Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 91 of 614 (719266)
02-12-2014 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Taq
02-12-2014 5:10 PM


Re: How about forensic science?
I'm sorry but you don't know the difference between interpretation and proof or confirmation.
ABE: All the lab science can do in this kind of case is speculate and interpret the DNA evidence too, especially considering how much you guys admit to not knowing, as made clear on the Introduction to Genetics thread I just brought up from oblivion this morning.
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 90 by Taq, posted 02-12-2014 5:10 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Taq, posted 02-12-2014 5:23 PM Faith has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


(1)
Message 92 of 614 (719267)
02-12-2014 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Faith
02-12-2014 4:49 PM


Unwitnessed past
Forensic Cases: The Murder of Leanne Tiernan — Explore Forensics
Was this a miscarriage of justice? If so, why? If not, why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 4:49 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 02-12-2014 5:47 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 93 of 614 (719269)
02-12-2014 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Faith
02-12-2014 5:12 PM


Re: How about forensic science?
I'm sorry but you don't know the difference between interpretation and proof or confirmation.
I'm sorry, but I do.
Absolute proof is obviously off the table since it is unattainable.
What we can do is see if an experiment confirms our hypothesis. By the way, confirmation is not the same as proof.
All the lab science can do in this kind of case is speculate and interpret the DNA evidence too, especially considering how much you guys admit to not knowing, as made clear on the Introduction to Genetics thread I just brought up from oblivion this morning.
The sad part is that you do not even attempt to interpret evidence. You ignore the evidence. You lecturing us on genetics is laughable, at best.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 5:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 5:45 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(2)
Message 94 of 614 (719270)
02-12-2014 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Faith
02-12-2014 5:03 PM


Re: More on Bristlecone Pines
Yes, it's good evidence based on uniformitarian assumptions, but if things were appreciably different in the past that includes the time covered by the rings, and I don't mean laws, I mean conditions, climate, etc., then the evidence needs to be subjected to other tests and considerations than the uniformitarian assumptions.
If the climate were different in the past then it would show up in the rings, just as the "Little Ice Age" shows up in those very tree ring records.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 5:03 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 95 of 614 (719271)
02-12-2014 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Faith
02-12-2014 5:03 PM


Re: More on Bristlecone Pines
Yes, it's good evidence based on uniformitarian assumptions, but if things were appreciably different in the past that includes the time covered by the rings, and I don't mean laws, I mean conditions, climate, etc., then the evidence needs to be subjected to other tests and considerations than the uniformitarian assumptions.
Climate and temperatures do affect tree ring growth, and these are actually documented in the rings -- wider rings correlate with better growing conditions, narrow rings correlate with worse growing conditions.
What other tests would you use?
Message 85: If you don't have a witness in the past you don't have a way to confirm your interpretation of the evidence. You can interpret but you can't confirm. Laboratory sciences and forensic science in historical time have ways of confirming, testing, doublechecking things that you do not have for the ancient past. ...
If you have two documents you can check to see if one confirms the other. The more documents you have that say the same thing the more confident you can be in the information, yes?
So one way to confirm the tree rings is to use the same method on different trees and see if you get the same results:
Message 79: (2) We don't need to go back in time to replicate the tree rings that we see in the Methuselah tree -- that has already been done with the Prometheus tree, the Schulman Tree and the Ancient Sentinels. All we need to do is observe whether the replications result in the same information, a comparison that occurs in real time today.
If you have two sets of tree rings you can check to see if one confirms the other. The more documents you have that say the same thing the more confident you can be in the information, yes? So if you have four or five sets of tree rings that all have the same growth patterns of thickness correlated to growing conditions, you can have high confidence in their result, yes?
With the Ancient Sentinels there are a couple with more than 7,000 tree rings, and we can compare the ring thicknesses for the same numerical counts to see how well they agree.
Do you agree with this and if not, why?
Would you agree that the year of the flood would have been a very poor year for tree growth? So you could look for a narrow growth ring in all trees at that time, yes?
What other tests would you use?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 5:03 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 96 of 614 (719272)
02-12-2014 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Taq
02-12-2014 5:23 PM


Re: How about forensic science?
Absolute proof is obviously off the table since it is unattainable.
The favorite cop-out of the interprettive historical sciences.
The hard sciences do have proof, and they must have proof of hypotheses that affect human life, which is often the situation. Evolution doesn't really affect anything of a scientific nature, it just destroys culture and truth and all the good things of human life on that level. But you don't need proof because it's all imaginative speculative made up crap.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Taq, posted 02-12-2014 5:23 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 02-12-2014 5:50 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 101 by Taq, posted 02-12-2014 5:53 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 97 of 614 (719274)
02-12-2014 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by PaulK
02-12-2014 7:57 AM


