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

I'm sorry but you don't know the difference between interpretation and proof or confirmation.ABE: All the lab science can do in this kind of case is speculate and interpret the DNA evidence too, especially considering how much you guys admit to not knowing, as made clear on the Introduction to Genetics thread I just brought up from oblivion this morning.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Forensic Cases: The Murder of Leanne Tiernan — Explore ForensicsWas this a miscarriage of justice? If so, why? If not, why not?

I'm sorry, but I do.Absolute proof is obviously off the table since it is unattainable.What we can do is see if an experiment confirms our hypothesis. By the way, confirmation is not the same as proof. The sad part is that you do not even attempt to interpret evidence. You ignore the evidence. You lecturing us on genetics is laughable, at best.

If the climate were different in the past then it would show up in the rings, just as the "Little Ice Age" shows up in those very tree ring records.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Climate and temperatures do affect tree ring growth, and these are actually documented in the rings -- wider rings correlate with better growing conditions, narrow rings correlate with worse growing conditions.What other tests would you use? If you have two documents you can check to see if one confirms the other. The more documents you have that say the same thing the more confident you can be in the information, yes?So one way to confirm the tree rings is to use the same method on different trees and see if you get the same results: If you have two sets of tree rings you can check to see if one confirms the other. The more documents you have that say the same thing the more confident you can be in the information, yes? So if you have four or five sets of tree rings that all have the same growth patterns of thickness correlated to growing conditions, you can have high confidence in their result, yes?With the Ancient Sentinels there are a couple with more than 7,000 tree rings, and we can compare the ring thicknesses for the same numerical counts to see how well they agree.Do you agree with this and if not, why?Would you agree that the year of the flood would have been a very poor year for tree growth? So you could look for a narrow growth ring in all trees at that time, yes?What other tests would you use?

The favorite cop-out of the interprettive historical sciences.The hard sciences do have proof, and they must have proof of hypotheses that affect human life, which is often the situation. Evolution doesn't really affect anything of a scientific nature, it just destroys culture and truth and all the good things of human life on that level. But you don't need proof because it's all imaginative speculative made up crap.

Your dating ignores the Bible witness. That's the end of that.

Next compare that to the forensic evidence for the way Otzi the ice man was killedtzi - Wikipediaand what we know about how he lived.

Bible witnesses are not empirical data sets. That is why they are ignored.As Dr. House says quite often, people lie. Facts don't.

Nope.ALL science theories are never proven.But you can prove me wrong by posting evidence of a scientific theory that has been proven.

Favorite cop out of religious nuts. Nope, they don't.You have failed already. Yes, it does. It affects the gene pool of populations over time. It affects the morphology of species, both fossil and living.You have failed again. The claims that we have absolute proof are made up crap.

If the problem is that "There are plenty of clues and witnesses in historic time that don't exist in the prehistoric past" then that is a problem with once-living stegosauruses.

quote:

---

Your dating ignores the Bible witness. That's the end of that.

---

And, as I pointed out, the absolute dates don't matter. You still have to alter history to fit your chronology. The more so if you assume that much of the post-Flood period is missing from the archaeological record - and how else can you explain why you EXPECT all of the intermediates between the ark-kinds and the species of today and recent history to be missing ?And do not forget, we have art even from prehistoric cultures. Writing is not the only witness.

There is not one useful constructive thing you can do with the ToE. All the genuine sciences it affects are merely corrupted by it, but they manage to contribute valid information in spite of it. But the ToE is a lie, the most pernicious delusion ever foisted on humanity, supported nevertheless by a whole battalion of scientists who pride themselves on their ability to think but can't think their way out of this tissue of cobwebs, this sheer fantasy. They just go on believing in it because there is no clear way to prove it wrong, because it IS all nothing but imaginative interpretation, so every fact that comes to hand gets swallowed up by it. And meanwhile it goes on destroying culture, human dignity, social stability, the meaning of life, and Truth. And you all aggressively defend it.You misinterpret DNA, you misinterpret mutations, you misinterpret the fossils, you misinterpret the strata, you misinterpret the archaeological record, you misinterpret history, you get it all wrong but you hate those so much who try to show it to you there's no saving you from it.So stew in it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I EXPLAINED a number of times why what you expect of intermediates wouldn't occur. And what you call history that I'd supposedly have to alter is based on wrong dating so it isn't true history.