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

I think this is right. But the process of building the consensus might involve than just showing a single paper.Also, while the double helix is a striking and important feature of the molecule, Watson, Crick et al. + Franklin figured out a lot more about the structure of DNA than that. The Nobel prize was not awarded for just recognizing the helical structure.

Faith is wrong, but I think she is expressing herself properly. If the facts actually support both the scientific explanation as well as Faith's then the facts are not evidence for either proposition over the other.

How often do scientists even bother with the word proof?

Faith uses "prove" in the Ken Ham sense.It is a given that the Bible is the truth and the undisputable Word of God in literal form, and that science is tentative and definitely in error when it contradicts the Bible. Therefore the truth can easily lie in whatever uncertainty that exists in scientific results and only mathematical proof from Biblical premises can remove all uncertainty. Maybe not even that.Even if you demonstrate that one of Faith's scenarios is wrong, that simply means that a different, Bible supported scenario is correct even if she cannot come up with it now or ever.

Ken Ham says, no matter what you claim science implies, you weren't there. That's the end result yes, but that is not quite what I mean.The idea is that the scientific method requires that we draw inferences from observations and to use inductive reasoning. It is not controversial to say that such processes do not produce 100 percent certainty. Every time science disagrees with the Bible, science is simply in error.

I disagree with this characterization. You've already acknowledged that there is a sense in which Faith is correct about the definition of evidence. And of course there is a mathematical definition of proof that is not really all that far from the definition Faith insists on.

I'm referring to the formulation that Taq provided. You acknowledged that Faith's definition was consistent with Taq's but there was no explicit indication of disapproval. You've just continued on as if that exchange never happened.Taq's definition is just fine. It's also pretty close to the definition of evidence used in law. If you disagree with it, that's also fine, but it reduces your rejection of Faith's definition to merely a difference of opinion.And even with Taq's definition, Faith is still wrong with regard to whether or not we have evidence. Because the facts we refer to do distinguish between Faith's position and yours. So they are evidence.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

As you are doubtless aware, I am no fan of Faith's behavior here. But I think this characterization is wrong. Generally speaking, Faith usually presents her own ideas about what the evidence says. Were she to be correct, she would also be right about the evidence.Perhaps the difference lies only in what we think are Faith's motivations for what she does. I think she is sincere but wrong, your position is that she is just making excuses.

Nicely understated. . Almost Britishly so...

My guess is that the word "only" is supposed to mean that you cannot say things happened if somebody was not there to see them.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

More Ark news.Ky. rejects $18M in tax incentives for Noah's Ark park

quote:

---

FRANKFORT, Ky. A proposed Noah's Ark theme park in northern Kentucky has been turned down for around $18 million in state tax incentives amid concerns that it will promote religion and violate the separation of church and state.

​

But the group behind the project Answers in Genesis says it is considering legal action in federal court.

​

The state Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet said in a letter Wednesday that the Ark Encounter theme park has changed its position on hiring policies since it originally filed for incentives in 2010 and now intends to discriminate in hiring based on religion.

---

Okay I can see this happening, but...

quote:

---

It also said the park has evolved from a tourist attraction into an extension of the ministry activities undertaken by Answers in Genesis, which promotes a literal interpretation of the Bible's Old Testament and argues that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

---

Say what? So the state didn't originally see that a Noah's Ark theme park project led by Ken Ham was going to be one of AIG's "ministry activities". No judge is going to believe that.

Why would such stresses have to be unknown? Don't we already know about stresses on the beam of ships that increase with the length of the beam? That's certainly the case for the stress applied when waves pass under the keel.And surely we've done enough cantilever problems to be skeptical about a wooden crane?