SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.

Ken Ham says, no matter what you claim science implies, you weren't there. That's the end result yes, but that is not quite what I mean.The idea is that the scientific method requires that we draw inferences from observations and to use inductive reasoning. It is not controversial to say that such processes do not produce 100 percent certainty. Every time science disagrees with the Bible, science is simply in error.

Oh, sure, I know Faith believes that, but she's making up her own definition of "evidence", and then using that definition to misdefine "prove". You'd think she'd realize that when her beliefs force her to make up her own private definitions that something's amiss, but apparently not.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

I disagree with this characterization. You've already acknowledged that there is a sense in which Faith is correct about the definition of evidence. And of course there is a mathematical definition of proof that is not really all that far from the definition Faith insists on.

If you're talking about Faith's definition of "evidence" as that which correctly supports a claim (where evidence that doesn't support a claim isn't evidence), I hope I've been clear that I believe that definition wrong. It should be obvious that it is self-evidently wrong. Many claims can be made about what some particular evidence implies, and some will be right and some will be wrong. But the evidence doesn't toggle back and forth between being evidence and not being evidence as the various claims are considered. The definition of "proven" that Faith is insisting on is something like "having strong evidence in support of a claim," which I agree with. Where we disagree is when she says there are things about the natural world that we cannot prove, in particular about the "unwitnessed past." Her argument is equivalent to saying that if evidence doesn't support the claim being made then it isn't evidence, and having no evidence we can make no claims. Echoing what I said before, that this is irrational should be obvious to most people.Faith unequivocally denied that she's using the mathematical definition: Faith has posted a new blog entry about "proof": Let's Bring "Proof" Back to Reality. I don't have time to read it now.--Percy

Faith has posted another response at her blog: Let's Bring "Proof" Back to Reality. This is as false as it ever was. Let's see what Faith offers to support it this time. All science is observational and interpretive. If Faith thinks not then in her next blog post she can provide a few examples of fields of science that are missing one of these. But does Faith ever tell us that legitimate argument? After reading on to the end I find the answer is, "Apparently not." As Faith knows, when she actually confronts evidence from the distant past she is unable to describe why we can't
analyze it, as here: The Denisovan's are an extinct species of Homo. Analysis of Denisovan mitochondrial DNA from 41,000 years ago shows they share genes with both Homo sapiens and Home neanderthalensis. If we didn't already know the structure of the DNA then we could have used 41,000 year-old Denisovan DNA to analyze its structure.Evidence can degrade and disappear over time, but no matter how old, as long as some is left it can be subjected to scientific scrutiny to reach valid conclusions. Faith here attempts to describe why old evidence can't be used to reconstruct the past: So Faith tells us that Stegosaurus fossils are valid evidence from the past, but that the surrounding sedimentary rock in which the Stegosaurus fossils are buried is not. But the evidence from that sedimentary layer tells us a great deal pretty conclusively, such as the age of the layer and the nature of the environment at that time. No one's "asserting theory as fact." Paleontologists are merely relating what the evidence leads them to conclude. We knew the Jurassic was a time period after the one below and before the one above simply from the Law of Superposition (new sedimentary layers can only be deposited on top of older ones, not beneath them) and from the distinct flora and fauna even before radiometric dating allowed us to give it a specific age. There's evidence for everything science has concluded about the Jurassic and the Stegosaurus. There's nothing in science that is accepted "because that's what the theory says it is."Faith quotes about the paleoecology of the Morrison Formation from the Wikipedia article on the Stegosaurus, then correctly summarizes: But she dismisses this: Faith doesn't believe sedimentary layers contain the sediments, flora and fauna of the environment where they formed. She thinks the flood carried them from hither and yon and deposited them together into a single layer. She believes Stegosauri from anywhere in the world all came to be deposited in a narrow portion of the Jurassic period along with other unique flora and fauna that appear nowhere else. How can a flood do this? Well, it was a very special flood unlike any flood we've ever experienced, and it apparently can do anything Faith needs it to do. Faith possesses the infinite ability to declare things absurd while exhibiting no ability to actually demonstrate it.--Percy

I have to admit that I find this thread entertaining. I can't seem to help myself as I am irresistibly drawn to each new installment.It just seems so odd that a one sided debate is going on here on the most rational forum on the web with a blog poster whose ravings are usually not read by anyone.

I'm referring to the formulation that Taq provided. You acknowledged that Faith's definition was consistent with Taq's but there was no explicit indication of disapproval. You've just continued on as if that exchange never happened.Taq's definition is just fine. It's also pretty close to the definition of evidence used in law. If you disagree with it, that's also fine, but it reduces your rejection of Faith's definition to merely a difference of opinion.And even with Taq's definition, Faith is still wrong with regard to whether or not we have evidence. Because the facts we refer to do distinguish between Faith's position and yours. So they are evidence.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Oh, okay, you're referring to Message 534. The full exchange went like this: What Taq said is consistent with what Faith is saying, but it isn't all of what she is saying, which was the point of my second sentence. Faith knows what evidence is, but she puts a qualifier on it that evidence that doesn't correctly support a claim is not evidence. She needs an excuse for ignoring inconvenient evidence, so she makes up a definition of evidence that serves that purpose. Yep.--Percy

As you are doubtless aware, I am no fan of Faith's behavior here. But I think this characterization is wrong. Generally speaking, Faith usually presents her own ideas about what the evidence says. Were she to be correct, she would also be right about the evidence.Perhaps the difference lies only in what we think are Faith's motivations for what she does. I think she is sincere but wrong, your position is that she is just making excuses.

I agree that Faith is sincere, and I don't think she's all that aware that what she's doing is making up definitions and excuses. Faith has demonstrated time and again that she has no aptitude for introspection or self awareness.--Percy

Of course Faith does not have a legitimate argument. She recognises that we can work out things that happened in the prehistoric past. Claiming that hypotheses cannot be tested when they have been is an obvious falsehood.And if she uses "prove" in an ordinary sense then desperate appeals to an assumed "systematic error" which affects the many diverse dating methods are clearly invalid. It HAS been proved that the Earth is very much more than 10,000 years old by any standard but a demand for absolute proof.Faith does it all backwards, of course. She starts with the conclusions and tries to concoct "rules" that will justify them. And in this case she has to resort to inconsistencies.When we point out that the Flood wouldn't produce the evidence we observe, we can't work out what the Flood would do. When she claims that the Flood would produce the evidence that we see that objection vanishes.When we point to conclusions about the unwitnessed prehistoric past that she does not object to then she doesn't pretend to defend her claim that we can't reach such conclusions. She jsut accepts that it is possible. When talking about conclusions that she does object to then the assertion that the unwitnessed prehistoric past is unknowable suddenly pops up again.The only consistent factor in Faith's evaluation is Faith's opinion of the conclusions. Not the evidence. Not the supporting arguments. That certainly is not science.

Nicely understated. . Almost Britishly so...

historical science is came by only observational .

Evidence, please.Welcome to the forum!

I rewrote this slightly to say what I think you meant: All science is observational. Observations are how we gather data. Some fields of science lend themselves well to controlled experiments for generating data (physics, chemistry), others must gather much of their data from events that happened long ago (paleogeology, cosmology) or over which we have no control (meteorology).Perhaps what you meant to say is that in some fields of science it is impossible to construct experiments, so we're forced to observe whatever happens in nature. Supernovae are an example. Telescopes scan the night skies looking for supernovae to observe because we'll never be able to construct our own supernova upon which to conduct experiments.--Percy