My Research Challenge Re Noah's Flood

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well, I have a theory on this.....

No, you have an overinflated ego regarding your own abilities to understand science.

 

[The Righterzpen]

How wrong is this? Very very wrong.




Velikovsky, SMH. We're not off to a good start now are we.



Let's see how they do.



At least a mild bit of improvement over Velikovsky. The "fissioned from Jupiter" notion was utter nonsense and physically impossible.

Tidal friction requires a close, strong interaction with another body. Do they propose tidal friction during the pulling from the outer solar system. The tidal tail seems irrelevant as it would have faded away after the "heating" was finished.



Why should we put any weight into myths? The Solar System is way older than human civilization, and shows no evidence of recent major disturbance.


And the author of this blog entry goes with a "muh critics are dumb" argument. How classy.



There is no evidence of tidal locking with Jupiter (and the impact of Jupiter on Venus would be very small). I did find a 5:1 ratio between the rotation of Venus and its closest approaches with... Earth. Make of that what you will.

(Even if Venus emerged from Jupiter or was dragged into the inner Solar System by Jupiter, there would be no reason for a resonance to develop with a distant planet. A closer one would be far more likely because of the relative strength of the interaction.)


If Venus is close enough to Jupiter to stretch it out into an ovoid, it would be with in the Roche lobe of a Jupiter-Venus interaction, practically touching Jupiter. To see Venus with the naked eye as any kind of shape it would have to be quite close to the Earth. Jupiter and Earth are quite far apart. This observation (of a Jupiter stretched Venus visible to the naked eye) IS NOT POSSIBLE.


So what. Images about Venus in artifacts. People knew about the wanderer in the sky and had stories about it. Big deal.



There more than one approach of Venus. LOLOLOLOLOL


Solar system billards. PFTT. How can anyone take any of this seriously. I mean...



It gets dumber and dumber. Apparently this fool think he has a "theory" or two. Fantasy astronomy. Nothing more.


Dear Mr. Fantasy...

Oh, no. He's a man for all seasons, a master of all fields: Biology, Geology, Astronomy, Ancient History, Soviet History, Unsolved Crimes, Resolved Crimes. Remarkable!

Hey look, he's got a Ph.D. in history. Let's see what he can accomplish with that.

Doin' science usin' his advanced historical techniques. Golly gee.

Redblood cells that think!

And receive magnetic messages (only 18-points required to "prove")

Mental disorders cured!

Obtaining nutrients by smearing them on your skin!

Magic light therapy to cure infections disease.

gargling away the COVID.

Planetary voodoo.

Fixing velikovsky without tossing it out completely. Who knew it could be done.

The Bronze age collapse

Saved a bathing baby!

The origin of Earth!

Geomagnetic anomalies!

Plate tectonics repealed and replaced!

All the mass extinctions explained!

A non-electrified velkovskyism. (Who knew it was possible to do without electricity?)

Trojan war

Latin linguistics

The great mysterious monuments

Mysteries of Ancient Chinese history

Origins of Cuban Missile Crisis.

The KGB shot JFK, MLK, and RFK (could they come out of retirement and deal with Jr?)

Anthrax mailings 2001 solvee!


It's sooooo amazing!

Apparently you can't admit there are things you don't know?

(You keep dodging the question that is the central subject of this thread. Which all the evidence I've gathered from this thread confirms my theory.)

And my theory is that your conclusions about the data (any scientist) has collected is based on a belief system that you can't prove.

 

[The Righterzpen]

No, you have an overinflated ego regarding your own abilities to understand science.

Can you admit there are things that you don't know?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Apparently you can't admit there are things you don't know?

There are plenty of things I don't know. Not sure why you think this is a dunk on me.

(You keep dodging the question that is the central subject of this thread. Which all the evidence I've gathered from this thread confirms my theory.)

The central question of the thread (or at least the OP) is if "Noah's flood" was scientifically investigated. And as others have noted, it was part of the origins of geology 200+ years ago, and as others and I have said, it is not a subject for scientific inquiry as it is a theological construct. I have spent most of my time on this thread knocking the utter Velikovian nonsense that later posts brought up with fantasy science about planets zooming about.

