Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 76 of 614 (719199)
02-12-2014 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by mike the wiz
02-08-2014 8:18 AM


Re: How about forensic science?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by mike the wiz, posted 02-08-2014 8:18 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by PaulK, posted 02-12-2014 7:57 AM Faith has replied
 Message 78 by RAZD, posted 02-12-2014 8:30 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 79 by RAZD, posted 02-12-2014 9:26 AM Faith has replied
 Message 80 by ringo, posted 02-12-2014 10:45 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 81 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-12-2014 11:22 AM Faith has replied
 Message 82 by herebedragons, posted 02-12-2014 1:25 PM Faith has replied
 Message 83 by NosyNed, posted 02-12-2014 3:00 PM Faith has replied
 Message 84 by Taq, posted 02-12-2014 3:37 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 77 of 614 (719212)
02-12-2014 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Faith
02-12-2014 3:21 AM


Re: How about forensic science?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 3:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 5:47 PM PaulK has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 78 of 614 (719216)
02-12-2014 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Faith
02-12-2014 3:21 AM


Back to Bristlecones
I missed your reply to Message 41:
quote:
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.
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, : ..

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 76 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 3:21 AM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 79 of 614 (719219)
02-12-2014 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Faith
02-12-2014 3:21 AM


More on Bristlecone Pines
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.

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 76 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 3:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 5:03 PM RAZD has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 80 of 614 (719230)
02-12-2014 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Faith
02-12-2014 3:21 AM


Re: How about forensic science?
Faith writes:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 3:21 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 81 of 614 (719235)
02-12-2014 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Faith
02-12-2014 3:21 AM


Re: How about forensic science?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 3:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 4:57 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 82 of 614 (719247)
02-12-2014 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Faith
02-12-2014 3:21 AM


Re: How about forensic science?
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?
HBD

Whoever 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 3:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 4:54 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 83 of 614 (719251)
02-12-2014 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Faith
02-12-2014 3:21 AM


Clues
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 3:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 4:49 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 84 of 614 (719255)
02-12-2014 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Faith
02-12-2014 3:21 AM


Re: How about forensic science?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 3:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 4:26 PM Taq has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 85 of 614 (719257)
02-12-2014 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Taq
02-12-2014 3:37 PM


Re: How about forensic science?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Taq, posted 02-12-2014 3:37 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Taq, posted 02-12-2014 5:10 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 86 of 614 (719260)
02-12-2014 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by NosyNed
02-12-2014 3:00 PM


Re: Clues
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by NosyNed, posted 02-12-2014 3:00 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by NosyNed, posted 02-12-2014 5:17 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 87 of 614 (719261)
02-12-2014 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by herebedragons
02-12-2014 1:25 PM


Re: How about forensic science?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by herebedragons, posted 02-12-2014 1:25 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 88 of 614 (719262)
02-12-2014 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Dr Adequate
02-12-2014 11:22 AM


Re: How about forensic science?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-12-2014 11:22 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-12-2014 6:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 89 of 614 (719264)
02-12-2014 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by RAZD
02-12-2014 9:26 AM


Re: More on Bristlecone Pines
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by RAZD, posted 02-12-2014 9:26 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Taq, posted 02-12-2014 5:25 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 95 by RAZD, posted 02-12-2014 5:37 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 90 of 614 (719265)
02-12-2014 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Faith
02-12-2014 4:26 PM


Re: How about forensic science?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 4:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 5:12 PM Taq has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024