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

With no evidence. And you claim science is bad? Again, no evidence. Again, no evidence. No evidence for either the flood or the change in how rings are laid down. But then you claim it is science. You should be disqualified from ever having an opinion within science because you don't accept the scientific method, and you have no evidence. For which we have evidence. Wrong, as usual. We do have evidence. You just refuse to see it. No, we call it evidence, hypothesis, and theory. Scientists don't use the term "proof" as that is a very specialized term limited to very specialized uses. Amateurs and creationists use that term, as they don't know any better. It is an instant give-away for a lack of training in science, or a complete disregard for the scientific method. But there is no evidence for a flood, hence no way things could have been different before. And your belief is not evidence, nor in any way related to the scientific method.After the above comments you dare criticize science for not having data, making unwarranted assumptions, and coming to faulty conclusions? What a joke!

We don't call the theory of evolution a fact. We call it a theory.However, it is a fact that organisms and populations evolve. That is a fact which has been demonstrated in many ways.The theory of evolution seeks to explain that, and many other facts.Once again, through your lack of study and understanding of science--really, your outright rejection of science--you are getting your terms wrong. It makes for a much more difficult debate when you use incorrect terms.

Uniformitarianism is not a "principle," nor is it an assumption. It is an observation.One that you don't like but can't come up with evidence to counter.

Creationists' problem with "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science has nothing to do with evidence or method or anything else.The only reason creationists have any interest in this issue is that they hate the results shown by certain branches of science and are out to discredit those results any way they can.Besides, "its just a theory" and "teach the controversy" failed, so its on to something else.

But evolution has met the burden of proof, beginning with early studies of morphology, then of fossils, and all of that now supported by DNA.Humans as "always been" is not supported by the evidence. We go back in time to archaic humans, various Homo species, Australopithecus etc. all the way to primates and earlier.

How do you know its dead?Maybe its Shroedingers rat?

They want to divide science into those they agree with and those they don't.

You seem to think that "interpreted" means "automatically wrong" or something.Or, maybe to be more precise, "automatically wrong if I don't like it."Again, you have no business trying to do science. You're so far afield you shouldn't even attempt to think about science!In fact, what you are doing is exactly the opposite of science!

You forgot to say, "Amen!" after your post.You really should add that, you know, as what you are doing is preaching, or as noted above, apologetics.You should never entertain the idea that you are doing science of any kind. You are simply not qualified.

What you are doing is not science. It is pure apologetics.If you were doing science you would accept reliable evidence no matter the consequences. Instead you pick and choose the evidence you will accept based on a priori beliefs.You have even admitted that the bible is your chief source of evidence, and that anything that contradicts it is wrong.So no, you are not doing science no matter how much you try to rationalize it.

Because the one time they tried it showed that science was right.The RATE project was financed by over $1 million in creationist money. Here are two reviews:Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review by Randy Isaac:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate-ri.htmDo the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science (in two parts)?:
https://www.softwaremonkey.org/RTB/newsletter/2007-07.pdf
https://www.softwaremonkey.org/RTB/newsletter/2007-08.pdf

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.

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.

Sorry, that is all false.As one example, we can test ideas and findings from the archaeological past by finding similar sites and testing those. If we think a certain tool type was developed at a specific time in a specific area, further excavations can determine whether that hypothesis is accurate or not.When an hypothesis is supported in a number of cases, it can be elevated to the level of a theory. As has been "stated a million times here" a theory is the single best explanation for a given set of facts, is contradicted by no relevant facts, and allows predictions to be made.Nowhere is there anything said about "proof," as that is not really a part of science.Your objections to the study of the past stem not from your informed knowledge of the scientific method, but your unwillingness to accept its results. Your arguments are apologetics start to finish.

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.