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

The above statement is true, but I think it misses a point.Essentially nobody believes in Creation Science because of anything like the scientific method. YECs believe that Eve was created from Adam's rib because the Bible says so. They may believe in a few other things like a vapor canopy because their pastor told them it was true.Why then should a YEC proponent care if there is no acceptable non-historical scientific evidence for Genesis given that he is accepting it on faith anyway? Isn't it pointless then to argue that the scientific basis for their own beliefs is even shakier than what they reject?The flip side of the coin is that the observational science argument is a farce anyway. The argument has nothing to do with how they formed their beliefs, it is simply a rationalization for a conclusion already reached. Using the argument is the verbal equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears. It is pretty easy to show that YECs use and accept the results of investigations that are not qualitatively different from the science they reject.

You are never going to get to something credible they way you are doing it. Geology is not simply about looking at rocks and making stuff up, but that's all of the credit you are giving geologists in your approach. You apparently believe they are total idiots.I cannot even tell where you are going with your attempt at biology.I'd recommend that you start with the basics of how the ages of geological features are estimated. A good place to start might be with Dr. Adequate's book. I don't expect you to be convinced by anything you find, but perhaps you'll learn a bit about geology as a science.Alternatively, you might start with something a bit simpler. I would suggest dating the ages of the pyramids that scientists believe were built right around the time Ussher dates the Flood. Almost impossible for the Flood have happened at that time if scientists are correct.

What you are describing here is hypothesis formation which is simply the coming up with an explanation that fits the facts as they are known. Forming a hypothesis is only the very earliest part of the scientific method. Hypothesizing is the only part that I see you make attempts apply when you come up with Creationist explanations for geology. If geologist did no better than that, then I agree that your accusations would have basis.To some extent, and I'd argue that to a large extent, the process of coming up with the hypothesis is largely irrelevant. I've seen people here saying the General Relativity is bogus because Einstein used thought experiments. But Einstein's thought experiments imply allowed him to see that there were errors in classical thinking. Einstein put in nearly a decade of work afterwards finding ways to rigorously and mathematically express the implications of his thought experiments, and yes some aesthetic considerations, before coming up with a set of equations that have been verified by countless experiments, and that explain phenomena Einstein never observed.The process of coming up with the hypothesis is largely irrelevant to the success of the scientific method. It matters little whether the Bible, aesthetic considerations, or extrapolation is used. What matters is that the hypothesis explains what we see, and that the hypothesis is testable.One might make similar observations about Darwin's work. Whatever criticisms one might make about the extent to which evolution is proven correct by the observations and thought processes of Charles Darwin as expressed in "Origin of Species", the basis for the acceptance of the theory of evolution is well beyond Darwin's work.As for Siccar Point. I understand the issue for Creationists. Back in the 18th century, people largely accepted Hutton's hypothesis without much rigorous scientific method. But the real reason to accept Hutton's conclusions today is that they fit the evidence gained subsequently. It is entirely irrelevant today that there was no geological dating available in the 18th century. It is relevant that we know more about the geological processes, chemical, and physical processes are possible in the earth and what kinds of rocks form as a result of those processes.And that's the basis on which I would counter your accusation that Siccar point represents just one man's opinion. That's simply not the state of geology today.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Do you know what apologetics is? My father used to teach the subject at a theological university. Apologetics is nothing to apologize for. If, in fact you were actually doing that, you are to be commended.

It cannot possibly be science given your own words.If it were science we would have a hypothesis and evidence based testing. The testing would include both verifying the hypothesis is true and that the null hypothesis is false by using evidence based testing of the hypothesis.According to you though, testing is impossible. So regardless of whether geologists believe that testing actually is possible, I know that you are not even trying to test your hypothesis.So you are not doing science. Science is not telling stories even if the stories turn out to be true.And nobody is afraid of your silly punches.

The structure is known despite the fact that no one can see the atoms in the individual molecule. The structure is known via the interpretation of test results.On the other hand, the layer structure of angular unconformities is exactly known because we've seen them. Geologists test their hypothesis about how they are formed both by looking for formation evidence and by the absence of observational evidence that would support counter hypothesis. In short they use the scientific method.Why is it that you think your proposals are scientific while those of geologists are not?

It is a silly objection, but it is also the core objection behind the denigration of geology. The only evidence that needs no interpretation is a direct observation of the phenomena under investigation. No inference of any kind is allowed.In short as long as nobody saw it, where the "it" is something contrary to a belief, we can say that "it" is not science.

That's how some people have viewed it. Seriously Faith, if the standard for convincing was simply providing an opinion paper, there'd be little for you to disagree about. The overwhelming opinion of geology among scientists is that it is a scientific discipline.People are not simply blindly defending the position that geological hypotheses are testable. They are actually providing examples. Responding as if those things had not been provided is the height of denial.

Right. For example, there is no way to tell well after the conception event, whether Sam, Joe, or Bill is the father of the Sue's baby. All of that DNA testing that looks at everything except who mounted Sue last year is just hog wash.

You can repeat that if you want to. But it is not helpful to your argument.DNA testing does not stop working on even prehistoric situations, and the questions of whether there were witnesses is not relevant. So your qualification is complete nonsense.And I note that the limitation does not keep you from making up nonsense about SICCAR point. Who witnessed that?

If you had actually said something like that before most of us would not be thinking of you as a buffoon. But it is pretty clear that the "not set in stone" sentiment is not what you expressed in your original statements. The kind of uncertainty you are talking about now would not make geology unscientific. It would just make it less certain that other sciences.And of course, I would disagree with you on the amount of uncertainty that exists regarding Siccar point, but ultimately that is pointless. The fact that the earth is greater than 4 billion years old is just as certain as is the structure of DNA as is the fact that structures at Siccar point were not formed by a global Flood at anytime in the last 4-5000 years. The evidence for those things come from many sciences including, but not limited to geology.

In fact there is nothing more to Creationism than that. There is no scientific method based support any aspect of literal Genesis Creation or the Great Flood. None at all. The same cannot be said for scientific theories to the contrary.

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.

Nobody witnessed the creation of the Grand Canyon, but that does not stop you from blathering on about that.But as has also been pointed out, nobody has ever witnessed fusion on the sun, the atoms that make up water, or quarks. Nice. I'm rubber you are glue.

Some prediction...You posted the same old crap assertions about not being able to do science on old stuff and nobody bought it for about the eighteenth time. Then you act surprised.That sequence of events is just about the definition of insanity.