And my theory is that your conclusions about the data (any scientist) has collected is based on a belief system that you can't prove.

Science is based on the examination of natural phenomena under the assumption of regularity. If you want to call that a "belief system" you can, but I wouldn't. In either case, neither belief systems nor presuppositions can be "proven".

 

[The Righterzpen]

There are plenty of things I don't know. Not sure why you think this is a dunk on me.

As soon as one admits there are things they don't know; this opens the door to the possibility that what they think is correct they could be wrong about.

The central question of the thread (or at least the OP) is if "Noah's flood" was scientifically investigated. And as others have noted, it was part of the origins of geology 200+ years ago, and as others and I have said, it is not a subject for scientific inquiry as it is a theological construct.

And why do you assume something you call a "theological construct" can not be the subject of scientific inquiry; when everyone is looking at the same data sets?

(How are fossils formed. The evidence does not point to millions of years required to form fossils; yet (assuming) you believe it's been millions of years? Evidence on the planet of earthquakes and volcanic activity that broke up one singular land mass and moved it around the planet's surface.

You claim these things happened one way; when other's pose a different theory that says: No, it happened this way. Yet you insist a Biblical flood is impossible? Why do you believe it's impossible. (Your belief is based on a belief system you hold; not based on the evidence we all can examine.)

Now you can not deny the possibility that a global flood as described in the Bible COULD happen; (despite whether or not you think it did). Which again, gets back to the truth that there are factors in the equation that you can't account for. (I.E. there's things that you don't know.)

I have spent most of my time on this thread knocking the utter Velikovian nonsense that later posts brought up with fantasy science about planets zooming about.

And again, why would you think it is impossible for planets to move in and out of their orbits? Again, that's based in a belief system. Your belief system says this solar system has been stagnantly "stable" for millions of years. Yet you can't prove that either. You have to admit that it is possible that planets COULD move in and out of their orbits (cause a whole lot of chaos on earth) and then "something" outside of what you can explain "resets" the solar system.

Again, whether or not you believe that happened or didn't; doesn't negate the possibility that it could have happened. You can't prove that it didn't. And all the data you quoted about the mass of Venus or "calculate the spectroscopy" (or what ever) of comets is absolutely irrelevant to the question of the possibility of what COULD have happened in the cosmos.

Science is based on the examination of natural phenomena under the assumption of regularity. If you want to call that a "belief system" you can, but I wouldn't. In either case, neither belief systems nor presuppositions can be "proven".

BINGO = "the assumption of regularity". That is an assumption you can't make! That assumption is based in a belief system. You are correct; you can't prove a belief system, or a presupposition. But you also can't prove an assumption; as assumptions are the basis to presuppositions.

Which goes back to the fundamental (ideological?) question: Can you admit there are things that you don't know?

 

[Hans Blaster]

As soon as one admits there are things they don't know; this opens the door to the possibility that what they think is correct they could be wrong about.

And why do you assume something you call a "theological construct" can not be the subject of scientific inquiry; when everyone is looking at the same data sets?

(How are fossils formed. The evidence does not point to millions of years required to form fossils; yet (assuming) you believe it's been millions of years? Evidence on the planet of earthquakes and volcanic activity that broke up one singular land mass and moved it around the planet's surface.

You claim these things happened one way; when other's pose a different theory that says: No, it happened this way. Yet you insist a Biblical flood is impossible? Why do you believe it's impossible. (Your belief is based on a belief system you hold; not based on the evidence we all can examine.)

Now you can not deny the possibility that a global flood as described in the Bible COULD happen; (despite whether or not you think it did). Which again, gets back to the truth that there are factors in the equation that you can't account for. (I.E. there's things that you don't know.)

And then you learn and study the things that you don't know so that you do.

And again, why would you think it is impossible for planets to move in and out of their orbits?

Because Newtonian mechanics would require enormous forces that would exceed the physical strength of the materials and rip the objects apart. There is also no source for such a force.

