Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[OzSpen]

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.

I do not misunderstand science. I have written a PhD dissertation that deals with a dimension of historical science.

You can't test and re-test data of the past in historical science, like is done in experimental science. It has to do with history and involves pursuing hypotheses that deal with historical data (from the past, even if the recent past).

My distinction between historical science and experimental science is NOT moot but critical to understanding the differences between these 2 sciences.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

there is not even any circumstantial evidence in support for the creation tale.

Is that your presupposition about creation that it is a 'tale'?

 

[OzSpen]

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

Ever heard of forensic science?

 

[HitchSlap]

Ever heard of forensic science?
View attachment 213304

By your logic, since an historical event cannot be recreated, there is no way to solve a homicide. I understand why you would suggest this, as it allows one to hold beliefs without evidence (i.e. religious faith).

 

[gaara4158]

I do not misunderstand science. I have written a PhD dissertation that deals with a dimension of historical science.

You can't test and re-test data of the past in historical science, like is done in experimental science. It has to do with history and involves pursuing hypotheses that deal with historical data (from the past, even if the recent past).

My distinction between historical science and experimental science is NOT moot but critical to understanding the differences between these 2 sciences.

Oz

Ah, we have a PhD dissertation author in the house. So, in your scholarly opinion, are the differences between experimental science and historical science such that historical science is somehow unreliable? You seem to know what forensic science is, so again I wonder what your point is. You’re on the creationist side, right? Arguing that because historical events are investigated by means other than experimentation they are invalid? If so, we can talk about that. If not, I don’t know why you’re bringing it up.

 

[pitabread]

You can't test and re-test data of the past in historical science, like is done in experimental science.

Of course you can test and re-test the results of past (historical) events. And you certainly can formulate hypotheses about past processes and test those hypotheses based on predicted outcomes of said processes.

 

[USincognito]

Historical science CANNOT be discovered by repeatable, empirical experiments. That's why historical science and empirical science MUST be differentiated.

There is no historical/operational science divide. That's a false narrative from dishonest professional Creationists. There is only science and has been pointed out to you, the repeatability aspect is not restricted to mixing chemical A with chemical B in a beaker. It is the observations and analysis that must be repeatable, not the event/s or experiments.

 

[pitabread]

I do not misunderstand science. I have written a PhD dissertation that deals with a dimension of historical science.

For which school/major?

 

[pitabread]

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...

Not sure exactly what you are talking about but when a person continues to engage in the same fallacious arguments over and over (as xianghua has), they are going to get called out on it.

 

[USincognito]

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.

And you don't seem to understand that you're conflating a literal historical (that is something subject to study by historians) vs. event occurring in the past that are subject to study by scientists. For instance the culture in Pompeii in 79 CE is something for historians to study. They can do that based on writings, paintings and mosaics. The explosion of Vesuvius and the subsequent destruction of the city would be studied by geologists and archaeologists, not historians.

You also are missing the point we've all been trying to make - we don't have to repeat an event in order to study it scientifically. Different parties need to make the same observations/analysis in order for their to be repetition. We don't need the Magrathians to recreate the earth in order to study plate tectonics for example. We have more than enough data in the existing continents and ocean basins to inform us of the earth's geological past.

 

[OzSpen]

Or religion at it’s worst?

'Its' or 'it's'?

 

[OzSpen]

You also are missing the point we've all been trying to make - we don't have to repeat an event in order to study it scientifically.

That's not what I learned in university chemistry and physics.

 

[gaara4158]

That's not what I learned in university chemistry and physics.

Then you were a bad student or you went to a bad school.

 

[HitchSlap]

'Its' or 'it's'?

its... d@mb auto correct...

 

[OzSpen]

Then you were a bad student or you went to a bad school.

The University of Queensland is a top flight university and I learned the difference between historical science and experimental science at that uni.

You blame me for being 'a bad student'. Why couldn't it be that you are parading a view of historical science that is contrary to the definition of such science?

 

[OzSpen]

Did you also learn that anecdote is not the singular of data? That said, the fact that you have taken basic chemistry and physics might explain why you have the mentality that you do (well, besides your Creationism). For those fields practical analysis is restricted to chemical A and chemical B in a beaker or how you calculate the force required to life a particular weight with a particular lever.

In many other fields, including hard science fields, they are not similarly constrained. Geology, paleontology, and astronomy have plenty of analysis that can be done in the lab, but the majority of the observation is done in the field.

Long story short, when a genome is sequenced, that is an observation. When it is analyzed and compared with that of other beings, that is testing. When the phlogenetic relationships shown by the analysis is replicated by other scientists, that is repeatability.

Straw man fallacy.

'

 

[OzSpen]

its... d@mb auto correct...

You statement was: "Or religion at it’s worst?" Since it's = it is, I believe you meant, "Or religion at its worst?"

 

[HitchSlap]

You statement was: "Or religion at it’s worst?" Since it's = it is, I believe you meant, "Or religion at its worst?"

You or your?

 

[Divide]

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

because it bears upon the real truths of life.
You know this deep down inside.

 

[OzSpen]

You or your?

Thanks for picking that up. 'You' should have been 'your'. My typo!