Applying Science to Past Events

quote:

---

The observation of Halley's comet at its predicted place on the calendor was essential before they gave his name too it. His prediction along didn't do the trick.

---

So when his predictions were fulfilled then he was given credit. Therefore, predicting future events as a test is science.

quote:

---

Likewise science is a package deal including testing which if abscent is mere hypothesis.

---

And evolution does test things that are present right now. For instance, predictions of DNA similarities RIGHT NOW can be made from the fossil record. If those predictions are fulfilled, such as Halley's comet, then evolution is science.

quote:

---

This is why evolutionary ideas are easily changed from time to time becauise its impossible to test.

---

No, evolutionary ideas are changed because new evidence comes forward that falsifies the older ideas. Hence, the ideas are tested and they fail so a new theory must be constructed and tested in the same way.

quote:

---

and so we say its not science.

---

And do so in ingorance of what science really is.

quote:

---

You said "The prediction of future Solar eclipses has been done and has passed the test. Do you disagree with this?
Yes (I think) And when the test occured and only then did the scientific method have occured. Only when the present observed action of the eclipses had happened could thetre now be claimed a THEORY. Before this it was only hypothesis. Before the TEST there had not occured the scientific method.

---

And the day after the eclipse the observation becomes history. So the hypothesis is only a theory for one day, the actual moment of the eclipse? Is this what you are claiming?

quote:

---

And since a future event far in the future or far in the past has not and can not by us be observered (tested) so the scientific method can not be applied to past and gone events.

---

And the present is very fleeting. The paragraph above is in the past for me. This sentence was a future statement in my head and after I put a period on the end it is in the past. Gone. Therefore, according to you, I can't even prove that the last sentence was written by me since it is in the past and untestable.The predictions that science makes are not unreachable. Once DNA was discovered as the chemical of heredity, it became obvious that DNA should match up with theorized fossil cladograms. The predictions made about similarities in DNA was made before the DNA was tested. And since those predictions have been made DNA has been tested. Evolution passed the test with flying colors. Therefore, evolution is testable in the present. Evolution is science, even according to your stringent definition of the time frames that science has to be applied to.

quote:

---

The day of the eclipse is the test. So with the positive test the hypothesis is now a theory that can take on all comers.

---

OK, now let's take this to the next step. Let's pretend that someone recorded the eclips but I had not made my hypothesis yet. Is the data any different because I had not written my hypothesis yet? Does the moon only follow a predictable course if someone on earth comes up with a theory. Do the thoughts of men change the course of the moon so that it is constant when before it was not constant? Of course not, so past eclipses can be used to verify a hypothesis that I make today. Therefore, theories made today can be confirmed or falsified by historical data.

quote:

---

Your witness of writing it is present observation.
Likewise the DNA analagy.

---

So present observation of DNA can be used to verify the validity of evolution and common ancestory? You are saying that evolution can be tested?

quote:

---

"Theories made today can be confirmed or falsified by historical data" you said.
Yes I think I agree with that.
But the operative word is HISTORICAL data.

---

And the other operative word is "theory". Therefore, the scientific method can be used to test scientific theories by using occurences that happened in the past. This includes fossils, dating methodologies, etc.

quote:

---

NO absolutely not .Fossils and dating methods etc are not historical data.m They are just data that is interpretated to be something.

---

Fossils are the remains of a once living organism. We don't need eyewitnesses to tell us that, unless you are arguing that fossils are only rocks. They are interpreted just like any other data set, including historically recorded eclipses.

quote:

---

They are not open to testing. Just a snapshot of a past momment.

---

A recorded solar eclipse is just a snapshot as well. Fossils are open to testing as they are a physical entity, otherwise called evidence or observation. If their evolutionary order is wrong, then we should find daughter species below the parent species in the fossil record. Since we don't see this in the fossil record then we know the interpretation (evolution) is consistent with the data (fossils). The data (fossils) can test the theory (ToE).

quote:

---

When I say historical I mean witnessed by human beings. As a experiment in 1666 could be used today for a scientific theory without actually repeating the experiment.

