|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1693 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
My answer to the forensics comparison is that criminal forensics all goes on in the present really, but certainly not the PREHISTORIC past, which was what I was saying was the problem for science, not the past as in historic times. There are plenty of clues and witnesses in historic time that don't exist in the prehistoric past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17907 Joined: Member Rating: 7.2
|
I think that your argument has rather a lot of problems. I'm going too into to two major issues, each of which covers multiple problems you need to face.
1. In Egypt, at least, probably Sumeria, maybe even other places, your date for the Flood puts it in the HISTORIC past. And you're going to have to quite drastically contract the history to shoehorn your ideas in. I know you'll reject the dates but the compression is still necessary. 2. We have lots of clues about the prehistoric past. Geologists and palaeontologists and archaeologists have worked very hard to find and understand these clues. Denying that they exist - or worse - is simply not an adequate response. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I missed your reply to Message 41:
quote: In addition please note that the tree rings can be tied to historic events in written history and I can provide you with this information if you are interested. So where is the flood time and how do you identify it in the tree ring record? When do I need to stop counting and measuring ring width, and how do I know? Edited by RAZD, : ..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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
There are plenty of clues and witnesses in historic time that don't exist in the prehistoric past. Two things. (1) The tree rings exist today and are clues that have been witnessed in many ways. The question is where do we find your purported boundary between what we can reasonably count and measure and where we cannot do so. (2) We don't need to go back in time to replicate the tree rings that we see in the Methuselah tree -- that has already been done with the Prometheus tree, the Schulman Tree and the Ancient Sentinels. All we need to do is observe whether the replications result in the same information, a comparison that occurs in real time today. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
Scientific study of the prehistoric past uses the same kind of data and reasoning as criminal forensics. Your problem is that you're trying to substantiate a myth that isn't based on that same kind of data and reasoning.
My answer to the forensics comparison is that criminal forensics all goes on in the present really, but certainly not the PREHISTORIC past, which was what I was saying was the problem for science, not the past as in historic times.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
My answer to the forensics comparison is that criminal forensics all goes on in the present really, but certainly not the PREHISTORIC past, which was what I was saying was the problem for science, not the past as in historic times. There are plenty of clues and witnesses in historic time that don't exist in the prehistoric past. And yet the absence of these clues and witnesses doesn't stop you from believing that there were once living stegosauruses. So that's not actually the criterion you're using, is it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 1106 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
My answer to the forensics comparison is that criminal forensics all goes on in the present really, but certainly not the PREHISTORIC past, which was what I was saying was the problem for science, not the past as in historic times. There are plenty of clues and witnesses in historic time that don't exist in the prehistoric past. The problem here is that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. If the earth is only 6000 years old and was created in 6 literal days, the only "prehistoric" past is the first 5 days. So you can't even refer to any "unwitnessed past" since humans have existed since day 6. All the events that we have evidence of happening in the past are in the "historical past," are they not? If we start with that assumption, then everything we are talking about becomes part of this "observable past" and so is subject to present reality. Therefore, we can apply uniformitarian principals to past events and make inferences as to how things happened. Uniformitarianism doesn't mean that no events could have occurred in the past that are different from what we experience today, but that those events would leave evidence that we can interpret based on principals that we can observe and test in the present. I know that is what you think you are doing, but you're not. What you are doing is saying that since these events happened in the prehistoric past that no one can really know for sure what happened since no one was there to witness them. Therefore, you are free to speculate as to how things might have been, or how the evidence supports your idea. And since no one can know for sure, your ideas are as likely as anyone else's. So what is it? When would this "pre-historic past" have existed? What can we not know about the historical past that is not based on our understanding of current processes? Take just ONE geological layer from the GC and analyze how it could have formed based on current understanding of geological processes (you can do this because that layer was laid down in the historical past). Take just ONE speciation event and analyze how it happened based on current understanding of genetic processes (you can do this because that speciation event also happened in the historical past). What do you think you will find? HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9011 From: Canada Joined: |
There are plenty of clues and witnesses in historic time that don't exist in the prehistoric past. Isn't the only difference between pre-history and history the presence of written records? In forensics are not many, many crimes "solved" with no witnesses and no written records of the event? Other than a witness or a written description (or a picture I guess) what is the difference between a clue that is 10 minutes old -- 10 days old -- 10 years old -- 1,000 years old or 100, 000 years old? Are all the crimes "solved" without witnesses or a written description of the crime a miscarriage of justice?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10293 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4
