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

Typical avoidance strategy. No its not pendantic nitpickery. Its an example that illustrates how scientific discovery works when we cannot directly observe a phenomenon. There are numerous examples.Who went to the sun and dipped out a piece so that we could test it to find out of what is what made up of. How can we be so certain that it is made up of primarily Hydrogen? How was the element Helium discovered to exist on the sun before it had been found on the earth?How was the process of photosynthesis determined? Or the electron transport chain?How about the atomic theory? Or mechanisms of organic chemical reactions? That was the hardest thing about Organic Chemistry; it was so theoretical. Put some chemicals in a tube and a reaction happens ... so what? And when you predict that a certain reaction will happen based on the molecular structure and then run the actual reaction, you may find that the expected product only makes up 75% of the final product, the other 25% are alternate products. What's up with that?Your insistence that someone has to witness events is completely unfounded. There were when it first came out, but the evidence won the day. But why? That's the question. Why does it work? The "theory" is the explanation of that. Why does the theory work? There is absolutely nothing wrong with forming alternate hypotheses. In fact, that process is vital to science. However, the more accepted the current theory, the better the alternate hypothesis needs to be. It can't just explain one little piece better than the current theory, it has to explain ALL of the data as well or better. Sometimes theories do have holes in them or uncertainties. An alternate hypothesis needs to not only address the uncertainties, but also the certainties as well.An alternative hypothesis should start like this:The current theory fails to explain phenomenon [X] because of [list of reasons]. However, my hypothesis provides a better explanation for this phenomenon.This new proposed hypothesis then needs to be subject to scrutiny and needs to be able to defend itself against that scrutiny. If and only IF it stands up to scrutiny will it be accepted. Also realize that the more accepted the current theory is, the more scrutiny it will suffer, BECAUSE the current theory has been accepted to be the best explanation of the evidence.Another point. Simply denying the current theory is not sufficient to overturn it. Here is a list of the reasons I have seen you insert into [list of reasons] above.

• It happened in the unwitnessed past, so no one can be certain.
• That evidence doesn't prove anything.
• Billions of years doesn't make any sense.
• Anyone should be able to look at this cross section of the GC and see that it didn't take billions of years to form.
• The Bible says the earth is only 6,000 years old and a worldwide flood occurred 4,300 years ago.

Those are poor reasons to give if you want your alternate hypothesis to be considered.Another bit of advice; take on small pieces at a time. There is no point in trying to overturn the "Old Earth Theory" all at once. Believe it or not, that the earth is old is a conclusion not a theory. It is a conclusion that has been reached by the accumulation of many, many pieces of data and theories about that data. Instead, choose one part of the GC, for example, and develop an alternate hypothesis about how that formed.A good example would be the contact between the Muav and the Redwall and how the Temple Butte formation fits in.

• First describe what the current theory fails to explain.
• Then explain how your hypothesis explains those phenomenon better.
• Make some predictions that would have to be true if your hypothesis were true BUT would have to be false if the current theory were true.
• Gather objections to your hypothesis and prepare to defend them.
• Demonstrate that your hypothesis satisfies those objections. If you have to use any of the reasons from the [list of reasons] I listed above, the objections are not adequately satisfied.
• Test your predictions.
• If one of the predictions proves false OR any of the objections presented cannot be adequately addressed, either modify hypothesis or abandon it as untenable.

I am sincerely trying to help you here, Faith. If you truly want your ideas to be considered scientific rather than apologetic, this is the procedure you must follow. The reason no one is considering your approach scientific, is because it simply is not.As I said, alternative hypotheses are a vital part of science. In fact, I would suggest that without alternate hypotheses we could not test anything. The hypothesis "This rock is old." would be a lousy hypothesis. A better hypothesis would be "IF this rock is old, THEN we should see [X]; IF this rock is not old (young), THEN we should see [Y]. The two hypotheses can be directly compared to determine which can better predict an expected observation.Your mantra that "we cannot know the unobserved past" puts your hypothesis firmly on non-scientific grounds. Science deals with what we CAN know. Current hypotheses tell us what we CAN know about the past. If it is wrong and there is a better hypothesis, then you need to demonstrate that - scientifically.HBD

It ought to be a very simple obvious matter to just acknowledge that science that deals with the prehistoric past cannot have the certainty that testable laboratory sciences have. Good grief, even scientists have said that about historical Geology as testified by that article that has been linked more than once.

Perhaps those sciences can't work things out to the number of decimal points that some other sciences can, but that is a far cry from saying that they are all wrong, which is what you are doing.And you are doing it not because of some weakness in the methodologies of those sciences, but simply because you won't accept the answers that those sciences develop.

