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

Not being able to recognize that you cannot test or prove the scenarios about the prehistoric past shows a real mental problem. I think the distinction in the end comes down to whether there are witnesses or not. And you'll get that all wrong too. You know why? Because you won't let yourselves THINK about what I mean, you''ll just fix on the stupidest possible idea about what the word means and impute that to me and give your stupid answer to it. You'll trot out forensics though I've answered that a million times already.All real science is testable because multiple people can see the result and do the tests themselves. With the scenarios of the past all those multiple people can see the stuff in the rocks that is interpreted that way, they can see the theory in other words, but all they can do is agree or disagree with the interpretation, so it remains a theory forever. Since they've all been brainwashed into the Old Earth assumption they will of course agree, so that's how you get your consensus.There are no witnesses to such a past, certainly no witnesses from such a past, there is nothing but the idiotic interpretation of what's in a rock as the WHOLE basis for a WHOLE idea about a WHOLE other world that can never be proved.So now do your stupid little straw man dance, everybody. Make your idiotic little straw man analogies, Dr. A. Nobody here is capable of following a simple line of argument. Really because of entrenched bias, a lack of willingness to understand anything a creationist would say.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Nobody witnessed the creation of the Grand Canyon, but that does not stop you from blathering on about that.But as has also been pointed out, nobody has ever witnessed fusion on the sun, the atoms that make up water, or quarks. Nice. I'm rubber you are glue.

First stupid knee-jerk unthinking straw man post.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Nope. It's because of the history in dealing with creationists.Creationists tend to lack providing evidence for what they claim and assert. They don't follow the scientific method.

quote:

---

Not being able to recognize that you cannot test or prove the scenarios about the prehistoric past shows a real mental problem

---

Because Faith, we often CAN test scenarios. Knowing facts that you refuse to accept is not a "mental problem" on our side. To use a simple example we could look at your flood scenario and see if it offers an explanation of the order of the fossil record. When we see it doesn't, we as honest people, admit that your scenario has failed a major test. You, on the other hand, try to cover it up.This is the strength of consilence.

quote:

---

think the distinction in the end comes down to whether there are witnesses or not. And you'll get that all wrong too. You know why? Because you won't let yourselves THINK about what I mean, you''ll just fix on the stupidest possible idea about what the word means and impute that to me and give your stupid answer to it. You'll trot out forensics though I've answered that a million times already.

---

The whole point of this creationist argument is to assert that the absence of intelligent observers in the scenarios of science disqualifies them, while their assertion that Genesis is an eye-witness account (something the book itself does not claim at all) means that Genesis should be accepted as true. That's the whole point of using the word "witnesses".And of course the big problem for you is that as soon as you include other evidence then you have to take each scenario separately and show that it does not have adequate evidence. Which would mean actually knowing and understanding that evidence. Since you are trying to make a general purpose argument and have a habit of not bothering to properly investigate the evidence taking this wider view not only departs from the obvious - and originally intended - meaning of the argument - it makes it useless to you.

quote:

---

All real science is testable because multiple people can see the result and do the tests themselves. With the scenarios of the past all those multiple people can see the stuff in the rocks that is interpreted that way, they can see the theory in other words, but all they can do is agree or disagree with the interpretation, so it remains a theory forever. Since they've all been brainwashed into the Old Earth assumption they will of course agree, so that's how you get your consensus.

---

And this is why you don't get respect here. This is just abusive, nasty lying. An a demonstration of hypocrisy on your part, too.

quote:

---

There are no witnesses to such a past, certainly no witnesses from such a past, there is nothing but the idiotic interpretation of what's in a rock as the WHOLE basis for a WHOLE idea about a WHOLE other world that can never be proved.

---

I'll just point out that you think that you can determine what happened in the past - on a world-wide scale - from a superficial examination of one , or at most a few, sites. Geologists don't do anything like that.For example, your insistence that all (major) tectonic events happened after all the rocks were laid down, based only on your examination of the Grand Canyon. Do you call that "idiotic" ?

And yet you admitted that we could verify the existence of former living stegosauruses from their bones, although that is a proposition about the prehistoric past for which there is no witnesses.So, would you like to take another run at it? You would do well to (a) accept the scientific method (b) find a distinction that does what you actually want it to do or (c) shut up until you can bring yourself to do either (a) or (b). As it stands what you are doing, in effect, is denouncing yourself for having a "real mental problem" for believing in stegosauruses, when that is in fact pretty much your one concession to reality. You still haven't explained how this brainwashing took place, despite my repeated inquiries. You seem to be requiring that we believe in a sequence of past events that you yourself can't even imagine, let alone produce evidence for. Yeah, for example people say that that unwitnessed past contained stegosauruses, and you believe them. You say that that's fine. You yourself are not following your argument. You don't apply it to facts that your religion permits you to acknowledge, such as former living stegosauruses. Now, if you think your argument is bullshit, you can hardly complain when we concur.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, we can test whether lavas can turn into coal seams or not. Just go to Hawaii. Solidifying lavas over there have never been witnessed to turn into coal seams. Those lavas have always tended to become some form of a basalt. Witnessed. I think the mental problem lies with the person who is not able to distinguish a basalt from a coal seam.

When are you going to post your second stupid knee-jerk unthinking straw man post?

LOL. Was this from Message 406? It seems she edited out this little bit of love.HBD

I think it's a rather narrow-minded categorization of her opponents. What if I'm actually a Barbarian Conformist? You know, raping and pillaging 'cos of peer-group pressure?

Lots of witnesses testified than lava would turn into igneous rocks. Not into coal seams. All in peer-reviewed, scientific journals.

I'm sure that would be fine; mix and match as you wish, as long as it reflects negatively on your character - which is of the course the important part.HBD

Second stupid knee-jerk unthinking straw man post.

Third stupid knee-jerk unthinking straw man post.

Fourth stupid knee-jerk unthinking straw man post.