My experience...Ken Ham and YEC.

[ChetSinger]

OK, I think I'm now following this "operational science" vs. "historical science" discussion.

I think it's easier and more straightforward to simply speak of "science" and "history". I see no need to muddy these waters.

For example, fields such as physics include both scientific (fluid mechanics) and historical (cosmology) inquiries.

 

[EternalDragon]

If someone is found next to a dead body filled with stab wounds, and the man is carrying a bloody knife with the blood of the victim all over it and his body, according to creationists there's no evidence of who the criminal was if no one actually saw him do it.

You gave an example of operational science, not historical science.

Your example should have read, "If a body is found decades later, decayed and with little to no evidence intact, according to creationists, there is no evidence as to who the criminal was."

And then your example would be fairly accurate.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You gave an example of operational science, not historical science.

Your example should have read, "If a body is found decades later, decayed and with little to no evidence intact, according to creationists, there is no evidence as to who the criminal was."

And then your example would be fairly accurate.

Yep, that's why the finding that the human remains found under a Leicester carpark belong to King Richard III on the basis of various sources of evidence is nothing more than an "assumption."

 

[PsychoSarah]

You gave an example of operational science, not historical science.

Your example should have read, "If a body is found decades later, decayed and with little to no evidence intact, according to creationists, there is no evidence as to who the criminal was."

And then your example would be fairly accurate.

Except you are inaccurate about how well preserved fossil evidence is.

 

[lasthero]

No. That's historical science.

We observe many large craters on this planet. Some of them hundreds of miles wide.

If they had all been made within a short period of time in the last six thousand years they a) would all be around the same level of strata and have similar levels of decay and b) they would have released enough energy to annihilate life on Earth. Even if they hadn't, the destruction caused by so many meteors would have been recorded if it happened at any time when humans could write. It would have been the most noticeable event in human history. People would have thought it was the end of the world, the wrath of whatever god they worshipped.

Since they're at different layers of strata, this event is recorded nowhere in any culture's history, and life on this planet is clearly not completely destroyed, the sensible conclusion is that these impacts happened after long spans of time in between each other.

Is that historical science? What's the assumption?

 

[Loudmouth]

OK, I think I'm now following this "operational science" vs. "historical science" discussion.

I think it's easier and more straightforward to simply speak of "science" and "history". I see no need to muddy these waters.

For example, fields such as physics include both scientific (fluid mechanics) and historical (cosmology) inquiries.

They are both scientific inquiries. In both cases, you test a hypothesis using experimental observations. That is science.

 

[Loudmouth]

Operational, not observational.

You invent a toaster, measure electrical current or test gravity, that is operational science.

You sequence DNA and compare it. That is operational science, and it is also used to test hypotheses dealing with common ancestry and evolution.

You find dinosaur bones and hypothesis what happened to them, what the conditions were at that time, what they might have looked like because they no longer exist. That is historical science.

That is operational science because you are observing the fossil and the geologic conditions it is found in.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yet you can observe living animals procreate. You can't observe bones giving birth to something or changing into something entirely new. That's not science, it's assumptions about the past which can't be repeated nor tested.

When you compare the morphology of fossils to other fossils and to living species you are not making the assumption that the fossil has any living descendants.

You are wrong once again.

 

[ChetSinger]

They are both scientific inquiries. In both cases, you test a hypothesis using experimental observations. That is science.

They're not equivalent. History attempts to deduce past events. Science attempts to explain present events. Each discipline has tools the other doesn't.

For example, try answering this question with the scientific method: which route did Hannibal take through the Alps? Do you see what I mean?

 

[driewerf]

Operational, not observational.

I might have missed something, but why the difference between "operational science" and "observational science"?

 

[Loudmouth]

They're not equivalent. History attempts to deduce past events. Science attempts to explain present events.

Science attempts to do both. The scientific method is used equally for both.

