Applying Science to Past Events

quote:

---

When a archeolgist finds pottery of the past it is only a snapshot from the past. A piece of evidence needing interpretation but useful for the scientific method.
It is only a present observation and not a test of the past.

---

A pottery shard is a test of the theories regarding human civilization in the past. Let's take a hypothetical situation. Most believe that there was not interaction between the Central American and Egyptian cultures. Now, if we found central american pottery mixed in with egyptian pottery at a dig site in egypt, would this not be a severe test of current theories? Already there are hints that Egyptians and Mayans/Incas had ties. They have found traces of cocaine in egyptian mummies (analysis of their hair). The question is did this cocain originate in central or south america or was the coca plant native to Africa at some point. Try and take a guess at how this question may be answered. Through the scientific method, perhaps?

Yet in the analgy you gave me and insisted that the hypothesis had been tested you did not show in fact the culprit ball having a test/observation of a prediction of its involvement.
This was what I was correcting you on.Now you bring up ways that the ball on the floor could be tested.
Yet this was not in your hypothesis. This you only suggest can still be done but you didn't do.Your hypothesis was that THIS ball caused this situation.
You said the matter could by the scientific method lead to a theory.
I said a past ev...remainder of message lost, sorry...

Message lost, sorry

Message lost, sorry

quote:

---

All these people do is search for oil in the sequence of rocks where they usually find it.

---

And do you know the easy way to identify what age's rocks you're digging in? You guessed it - the fossils. They're consistant the world round,so it's very convenient (note: Archaeologists tend to be a lot more discerning than that). Now why, persay, did the flood order species irrespective of size, density, shape, etc, but only in morphological trends?

quote:

---

Then later they make interpretations of why the rocks hold oil here and not there.

---

They know very well why a given set of rocks hold oil. Different types of rock have different capabilities to hold a liquid like oil. Basement granites, for example, can hold limited amounts of oil in fractures. Most resevoir rocks, however, have high degrees of porosity and permiability which is based on the grain size and shape. Now, whether a layer of rock that *can* hold oil *does*, is based on the history of the region.

quote:

---

In fact oil is a favourite creationist point to indicate quick creation by events and not slow. The flood event created and stored all oil sources.

---

And I'm sure you're prepared to demonstate to us where *anyone* has created oil through a flood or by simulating floodlike conditions, or even a mechanism that is chemically valid for doing so.

quote:

---

When a archeolgist finds pottery of the past it is only a snapshot from the past. A piece of evidence needing interpretation but useful for the scientific method. It is only a present observation and not a test of the past.

---

Do you have any clue what information you can get from a piece of pottery? BTW - why do you never find pottery in coal seams? Or tools, or human bones or anything of the sort? Ever? Care to enlighten us on this one?This message has been edited by Rei, 09-27-2004 04:17 PM

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Message lost, sorry

Message lost, sorry

quote:

---

Again though it isn't the same.
YOur still relying on assumption about the preent being the same as in the past.
Your "proving " it couldn't of changed did not prove it didn't. Its only a assumption.

---

Science doesn't prove, it supports or falsifies theories through testing. Secondly, what claim in evidence do you have that it DID change? I have evidence that it never has, and all data continues to support this theory. Therefore, I am being scientific when I state that light, tentatively, has the same speed throughout the universe. Until this theory is falsified it is provisionally true. This is the scientific method.

quote:

---

These A's and B's thing is math not scientific method.

---

It is not math, it is logic. The scientific method is based on logic.

quote:

---

The star light thing also did not have a test of its time/distance. Again assumption. again Where is the test that it DID travel as you say?

---

Star light has been tested and found to be no different than the light found here on earth or the light being emitted by the Sun. Therefore, it has been tested. Earlier you agreed that we wouldn't have to retest the boiling point of water in each house, but now you want to retest the speed of light from every star. Why the change? What is it about added distance that changes physical characteristics?

quote:

---

I agree that light thru a vacume has been tested and settled however that this did occur with the stars has not been tested but is assumed.

---

What stands between us and a distant star? Nothing but near vacuum (ignoring the small amount of stellar dust and earth's atmosphere). Care to show where I am wrong. Aren't you assuming, without evidence, that something else is out there besides vacuum? How is that scientific, assuming something exists without any evidence?

quote:

---

quote:

---

what do you think about the following, in terms of "non intelligent vs intelligent"

​

Virus vs. bacteria
Self replicating RNA or protein vs. virus
Poorly functioning, sometimes erroneous self replicator vs. well functioning self replicator
RNA or protein that tend to catalyze the creation of molecules "similar" to themselves but not necessarily the same, vs poorly functioning self replicator
Catalytic RNA or protein that doesn't necessarily create similar molecules, vs. one that does.
Noncatalytic RNA or protein vs catalytic one
Amino acid vs. noncatalytic protein or RNA

---

​

I cannot give a qualified answer to that.

---

Well, you really should think about that, now shouldn't you? Because you scoffed at the idea that intelligent life couldn't come from non-intelligent life. If you can't define what is intelligent and what isn't, how can you declare that there's a cutoff?Did you not stop and think about the fact that there are running debates on just where life ends? Initially, science viewed organic and inorganic as distinct worlds; inorganic chemistry could never produce organic molecules. With the synthesis of urea in 1828 by Freidrich Wohler, this notion was put to rest. However, it still was typically seen that you had to have full, complete "cells" to have life.In 1892, Dimitrii Ivanovsky showed that the infectous agent in Tobacco Mosaic Virus could pass through a filter too small for even the smallest bacteria. In 1900, Walter Reed showed the same thing with Yellow Fever. There was an ongoing debate over what really was going on; I have an encyclopedia from 1902 in which they discuss the controversy over what causes rabies - a as-of-yet unknown microbe, or some kind of toxin. In 1911, Peyton Rous demonstrated the use of a virus to cause tumors in chickens, and in the 1930s, the electron microscope allowed direct visualization of virii. People were forced to admit that virii blurred the line between life and non-life. But! They still had DNA/RNA. So, there still was a life/non-life cutoff.Since then, that line has been cut down severely. The SunY self replicator, the Ghadiri group, and about a dozen others are simple molecules that can replicate themselves, given suitable input materials. Some are more tolerant than others, requiring any of a wide range of amino acid combinations; others require very specific inputs (a good example of this would be BSE, which needs a whole properly formed prion as input). Some are more accurate at self-replicating than others, and almost always produce a perfect copy, like SunY; others, like Ghadiri, can mutate and form associated complexes. Etc.In short: What once seemed like a distinct boundary has fallen to tatters. Where do you draw the line?

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Message lost, sorry

Message lost, sorry

Message lost, sorry

Message lost, sorry

Message lost, sorry

Message lost, sorry