---

And a rock forming now can be used today for a scientific theory without having to witness the rock being formed millions of years ago.

quote:

---

This is just not an accurate analysis Loudmouth. Historically recorded eclipses are not interpretated. They are rock solid facts.No interpretation need play here.A fossil is only a fact of what it is in hand and not a fact to its origin or any other connection. That is interpretation. Why is there confusion here for one of us.

---

The interpretation of historically recorded eclipses is that they were recorded accurately, that they were caused by the same moon as we see today, that they were full eclipses and not partial eclipses, etc. The data is what is written. The same for fossils. The fossils themselves are the fact. That they are the remains of a living organism is a fact. The interpretation is their connection with other fossils which is tested by comparing the ordering of the fossils and the shape of the fossils. Therefore, by applying the scientific method to the data (fossils) the interpretation of the fossils can be checked. If there is no connection between the fossils then the interpretations should fail to predict their order in the fossil record. Since the prediction (the interpretation) matches the order of the data (fossils) then evolutionary theories can pass the test through the scientific method.Where are you confused on this, it isn't that hard. The fossil is the data, how to group fossils is the theory.

quote:

---

The rock analagy demonstrates that the rock formed today is evidence only of its particular forming.

---

And again we run into "solar eclipses today can not be used to test solar eclipses of the past". Either you claim that the laws of physics are different in the past or you have to admit that current observations of geology are the same now as they would have been in the past.

quote:

---

Has any one asked Robert what the heck this thing he calls science is?

---

As far as I can tell, Rob thinks that things witnessed by humans or things that have happened in the last 2,000 years are allowed to be investigated by science. Anything prior is "untestable" in his opinion. Strange, but true.

quote:

---

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.

---

Hey, we are actually making some head way here. Good, the fossil is the fact (ie data). However, the interpretation is that the fossils are connected, and this is what is being tested. I think this is a good place to continue our discussion.Given that each fossil shares characteristics with another fossil is an observation that the fossils COULD be anscestor/descendant. The shared characteristics are the evidence that led me to the hypothesis. Now, I also need a mechanism that would allow differences to also appear if my hypothesis is correct. Those mechanisms, derived from other data sets, is mutation and natural selection. Good. Now I have an observed mechanism and the fossils. I can now make predictions about the fossils that I can test.My mechanism that I am testing against the fossils is evolution. The result of that mechanism as it would be seen in the fossil record is "descent with modification". This allows me to put fossils in certain orders independent of where they are found in the fossil record according to my interpretation of "descent with modification". Now, how should I test my interpretation of the relationships between these fossils. I go to another prediction made by the theory of evolution and geology. That is, the daughter species should not be found below the parent species. If the daughter species are consistently found below the parent species that means that evolution through descent with modification did not act upon these fossils. It also means that my interpretation of the connection between these fossils is incorrect. Therefore, the test of stratigraphy (layering) is a test that can either confirm or falsify my hypothesis in this instance.The point I am trying to make is that if there is no connection between these fossils, why are they found where they are predicted to be if the theory of evolution is false. If my interpretation is wrong, why does it pass this test? Why are the predictions fulfilled? Is there another mechanism that is testable that would lend itself to the same ordering of the fossils in the strata? If so, what experiments do I run?

quote:

---

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.

---

Could you please show us a better method for analysing data than the sceintific method? What is this "ordinary evidence analysis" that you speak of?

quote:

---

In short the hypothesis before becomeing a theory includes testing and predictions. Not predictions equals testing.

---

You test the predictions to see if your predictions are right or wrong. That is how it works. If you can't make predictions then you can't test the hypothesis.

quote:

---

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.

---

It is speculation, but it is supported by evidence. Again, science is tentative, but no theory is devoid of supporting evidence. For instance, we can calculate the speed of light in a vacuum by measuring the time it takes to bounce radio messages to distant probes like Voyager. If the speed of light remains the same as a probe ventures out into the solar system why would we expect the speed of light to change outside of the boundaries of our solar system? If you think it does, what evidence are you going by? We would have to assume, without evidence, that another force is acting on the speed of light outside of the solar system. I would rather go with the assumption that is supported by the evidence.

quote:

---

However we have another source,the bible, and so the unwitnessed origin of light is contended. In short it was given a head start.

