Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
84 online now:
dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Phat, Tangle (5 members, 79 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,321 Year: 4,433/6,534 Month: 647/900 Week: 171/182 Day: 4/47 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 271 of 614 (732150)
07-03-2014 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Coyote
07-03-2014 1:29 PM


Re: Apologetics again
The weakness has already been stated a million times here. The weakness is that information from the prehistoric unwitnessed past is not testable -- or let's say very rarely testable since I may have a test for angular unconformities -- and therefore remains hypothetical and unprovable as the double helix is provable and is never going to be found to be a triple helix or something else. It's a done deal,. Siccar Point is not. The case has been made over and over and over. Just stubbornness not to accept it,.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Coyote, posted 07-03-2014 1:29 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2014 2:02 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 273 by Coyote, posted 07-03-2014 2:11 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 274 by jar, posted 07-03-2014 3:07 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 275 by NoNukes, posted 07-04-2014 12:28 AM Faith has replied
 Message 276 by PaulK, posted 07-04-2014 1:21 AM Faith has taken no action
 Message 277 by Straggler, posted 07-04-2014 11:56 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 291 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 272 of 614 (732152)
07-03-2014 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Faith
07-03-2014 2:00 PM


Re: Apologetics again
The weakness has already been stated a million times here. The weakness is that information from the prehistoric unwitnessed past is not testable ...

But you remember how this turned out to be bollocks?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 2:00 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1345 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 273 of 614 (732154)
07-03-2014 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Faith
07-03-2014 2:00 PM


Re: Apologetics again
The weakness has already been stated a million times here. The weakness is that information from the prehistoric unwitnessed past is not testable -- or let's say very rarely testable since I may have a test for angular unconformities -- and therefore remains hypothetical and unprovable...

Sorry, that is all false.

As one example, we can test ideas and findings from the archaeological past by finding similar sites and testing those. If we think a certain tool type was developed at a specific time in a specific area, further excavations can determine whether that hypothesis is accurate or not.

When an hypothesis is supported in a number of cases, it can be elevated to the level of a theory. As has been "stated a million times here" a theory is the single best explanation for a given set of facts, is contradicted by no relevant facts, and allows predictions to be made.

Nowhere is there anything said about "proof," as that is not really a part of science.

Your objections to the study of the past stem not from your informed knowledge of the scientific method, but your unwillingness to accept its results. Your arguments are apologetics start to finish.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 2:00 PM Faith has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33908
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 274 of 614 (732166)
07-03-2014 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Faith
07-03-2014 2:00 PM


Re: Apologetics again
The weakness is that information from the prehistoric unwitnessed past is not testable -- or let's say very rarely testable since I may have a test for angular unconformities -- and therefore remains hypothetical and unprovable as the double helix is provable and is never going to be found to be a triple helix or something else.

And as has been pointed out to you numerous times, we can test and see what it is not.

The idea of a Biblical Flood causing anything has been tested again and again and again and again and the result has been "Nope, a Biblical Flood did not cause that."

It really is that simple. It's a done deal. The Biblical Floods were just stories, myths.

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 2:00 PM Faith has taken no action

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 275 of 614 (732200)
07-04-2014 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Faith
07-03-2014 2:00 PM


Re: Apologetics again
The weakness is that information from the prehistoric unwitnessed past is not testable -- or let's say very rarely testable since I may have a test for angular unconformities

Interesting. So it is not, in principle, impossible to test the prehistoric, unwitnessed past. It's just that you can do it and geologists cannot.

Incredibly stupid argument given your demonstrated knowledge of geology. You've pretty much given the game away.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 2:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Faith, posted 07-05-2014 9:52 AM NoNukes has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 276 of 614 (732201)
07-04-2014 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Faith
07-03-2014 2:00 PM


Re: Apologetics again
quote:

The case has been made over and over and over. Just stubbornness not to accept it,.

Making an assertion is not making a case for that assertion.

Making a false assertion and ignoring obvious counter-examples is just plain dishonest. And that's what you;ve been doing.

It doesn't take stubbornness to resist such an "argument".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 2:00 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 208 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(4)
Message 277 of 614 (732218)
07-04-2014 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Faith
07-03-2014 2:00 PM


Re: Apologetics again
Faith writes:

The weakness has already been stated a million times here. The weakness is that information from the prehistoric unwitnessed past is not testable.

