Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

Rather, this pseudo-demarcation is the transcendental failure of Ken Ham's epistemology. It demonstrates an a priori incapacity to understand how or why science works.

quote:

---

You all are very good at asserting blindly that the historical sciences are testable and provable, though half a minute's thought should show you that's wrong.
So what's your proof that, say, the Supergroup beneath the Grand Canyon was actually once a mountain range? Remember you have to demonstrate this, you can't just interpret it into Fact.

---

Science uses observations to constrain what is unobserved. This is the fundamental task of science, and you simply deny that it is possible. The distinction between historical and observable science is, in reality, merely the distinction between science and observation, and you have contempt for the former.

Hi Phat. I am not a creationist in any form. I think the question of the divine or the godlike can be interesting in the philosophers toolbox, but I am not convinced it ever has or will become reified as a thing amenable to epistemologies of any sort. More to the point, I think the gods have always only been invented--but that's what makes them interesting, even useful for good things.I haven't the energy to change my avatar

I don't think you know what it means "to test".

quote:

---

I don't think YOU know what I mean about testing. Stay out of the discussion if you are only going to shoot out accusations.

---

It doesn't matter what you mean about testing, it matters what scientists mean.Faith, what do you think about the hypothesis that, say, meteor impacts are responsible for the grand canyon? Can you think of a reason this is a bad hypothesis?