Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
62 online now:
nwr, Theodoric (2 members, 60 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,162 Year: 4,274/6,534 Month: 488/900 Week: 12/182 Day: 12/28 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.
ringo
Member
Posts: 19521
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 34 of 614 (718537)
02-07-2014 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Faith
02-06-2014 3:51 PM


Re: How about forensic science?
Faith writes:

You can't compare this to the sciences involved in trying to explain things from the UNWITNESSED PREHISTORIC past where there are no testable clues because there are no witnesses, again meaning any kind of documented knowledge as well as human witnesses.


I agree with you that there is a distinction between "kinds" of evidence. The problem is that eyewitnesses and documents - the only evidence you seem willing to accept - are the worst possible kinds of evidence.

Witnesses lie or are mistaken. Documents can be forged. What makes good evidence is the absence of any opportunity for human tampering.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 02-06-2014 3:51 PM Faith has taken no action

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19521
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 80 of 614 (719230)
02-12-2014 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Faith
02-12-2014 3:21 AM


Re: How about forensic science?
Faith writes:

My answer to the forensics comparison is that criminal forensics all goes on in the present really, but certainly not the PREHISTORIC past, which was what I was saying was the problem for science, not the past as in historic times.


Scientific study of the prehistoric past uses the same kind of data and reasoning as criminal forensics. Your problem is that you're trying to substantiate a myth that isn't based on that same kind of data and reasoning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 02-12-2014 3:21 AM Faith has taken no action

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19521
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 146 of 614 (731807)
06-30-2014 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Faith
06-30-2014 2:06 AM


Re: Siccar Point
Faith writes:

There is nothing that can be tested....


and

Faith writes:

I did think it interesting, however, that he actually considered the possibility that the vertical strata had been broken and set upright while the upper horizontal strata were in place, something nobody here will admit as a possibility as I've brought it up many times.


It should be possible to test that hypothesis; all you'd need to do is get a chunk of similar strata and subject it to pressure in various amounts and various directions. If creationists can imagine a way that that could happen, why don't they do the experiment?

"I just rattled off that post not caring whether any of it was true or not if you want to know." -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 2:06 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 3:44 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19521
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 198 of 614 (731969)
07-02-2014 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Faith
06-30-2014 3:44 PM


Re: Siccar Point
Faith writes:

There may not be any creationists quite crazy enough to be interested in this idea except me.


I suspect that most creationists lack the motivation to do experiments because deep down they know they won't get the results they want. As somebody once said, the easiest person to fool is yourself - but few people have themselves so completely fooled that they're willing to stand up for what they (clim to) believe.

"I just rattled off that post not caring whether any of it was true or not if you want to know." -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 06-30-2014 3:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 12:03 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19521
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 207 of 614 (731979)
07-02-2014 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Faith
07-02-2014 12:03 PM


Re: Siccar Point
Faith writes:

I also think I need to consider the different sediments involved, what that would contribute to the effect, because there would be textural differences that I think figure in how the unconformity was formed. How am I going to simulate or reproduce limestone?


So why doesn't the entire creationist communty spend some millions on research instead of on propaganda? Why is nothing actually being done in what you call "real" science?

"I just rattled off that post not caring whether any of it was true or not if you want to know." -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 12:03 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Coyote, posted 07-02-2014 1:34 PM ringo has seen this message
 Message 212 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 3:17 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19521
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 210 of 614 (731984)
07-02-2014 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Faith
07-01-2014 6:50 AM


Re: Siccar Point
Faith writes:

They can be tested by looking at the evidence.

Not if the evidence has to be interpreted, which Siccar Point does.

Try telling a BASIC interperter that any old interpretation will do. There are correct interpretations and incorect interpretations.

"I just rattled off that post not caring whether any of it was true or not if you want to know." -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 07-01-2014 6:50 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 3:24 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19521
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 214 of 614 (731990)
07-02-2014 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Faith
07-02-2014 3:17 PM


Re: Siccar Point
Faith writes:

The creationist "community" isn't into this particular issue, only I am that I know of.


So even other creationists, who presumably have the same level of Biblical understanding that you (claim to) have, don't agree with you.