Yes it is. You asserting otherwise a million times doesn't make you right. It just makes you relentlessly and persistently wrong.

It's all about discoveries. How do scientists make discoveries relating to the prehistoric past? Do you think archaeologists just start randomly digging around willy nilly without any idea why?

Again - (because you ignored it last time) Here is a shining example of an evolutionary discovery pertaining to the prehistoric past. The prediction and discovery of Tiktaalik

quote:
What is especially cool about Tiktaalik is that the researchers, Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins, predicted that they would discover something like Tiktaalik. These paleontologists made the prediction that such a transitional form must exist in order to bridge the gap between fish and amphibians. Even more, they predicted that such a species should exist in the late Devonian period, about 375 million years ago.

So they spent several years digging through the earth on Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada, because geological and paleontological evidence suggested that exposed strata there was from the late Devonian. They predicted that, according to evolutionary theory, at this time in history a creature should have existed that was morphologically transitional between fish and amphibians. They found Tiktaalik - a “fishopod,” beautifully transitional between fish and amphibians.


Verification through prediction leading to discovery.

When was the last time creationism resulted in the prediction and subsequent discovery of anything at all........?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 2:00 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 278 of 614 (732245)
07-05-2014 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by NoNukes
07-04-2014 12:28 AM


Re: Apologetics again
I figure since I was able to dream up a test then sometimes these things are testable, that's all. But most of what has been called a test here isn't a real test.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by NoNukes, posted 07-04-2014 12:28 AM NoNukes has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by ringo, posted 07-05-2014 12:09 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 280 by PaulK, posted 07-05-2014 1:58 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 289 by Straggler, posted 07-14-2014 10:52 AM Faith has taken no action

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19537
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 279 of 614 (732251)
07-05-2014 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Faith
07-05-2014 9:52 AM


Re: Apologetics again
Faith writes:

I figure since I was able to dream up a test then sometimes these things are testable, that's all.


So you just falsified your own hypothesis. Good work.

Edited by ringo, : Removed superfluous char\acter.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Faith, posted 07-05-2014 9:52 AM Faith has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 280 of 614 (732260)
07-05-2014 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Faith
07-05-2014 9:52 AM


Re: Apologetics again
quote:

I figure since I was able to dream up a test then sometimes these things are testable, that's all. But most of what has been called a test here isn't a real test.

Odd how you never answer the examples given, then. But let's face it, that's just another of the obvious falsehoods you keep presenting.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Faith, posted 07-05-2014 9:52 AM Faith has taken no action

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 97 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 281 of 614 (732539)
07-08-2014 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by herebedragons
07-03-2014 12:35 PM


Re: Siccar Point
Faith, this is my advice as to how you could frame your argument in a scientific way. I replied to my own message and pulled out relevant points so I could add further comments where necessary.

HBD writes:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with forming alternate hypotheses. In fact, that process is vital to science. However, the more accepted the current theory, the better the alternate hypothesis needs to be. It can't just explain one little piece better than the current theory, it has to explain ALL of the data as well or better. Sometimes theories do have holes in them or uncertainties. An alternate hypothesis needs to not only address the uncertainties, but also the certainties as well.

Sometimes an alternate hypothesis explains one part of the data very, very well - even better than the current theory, but unless it can explain ALL the data as well or better than the current theory, it won't be accepted.

HBD writes:

An alternative hypothesis should start like this:

The current theory fails to explain phenomenon [X] because of [list of reasons]. However, my hypothesis provides a better explanation for this phenomenon.

HBD writes:

Another point. Simply denying the current theory is not sufficient to overturn it. Here is a list of the reasons I have seen you insert into [list of reasons] above.

  • It happened in the unwitnessed past, so no one can be certain.
  • That evidence doesn't prove anything.
  • Billions of years doesn't make any sense.
  • Anyone should be able to look at this cross section of the GC and see that it didn't take billions of years to form.
  • The Bible says the earth is only 6,000 years old and a worldwide flood occurred 4,300 years ago.

Those are poor reasons to give if you want your alternate hypothesis to be considered.

