Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2019 11:40 PM
24 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Faith, Tanypteryx (4 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,147 Year: 15,183/19,786 Month: 1,906/3,058 Week: 280/404 Day: 94/73 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 924 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


(1)
Message 18 of 614 (718423)
02-06-2014 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
02-06-2014 12:09 PM


How about forensic science?
If creationists want to discard "historical science", shouldn't they do away with forensic science as well? After all, forensic science deals with, for example, murder scenes where the murder took place in the past, and the forensic scientists weren't there at the time. So, how can they draw any valid conclusions about the murderer?

Yet, with the advent of DNA-analysis we see cold cases being solved conclusively one after another.

It is a bit naive of creationists not to see the value of the scientific method for all kinds of science.


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 02-06-2014 12:09 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 3:51 PM Parasomnium has not yet responded
 Message 22 by Diomedes, posted 02-06-2014 3:54 PM Parasomnium has not yet responded
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 02-06-2014 5:08 PM Parasomnium has responded
 Message 48 by mike the wiz, posted 02-08-2014 8:18 AM Parasomnium has not yet responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 924 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


(2)
Message 32 of 614 (718465)
02-06-2014 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by RAZD
02-06-2014 5:08 PM


Re: How about forensic science? -- not on prehistoric unwitnessed events?
RAZD writes:

When you get back to the point where DNA samples are not obtainable then this line of evidence is not so useful.

However, using DNA-comparison, we can for example determine the time when the last common ancestor between any two species must have lived, and with reasonable certainty too. DNA can tell us a lot, even if we don't have samples from extinct species.

If I can make an hypothesis from observations of existing data (fossils, sedimentary layers etc etc etc) and then TEST the hypothesis to see if it is valid or invalid then it is science yes?

It is indeed.

What Faith (and Ham and other creationists) apparently claims is that IF the events in the past can not be REPRODUCED that then they cannot be tested.

They fail to understand that is is not the events themselves that need to be repeated, but the research into them needs to be repeatable.


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 02-06-2014 5:08 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 924 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


(3)
Message 47 of 614 (718662)
02-08-2014 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Faith
02-07-2014 7:52 PM


Re: Let's use an example to explore this further
Faith writes:

If the scientific conclusion contradicts the Bible, we assume the fault is in the science.

This means there is no point in arguing with you. Your loss, I'm afraid.

Anyway, instead of bringing up counter-evidence against your worldview, let me try and think along the same lines, and see what we get.

If we examine a fossil, let's say the fossil remains of a stegosaur, we find that it is made of stone. It may look like the bones of a stegosaur, but it is really nothing more than a collection of fancy stones. How can that be?

Well, the obvious conclusion is that it really is a lookalike of a stegosaur and that it was made by a sculptor. After all, it's made of stone, not bone. It's a statue, it's art. And the sculptor either had a very vivid imagination, or was high on some hallucinogenic substance, because what he made is the stuff of dreams, obviously.

Your elaborate theory of a Flood that killed outrageous looking animals is way too complicated an explanation for what really went on long ago. Noah didn't build a boat, he sculpted a theme park.

It's obvious.


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Faith, posted 02-07-2014 7:52 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 924 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 63 of 614 (718705)
02-08-2014 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by mike the wiz
02-08-2014 12:29 PM


Re: How about forensic science?
mike the wiz writes:

we can repeat history, by placing the rat under the bowl

What good is putting a dead rat under the bowl?

Edited by Parasomnium, : changed 'it' to 'is'


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by mike the wiz, posted 02-08-2014 12:29 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Coyote, posted 02-08-2014 1:37 PM Parasomnium has responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 924 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 65 of 614 (718708)
02-08-2014 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Coyote
02-08-2014 1:37 PM


Re: How about forensic science?
He's repeating the experiment. The previous time the rat died. He didn't mention a new rat. So it's obvious the rat is dead.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Coyote, posted 02-08-2014 1:37 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019