Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[Jimmy D]

Prolly right, huh? Hard crowd here, most you guys don't believe in much anything beyond books. My human senses don't even agree with some books. It's all around if you could but perceive...

Books are good. I'm not knockin' books. But that's only half of this life, if that. Ears to hear, eyes to see. Look around Brother...

No problem, but his argument is flawed. If he actually looked at a few books he would see that possible pathways to the evolution of {whatever he's claiming is irreducibly complex today} have been proposed.

 

[Divide]

Yes, that's true. But that doesn't explain your genre determination.

"Scriptures are an introductory to God; they point the way. Therefore, the Genesis stories must be 100% accurate literal history."

See what I mean? It's a non-sequiter.

Genre? nonsequiter? Huh? What...Yeah, I do think the Genesis stories are literal history. That kinda goes without saying.

 

[Divide]

And I’m sorry you think my marriage is missing something just because we don’t believe there’s a god sprinkling magical fairy dust over us. If we’re missing out on something, show it.

If you can’t or won’t subject your beliefs to scientific verification you shouldn’t be posting on the physical and life sciences board. You’re just spamming us.

Oh come on, I was just making an example...No need to go victim on me...Everybody has to find it them self. I can't show it. That's the whole thing in a nutshell, God set it up for us to have faith in Him, unseen.

 

[OzSpen]

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. You really need to read your own sources better. Different people using the same method getting the same results is a repetition.

gaara,

You seem to be confusing repetition with repeatability, the latter being test and re-test in the present time.

With historical science there is no such thing as repeatability, meaning re-testing in the present time.

Historical science is common in the fields of ecology, climatology, astronomy, cosmology, evolutionary biology, geology, and paleontology. The goal of historical science is to deduce the natural history of systems such as forests, rocks, and planets. Historical science is not directly accessible because no scientists were around at the time to make observations; however, those events are indirectly accessible because of the evidence they have left behind. Like a detective, a historical scientist uses the evidence available today to deduce the history (The Reliability of Historical Science, Haarsma, BioLogos).​

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

We were talking about scientific evidence. No one here will argue that the Bible does not contain descriptions of actual historical persons and events. Whether those descriptions can be used to deduce scientific facts beyond the knowledge or intention of the author(s) is the question.

I'm also talking about scientific evidence that includes historical science that cannot be tested and re-tested in the present time. I'm discussing historical scientific facts. You don't seem to be including this in your understanding of scientific evidence.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Of course you can repeat his "sailing up the eastern coast of Australia in 1770." Either your observations will jibe with Cook's or it won't.

Hitch,

You don't seem to understand the difference between historical science and experimental/empirical science. The facts are that I CANNOT repeat Captain James Cook's sailing up the eastern coast of what became Australia in 1770.

That was an historical event that cannot be repeated or retested in the present time.

Please, please learn the difference between historical science and experimental/empirical science. You are not demonstrating in your post that you understand the difference.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

yep. actually the only possible explanation for the exsitance of a self replicating moroe is design:

evolution cant explain how such a machine evolved.

(image from Bacterial Flagellum)

xian,

Thank you for that excellent link to great info from Michael Behe about design in organisms.

By the way, what's a moroe? None of the dictionaries I checked - incl Oxford - could identify this word.

Oz

 

[gaara4158]

Oh come on, I was just making an example...No need to go victim on me...Everybody has to find it them self. I can't show it. That's the whole thing in a nutshell, God set it up for us to have faith in Him, unseen.

If you’re arguing for something you can’t demonstrate to be true, your argument does not belong on the physical and life sciences board. Plain and simple. I certainly won’t stand for you disparaging my marriage in the process.

 

[gaara4158]

gaara,

You seem to be confusing repetition with repeatability, the latter being test and re-test in the present time.

With historical science there is no such thing as repeatability, meaning re-testing in the present time.

Historical science is common in the fields of ecology, climatology, astronomy, cosmology, evolutionary biology, geology, and paleontology. The goal of historical science is to deduce the natural history of systems such as forests, rocks, and planets. Historical science is not directly accessible because no scientists were around at the time to make observations; however, those events are indirectly accessible because of the evidence they have left behind. Like a detective, a historical scientist uses the evidence available today to deduce the history (The Reliability of Historical Science, Haarsma, BioLogos).​

Oz

Direct access to historical events is not the only form of evidence, as your source explains. What exactly are you getting at?

 

[xianghua]

xian,

Thank you for that excellent link to great info from Michael Behe about design in organisms.

By the way, what's a moroe? None of the dictionaries I checked - incl Oxford - could identify this word.

Oz

oops. i meant "motor" of course. by the way, you may like this argument too:

My favorite argument for the existence of God

 

[OzSpen]

How well it matches the available evidence, whether any claims in a document can be verified or falsified, how well contemporary or near-contemporary documents agree or disagree with any claims, what implicit/explicit bias are known about the author and what the target audience is.

Standard stuff.

Gene,

How would those 'historical' criteria help me verify or falsify whether it is an historical fact that Captain James Cook sailed up the east coast of Australia in 1770?

I can agree with the importance of how the historical evidence matches or fails to support evidence from other sources.

How contemporary or near-contemporary documents agree or disagree with the claims in Cook's journals would be irrelevant, in my understanding, to the historical investigation of Cook's visit to Australia.

The target audience should have little bearing on historical science, except for understanding the culture and genre of the journal.

