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

Practically everything we know of events comes from their effects, after the fact. From those effects we work our way back to the event.In this sense there is no great qualitative difference between historical science and science examining present-day events.

I read your blog post, Mike, but it just made me think that you should think more.For a start, when assessing which claim is the grander it is a good idea to pick equivalent claims and to understand them in some detail.Another is to properly understand the context. If you grant that new species have come into existence then evolution would seem to be the least "grand" explanation for that fact.Maybe your criteria claim that the idea that every known species has existed for an infinite time is not a "grand" claim and should be accepted by default. But I do not think that you accept that view, and I believe that the evidence adequately refutes it.

quote:

---

I should have made the blog-entry clearer. Really that entry is only highlighting the difference of two positions.

---

And by choosing to look at different things you grossly exaggerated a very small difference.You chose to make an apples to oranges comparison, Mike. That's not good thinking.

quote:

---

1. To not accept evolution, which fits with the known world of direct facts of reproduction and the law of identity.
2. To accept evolution and claim it, which requires EXPONENTIALLY more burden and relies on tenuous, fragmentary inductive "evidence".

---

Not well, phrased there Mike, but I think I know what you mean.However this distinction is the product of your fallacious comparison. A more accurate distinction is:1) to accept evolution which is fully consistent with wih the known facts of reproduction and the law of identity (although the last bit is a rather pointless addition)2) To reject evolution even though any alternative is even less consistent with our knowledge and would require a greater burden of proof.

quote:

---

The reason why evolution has the burden of proof on it, is because you are saying that billions of diversified complex morphologies are related, but I'm not. I'm saying that the reality you see, humans begetting humans, is simply the reality that has always been.

---

And science has met that burden of proof.Now I have to ask YOU if you are claiming that humans have existed forever. Because that is where your argument goes. Do you really think that that assertion needs no further support? Because that is what you are saying.

quote:

---

There's no point in continuing to talk to you at this stage. You disagree, I am wrong about everything in your mind.
Ok.

---

I guess that means you know that you're wrong, too. We both know that creation is a far "grander" claim than evolution by the standards you set forward. And you know that the idea that humans have existed forever isn't tenable either. So really your argument only reinforces evolution as the best explanation for the evidence.Too bad that you didn't think more carefully, and too bad that you don't have the courage to face up to the truth.Edited by PaulK, : Correct typo

I think that your argument has rather a lot of problems. I'm going too into to two major issues, each of which covers multiple problems you need to face.1. In Egypt, at least, probably Sumeria, maybe even other places, your date for the Flood puts it in the HISTORIC past. And you're going to have to quite drastically contract the history to shoehorn your ideas in. I know you'll reject the dates but the compression is still necessary.2. We have lots of clues about the prehistoric past. Geologists and palaeontologists and archaeologists have worked very hard to find and understand these clues. Denying that they exist - or worse - is simply not an adequate response.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Your dating ignores the Bible witness. That's the end of that.

---

And, as I pointed out, the absolute dates don't matter. You still have to alter history to fit your chronology. The more so if you assume that much of the post-Flood period is missing from the archaeological record - and how else can you explain why you EXPECT all of the intermediates between the ark-kinds and the species of today and recent history to be missing ?And do not forget, we have art even from prehistoric cultures. Writing is not the only witness.

quote:

---

I EXPLAINED a number of times why what you expect of intermediates wouldn't occur.

---

Then I must have missed it. Please provide a reference (a link is preferred and simple with the mid= tag but thread and message numbers will do). I fear however that your explanations will be found lacking, since your "ordinary microevolution" would inevitably produce a large number of intermediates from your own description.

quote:

---

And what you call history that I'd supposedly have to alter is based on wrong dating so it isn't true history.

---

You say that, but I see no reason to believe it. I don't even see a reason to think that you have any idea of how much compression is required. Even if the dating was "wrong", a claim refuted by overwhelming evidence.You're going to have to provide much more detail of your chronology to convince me.

That pretty conclusively demonstrates that you have no real interest in the truth of the matter. I will grant that making an honest attempt at dealing with either subject would likely be a significant amount of effort but that hardly justifies passing off uninformed opinions (to be generous) as fact.If you were honest you would at least admit that your entire case was personal opinion that you lacked the knowledge to defend.

quote:

---

Ha ha. You guys will just always defend the indefensible won't you. Even my rough sketch has enough truth in it to show the unscientific nature of historical science.

---

Then you will have no problem providing detailed evidence to support your claims.Go on. Do it. Show us that you've done the work.And keep the Moose happy by proposing it as a new topic. It would be worth one.Edited by PaulK, : Suggest starting a new topic.

quote:

---

If the upper strata were just a few layers as they are now then you'd expect them to be disturbed. But if the strata were laid down originally to a great depth there would have been extreme pressure from the weight of the strata above and enough rigidity to resist the disturbance. That falsifies his conclusion.

---

Does this actually make sense to anyone ? Why wouldn't the greater pressure on the lower strata prevent them from being deformed, too ? And why is the transition from no disturbance to severe distortion so marked ? Pressure does not explain that.

