Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,429 Year: 6,686/9,624 Month: 26/238 Week: 26/22 Day: 8/9 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4597
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 286 of 614 (732576)
07-08-2014 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Faith
07-08-2014 4:08 PM


Re: HBD's "helpful" advice
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Faith, posted 07-08-2014 4:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Faith, posted 07-08-2014 4:35 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 287 of 614 (732577)
07-08-2014 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Tanypteryx
07-08-2014 4:34 PM


Re: HBD's "helpful" advice
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-08-2014 4:34 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 1107 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 288 of 614 (732711)
07-10-2014 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by Faith
07-08-2014 2:38 PM


Re: HBD's "helpful" advice
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.
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 282 by Faith, posted 07-08-2014 2:38 PM Faith has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 289 of 614 (733124)
07-14-2014 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Faith
07-05-2014 9:52 AM


Re: Apologetics again
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:
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Faith, posted 07-05-2014 9:52 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Taq, posted 07-14-2014 6:18 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10296
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 7.3


(7)
Message 290 of 614 (733179)
07-14-2014 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Straggler
07-14-2014 10:52 AM


Re: Apologetics again
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Straggler, posted 07-14-2014 10:52 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Inactive Administrator


Message 291 of 614 (733416)
07-17-2014 1:17 AM


Bump - mram10 seems to really be into this theme
mram10 is touching on this topic theme elsewhere, Message 209 and just upthread.
Adminnemooseus

Or something like that.

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 292 of 614 (734581)
07-31-2014 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Dr Adequate
07-03-2014 2:45 AM


Re: More BS to deal with
Now, isn't this just the sort of thing you've been pretending we can't know?
No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2014 2:45 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-31-2014 4:33 PM Faith has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 293 of 614 (734617)
07-31-2014 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Faith
07-31-2014 2:49 AM


Re: More BS to deal with
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Faith, posted 07-31-2014 2:49 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by herebedragons, posted 07-31-2014 8:02 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 295 by Faith, posted 07-31-2014 9:57 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 1107 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 294 of 614 (734630)
07-31-2014 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Dr Adequate
07-31-2014 4:33 PM


Re: More BS to deal with
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!
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 293 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-31-2014 4:33 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 295 of 614 (734635)
07-31-2014 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Dr Adequate
07-31-2014 4:33 PM


groan
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-31-2014 4:33 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Coyote, posted 07-31-2014 10:34 PM Faith has replied
 Message 298 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2014 4:13 AM Faith has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2356 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 296 of 614 (734639)
07-31-2014 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Faith
07-31-2014 9:57 PM


Re: groan
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Faith, posted 07-31-2014 9:57 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Faith, posted 08-01-2014 1:14 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 297 of 614 (734648)
08-01-2014 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Coyote
07-31-2014 10:34 PM


Re: groan
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Coyote, posted 07-31-2014 10:34 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 298 of 614 (734657)
08-01-2014 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by Faith
07-31-2014 9:57 PM


Re: groan
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Faith, posted 07-31-2014 9:57 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Faith, posted 08-01-2014 4:23 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1694 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 299 of 614 (734658)
08-01-2014 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by Dr Adequate
08-01-2014 4:13 AM


Re: groan
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2014 4:13 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2014 4:27 AM Faith has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 300 of 614 (734659)
08-01-2014 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by Faith
08-01-2014 4:23 AM


Re: groan
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Faith, posted 08-01-2014 4:23 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Faith, posted 08-01-2014 5:04 AM Dr Adequate 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