Applying Science to Past Events

It is a accurate point and I'm a believer in the story, about the crucification and resurrection not being supported by evidence.
Well certainly not scientific evidence which is our contention.
It is in fact a revealation and accepted as that. Any other evidence is fine too but again evidence leading to a persuasive conclusion is not the same as scientific evidence leading to a persuasive conclusion.
Rob

You are right science is taking place anytime the scientific method is accurately employed.
And I suspose this could happen in Auto repair. i don't know. However it would be a special case. Auto repair and its doers are not engaged in science. Otherwise everything (even creationism) could be said to be science. You'all ready to do that?Since the scientific method is a method as opposed to other methods in fields of inquiry. One must not confuse these fields.
Where the past is pronounced upon as in origin subjects it is beholden upon them to demonstrate thier conclusions are based on the scientific method and not other ways of evidence gathering. (Even if valid)
Dr Morris the great leader of creationism himself has said origin teachings by creationists or evolutionists are both not scientic subjects. (yes though we use the term science but anyways). They are subjects of history.
Whether evolution etc is a subject of history or science shoud not be in contention. Yet it is so someone has it wrong.
Maybe its us.
But I don't see how.
Rob

You guys always want me define everything to its atomic detail. OK OK
I accept the defination of science that is always given out in text books and used against creationists to say we don't use (or understand) science.
As Pink Susquach said the more accurate term is the Scientific method.
Where this method is not employed in the subject then science has not occured.The method is simply hypothesis- testing + falsification-theory.
It really is about a higher form of conclusive proof. (with all respect to future correction)
Regards Rob

Aha. There it is. This I submitt is the error in many peoples minds about what science is. What scientific evidence is.
Loudmouth you should not be asking this.Scientific evidence IS not evidence like other evidence.
Scientific evidence is not another phrase for "very good evidence"Scientific evidence is the successful result of the scientific method being applied to some matter.
Other journeys to accurate conclusions are valid. But not science unless it is.
Rob

Well this is the rub.
The conclusions of science and the conclusions of history are in the text books, in the acedemic world and in the public mind are conclusions drawn on a different standard and prestige of evidence.If what you said was accurate then creationism which largely spends its time attacking the conclusions of others (as opposed to presenting new ideas) would be as valid in acedemia and the schoolroom as any critic.
THIS IS NOT THE PRESENT STATE OF THINGS.
ROB

Your wrong. As in a court of law it is the standard of evidence that is all the difference in conviction between a criminal and civil case.
Perhaps you have mixed up evidence with the word conclusion.I mean origins subjects are about conclusions drawn from evidence. Evolution is trying to claim its conclusions are based on a scientific method approach/evidence to its conclusion
WHEN in fact (we say)its conclusions are just regular evidence gathering BUT not the special method of science (and following prestige and credibility)

Indeed I think we again meet the rub.
You say "the transitional nature of a fossil is objectively measured (bones) and likewise stratigraphic location.In both points I would say it is not transitional or stratigraphy that is being measured but only some stuff in a field. Your trasitional/stratigraphy is a interpretation before any measuring was done.
Your saying that the theory is being measured but instead its only bones and thier place.

Ok the theory isn't being measured. Agreed.
It is as you say the fossils in the field placement and nature? that are being measured.
And that is all that can be done with such data.
It is not being Tested. Its measurements are raw details.
Thier placement or nature can not partake in a scietific experiment.
As in a criminal investagation the evidence After the crime can be used,I guess to recreate the crime BUT it can not be used to test the hypothesis of the detective. It is raw remains and not applicable to be part of a repeatable nature.
Again we are getting to the anatomy of a concept/method that is the great rub between evolutionis and creationists who pay close attention to the discussions.
(also we may be off thread here SHHHH The walss have ears (and noses) )
Rob

Sorry PS saying i Don't understand something won't persuade me to your view. The debate we have would be very revealing to millions of people who never question the claims of "science" before.The book statement you gave was very inferior to what people have told me in this forumn. The writer has never dealt with real criticsm before clearly. He tries to make his point with other historical studies archelogy and paleontology. WELL thats just the point. He should pay attention to this web.Really you guys have better stuff then him. Not right but better.

Ok Some good stuff here but I have to go and won't be back for a week again. Time to think of what you said. For you seem so confident. Most supporters of evolution under serious criticism buckle under pretty fast. Believe it or not.
Rob

I believe the reasoning is wrong as follows.
You are trying to demonstrate that case of science taking place on a a matter.
YET in order for me to refute it I must first accept that this daughter/parent relationship has been proven already to be a scientif faWHEWct. I am being asked to accept the conclusion of a speculative premise before I show why your example is not a speculative premise and thus not science in action.
If One accepts the daughter/parent relationship then I have already conceded the point I'm argueing against.
Your example was speculation based on speculation.
This was the the error in your reasoning that this was a good example.
WHEW. That was close.If I may the criminal case is off my way of thinking and anyways would force one to accept a detective is a practicing scientist. Most would say no.However your cosmology example can inform everyone who follows these discussions and learn frm.Yes you can make a theory about movement of celestial bodies. For they are NOW moving. It is a present event. It could be tested.
However a past movement of same bodies that is not occuring now is impossible to be tested and so not a subject of science but history.Loudmouth this demonstrates indeed the error of your camp on these matters. You are still bringing up as examples of the scientific method present doings to make your point when you should only be dealing with doings of the past that are NOT now going on.
This is a rub. With respect you guys are not separating past and gone events and present events. Yes present is testable. No past is not.
Rob

I accept the correction. Forensics is science. Rather I should say the criminal case and detective are not about science. The forensics part is a special case.About the celestial bodies there is a fatal error here by someone.
I believe loudmouth we have reached an important point that everyone should pay close attention too to move the great debate forward.First you changed the words from testing to "judgement" Also you brought up a new point about evolution being witnessed today to reveal the past.
FINE OKYet still in either the sky or on the ground in both cases one is not testing the past but testing the present. To go further to make interpretations about the future from the present is FINE OK
but you are not proving your point that the present movement of celestial bodies is a test of past movements of celestial bodies. And where there is no testing there is no scienctific method.Your analagy and question to me was can sky movements occuring today be used to make a sciectific theory. Yes they can.
But when you say present movements can be used to make a theory of past and gone events as a sciecticic method thing then I must insist NO.
This is the flaw in you guys thinking.
This is is a good point and I throw the ball to you

Yes you can Project the motions to Predict future events and Project backwards to PREDICT past events.
WE AGREE.
Yet in each case the future and past prediction is only that. It is not testable or falsifiable evidence and so not in the orbit of science.Unless of coarse your saying your prediction of future motion movement in space rules out completly a well aimed meteorite or any choas taking place in the near or far future to alter the motions?!
Rob

Yes as I understand it. Yet it doesn't go that far back otherwise a complete human lineage tree would of been made.
Rob

We were contending here that predictions are not the same as testing or can be tested. (and so not science). I made (a good point I think if not deadly) that the motions of planets today can not be a test of motions of the past or future. Yes predictions can be made past or future But not tests. And so the example given me to persuade that science can deal with the past but gone events is false. And this is what my opponents tried to say but have since become quiet I notice. What do you think? But watch the line of contention carefully.
Rob