Added by edit:

Understanding the history of a system is also an attempt to explain the present. Why do we see the species we do today? The answer to that is the evolutionary history of life. We use DNA, fossils, geographic distribution of species, and many more observations made in the present to understand why we see the species we do in the present.

Perhaps another example will help. Let's say that I am doing a drug study in mice. As part of that study, I give the mice the drug and take serum samples each day for a week. I freeze that serum back for later. In the future, I thaw that serum and measure drug levels and cytokine levels. In effect, I am studying the past at that point. I am studying what happened to those mice in the past. Is that historical science?

For example, try answering this question with the scientific method: which route did Hannibal take through the Alps? Do you see what I mean?

The first step would be to gather observations that could test that hypothesis. Since those observations have not been gathered, then the scientific method is stuck at that step.

However, we do have the observations needed to determine if humans share a common ancestor with other apes. We use these observations to test our hypotheses. It is the scientific method through and through.

 

[Dizredux]

They're not equivalent. History attempts to deduce past events. Science attempts to explain present events. Each discipline has tools the other doesn't.

For example, try answering this question with the scientific method: which route did Hannibal take through the Alps? Do you see what I mean?

You could if artifacts were found that archeologists could determine came from Hannibal's army and history could help determine where to look using the scientific method of developing hypothesis of where to look and what could be expected to be found and then testing those hypothesis.

The scientific method can be used for many things and is not exclusive to scientists.

Dizredux

 

[Split Rock]

They're not equivalent. History attempts to deduce past events. Science attempts to explain present events. Each discipline has tools the other doesn't.

No, science can also be used to understand past events. Past glacial movements. Past volcanic eruptions. Past influenza outbreaks. The list goes on.

For example, try answering this question with the scientific method: which route did Hannibal take through the Alps? Do you see what I mean?

Actually, one can try to figure this out scientifically. Hannibal brought elephants with him and many dies along the way. One can search for elephant remains along each route and find the one he used.

 

[ChetSinger]

...Actually, one can try to figure this out scientifically. Hannibal brought elephants with him and many dies along the way. One can search for elephant remains along each route and find the one he used.

You could if artifacts were found that archeologists could determine came from Hannibal's army and history could help determine where to look using the scientific method of developing hypothesis of where to look and what could be expected to be found and then testing those hypothesis.

We actually have two historians, Livy and Polybius, who have written about it. But their accounts don't agree, so it remains a mystery.

Do you guys begin to see how different such historical research is from something like calculating and verifying the optimal locations for toneholes on a clarinet? I don't think you do. Physicists do. There are sometimes lively debates as to whether cosmology should be considered science or history. After all, the beginning of our universe is neither observable or repeatable, two foundations of the scientific method.

Food for thought.

 

[Dizredux]

We actually have two historians, Livy and Polybius, who have written about it. But their accounts don't agree, so it remains a mystery.

Do you guys begin to see how different such historical research is from something like calculating and verifying the optimal locations for toneholes on a clarinet? I don't think you do. Physicists do. There are sometimes lively debates as to whether cosmology should be considered science or history. After all, the beginning of our universe is neither observable or repeatable, two foundations of the scientific method.

Food for thought.

You misunderstand the requirements for observable and repeatable in science. Observable refers to just, observations. What we observe is the evidence not necessarily the event and repeatable refers to the observations not the event.

What science requires is publically repeatable observations, basically something measurable in some way. Witnessing the particular events is not in any way a requirement of science. Nice when you can do it but hardly a necessity.

Dizredux

 

[Loudmouth]

We actually have two historians, Livy and Polybius, who have written about it. But their accounts don't agree, so it remains a mystery.

I would agree that accounts such those of Livy and Polybius are not scientific evidence.

We are talking about scientific evidence.

Do you guys begin to see how different such historical research is from something like calculating and verifying the optimal locations for toneholes on a clarinet?

