Applying Science to Past Events

I think We have advanced in agreement here suddenly.The fossils are indeed the fact.The fact of this creature. Yes.
Then comes the interpretation. Yes I agree.
THEN you talk about how connections are drawn between fossils.
FINE
Then you say the scientific method is employed on them.
NO it isn't say I.
You would respond that sequence and place is the test.
NO say I. It is only interpretation on interpretation.
The real time existance and connections of these creatures is not being tested by your "test".
This is the problem between our ideas of testability.
I think progress though if finally one of us is to see our error. Me or you.The last point you made.
Whether the laws of physics in the past are the same today or not DOES not allow a testing of these laws or thier effect on past events.
ANYWAYS always we are not taliking about the laws but thier deeds.
And it is these past deeds that can not be tested now even though preent deeds and so the laws can be.Even the laws being as they are now is a premise and not proveable however reasonable and insistent.Again also currant observations of geology now don't accomadate meltwater events for example and so aren't observed.
Rob

I feel what you said was off thread.We are taliking, as you know, about the scientific method.It doesn't matter what anyone thinks of the time lag between light from distant objects.
However reasonable may be the conclusion of measureing it is still not applicable to the scientific METHOD.Perhaps it is a fact. BUT was it put under the METHOD.
Answer NO. It's impossible to test today the source of light ,as you say, so long ago.However I'm going to concentrate on your oher post by way of answer.For the record in creationist thought all this light would of been given a head start and so not a true measure of its existence.
Rob

Mike This is just not accurate.
While rocks could form today in the same way as in the past it is not the result of slow processes.
And in no way is it witnessed. It is,or used to be, just presumed because they had no other explanation for rock creation. Creationism provides the answer.
I know a few volcanoes are active and make our point.If as you say Rocks are forming today SLOWELY then how about some evidence proof exhibit A.
If its happening all over the world it should be no problem. Just go to the source of your comment unless you just presume its happening because the theory says it should.
Perhaps thought this is off thread.
Rob

This is an interesting point we have come too in our discussion.
perhaps I or you are on the verge of correction.I would say it is impossible to bring the scientific method to bear on animal tracks and it has never been done.You said I was in error in thinking that "evidence must lead to correct conclusions'
Wrong I understand this and agree with all you said about it.However I believe you are mistaken in equating evidence and evidence the result of the scientific method.This is the whole point to the METHOD.
The method is to bring a superior analysis and scrunity Evidence.
Thus it is a METHOD. Not ordinary eveidence gathering/analysing.Rob

Nosyned. We have been in discussion long time now about "Is it science"
I have accepted what I am told science is and then hold my opponents to the definition.
We have a vigorous debate that mirrors the great debate by millions of people every year. Except we are beyond entry level and so they would be wise to follow the discussion.
If you have anything to add, if correctly understanding the discussion, then please do.
I'm not abusive or insulting in my presentation and do my best to answer with integrity and good will the other side.
If you have something to say to us of a intellectual nature then don't be shy. Unless you secretly feel your out of your league.
Rob Byers

I don't understand what your saying.
I AM saying the scientific method is a METHOD to bring a better analysis of facts. Thats my point.And other ways of drawing conclusions from evidence is what Percy was saying was science also. I was saying the METHOD is such for a reason. To draw more sure conclusions from othere ways. He was saying ALL evidence and conclusions from evidence equals the scientific method.
Rob

I have had several people here tell me what the scientific method is and while roughly the same words and ideas do change.
I would say your idea of science is not the one thats been told me or I have read anywhere else.
You left out the most important point in the method. TESTING.
In #4 you did say the predictions would be testable. Pehis is what you meant. I understand simply that the htpothesis to become a theory must include testing.
In holding my opponents to thier difinition of what science is I believe I have drawn blood and so words at this point matter.Your next point. You think I mean the more removed from something the less certain we can be and thus if not 100% certain its not science.
NOT so. Time and space is not my contention. I am saying a method is a method. And the method can not be said to have been employed if it hasn't. I demonstrate the the scientific method is not employed (or can be) to past or future events not occuring today. i agree with your other points in this section.

OK excellent. A example. Lets see where I or you have made a important mistake.I would say your example was not applicable.
The error in your example is requiring the reader to accept that "varying distances" equals "varying amounts of time ago" has been settled. Is a fact. Yet the reason behind this is the very point you are trying to convince by the example.
In order for me to persuaded that the scientific method can be applied to past events by your example. I must of already accepted that point as a assumption of your example.I'm not being difficult. It's a good point. Perhaps you could give another example to demostrate your contention.
Rob

Just a final thought on this point.
I understand testing
I understand predictions
I don't understand if you are saying testing is only applicable to predictions of the hypothesis. It seems too me that I've been told they are two different matters.
In short the hypothesis before becomeing a theory includes testing and predictions. Not predictions equals testing.
Words matter
Rob

For the example you gave it is insisting on a assuption. A assumption that is itself making the point of your example. In accepting the assuption I've already conceded the contention for the example in the place. (I think, Whew)Accepting that the more distant an object is the longer its light takes to reach us is fine.
Where observed only.
Beyond that it is specualtion. However reasonable.
However we have another source,the bible, and so the unwitnessed origin of light is contended. In short it was given a head start.
Anyways though its irrelevant to why your example fails. However there must be better and killer examples to make your point unless of coarse your , with all respect truly, wrong in your contention.
Somebody is wrong here since we are using agreed definitions.
Rob

OK then. PREDICTIONS are the only way to test hypothesis. If this is so (and I accept it as presented to me) then the testing of predictionsis to strick and without any other assuption to taint it.
Now it is your move to show how a prediction can be tested about a past or future event that is not now happening. Not testing a present similiar event but that PAST event personally.
Unless of coarse as I suspect indeed insist you can't because it can't be done. And you guys are as good as anyone will find in these contentions.
Rob

OK I agree. And welcome any personal summery of yours I can sink my teeth into
Rob

OK good post to advance the matter.Yes as you said it is speculation.
AND yes it is supported by evidence. I agree
BUT
The method, the scientific one, is not in play here. Thats the point. The evidence here must be part of a package deal in order to qualify as a method. A conclusion to be reached by a method that includes not eveidence. BUT evidence that has been tested etc etc.
VERY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE.Your speed of light example is not dealing with a past event in reality. It is a present event. And is so tested with scientific results.
For outside the solar system it is speculation with present action.
However if what is going on out in the solar systen can not be measured/'tested then it is not a conclusion of the scientific method. However reasonable. Of coarse again this is the present and we are about origins of past and gone events.
Rob

An assumption is just that. And its point about all time is not open to the scientific method.
The evidence supporting this is fine as long as it is not confused with the method that uses evidence plus testing that evidence to draw conclusion. And that conclusion can not claim it has used the method unless the evidence has been tested. Its testability not eveidence that equals the scientific method.
Important equation and our debate.
Rob

Actually it wasn't a mistype.A prediction of a future event can not be tested at the time of the hypothesis. Only when that future event occurs has it been tested and so only then is the scientific method occured. Until then it was hypothesis.
This is important because future but more importantly past event are claimed to be the result otf the method when they have not and can not(long time distant)been witnessed.
And so creationists content the method has not been used or can be in events beyond observation/testing.
Rob