Again, that's based in a belief system. Your belief system says this solar system has been stagnantly "stable" for millions of years. Yet you can't prove that either.

Planets jerked out of orbits and slammed into new places would have wobbles left in their orbits for millions of years that indicated the disturbance. THEY ARE MISSING. Ergo, it didn't happen.

You have to admit that it is possible that planets COULD move in and out of their orbits (cause a whole lot of chaos on earth) and then "something" outside of what you can explain "resets" the solar system.

Show me a force and a mechanism to prevent destruction of the planet from those forces. The blog post you presented was just fantasy orbital mechanics, etc. with no evidence and no comprehension of the physical properties of the objects getting tossed about willy nilly.

Again, whether or not you believe that happened or didn't; doesn't negate the possibility that it could have happened. You can't prove that it didn't.

Things that violate the laws of physics don't happen. If the claimed action violates the laws of physics -- it didn't happen. There are many things would leave or have a physical signature that when absent we can rule them out.

And all the data you quoted about the mass of Venus or "calculate the spectroscopy" (or what ever) of comets is absolutely irrelevant to the question of the possibility of what COULD have happened in the cosmos.

It does demonstrate that Venus is not and never could have been a comet. It has the wrong composition. Period.

BINGO = "the assumption of regularity". That is an assumption you can't make!

Why not. Everything we observe indicates regularity of the laws of nature. Over vast amounts of time and great distances. Because we can observe distant galaxies, we can actually measure the regularity of nature in the far distant past "live".

That assumption is based in a belief system. You are correct; you can't prove a belief system, or a presupposition. But you also can't prove an assumption; as assumptions are the basis to presuppositions.

Regularity and based on the natural laws are technically presuppositions, but (and it is a very important BUT), repeated measurements and observations show that everything observed is consistent with those presuppositions and are so to the extent that it is perfectly consistent with everything measured to assume that violations of regularity do not happen.

Which goes back to the fundamental (ideological?) question: Can you admit there are things that you don't know?

I already did. But I'm not going to get trapped in some insane presuppositionalist argument. They are silly.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Why not. Everything we observe indicates regularity of the laws of nature. Over vast amounts of time and great distances. Because we can observe distant galaxies, we can actually measure the regularity of nature in the far distant past "live".

Actually your not; you're just basing it on a presupposition; which you admit presuppositions can't be proven

Regularity and based on the natural laws are technically presuppositions, but (and it is a very important BUT), repeated measurements and observations show that everything observed is consistent with those presuppositions and are so to the extent that it is perfectly consistent with everything measured to assume that violations of regularity do not happen.

Yet, science has only measured this stuff for what; 200, 400, maybe 2000 or even 4000 years? How ever far back written history can be pinpointed; while even at that, there are instances in the written records where the writers have stated the natural laws did have "violations" and "instances of irregularity". And these were recored by the scientists and astronomers at the time. Yet you dismiss those as mythological because according to your presuppositions; violations don't occur.

But I'm not going to get trapped in some insane presuppositionalist argument.

Got news for ya; you already are (trapped in your own insane presuppositionalist argument)!

You're a good example of what it says in Romans 1:18-23

 

[Hans Blaster]

Actually your not; you're just basing it on a presupposition; which you admit presuppositions can't be proven

No presuppositions can be "proven" (including "god exists") that's why they are presuppositoins. It's best to limit them and find ones that are most compatible with observation.

Yet, science has only measured this stuff for what; 200, 400, maybe 2000 or even 4000 years?

But we can directly observe the deep past. The duration of our measurement time is irrelevant when that is considered.

How ever far back written history can be pinpointed; while even at that, there are instances in the written records where the writers have stated the natural laws did have "violations" and "instances of irregularity". And these were recored by the scientists and astronomers at the time. Yet you dismiss those as mythological because according to your presuppositions; violations don't occur.

I see no need to put weight in low quality observations made with poor instruments (or rather mostly with only the eye). There is no proper quantification of any values and most of the odd claims require reliance on interpretation of wording and the like.