This point is very important. There needs to be justification for proposing an alternate hypothesis. "The current theory doesn't make sense", "The Bible says", or "I can tell by just looking that the current theory is wrong" will not go very far to convince people that you have a legitimate, scientific reason for proposing an alternate hypothesis. Instead, what data, what evidence does the current theory NOT explain or provide a weak explanation for?

HBD writes:

As I said, alternative hypotheses are a vital part of science. In fact, I would suggest that without alternate hypotheses we could not test anything. The hypothesis "This rock is old." would be a lousy hypothesis. A better hypothesis would be "IF this rock is old, THEN we should see [X]; IF this rock is not old (young), THEN we should see [Y]. The two hypotheses can be directly compared to determine which can better predict an expected observation.

A common way to propose an alternate hypothesis is to use a null hypothesis, which we will call H0, to test against. H0 is simply a statement that the hypothesis, which we call H1 is NOT true. H0 says nothing about what IS true, simply that H1 is NOT true.

The problem is, rather than supporting H1 with evidence, creationists typically put their efforts into showing that H0 is not true. However, showing that H0 is false does not make H1 true.

For example, if the hypothesis is that the rocks of the GC are young, showing that the dating methods employed by current methods are faulty does NOT support the hypothesis, it is an attempt to show that H0 is false, but says nothing about H1. This is a flawed approach. IF H1 cannot be supported, then H0 is true by default, not the other way around.

HBD writes:

This new proposed hypothesis then needs to be subject to scrutiny and needs to be able to defend itself against that scrutiny. If and only IF it stands up to scrutiny will it be accepted. Also realize that the more accepted the current theory is, the more scrutiny it will suffer, BECAUSE the current theory has been accepted to be the best explanation of the evidence.

This is often the hardest part of the process to accept; no one wants their ideas torn to shreds. But this is a vital part of the process. This is the part where you will be expected to defend your hypothesis and demonstrate that it DOES explain ALL of the evidence as well or better than the current theory. The more firmly established the current theory, the more difficult this part will be because the more explanatory power the current theory has or is thought to have.

Also note that the burden of evidence falls on the one proposing the alternate hypothesis. You often seem put off that people keeping asking you for evidence of your claims and you complain that all anyone else offers is "stories." The trouble is that the arguments for these "stories" has been going on for the last 200 years and can now be reduced to "stories." Some of the data for these arguments is not readily accessible because it was published many years ago before the internet and is in something called books.

I am not saying that those that support the current theory do not need to provide evidence, I am saying the burden of evidence falls on the one proposing the alternate hypothesis. H0 does NOT need to be defended, H1 needs to be supported. Does that make sense?

And finally, despite the fact you think that there is an old earth theory that all data needs to be interpreted by, there is no such thing. That the earth is old is a conclusion. I know you don't believe that, but it's true. The conclusions about the age of the earth come from adding up the data; A + B + C .... +Z = [Age of the Earth].

If the hypothesis is the the Grand Canyon was deposited in a single catastrophic event, then it needs to be shown that EVERY single layer was deposited by that catastrophic event. If there is any feature within the system that could not have been deposited by that catastrophic event, then the hypothesis is falsified and needs revision (perhaps setting limits as to what layers that event is responsible for). A daunting task indeed!!!

So, I recommend that you focus on one piece at a time. For example, the current theory says that one way limestone is deposited is in offshore marine environments by the accumulation of the shells of tiny, sea animals. At this point, this process is considered to be a fact and does not need to be supported for discussions like this and can simply be stated as such. So the argument could go something like this:

There is 300 feet of limestone which was deposited in a calm marine environment by the accumulation of the shells of billions of tiny marine animals. How could this have happened in a flood?

Improper, unscientific response: You can't prove that is how it was deposited, it COULD have been deposited in a flood as well. I see no problem here. Or another one, "to think that a layer represents a depositional environment is just nonsense." These responses address and attempt to call into question H0 instead of supporting H1, which is that limestone deposits are consistent with flood deposits. H1 needs to be supported!

A more scientific response: Provide evidence that limestone CAN be deposited in environments that are consistent with massive floods.

That is why I advised you to take on one piece at a time.