---

So if I wrote a book about an Invisible Pink Unicorn speeding up light in the Andromeda galaxy, would that throw out all scientific findings about the Andromeda galaxy? According to you, it would.

quote:

---

Now it is your move to show how a prediction can be tested about a past or future event that is not now happening.

---

Percy's earlier discussion on the broken window and the baseball is a perfect example. I can make the prediction that most of the glass will be on the same side as the baseball. I can predict that there will be a mark on some surface inside the house consistent with a baseball striking it. Etc. If each of my predictions is consistent with the data I become more and more confident that the baseball caused the window to break. Will I ever know FOR SURE that the baseball broke the window? Nope. Can I lower the tentativity of that possibility? Yes, through the scientific method. Therefore, I can test things that happened in the past by looking at the result of that happening. In the same way, I can test for evolution in the past by looking at what was left over, namely fossils.

quote:

---

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.

---

And the evidence used can be tested. Using the speed of light example, the light from a distant star can be tested to see if it is consistent with light from our sun. We see the same characteristics from distant suns that we see in our own sun, including the frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum. Therefore, the evidence of distant light from distant suns can be checked to make sure it is consistent with other sources of starlight.

quote:

---

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.

---

The speed of light is dealing with electromagnetic waves created in the past and observed in the present. As an analogy, fossils are the current observation of past living species.Secondly, there is nothing stopping us from extending the speed of light outside of our solar system. All of the fundamental laws, including the speed of light, have been observed to be constant outside of our solar system. To assume otherwise is to do so without evidence, testable or otherwise. If physical constants were different outside of the solar system then it would be detectable by observation.

quote:

---

Why do you think it has.? Why do you tell me about how unreasonable it is to not conclude the boiling temp today won't be the same tommorow.
This has nothing to do with the scientific method.
Howeever reasonable.
A method is a method.

---

The boiling point of a liquid is tied to it's atomic or molecular structure. For the boiling point to change at one atmosphere the very atomic makeup of atoms would have to change. Since such a drastic change to the very makeup of matter would be detectable by looking at older objects and at distant objects in the sky, the scientific method is able to verify that the boiling point is constant with the evidence at hand.

quote:

---

The scientific method is by definition and acceptance by acedemia and the public a more severe,strict, muscular examination of evidence.

---

More severe, strict, etc than what? It might help if maybe you begin by referencing poor scientific method.

quote:

---

It is hypothesis with repeatable testing including predictions and falsibility tc. It is multi-step.
It is not just muscular predicting. And then observation.

​

It must have repeatable testing separated from the "testing" of predictions. And the predictions also must be tested not just observations in the guise of testing.

---

And my scenario was repeatable. Every person who investigated where the glass landed would agree that most of the glass landed in the room. This is at the heart of repeatability, in that the evidence is judged the same by everyone through emperical observation and not subject to personal judgement or revelation. This is why religious revelation is not allowed as evidence since every person does not have access to the same data.I could even go a step further. I predicted that a mark would be left inside the house that would be consistent with a baseball hitting that surface. I could repeatably hurl a baseball at the surface and from that I could conclude that the baseball will reliably and repeatably make the same mark as what is observed after the actual event. The observations that I used to test my hypothesis are repeatable and therefore scientific. However, my tests do not confer absolute proof, they only lessen the tentativity of the hypothesis.

quote:

---

The great answer we creationists use in all this is that past (or future) events not being testable renders them beyond the Method.
This is our great point.

---

This is a fight that creationists will lose because the past is testable through the scientific method. It is funny that creationists claim this out one side of their mouth and then claim scientific status with ID theory and Hydroplate theory. If creationists truly think this, then why do they put forth theories on past events in order to bring them closer to what they think the Bible claims? Why do creationists demand evidence of past occurences when in fact they won't believe any evidence brought forth? If creationists think so little about science, then why do they use carbon dating to date the Dead Sea Scrolls and other artifacts? If creationists don't trust science to peer into the past then why do they use it to try and verify the Bible? This is quite a conundrum.