You can claim that the planets moved around all you want as part of some supernatural belief system, but don't for a single second think that it is in anyway "scientific".

Got news for ya; you already are (trapped in your own insane presuppositionalist argument)!

You're a good example of what it says in Romans 1:18-23

All appropriate responses to this are violations of board rules.

 

[AV1611VET]

No presuppositions can be "proven" (including "god exists") that's why they are presuppositoins. It's best to limit them and find ones that are most compatible with observation.

What happened to cause-and-effect all of a sudden?

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Effectual works:
1. Martyrs.
2. Churches and other edifices, including Christian schools.
3. Iconography & statuary, including symbols, drawings, and artwork.
4. The Bible and other books written about our LORD, including tracts.
5. Songs, hymns and carols venerating Jesus Christ.
6. Holidays such as Christmas and Easter.
7. Debates, programs, cartoons, and specials on TV.
8. Time divided into BC/AD.
9. Mottos such as IN GOD WE TRUST, and ONE NATION UNDER GOD, and ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, and ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR.

 

[The Righterzpen]

It's best to limit them and find ones that are most compatible with observation.

"...compatible with observation" is a presupposition of it's own, because it's based on the assumption that natural law is immutable. Which is actually a contradiction of it's own because even atheists believe the cosmos had an origin. And on account of having an origin; makes natural law not immutable.

But we can directly observe the deep past. The duration of our measurement time is irrelevant when that is considered.

Still based on a presupposition that can't be proven.

I see no need to put weight in low quality observations made with poor instruments (or rather mostly with only the eye). There is no proper quantification of any values and most of the odd claims require reliance on interpretation of wording and the like.

You can claim that the planets moved around all you want as part of some supernatural belief system, but don't for a single second think that it is in anyway "scientific".

An example of exclusion of data because it doesn't uphold your presupposition. (I.E. the "scientists" lie.) The safest thing to say is "We have records of X; but because we have no means of measuring the accuracy of this; we can't say if they are relevant or not.

All appropriate responses to this are violations of board rules.

(Or in other words: "Awww &@$# - Righterzpen got me.")

 

[durangodawood]

Why would "science" even set out to research the biblical flood?

The job of science is to seek explanations for things. With the flood there is no thing, just a story. May as well have science exhaustively search for Thor's hammer.

 

[Halbhh]

Why would "science" even set out to research the biblical flood?

The job of science is to seek explanations for things. With the flood there is no thing, just a story. May as well have science exhaustively search for Thor's hammer.

We read that God wants faith from us -- including to admit our wrongdoing in life and turn in faith to Christ for the forgiveness of all the wrongs we have done in life, to be 'born anew' -- an act of faith.

Faith is...trusting in God -- that is, to trust in His message to us (through Christ), without seeing conclusive proof ahead of time.

If there was proof ahead of time -- anything that proved God to be evidently and clearly real, then many would pragmatically turn to Christ in self-interest, even without trusting God (or not fully trusting)....

So, 'faith' then is to trust without such conclusive proofs ahead of time (like strong evidence of any miraculous event, or if the scripture had given an actual age of the Earth(!)....) , but to instead trust in Christ's words.

He taught us such things as this:

34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

So, faith is like trust --
"Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see."

We see that God wants us to trust in Him and Christ, not waiting for outright proof first.

So, therefore, any strong evidence that would just prove the Bible is correct, like finding strong evidence of a miraculous event or if the text of the Bible specified the age of the Earth in a precise way like if it contained something like:

'now the Earth was a thousand thousand thousand years old, and then God came and said let the waters separate and dry land appear'
(made up text, not in the bible)

or something like that, that would be a serious problem for what God wants from us! Because once scientific evidence was found that confirmed the text, the text would be obviously correctly saying something only science can find thousands of years before science found it....and that would just outright prove the bible and God existing, and then the whole goal that many of us come to faith would be precluded -- many would turn to repent and follow the Law without trusting God at all in their hearts.

But in the long run, trusting God is very key, because otherwise we discount and pay less attention to more of the things Christ teaches that are for the best, like "love your enemy". Or maybe it's because over time, over vast time, only trust in God, alone, is really good enough: love and trust being what are in the best relationships.