"I just rattled off that post not caring whether any of it was true or not if you want to know." -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 3:17 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 3:26 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19521
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 218 of 614 (731995)
07-02-2014 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Faith
07-02-2014 3:24 PM


Re: Siccar Point
Faith writes:

Yes there are correct and incorrect interpretations, but the point is that when you are dealing with past one-time events ALL YOU HAVE is interpretation, you DO NOT HAVE a method for testing if your interpretation is correct.


Sure you do. I suggested a test and you agreed to consider it.

It's true that that would only tell you what could have happened, not what did happen - but you can certainly eliminate incorrect interpretations by determining what could not happen.


"I just rattled off that post not caring whether any of it was true or not if you want to know." -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 3:24 PM Faith has taken no action

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19521
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 220 of 614 (731997)
07-02-2014 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Faith
07-02-2014 3:26 PM


Re: Siccar Point
Faith writes:

But many of them do have the strong opinion that the Flood began after the Great Unconformity in the GC occurred, so it might be as hard to persuade them as anybody here.


Well, "strong opinions" are not particularly persuasive. I personally am more impressed by a geologist who can, for example, find a vein of molybdenum than I am by an armchair creationist with a big pile of useless opinions. Has "flood geology" ever produced any useful results?

"I just rattled off that post not caring whether any of it was true or not if you want to know." -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 3:26 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 3:40 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19521
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 222 of 614 (731999)
07-02-2014 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Faith
07-02-2014 3:40 PM


Re: Siccar Point
Faith writes:

If Geology stuck to finding molybdenum instead of pontificating about the age of the earth I wouldn't have a problem with it either.


Sure you would. You have a problem with all science indirectly. You can't throw out one part without throwing out the whole thing. If the age of the earth is wrong, then chemistry and physics are wrong too.

"I just rattled off that post not caring whether any of it was true or not if you want to know." -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 3:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 3:54 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19521
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 224 of 614 (732001)
07-02-2014 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Faith
07-02-2014 3:54 PM


Re: Siccar Point
Faith writes:

Sigh. No they aren't.


"Nuh uh," is still not a very persuasive argument.

Since the thread is about different "kinds" of science, maybe you could elaborate on how you think chemistry and physics could stand if the earth turned out to be wrong. Hint: you're throwing out decay rates and thermodynamics.


"I just rattled off that post not caring whether any of it was true or not if you want to know." -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Faith, posted 07-02-2014 3:54 PM Faith has taken no action

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19521
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 255 of 614 (732106)
07-03-2014 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Faith
07-03-2014 2:50 AM


Re: The Quest For The Rational Basis
Faith writes:

... I mean the PREHISTORIC past, not the recent past but the past that is before there was any possible witness to its events.


According to your fairy tale, there is no prehistoric past.

Unless you count the five days before Adam was created. But since Adam wsn't there to witness them, by your own reasoning you can't know anything about them.


"I just rattled off that post not caring whether any of it was true or not if you want to know." -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 2:50 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 12:52 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19521
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 261 of 614 (732127)
07-03-2014 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Faith
07-03-2014 12:52 PM


Re: The Quest For The Rational Basis
Faith writes:

As long as they are talking about ages in millions of years when there was nobody around at all there is no way to establish anything with the kind of certainty often claimed for it.


What's the difference between millions (billions) of years and five days? You have no witnesses for most of the creation, so you equally have no way to establish anything with the certainty you claim.

"I just rattled off that post not caring whether any of it was true or not if you want to know." -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 12:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 1:04 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19521
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 266 of 614 (732136)
07-03-2014 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Faith
07-03-2014 1:04 PM


Re: The Quest For The Rational Basis
Faith writes:

Creationism is also interpretive and historical.


So it is, according to you, inferior to hard sciences such as physics. See? You said something that makes sense.

Faith writes:

The complaint is that Old Earth Geology thinks it's got an unbreakable grip on the truth about the past that it cannot possibly have and that needs to be challenged.


The thing is that OE geology is based on OE chemistry and OE physics - because that's the only chemistry and physics we have. You remind me of somebody (who will remain nameless) who used to talk about "German physics" - only it turned out to be just physics.

"I just rattled off that post not caring whether any of it was true or not if you want to know." -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Faith, posted 07-03-2014 1:04 PM Faith has taken no action

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19521
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


(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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022