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

What do you suppose you're invoking when you correctly conclude that there were once living stegosaurs?

This means there is no point in arguing with you. Your loss, I'm afraid.Anyway, instead of bringing up counter-evidence against your worldview, let me try and think along the same lines, and see what we get.If we examine a fossil, let's say the fossil remains of a stegosaur, we find that it is made of stone. It may look like the bones of a stegosaur, but it is really nothing more than a collection of fancy stones. How can that be?Well, the obvious conclusion is that it really is a lookalike of a stegosaur and that it was made by a sculptor. After all, it's made of stone, not bone. It's a statue, it's art. And the sculptor either had a very vivid imagination, or was high on some hallucinogenic substance, because what he made is the stuff of dreams, obviously.Your elaborate theory of a Flood that killed outrageous looking animals is way too complicated an explanation for what really went on long ago. Noah didn't build a boat, he sculpted a theme park.It's obvious.

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 read your blog post, Mike, but it just made me think that you should think more.For a start, when assessing which claim is the grander it is a good idea to pick equivalent claims and to understand them in some detail.Another is to properly understand the context. If you grant that new species have come into existence then evolution would seem to be the least "grand" explanation for that fact.Maybe your criteria claim that the idea that every known species has existed for an infinite time is not a "grand" claim and should be accepted by default. But I do not think that you accept that view, and I believe that the evidence adequately refutes it.

Well yes, reconstructing-thing-A-in-the-past is always going to be slightly weaker evidence than seeing-thing-A-in-the-present. Living stegosauruses which we could see would have to be somewhat stronger evidence for living stegosauruses than the bones that we actually have.But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's weaker evidence than seeing-thing-B-in-the-present. For example, which would you be more confident of --- the proposition that stegosauruses once lived, or the proposition that the latest heart disease drug has fewer side-effects than the last one? The former, of course, although the latter is testable in the present.(By analogy, a murder case against person X is always somewhat more plausible if you have a confession. But that doesn't mean that the case against X with a confession is stronger than the case against person Y without one.)Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Creationists' problem with "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science has nothing to do with evidence or method or anything else.The only reason creationists have any interest in this issue is that they hate the results shown by certain branches of science and are out to discredit those results any way they can.Besides, "its just a theory" and "teach the controversy" failed, so its on to something else.

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.

But evolution has met the burden of proof, beginning with early studies of morphology, then of fossils, and all of that now supported by DNA.Humans as "always been" is not supported by the evidence. We go back in time to archaic humans, various Homo species, Australopithecus etc. all the way to primates and earlier.

quote:

---

I should have made the blog-entry clearer. Really that entry is only highlighting the difference of two positions.

---

And by choosing to look at different things you grossly exaggerated a very small difference.You chose to make an apples to oranges comparison, Mike. That's not good thinking.

quote:

---

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".

---

Not well, phrased there Mike, but I think I know what you mean.However this distinction is the product of your fallacious comparison. A more accurate distinction is:1) to accept evolution which is fully consistent with wih the known facts of reproduction and the law of identity (although the last bit is a rather pointless addition)2) To reject evolution even though any alternative is even less consistent with our knowledge and would require a greater burden of proof.

quote:

---

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.

---

And science has met that burden of proof.Now I have to ask YOU if you are claiming that humans have existed forever. Because that is where your argument goes. Do you really think that that assertion needs no further support? Because that is what you are saying.

Is predicting the future even more dodgy than the past?After all, nobody has seen the future. The future has left no evidence yet.Therefore weather forecasts are nonsense? I guess it depends on the claims being made. All extant life is related, is an observable claim that can be tested in the present. If it was true, it does necessitate something of the past.

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 mean one can look at evidence and see it yourself. Presently.I am not saying I can see any event. Who cares about proving that logically? Almost everything we know cannot be proved logically. We can however, observe evidence, perform tests that confirm our ideas about that evidence, and make reasoned deductions about how that evidence came to be.Let me show you an uncontroversial example. Based on real events. Imagine you had a brother who was kidnapped when you were babies. And let us imagine someone comes to you later in life and claims to be your brother. Neither of you can 'look at events that you can't observe'. But you can look at evidence you can observe. Your physical similarities, and maybe behavioural similarities. These days, you can go further and test DNA. This was enough to settle the issue of the gypsy girl in the article I linked to. I'm talking about extant life, not extinct life. If the results of DNA tests are not observable, then please correct me.

---

You didn't answer my question about future events such as the weather.

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.