You are right, there is no prehistoric past, I'm merely accommodating to the OE system when I say that. As long as they are talking about ages in millions of years when there was nobody around at all there is no way to establish anything with the kind of certainty often claimed for it. ABE: And besides, there was only Noah around during the Flood and he was shut up in the ark.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, actually what I mean to be saying is that since it's interpretive it's not set in concrete, that's really all. Hutton's reasoning about Siccar Point is reasonable enough but it's open to being wrong in a way that the double helix is not despite attempts to say it is. It's only a hypothesis really, and I think it's wrong and would like to be able to prove it wrong with a miniature model of strata if possible. In this case I did dream up a model that might work for a test, but for most things in the prehistoric past no test is possible. I came to realize there is a weakness in the methodology because of my commitment to the Flood, of course, and wouldn't have realized it otherwise, but there IS a weakness in the methodology nevertheless and that has to be acknowledged. You'd rather the weakness were just politely glossed over I suppose. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What's the difference between millions (billions) of years and five days? You have no witnesses for most of the creation, so you equally have no way to establish anything with the certainty you claim.

Yes that's true. Creationism is also interpretive and historical. The complaint is that Old Earth Geology thinks it's got an unbreakable grip on the truth about the past that it cannot possibly have and that needs to be challenged.

We can be equally certain about anything to the extent to which we can apply the methods I outlined in the second half of my post. Sure, somethings we can apply those methods more rigorously than we can to others. Sure, in general there is more uncertainty about past events than there is about things we can study that are right in front of us; although there may be more certainty about some past events than of particular things we do have right in front of us. (example. we are more certain about the diet of many dinosaurs than we are about how a water molecule is split during photosynthesis). It all depends on the degree to which we can apply the scientific method.Your assertion that we can't apply the scientific method to past events is unfounded. I gave you the methodology by which you could apply the scientific method to your ideas should you so desire. However, your rejection of us being able to know anything for certain about the past is intended (or at least it appears that way) only to suggest that your idea is equally valid. Its NOT. For your ideas to be considered scientific you need to play the game. If you want to approach it a different way, fine ... but that's not scientific.Take my advice about how to apply the scientific method to your idea. Quit making excuses and using denial tactics.HBD

If you had actually said something like that before most of us would not be thinking of you as a buffoon. But it is pretty clear that the "not set in stone" sentiment is not what you expressed in your original statements. The kind of uncertainty you are talking about now would not make geology unscientific. It would just make it less certain that other sciences.And of course, I would disagree with you on the amount of uncertainty that exists regarding Siccar point, but ultimately that is pointless. The fact that the earth is greater than 4 billion years old is just as certain as is the structure of DNA as is the fact that structures at Siccar point were not formed by a global Flood at anytime in the last 4-5000 years. The evidence for those things come from many sciences including, but not limited to geology.

But geology makes no such claim, nor does the TOE.What is and has been said is that the idea of the Biblical floods has been considered and totally refuted.If you wish to show the earth is young have at it. Science is always searching for a better explanation. Science is always subject to change when new data or better explanations are presented, unlike your position which is fixed in fantasy and irrationality.Edited by jar, : -'+.

So it is, according to you, inferior to hard sciences such as physics. See? You said something that makes sense. The thing is that OE geology is based on OE chemistry and OE physics - because that's the only chemistry and physics we have. You remind me of somebody (who will remain nameless) who used to talk about "German physics" - only it turned out to be just physics.

In fact there is nothing more to Creationism than that. There is no scientific method based support any aspect of literal Genesis Creation or the Great Flood. None at all. The same cannot be said for scientific theories to the contrary.

Ah. So when it comes to the theory of gravity, we have evidence, which convinces people of our reasoning, whereas when it comes to geology we merely convince people of our reasoning, by pointing out the evidence. That is not the same thing.Wait, that is the same thing.

Now, that I can agree with.I would never consider any of the theories I develop to explain my archaeological data as being set in concrete.But you have been claiming that, in essence, we can't know anything about the past if there was nobody there to witness it. That is just plain wrong. You have yet to point out a weakness. What your entire argument boils down to is "The bible said it, so I'll believe it. And I'll make up any story I can to support that--doesn't matter if it makes sense or not."That's not a scientific method. That's apologetics.

In science, nothing is set in concrete. But why isn't the double helix open to being wrong? Chemists have, after all, made mistakes in the past. And scientists have, after all, questioned the structure of DNA. Now, if you mean to maintain that by looking at a photograph like this: ... we can be absolutely certain that DNA is a double helix, then I should like you to expound on your reasoning. But it turns out, when you tell us what these weaknesses are, that they're just the same problems that apply to any claim --- that they're the same weaknesses attendant on the methodology of finding out whether there's an elephant in the room by looking in the room.