|
My answer to the forensics comparison is that criminal forensics all goes on in the present really, but certainly not the PREHISTORIC past, Such an arbitrary division of time. Why does evidence only become valid after humans start writing stories in clay tablets? Care to explain? Did the act of using Cuniform somehow magically transform all evidence on earth from invalid to valid? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1693 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Such an arbitrary division of time. Why does evidence only become valid after humans start writing stories in clay tablets? Care to explain? Did the act of using Cuniform somehow magically transform all evidence on earth from invalid to valid? If you don't have a witness in the past you don't have a way to confirm your interpretation of the evidence. You can interpret but you can't confirm. Laboratory sciences and forensic science in historical time have ways of confirming, testing, doublechecking things that you do not have for the ancient past. A written record from the past would be something at least. But all we get from you guys is your interpretations, and since we have different interpretations it's a tad annoying to be given yours as if they were fact. We have no argument with real science based on testable evidence as in the laboratory sciences, but we have a ton of problems with all that imaginative hooha about what happened millions of years ago, especially when it's determined from a few items buried in a rock that looks like it was laid down in a Flood. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1693 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Isn't the only difference between pre-history and history the presence of written records? And the presence of human beings who may have personal knowledge or expertise on things related to the crime, and the presence of artifacts of different sorts connected to the crime that can provide clues through what people know about those too, including experts. Items that can speak as it were. In the ancient past you have NO items that can speak, or let's say very few anyway. You have only physical artifacts and your own imagination and that of your fellow scientists of course, but under those circumstances you could all be operating under a mass delusion and never know it because there's no objective test for any of it. Which of course is what creationists think of all the sciences of the prehistoric past.
In forensics are not many, many crimes "solved" with no witnesses and no written records of the event? I don't know, but I do know that there are plenty of potential witnesses and experts and all kinds of information available that isn't available from the prehistoric past.
Other than a witness or a written description (or a picture I guess) what is the difference between a clue that is 10 minutes old -- 10 days old -- 10 years old -- 1,000 years old or 100, 000 years old? As I've been saying, the possibility of confirmation from many sources. The only confirmation of the prehistoric past you have is a shared imagination, which can be, and in my opinion is, a delusion, because you can only assert it, you can't prove it.
Are all the crimes "solved" without witnesses or a written description of the crime a miscarriage of justice? You'd have to give examples. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1693 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Read my last two posts. Of course creationists are speculating too and of course for us there is no prehistoric past. But for evolutionists and old earthers there is so you are all flying blind. All either side has is interpretations, and your interpretations win by aggression, not proof.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1693 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The problem is not with once-living stegosauruses, it's with the scenarios in which the stegosauruses supposedly lived, which are made up out of whole cloth by evolutionists / old earthers and cannot be proved, only asserted and forced on others.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1693 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes, it's good evidence based on uniformitarian assumptions, but if things were appreciably different in the past that includes the time covered by the rings, and I don't mean laws, I mean conditions, climate, etc., then the evidence needs to be subjected to other tests and considerations than the uniformitarian assumptions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10293 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4 |
If you don't have a witness in the past you don't have a way to confirm your interpretation of the evidence. Why can't we use empirical evidence that was produced by the past event that we can test in the present? You know, like forensic science? Forensic science can still be used to reconstruct a crime even if there are no witnesses.
You can interpret but you can't confirm. You can confirm that the evidence in the present is consistent with your hypothesis. This is known as doing science.
Laboratory sciences and forensic science in historical time have ways of confirming, testing, doublechecking things that you do not have for the ancient past. None of those methods includes an eye-witness. In fact, they use DNA comparisons to confirm relatedness, just as scientists do for humans and other species. It's the same test.
A written record from the past would be something at least. It would be a very weak something since people can write made up stories.
We have no argument with real science based on testable evidence as in the laboratory sciences, Then the laboratory sciences confirm evolution: Just a moment... The authors of that paper use laboratory science to confirm that humans share a common ancestor with other ape species.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024