The question here is whether Faith's post represents an honest attempt to find the truth or simply an attempt to prop up a dogma against the evidence.

quote:

---

Not if the evidence has to be interpreted, which Siccar Point does.

---

Strike one against Faith, This is a silly objection. It is perfectly possible to work out whether the evidence fits better with one explanation than another. And thus examining the evidence is a valid test. At least for those who are prepared to let evidence change their minds.

quote:

---

It's good enough reasoning for a hypothesis, but there is no place to go from there except just to persuade others that his hypothesis is correct That's the only test there is. People can go look at Siccar Point and follow his reasoning about it and figure he was right.

---

This is obviously false. Looking for more evidence from Siccar Point - a more detailed examination is one possibility. Another is to examine other angular unconformities to see if they fit the patter of Siccar Point or not.

quote:

---

If the upper strata were just a few layers as they are now then you'd expect them to be disturbed. But if the strata were laid down originally to a great depth there would have been extreme pressure from the weight of the strata above and enough rigidity to resist the disturbance. That falsifies his conclusion.

---

In fact the only way to falsify the conclusion is for the prediction to fail or for other evidence strongly inconsistent with the conclusion to be produced. An alternative explanation of the evidence is not sufficient, even if it has no problems.In fact - and if Faith has properly researched the Wikipedia article she knows this - there are ALWAYS alternative explanations. If the simple existence of an alternative was a falsification all of science would be falsified.But back to Faith's explanation - is it really any good ? Pressure increases with depth so how can the pressure on the upper layers be sufficient to stop any bending while the lower strata are heavily deformed ? Pressure increases gradually so how can it explain the sudden transition we see in the rocks ?Without answers to these, obvious questions - questions which should have been considered before the suggestion was even made - we cannot even consider Faith's explanation a reasonable alternative.I really don't see much sign of science in this post. It's up to Faith to provide the missing pieces - to show that her explanation is as good as that of mainstream geology. But how can she do that when she refuses to admit the possibility of the tests that need to be done ?

quote:

---

Except that's not what Dr. A said. Take it up with him

---

The post to which he was replying had nothing to do with Doctor Adequate said either.

quote:

---

To which I responded that obviously scientists can't be wrong. That's what he's implying. Why would anyone dispute it?

---

No, he's implying that the scientific method applied to the evidence that we actually have would lead to a single set of conclusions. Which does not necessarily imply that those conclusions are true (if science were missing a vital piece of evidence, for instance, it could be wrong). I would not go that far, but in some cases -like the fact that the Earth is old - it is true.So we dispute your intepretation because it is obviously false. So again you demonstrate how you cause your own problems.

quote:

---

I could have answered as well that I am not using the methods of religious apologists but actually doing quite a good job with scientific method.

---

And that would be obviously false, too.

quote:

---

Since nothing I say gets any kind of honest assessment here, there is absolutely no point in trying to be nice about it either.

---

By which you mean that you feel justified in abusing people because your arguments get honestly assessed.

quote:

---

HBD, that is just a lot of pedantic nitpickery. It doesn't matter whether the DNA can be actually seen or not, but others can replicate the data for study and it DOES "explain the evidence" and that is why it is as good as proven. It works and nobody doubts it. There are no competing theories of its structure, right? It's a done deal. It's been confirmed in lots of ways by lots of researchers.

---

You could say much the same for the formation of angular unconformities. So it's hard to see what your point is intended to be.

quote:

---

Siccar Point, however, a past event, can only be interpreted from the position of the present. How angular unconformities develop is certainly accepted as fully understood but simply on the basis of persuasion

---

Based on the fact that it explains the evidence well, and there is no viable competing alternative.

quote:

---

Parts of the sequence of thought about it can be questioned and I question them

---

And if your questions fail to produce valid objections - as so far they have - what then?

quote:

---

Just because there is no visible erosion at Siccar Point doesn't prove anything. There is erosion at other angular unconformities

---

More accurately the erosion that is at Siccar point supports the mainstream view over your wild speculations. And if there is the sort of erosion your view predicts at any angular conformity, you haven't shown it.

quote:

---

The claim that the upper strata would have been distorted if the lower had buckled while they were in place is not likely if the upper strata were very deep at the time

---

As you know I have a couple of serious and obvious objections to that assertion. Objections you have yet to answer. Here they are again:The lower strata were even deeper. Why did this supposed effect not prevent them from buckling?Depth is a continuous quantity. Why would it produce a sudden transition between buckled and unaffected strata, rather than a more gradual one?Edited by PaulK, : Corrected the *#^*! Autocorrect

quote:

---

Because the force was strong and direct at that level.

---

So, you are asserting that the force was applied directly to the lower strata and not to the upper strata. Do you have any evidence for that ? Any reason why it should be true not just at Siccar Point, but at angular unconformities in general?

quote:

---

I've answered this many times before. Balance of forces. The point where the weight above balanced out the force of the buckling below.

---

That doesn't answer it at all. In fact it leads us to expect to see a gradual transition.

quote:

---

And I think different textures between the layers probably facilitated movement at the particular level where it occurred.

---

That doesn't seem very plausible either. I've asked you for support for that assertion, too.
Why would different textures help movement?