So, we can expect that God would then prevent any kind of clear conclusive evidence from being available, in order that His goal for us to come to real faith -- full trust -- be possible. All evidence has to be withheld but for the Words from Christ.

Now, some Christians think the Flood story is entirely just a parable (it's a parable either way: if literal, or if just a teaching story), but what counts is whether they believe in Christ, listening to what He said.

 

[trophy33]

Things that violate the laws of physics don't happen. If the claimed action violates the laws of physics -- it didn't happen.

Such statement is not possible to prove, though. Its better to say they are improbable/rare. Or not useful for science.

We even have no natural guarantee that the laws of physics/nature will be the same the next minute. The modern theory is that all laws of physics emerge from the "vibrating" strings and we do not know much about them.

And some other physical theories about our underlying reality are even more wild.

 

[sjastro]

Apparently you can't admit there are things you don't know?

(You keep dodging the question that is the central subject of this thread. Which all the evidence I've gathered from this thread confirms my theory.)

And my theory is that your conclusions about the data (any scientist) has collected is based on a belief system that you can't prove.

Where are the step by step arguments which leads to your theory; where is your evidence the data collected is based on a belief system?
Your “theory” is nothing more than an illogical opinion piece which starts off with your conclusion and ignores the counterarguments given in this thread as it doesn’t fit your own belief system of deliberate ignorance.
You can then loop back to the conclusion which is the starting point of your argument not the end point where the conclusion belongs.
This is the circular argument fallacy.

Unlike you scientists follow the data or evidence; it is not around the other way as you have naively asserted.
To illustrate this point as well as to highlight your other errors in this thread, here is an example typical of how science operates; the various theories which tried to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment of the late 19th-early 20th century.

Even today it’s called the Special Theory of Relativity despite being supported by every experiment and observation over the last 120 odd years for the simple reason theories cannot be proved only disproved by experiment and observation.
This was your first mistake.

All the theories listed attempted to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment results within the framework of the scientific method not on opinion where one doesn’t have to be concerned with the facts (the anti-rationalist principle) as highlighted by your own opinion.
This was second mistake.

If you look at the third column, “the stationary ether, no contraction” was the only theory that was proven wrong by the Michelson-Morley experiment at the time.
The other experiments were not contemporary but were developed as each theory made predictions.
The data from these other experiments came after the theories were developed and Special relativity was eventually accepted by the scientific community as it was the only theory which was supported by these non-contemporary tests.
This is how science works.

This leads to your third mistake it is not compulsory for a theory to be initially based on data provided it is falsifiable where an experiment or observation in the future can support or disprove the theory.
Gravitational waves were a purely theoretical consideration.
It took a century before scientists were able to develop interferometers sensitive enough to detect the gravitational waves as predicted by General Relativity.

To this very day the theory of Special Relativity is still being tested according to the principles behind the Michelson-Morley experiment using optical cavity interferometers millions of times more accurate than the conventional Michelson-Morley interferometers used in the early 20th century.
The reasoning behind this is that scientists are trying to test Special Relativity to failure to see if Lorentz invariance is violated.
This is quite the opposite to your idea that scientific theories are built around a belief system and provides an example of why scientific theories can never be proven as they are only as good as the technology of the observation or experiments used.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Can you admit there are things that you don't know?

Of course there are things I do nit know and there is always the chance that anything I know to be right could be wrong. I hold no illusions about that.
But I know for a certainty that your claims that scientific theories are just assumptions and guesses are baseless nonsense.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course there are things I do nit know and there is always the chance that anything I know to be right could be wrong. I hold no illusions about that.
But I know for a certainty that your claims that scientific theories are just assumptions and guesses are baseless nonsense.

QV please:

From amasci:

There is no single list called "The Scientific Method." It is a myth.

The rules of a science-fair typically require that students follow THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, or in other words, hypothesis-experiment-conclusion. The students must propose a hypothesis and test it by experiment. This supposedly is the "Scientific Method" used by all scientists. Supposedly, if you don't follow the rigidly defined "Scientific Method" listed in K-6 textbooks, then you're not doing science. (Some science fairs even ban astronomy and paleontology projects. After all, where's the "experiment" in these?)

