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

And yet what I said was true. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

Oh far from true. If you have no feeling whatever for what a creationist is doing you have nothing true to say about it. Your comments are trash. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

Why am I not surprised? My attitude was not patronizing at all. I simply want you to understand what the expectations are for a scientific endeavor and why people here continue to say that the approach you are taking is NOT scientific. You think that they say that because you reach a different conclusion than they do; if you don't think the earth is old, then you are not scientific. But that is simply not true. That is not why people say you are not being scientific. Not true I have had many discussions with you, on several different topics, and I know exactly what you are trying to do: defend the Bible as you interpret it.You THINK you are employing the scientific method because you say, for example, the the flood was a natural event, not miraculous. So since you are talking about natural phenomenon, you are being scientific. But that is just not the case. What you are really doing is trying to shoehorn some of the facts into a preconceived conclusion. I am sorry you feel that way. Carry on.HBD

I think you misunderstand the nature of testing scientific hypotheses. It's all about the logical consequences of a hypothesis. If A is true then as a direct consequence of that B should also be true. Other theories may attempt to explain a phenomenon once discovered. But the true test of a theory, the gold standard, is to predict a new phenomenon which is then discovered.For example consider the Big Bang. If the BB theory is correct then there must be a cosmic background radiation as a direct logical consequence of that.

quote:

---

After the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, and especially when its spectrum (i.e., the amount of radiation measured at each wavelength) was found to match that of thermal radiation from a black body, most scientists were fairly convinced by the evidence that some version of the Big Bang scenario must have occurred.

---

quote:

---

The discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964[28] secured the Big Bang as the best theory of the origin and evolution of the cosmos.

---

Why we make predictions and test them? We do this because it is the most exacting and most objective test of our theories we can come up with. It is relatively easy to construct a theory that meets all the known facts and yet which is full of subjective biases and wrong turns. But you devise a theory that directly predicts and leads to the discovery of new facts and you have every right to think you are onto something worth pursuing.This is the thing those who proclaim 'it's all just interpretation' seem to keep missing. Where are all the creationist discoveries?

It reminds me of the current Republican Party. They are incapable of governing unless they have something from Obama to say "No" to. When you ask them what their position is, they have to wait for Obama to take a position, and then stand against that position.Such is the case with creationists. They have to wait for real scientists to discover more evidence that backs evolution, and then they have to be against that evidence. None of the primary, peer reviewed research papers (where new discoveries are first published) are from scientists using creationism.The last thing creationists want to do is make testable hypotheses because they know what the results of those experiments will be.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

mram10 is touching on this topic theme elsewhere, Message 209 and just upthread.Adminnemooseus

No.

If you're going to admit that geologists can reconstruct past events from present data, this is excellent news which you should share on all the other threads you're posting on.

No, geologists who study the actual rocks and analyze detail after detail can't reconstruct the past, but someone with a computer, an internet connection and a picture of the Grand Canyon sure can!HBD

Petrophysics said absolutely nothing that is not knowable from the position of the rocks themselves. He did not say one thing to interpret the prehistoric past.ABE: Here's what you think I should object to: What does this have to do with interpreting the prehistoric past? This is normal sleuthing of what can be seen of the physical situation of the rocks by one's very own eyes. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes! You get it!And this is what shows the old earth and that there is no evidence of a global flood during recent times.It is when one accepts old tribal myth's over what can be seen with one's very own eyes that one is led astray.

If you can find the old earth in what I quoted from petrophysics, or in anything he said, I'd have to conclude you're hallucinating.

Agreed. And the thing that is knowable is, clearly, a sequence of events in the prehistoric past. He goes from saying what the rocks look like to saying what happened to them.

If you think that, you are hallucinating same as coyote. He said not one thing that implies a prehistoric past. But not a word about that happening in the prehistoric past, and such an inference is completely uncalled for in anything he said.He ended his post with this: And this is true and there is nothing in his conclusion that involves the prehistoric past. If he were now to say it does I could only answer that he's imposing that bias on his own procedure. The procedure itself does not lead to the prehistoric past.

The events he describes are not recorded in history. This is why his inferences are based on the arrangement of the rocks, and not on documentary evidence or eyewitness testimony.