HBD writes:

Another bit of advice; take on small pieces at a time. There is no point in trying to overturn the "Old Earth Theory" all at once. Believe it or not, that the earth is old is a conclusion not a theory. It is a conclusion that has been reached by the accumulation of many, many pieces of data and theories about that data. Instead, choose one part of the GC, for example, and develop an alternate hypothesis about how that formed.

A good example would be the contact between the Muav and the Redwall and how the Temple Butte formation fits in.

  • First describe what the current theory fails to explain.
  • Then explain how your hypothesis explains those phenomenon better.
  • Make some predictions that would have to be true if your hypothesis were true BUT would have to be false if the current theory were true.
  • Gather objections to your hypothesis and prepare to defend them.
  • Demonstrate that your hypothesis satisfies those objections. If you have to use any of the reasons from the [list of reasons] I listed above, the objections are not adequately satisfied.
  • Test your predictions.
  • If one of the predictions proves false OR any of the objections presented cannot be adequately addressed, either modify hypothesis or abandon it as untenable.

An unconformity is problematic for a single catastrophic event. You need to demonstrate an alternate hypothesis that supports the idea that a single catastrophic event could create a feature that looks like an unconformity.

HBD writes:

I am sincerely trying to help you here, Faith. If you truly want your ideas to be considered scientific rather than apologetic, this is the procedure you must follow. The reason no one is considering your approach scientific, is because it simply is not.

Your mantra that "we cannot know the unobserved past" puts your hypothesis firmly on non-scientific grounds. Science deals with what we CAN know. Current hypotheses tell us what we CAN know about the past. If it is wrong and there is a better hypothesis, then you need to demonstrate that - scientifically.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by herebedragons, posted 07-03-2014 12:35 PM herebedragons has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Faith, posted 07-08-2014 2:38 PM herebedragons has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 282 of 614 (732566)
07-08-2014 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by herebedragons
07-08-2014 10:17 AM


HBD's "helpful" advice
Ugh. Reading this is a pain. Sorry, I guess it's just hard to take the patronizing attitude, all the more from someone who long ago caved in on the Biblical standard. And the utter lack of ability to see what I AM doing and trying to do here. Blech.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by herebedragons, posted 07-08-2014 10:17 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-08-2014 3:55 PM Faith has replied
 Message 285 by hooah212002, posted 07-08-2014 4:22 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 288 by herebedragons, posted 07-10-2014 6:59 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3302
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 283 of 614 (732571)
07-08-2014 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Faith
07-08-2014 2:38 PM


Re: HBD's "helpful" advice
Faith writes:

Ugh. Reading this is a pain. Sorry, I guess it's just hard to take the patronizing attitude, all the more from someone who long ago caved in on the Biblical standard.

It's too bad that you cannot take any constructive suggestions.

You cannot face the truth about yourself, even when it is given in a polite, honest manner. hbd obviously put a lot of thought and time into that post, but he will clearly NEVER get any thanks or acknowledgement from you.

Faith writes:

And the utter lack of ability to see what I AM doing and trying to do here. Blech.

Faith, he nailed it. His description of your behavior was absolutely spot on, with examples of your fantasies and puffed up, empty arguments and the reasons why they do not work.

hbd sees you exactly the same way everyone else here sees you. What you are doing and trying to do here is ignoring evidence that is right in front of your eyes, in fact, denying that it exists. And demanding that we all admit that we can see imaginary stuff that you made up.

Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Faith, posted 07-08-2014 2:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Faith, posted 07-08-2014 4:08 PM Tanypteryx has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 684 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 284 of 614 (732573)
07-08-2014 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Tanypteryx
07-08-2014 3:55 PM


Re: HBD's "helpful" advice
This from the blindest most kneejerk undiscriminating poster at EvC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-08-2014 3:55 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-08-2014 4:34 PM Faith has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 41 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 285 of 614 (732575)
07-08-2014 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Faith
07-08-2014 2:38 PM


Re: HBD's "helpful" advice
This should be sufficient to give your ass the boot. You show time and time and time and time again that you have no wish to so much as even read the messages people write in response to you. You are not here for discussion.

Why are you here really? Why are you even allowed here? I am genuinely perplexed because it's not even funny anymore. It's pathetic.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : BIG off-topic banner.


Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Faith, posted 07-08-2014 2:38 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022