|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total) |
| |
Skylink | |
Total: 919,448 Year: 6,705/9,624 Month: 45/238 Week: 45/22 Day: 12/6 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1657 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 9.8 |
Faith writes: This from the blindest most kneejerk undiscriminating poster at EvC. And yet what I said was true.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1696 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 1109 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
Ugh. Reading this is a pain. Why am I not surprised?
I guess it's just hard to take the patronizing attitude 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.
all the more from someone who long ago caved in on the Biblical standard. Not true
And the utter lack of ability to see what I AM doing and trying to do here. 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.
Blech I am sorry you feel that way. Carry on. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 317 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Faith writes: But most of what has been called a test here isn't a real test. 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: quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10297 Joined: Member Rating: 7.2
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Inactive Administrator |
mram10 is touching on this topic theme elsewhere, Message 209 and just upthread.
AdminnemooseusOr something like that. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1696 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Now, isn't this just the sort of thing you've been pretending we can't know? No.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 1109 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
If you're going to admit that geologists can reconstruct past events from present data 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! 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1696 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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:
"It is obvious that whatever deformed/bent A did the same to C." 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2358 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
This is normal sleuthing of what can be seen of the physical situation of the rocks by one's very own eyes. 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.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1696 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Petrophysics said absolutely nothing that is not knowable from the position of the rocks themselves. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1696 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Petrophysics said absolutely nothing that is not knowable from the position of the rocks themselves.
Agreed. And the thing that is knowable is, clearly, a sequence of events in the prehistoric past. If you think that, you are hallucinating same as coyote. He said not one thing that implies a prehistoric past.
He goes from saying what the rocks look like to saying what happened to them. 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:
If you followed that tell me where I made an interpretation rather than observing, measuring and mapping things which FORCED me into a logical conclusion of what happened with no other physical possibility. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024