Blasphemy in Science

I'm a creationist and I never hear the word blasphemy and science mixed by us.
All this stuff about origin subjects being involved in science however is where one contention is.
You say science theories are thrown aside when better evidence comes along. Well we say there was no evidence in the first place to justify Toe etc as a subject of science or dealt with as science.
Not just that the weight of evidence is not there but that the scale reveals precious little evidence to begin with
Rob

People are people. And Toe'ers have the same human motives as anyone.
And these motives are pride, faith issues etc. Creationists have always found our opponents (of coarse some not all) to defend thier views not with logic but instead a desperate desire to be right.
Perhaps your different and more confident.
For example Toe is all about conclusions of past unwitnessed events. So then evidence must be weighty enough to persuade mankind Toe knows what happened.
Well creationists say where is the evidence?
They say well its data and the scientific method that leads to a theory.
We say there is to little data(no fault of you)to have a careful examination (Scientific method) applied to it.
We press home the pont and tell mankind Toe is not science and is but a subject like history. Intelligent, prestigious but not science.
What should be clear to any observer is the evidence for Toe is scanty and not testable and so not science.
now why then do the small circles in these fields insist they deal in Science?
Rob

Wow. You are the first Toe'er I've seen on this forum to say that we are dealing here with history. Historical sciences as opposed to something else. Progress.As you said it must employ other means of testing to confirm the theories involved.
And this is important. Those means must be substantive enough to justify a claim that testing has taken place to justify a theory being held.
Of coarse we would say Toe doesn't fit the bill.Now you put forth the idea of what should be found in what layer as a test of Toe. I would say this would not test Toe but only a a prediction of Toe. a minor one. One that only barely touches on the subject of biology. In short its a fallacy to think fossils in sequence can be a test of a great theory of biology.
All other kinds of explanations can account for fossil sequence. And it is all specualtion by its very nature. Also of coarse the geology is itself speculation. Premise onpremise.
The test you suggest does not qualify to say Toe has been tested. even if the test worked and indeed was right.
Rob

The operative word in fact is historical. It defines the difference from the other subjects that actually use science correctly and so have credibility to make thier claims.To test Toe which makes great claims requires substantive evidence and testing. Everyone knows when this has occured or not. The little things done at present in Toe are not testing the Idea but dealing with minor aspects of it.You asked me who I think i am to question authority here. well we have the authority the Bible. And if people claim by evidence that it is not true then we take them on. Toe etc has done this and in the name of professional confidence. (science) . So we strive, and very well, to show it has no right to make such claim. It is just speculation and not a learned endeavor.
Rob

All I meant was it was too involved and such involvement is not needed. You guys don't need to prove your case of predictions but prove your case that these predictions qualify as having tested a great hypothesis as Toe is.
Rob

This is an important point here.
Perhaps it is wrong for us to say there is no evidence for Toe.
I'm not sure but it doesn't matter.
Toe is a great idea about great matters. And great ideas to take thier place must have the WEIGHT of evidence behind them.
Your "test" is a minor examination based on some minor premise as I see it. If there was real evidence then we creationists and the public would be drowning in it. Again however the difference between evidence shorn of assumption is the ruling point.Off thread (i think) but defeating your example doesn't requier chance but reinterpretation of rocks in the field.
Rob

No subjects should be ignored. What should be ignored is if these subjects claim thier conclusions are based on science and this is not the case.
Geology is science when it deals with today's actions and results. When it deals with yesterdays actions (but not observed) then it must make its case. Saying this is geology too isn't good enough anymore in a progressive world.
Paleotology is about evidence of the past and also must demonstrate its conclusions are based on the scientific method that justifys its conclusions indeed.In short subjects like biology that deal with life must literally deal intimate substance with intimate instruments. That is biology.
Pick axes and dynamite is not biology. It is history of biological entities past and thats all.
Rob

Because historical subjects deal with the past they must have a greater or accurate weight of evidence to justify thier conclusions.
Because what they conclude and claim is not now observable.
So the methodology for historical subjects is clearly to all different from chemistry. The latter deals deals with today's observations of its actions and results.
Historical biology deals with bits and pieces of results of unobserved actions.
The latter needs balancing evidence for what the former demonstrates before our eyes.
Rob