All you have shown thus far is the difference between anecdotal evidence and empirical evidence. As it stands now, we have shown that you can use empirical evidence in the present to establish what happened in the past using the scientific method. Nothing you have provided shows otherwise.

There are sometimes lively debates as to whether cosmology should be considered science or history.

No, there isn't. Cosmology is science. In cosmology, you can directly observe the past due to the speed of light and the distances involved.

After all, the beginning of our universe is neither observable or repeatable, two foundations of the scientific method.

The cosmic microwave background is observable and repeatedly observable, and it is used to test our hypotheses as they relate to the beginning of the universe. You are wrong again.

It seems that you are making a common mistake that most creationists make. You think the hypothesis needs to be repeatable. That isn't true. Repeatability refers to the observations that are used to test the hypothesis.

 

[KWCrazy]

Because I had been brought up a YEC (and I can't stress enough the point that YEC is self-defeating, i.e. it is teaching people that they can't use reason AND be Christians, so people who can think choose not to be Christians) I sort of rejected Christianity once I accepted evolution...it didn't occur to me that there was a middle ground.

I was brought up as an old earth Christian. Subsequent studies and experiences have affirmed to me that OEC is an untenable position. Despite the slanderous lie in your OP, I CAN think and chose to accept Christ. Nowhere in your post did you say that you were ever born again, so by what definition are you a Christian? Going to church doesn't make you a believer any more than sleeping in a garage would make you a Buick. You reject Christianity and yet you attend church. That's an interesting tightrope you're walking. Perhaps you want to believe but you don't want to be lumped in with those who you say can't think. Good news! Your premise is wrong! It IS possible to use reason and be a Christian.

First of all, everyone who tells you that evolution is proven science is lying. The best they can do is to say that their interpretation of the evidence supports the theory. Secondly, anyone who tells you how the universe was formed is lying. There are scientific theories as to the origination of the universe, but there is no proof of any of them. I'll give you a heads up. The universe wasn't created scientifically. Third, all you have to do is to listen to the personal testimonies of people in your church and you will know that anyone who claims there is no God is lying as well. Science doesn't have all the answers and all the answers cannot be found in science. That's a cold hard fact. Regardless of the mountains of "evidence" people will throw at you, increasing complexity and universal descent have never been proven.

If you paid attention in science class, you know that the auto-origination of everything from nothing without a compelling extraneous force is impossible. The universe absolutely could not create itself. At best, you have a scientific theory of origination that cannot be proved VS a supernatural legend of origination that cannot be disproved. Believing in one or the other has nothing to do with intelligence, but rather where you place your trust. If you trust in the word of God you understand that He created the universe. If you trust in the word of man you have to accept that something outside of the laws of physics created the universe; be it an outside Creator or an outside force.

Now as to the age of the earth, the Bible gives us the genealogies of the generations between Adam and Christ. Science will tell you that a young earth is not possible, but God has done the impossible throughout man's existence. Without God, nothing impossible could ever occur. With God the laws of physics which classify which things are possible are pliable to the will of the Creator. It is easy for God to create the world in six days. It is impossible for Him to lie about it.

I suspect that you will skim this post and reject most of it. However, if you learn only one thing, learn that the truth is not revealed in the physiology of the creation but in the word of the Creator. The Lord is real and eternal. This world was hastily (but perfectly) created and will only exist for a short time. Put your faith in the eternal Creator.

 

[CabVet]

First of all, everyone who tells you that evolution is proven science is lying.

Oh, so you start with a no true Scotsman fallacy and now accused everyone of lying. I will get back to you now and say that the only ones that are lying are those that say that evolution is not supported by the evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

I was brought up as an old earth Christian. Subsequent studies and experiences have affirmed to me that OEC is an untenable position.

What features would a geologic formation or rock need in order for you to accept an Old Earth?

 

[CabVet]

I suspect that you will skim this post and reject most of it.

Or you could try to write in a concise way and not use a red font, it hurts people's eyes.