Unfortunately this is wrong, and there is no single "Scientific Method" as such. Scientists don't follow a rigid procedure-list called "The Scientific Method" in their daily work. The procedure-list is a myth spread by K-6 texts. It is an extremely widespread myth, and even some scientists have been taken in by it, but this doesn't make it any more real. "The Scientific Method" is part of school and school books, and is not how science in general is done. Real scientists use a large variety of methods (perhaps call them methods of science rather than "The Scientific Method.") Hypothesis / experiment / conclusion is one of these, and it's very important in experimental science such as physics and chemistry, but it's certainly not the only method. It would be a mistake to elevate it above all others. We shouldn't force children to memorize any such procedure list. And we shouldn't use it to exclude certain types of projects from science fairs! If "The Scientific Method" listed in a grade school textbook proves that Astronomy is not a science, then it's the textbook which is wrong, not Astronomy.

"Ask a scientist what he conceives the scientific method to be and he adopts an expression that is at once solemn and shifty-eyed: solemn, because he feels he ought to declare an opinion; shifty-eyed because he is wondering how to conceal the fact that he has no opinion to declare." - Sir Peter Medawar

There are many parts of science that cannot easily be forced into the mold of "hypothesis-experiment-conclusion." Astronomy is not an experimental science, and Paleontologists don't perform Paleontology experiments... so is it not proper Science if you study stars or classify extinct creatures?


Or, if a scientist has a good idea for designing a brand new kind of measurement instrument (e.g. Newton and the reflecting telescope) ...that certainly is "doing science." Humphrey Davy says "Nothing tends so much to the advancement of knowledge as the application of a new instrument." But where is The Hypothesis? Where is The Experiment? The Atomic Force Microscope (STM/AFM) revolutionized science. Yet if a student invented the very first reflector telescope or the very first AFM, wouldn't such a device be rejected from many school science fairs? After all, it's not an experiment, and the lists called "Scientific Method" say nothing about exploratory observation. Some science teachers would reject the STM as science; calling it 'mere engineering,' yet like the Newtonian reflector, the tunneling microscope is a revolution that opened up an entire new branch of science. Since it's instrument-inventing, not hypothesis-testing, should we exclude it as science? Were the creators of the STM not doing science when they came up with that device? In defining Science, the Nobel prize committee disagrees with the science teachers and science fair judges. The researchers who created the STM won the 1986 Nobel prize in physics. I'd say that if someone wins a Nobel prize in physics, it's a good bet that their work qualifies as "science."
Forcing kids to follow a caricature of scientific research distorts science, and it really isn't necessary in the first place.
Another example: great discoveries often come about when scientists notice anomalies. They see something inexplicable during older research, and that triggers some new research. Or sometimes they notice something weird out in Nature; something not covered by modern theory. Isaac Asimov said it well:
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny...' "

This suggests that lots of important science comes NOT from proposing hypotheses or even from performing experiments, but instead comes from unguided observation and curiosity-driven exploration: from sniffing about while learning to see what nobody else can see. Scientific discovery comes from something resembling "informed messing around," or unguided play. Yet the "Scientific Method" listed in textbooks says nothing about this, their lists start out with "form a hypothesis." As a result, educators treat science as deadly serious business, and "messing around" is sometimes dealt with harshly.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

QV please:

From amasci:

There is no single list called "The Scientific Method." It is a myth.

The rules of a science-fair typically require that students follow THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, or in other words, hypothesis-experiment-conclusion. The students must propose a hypothesis and test it by experiment. This supposedly is the "Scientific Method" used by all scientists. Supposedly, if you don't follow the rigidly defined "Scientific Method" listed in K-6 textbooks, then you're not doing science. (Some science fairs even ban astronomy and paleontology projects. After all, where's the "experiment" in these?)

