivocating with the term, "observable".Also, in relation to your weather point, things that are observable or tangible in some manner, forces present, are being used to extrapolate likely scenarios.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

I'm going to bow out now because it becomes this kind of petty personal warfare, and to be honest, I've outgrown all that nonsense. I know it might seem I am the "present" Christian, so it's only natural that I hang around and take up that position by defending every little thing I say, but to be honest, it's just boring. I don't have to justify myself to evolutionists so I'm not going to. I came and gave my opinion, for what it is worth, to a person I used to enjoy talking with, that's all.All the best.