Re: How about forensic science?
Your dating ignores the Bible witness. That's the end of that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by PaulK, posted 02-12-2014 7:57 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Taq, posted 02-12-2014 5:49 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 103 by PaulK, posted 02-12-2014 6:02 PM Faith has replied
 Message 111 by edge, posted 02-12-2014 11:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 98 of 614 (719275)
02-12-2014 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by NosyNed
02-12-2014 5:17 PM


Re: Unwitnessed past
Was this a miscarriage of justice? If so, why? If not, why not?
Next compare that to the forensic evidence for the way Otzi the ice man was killed
tzi - Wikipedia
and what we know about how he lived.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by NosyNed, posted 02-12-2014 5:17 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 99 of 614 (719276)
02-12-2014 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Faith
02-12-2014 5:47 PM


Re: How about forensic science?
Your dating ignores the Bible witness.
Bible witnesses are not empirical data sets. That is why they are ignored.
As Dr. House says quite often, people lie. Facts don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 5:47 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 100 of 614 (719277)
02-12-2014 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Faith
02-12-2014 5:45 PM


Re: How about forensic science?
The favorite cop-out of the interprettive historical sciences.
The hard sciences do have proof, and they must have proof of hypotheses that affect human life, which is often the situation. Evolution doesn't really affect anything of a scientific nature, it just destroys culture and truth and all the good things of human life on that level. But you don't need proof because it's all imaginative speculative made up crap.
Nope.
ALL science theories are never proven.
But you can prove me wrong by posting evidence of a scientific theory that has been proven.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 5:45 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(2)
Message 101 of 614 (719278)
02-12-2014 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Faith
02-12-2014 5:45 PM


Re: How about forensic science?
The favorite cop-out of the interprettive historical sciences.
Favorite cop out of religious nuts.
The hard sciences do have proof,
Nope, they don't.
You have failed already.
Evolution doesn't really affect anything of a scientific nature,
Yes, it does. It affects the gene pool of populations over time. It affects the morphology of species, both fossil and living.
You have failed again.
But you don't need proof because it's all imaginative speculative made up crap.
The claims that we have absolute proof are made up crap.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 5:45 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 6:04 PM Taq has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 102 of 614 (719279)
02-12-2014 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Faith
02-12-2014 4:57 PM


Re: How about forensic science?
The problem is not with once-living stegosauruses
If the problem is that "There are plenty of clues and witnesses in historic time that don't exist in the prehistoric past" then that is a problem with once-living stegosauruses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 4:57 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 103 of 614 (719280)
02-12-2014 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Faith
02-12-2014 5:47 PM


Re: How about forensic science?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 5:47 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 6:06 PM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 104 of 614 (719281)
02-12-2014 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Taq
02-12-2014 5:53 PM


Science? Ha!
Yes, it does. It affects the gene pool of populations over time. It affects the morphology of species, both fossil and living.
There is not one useful constructive thing you can do with the ToE. All the genuine sciences it affects are merely corrupted by it, but they manage to contribute valid information in spite of it. But the ToE is a lie, the most pernicious delusion ever foisted on humanity, supported nevertheless by a whole battalion of scientists who pride themselves on their ability to think but can't think their way out of this tissue of cobwebs, this sheer fantasy. They just go on believing in it because there is no clear way to prove it wrong, because it IS all nothing but imaginative interpretation, so every fact that comes to hand gets swallowed up by it. And meanwhile it goes on destroying culture, human dignity, social stability, the meaning of life, and Truth. And you all aggressively defend it.
You misinterpret DNA, you misinterpret mutations, you misinterpret the fossils, you misinterpret the strata, you misinterpret the archaeological record, you misinterpret history, you get it all wrong but you hate those so much who try to show it to you there's no saving you from it.
So stew in it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Taq, posted 02-12-2014 5:53 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by RAZD, posted 02-12-2014 6:21 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 107 by Taq, posted 02-12-2014 6:23 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 109 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-12-2014 9:08 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 110 by edge, posted 02-12-2014 11:25 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 112 by herebedragons, posted 02-13-2014 8:04 AM Faith has replied
 Message 119 by saab93f, posted 02-14-2014 2:43 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 121 by hooah212002, posted 02-14-2014 8:39 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 105 of 614 (719282)
02-12-2014 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by PaulK
02-12-2014 6:02 PM


Re: How about forensic science?
I EXPLAINED a number of times why what you expect of intermediates wouldn't occur. And what you call history that I'd supposedly have to alter is based on wrong dating so it isn't true history.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by PaulK, posted 02-12-2014 6:02 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by PaulK, posted 02-12-2014 6:39 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024