Unfortunately this is wrong, and there is no single "Scientific Method" as such. Scientists don't follow a rigid procedure-list called "The Scientific Method" in their daily work. The procedure-list is a myth spread by K-6 texts. It is an extremely widespread myth, and even some scientists have been taken in by it, but this doesn't make it any more real. "The Scientific Method" is part of school and school books, and is not how science in general is done. Real scientists use a large variety of methods (perhaps call them methods of science rather than "The Scientific Method.") Hypothesis / experiment / conclusion is one of these, and it's very important in experimental science such as physics and chemistry, but it's certainly not the only method. It would be a mistake to elevate it above all others. We shouldn't force children to memorize any such procedure list. And we shouldn't use it to exclude certain types of projects from science fairs! If "The Scientific Method" listed in a grade school textbook proves that Astronomy is not a science, then it's the textbook which is wrong, not Astronomy.

"Ask a scientist what he conceives the scientific method to be and he adopts an expression that is at once solemn and shifty-eyed: solemn, because he feels he ought to declare an opinion; shifty-eyed because he is wondering how to conceal the fact that he has no opinion to declare." - Sir Peter Medawar

There are many parts of science that cannot easily be forced into the mold of "hypothesis-experiment-conclusion." Astronomy is not an experimental science, and Paleontologists don't perform Paleontology experiments... so is it not proper Science if you study stars or classify extinct creatures?


Or, if a scientist has a good idea for designing a brand new kind of measurement instrument (e.g. Newton and the reflecting telescope) ...that certainly is "doing science." Humphrey Davy says "Nothing tends so much to the advancement of knowledge as the application of a new instrument." But where is The Hypothesis? Where is The Experiment? The Atomic Force Microscope (STM/AFM) revolutionized science. Yet if a student invented the very first reflector telescope or the very first AFM, wouldn't such a device be rejected from many school science fairs? After all, it's not an experiment, and the lists called "Scientific Method" say nothing about exploratory observation. Some science teachers would reject the STM as science; calling it 'mere engineering,' yet like the Newtonian reflector, the tunneling microscope is a revolution that opened up an entire new branch of science. Since it's instrument-inventing, not hypothesis-testing, should we exclude it as science? Were the creators of the STM not doing science when they came up with that device? In defining Science, the Nobel prize committee disagrees with the science teachers and science fair judges. The researchers who created the STM won the 1986 Nobel prize in physics. I'd say that if someone wins a Nobel prize in physics, it's a good bet that their work qualifies as "science."
Forcing kids to follow a caricature of scientific research distorts science, and it really isn't necessary in the first place.
Another example: great discoveries often come about when scientists notice anomalies. They see something inexplicable during older research, and that triggers some new research. Or sometimes they notice something weird out in Nature; something not covered by modern theory. Isaac Asimov said it well:
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny...' "

This suggests that lots of important science comes NOT from proposing hypotheses or even from performing experiments, but instead comes from unguided observation and curiosity-driven exploration: from sniffing about while learning to see what nobody else can see. Scientific discovery comes from something resembling "informed messing around," or unguided play. Yet the "Scientific Method" listed in textbooks says nothing about this, their lists start out with "form a hypothesis." As a result, educators treat science as deadly serious business, and "messing around" is sometimes dealt with harshly.

QV: Not a single part of that proves me wrong in the slightest.

 

[dlamberth]

Yet you insist a Biblical flood is impossible? Why do you believe it's impossible. (Your belief is based on a belief system you hold; not based on the evidence we all can examine.)

It's the lack of evidence of a Genesis flood that is the evidence that said flood never happened. The Earth itself that is showing us that truth.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's the lack of evidence of a Genesis flood that is the evidence that said flood never happened.

Or omnipotent God cleaned it up.

Did God leave a scar behind, when He ...

Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

 

[Halbhh]

It's the lack of evidence of a Genesis flood that is the evidence that said flood never happened. The Earth itself that is showing us that truth.

Clear evidence of a global flood like that would constitute evidence against a very key part of the New Testament actually. We'd have a real crisis for what Christian faith is even if such evidence became undeniable. See why in post #152 just above.