I suggest that an examination of Cook's journals, using some of the criteria/indications of historical reliability pursued for an examination of the historical Jesus.

Criteria of authenticity for the historical Jesus include: dissimilarity to Christian teaching, multiple attestation, linguistic semitisms, traces of Palestinian milieu, retention of embarrassing material, coherence with other authentic material. It is somewhat misleading to call these “criteria,” for they aim at stating sufficient, not necessary, conditions of historicity' (What criteria do historians use to determine the facts about the historical Jesus?)

The criteria are not infallible guidelines to discover the authenticity of an historical source. They are indications of authenticity.

See 'The "Criteria" for Authenticity' by Robert H Stein for an explanation of other criteria of authenticity for historical documents.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Direct access to historical events is not the only form of evidence, as your source explains. What exactly are you getting at?

gaara,

You don't seem to understand that when investigating ANY evidence from the past that is written, filmed or recorded as history, it cannot be repeated experimentally.

We can't repeat the historical science we use in investigations of Sept 11, 2001; the terrorist slaughters in Paris and Manchester UK, Hitler's Holocaust, Luther's nailing his 95 theses to the Castle Church door on 31 Oct 1517, or Jesus Christ's life, miracles, death, burial and resurrection.

Please understand that historical science does not use the same criteria of investigation as experimental science.

That's what I'm driving at.

Oz

 

[tas8831]

Hitch,

You don't seem to understand the difference between historical science and experimental/empirical science.
Oz

Since historical science relies on science, why is there this distinction, and why do creationists rely so heavily on it?

 

[gaara4158]

gaara,

You don't seem to understand that when investigating ANY evidence from the past that is written, filmed or recorded as history, it cannot be repeated experimentally.

We can't repeat the historical science we use in investigations of Sept 11, 2001; the terrorist slaughters in Paris and Manchester UK, Hitler's Holocaust, Luther's nailing his 95 theses to the Castle Church door on 31 Oct 1517, or Jesus Christ's life, miracles, death, burial and resurrection.

Please understand that historical science does not use the same criteria of investigation as experimental science.

That's what I'm driving at.

Oz

No, you’re misunderstanding what science is. And that’s ok, mistakes are how we learn. Sure, you cannot reproduce a historical event. No one is saying you can, and that’s not what scientists mean when they say science must be testable and repeatable. Historical science and experimental science are the exact same process applied to different types of questions. Experimental science tests hypotheses by experiment, and historical science tests hypotheses by gathering data (which may sometimes even include experiments) relevant to the hypothesis. They share the exact same criteria, they’re just gathering different types of data. Neither is less scientific than the other. So this distinction you’re trying to draw between historical science and experimental science is moot. Let me know if you need examples to help you understand this.

 

[tas8831]

gaara,

You don't seem to understand that when investigating ANY evidence from the past that is written, filmed or recorded as history, it cannot be repeated experimentally.

We can't repeat the historical science we use in investigations of Sept 11, 2001; the terrorist slaughters in Paris and Manchester UK, Hitler's Holocaust, Luther's nailing his 95 theses to the Castle Church door on 31 Oct 1517, or Jesus Christ's life, miracles, death, burial and resurrection.

Please understand that historical science does not use the same criteria of investigation as experimental science.

That's what I'm driving at.

Oz

We also cannot repeat the making of a man from the dust of the ground. and worse - unlike for , say, evolution - there is not even any circumstantial evidence in support for the creation tale.

But regarding repeatability - is it your esteemed opinion that, in science, repeatability refers to repeating the actual event?

That observation means observing a specific event?

I am pretty sure that the use of bubble chambers to observe the 'real time' actions of subatomic particles does not allow for anyone to actually see the nuclei of atoms being smashed.

 

[AV1611VET]

1176 posts for a series of miracles that didn't leave any evidence behind.

Academia at its best!

 

[Speedwell]

Genre? nonsequiter? Huh? What...Yeah, I do think the Genesis stories are literal history. That kinda goes without saying.

Actually, it doesn't "go without saying." You (in fact it was Divide I was responding to, but your views appear to be similar) raise two distinct issues: whether the Genesis stories are divinely inspired, and whether they are accurate literal history. The authority of scripture depends on its divine inspiration, not its adherence to any particular literary genre. They "point the way to God" as you put it, regardless of genre. That was the point I wanted to make to Divide, anyway.

 

[HitchSlap]

Hitch,

You don't seem to understand the difference between historical science and experimental/empirical science. The facts are that I CANNOT repeat Captain James Cook's sailing up the eastern coast of what became Australia in 1770.

That was an historical event that cannot be repeated or retested in the present time.

Please, please learn the difference between historical science and experimental/empirical science. You are not demonstrating in your post that you understand the difference.

Oz

When solving a homicide, should “historical” or “empirical” methods be used?

 

[HitchSlap]

1176 posts for a series of miracles that didn't leave any evidence behind.

Academia at its best!

Or religion at it’s worst?

 

[OzSpen]

Since historical science relies on science, why is there this distinction, and why do creationists rely so heavily on it?

Historical science is not the science of experimental science.

You ask why creationists rely so heavily on this distinction. Please document the creationists who rely on this contrast. General questions are not helpful when you don't provide the evidence.

Historical science is important because the Judeo-Christian teachings are based in history. Christianity is an historical religion.

Oz