My experience...Ken Ham and YEC.

[lasthero]

Is there such a thing as a living dinosaur or are we left with only old bones? If there is no such thing as historical science then why do we have so many hypothesis as to what wiped out the dinosaurs and what they actually looked like?

If you want to call that operational science then show me a living T-Rex we can examine today. As apposed to the discovery and invention of the light bulb, testing of how volcanoes work, chasing tornadoes, discovering new vaccines, etc.

Just gonna ignore all the posts around this one, aren't you?

 

[Split Rock]

Is there such a thing as a living dinosaur or are we left with only old bones? If there is no such thing as historical science then why do we have so many hypothesis as to what wiped out the dinosaurs and what they actually looked like?

If you want to call that operational science then show me a living T-Rex we can examine today. As apposed to the discovery and invention of the light bulb, testing of how volcanoes work, chasing tornadoes, discovering new vaccines, etc.

We're not calling abything "operational science," because its all the same science. As long as we can observe the bones of extinct animals it is no different than observing the bones of living animals.

 

[Doctor Strangelove]

This whole YEC thing is driving me right to becoming an out-and-out atheist/antitheist.

Don't let Ham push you into a rigid either/or mentality. There are churches where evolution is accepted or at least tolerated. I am guessing that if your church is really enthusiastic about YEC, then it is probably a conservative Evangelical or Fundamentalist church. I am pretty conservative about most things and it was a challenge to find a church that was fairly conservative but they didn't consider you a heretic if you accepted evolution. That's not too easy in America, if you aren't Catholic or Orthodox. If you are moderate to liberal, there should be a mainline Protestant church you would feel comfortable with. Also, among churches that officially accept YEC there might be some differences. For some, YEC is a foundational doctrine and you can't really be a member unless you agree with YEC, for some other churches, YEC is officially accepted but beyond allowing annoying YEC tracts, no one says much about evolution.

 

[EternalDragon]

We're not calling abything "operational science," because its all the same science. As long as we can observe the bones of extinct animals it is no different than observing the bones of living animals.

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.

Inventing a toaster is not the same as making statements about what could have happened in the past, which no one has observed. One is fact the other is assumption.

 

[lasthero]

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.

Inventing a toaster is not the same as making statements about what could have happened in the past, which no one has observed. One is fact the other is assumption.

Are the craters an assumption, too?

 

[PsychoSarah]

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.

Inventing a toaster is not the same as making statements about what could have happened in the past, which no one has observed. One is fact the other is assumption.

You do realize there are fossils of pregnant animals, right?

 

[Split Rock]

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.

Inventing a toaster is not the same as making statements about what could have happened in the past, which no one has observed. One is fact the other is assumption.

The past leaves its mark on the present. Indeed, the present is created by past events. The only reason you guys pretend otherwise, is because your dogma conflicts with reality. Therefore, when we examine the present, and identify what past events created the present, you resort to "that's all assumptions cause you can't see it happen now."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

Inventing a toaster is not the same as making statements about what could have happened in the past, which no one has observed. One is fact the other is assumption.

What grounds is there for Creationism then? No one observed Goddidit either. Aren't you cutting off your nose to spite your face?

 

[CabVet]

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.

Inventing a toaster is not the same as making statements about what could have happened in the past, which no one has observed. One is fact the other is assumption.

Yes, of course, fossils are just impressions on stones, they were not at one point living organisms, so studying them and how they change through time is not science.

This is the weakest argument against science that I've seen in this forum for a long time. You should become a lawyer and take this to the courtroom. When your opposing layer comes to you with DNA evidence you should tell the judge that since he cannot replicate the crime to observe it, DNA is not admissible evidence because it is not "operational science". Let's see how many cases you win.

You still seem to have a lot of trouble with the word "assumption". I will try to give you an example of an assumption one more time: "God exists" is an assumption. Testing if a fossil fits into a specific pattern of evolution is not.

 

[CabVet]

What grounds is there for Creationism then? No one observed Goddidit either. Aren't you cutting off your nose to spite your face?

Don't worry, they only require impossible evidence from us. And even if we were capable of producing it (like putting them in a time machine) I am 100% sure they would still deny it.

But if you press them, they will just say that everything that is in the Bible is true. Hey ED, here is another assumption: "the Bible is true".

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Don't worry, they only require impossible evidence from us. And even if we were capable of producing it (like putting them in a time machine) I am 100% sure they would still deny it.

But if you press them, they will just say that everything that is in the Bible is true. Hey ED, here is another assumption: "the Bible is true".

It's an awful double standard. Naturalistic explanations must always meet the highest epistemic standards in order for Creationists to even consider them potentially plausible, but Goddidit and "The Bible is true is all respects" barely rises to the lowest epistemic standards and yet it is forcefully asserted as incontrovertibly true.

 

[EternalDragon]

What grounds is there for Creationism then? No one observed Goddidit either. Aren't you cutting off your nose to spite your face?

No. That's historical science.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No. That's historical science.

So you say. But what is the grounds for it?

 

[EternalDragon]

So you say. But what is the grounds for it?

No one observed Cleopatra being the last Pharaoh of Egypt. It is historical science. Along with everything else in a school history book that was not observed by those students.

Should we throw all that out and not teach it because it wasn't observed? You seem to want to do that with the bible but I don't see you making protests to the school system about their history books.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No one observed Cleopatra being the last Pharaoh of Egypt. It is historical science. Along with everything else in a school history book that was not observed by those students.

Should we throw all that out and not teach it because it wasn't observed? You seem to want to do that with the bible but I don't see you making protests to the school system about their history books.

I'm not buying what you're selling (the distinction between historical and observational science), so why should I protest the teaching of history? And what is the parallel here to Creationism anyway?

 

[EternalDragon]

I'm not buying what you're selling (the distinction between historical and observational science), so why should I protest the teaching of history? And what is the parallel here to Creationism anyway?

Operational, not observational.

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

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.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Operational, not observational.

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

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.

A self-serving distinction created by Creationists, not a meaningful one. The past leaves traces in the present, which we can study in the present. You still haven't answered my question.

 

[Strathos]

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.

 

[Dizredux]

No one observed Cleopatra being the last Pharaoh of Egypt. It is historical science. Along with everything else in a school history book that was not observed by those students.

Should we throw all that out and not teach it because it wasn't observed? You seem to want to do that with the bible but I don't see you making protests to the school system about their history books.

When a paleontologist studies a fossil, it is done in the present. When an archeologist studies artifacts, it is done in the present. When a geologist studies formations it is done in the present, when an astronomer looks at photographs of stars, it is done in the present. The data from these can be measured and are repeatable.

From this data hypothesis can be developed and tested. Science mostly studies the effects the natural world leaves, the chicken tracks of things that happen so to speak.

Some of science studies the effects of events in the long past where others study the effects of events more recent in time. It is all the same basic science and all are done using the scientific method.

So there is no real difference between what Ham calls operational and historical science, it is just word games he likes to play. Science is science.

Dizredux

 

[Split Rock]

No. That's historical science.

Therefore, according to you, it is an assumption that cannot be tested.

No one observed Cleopatra being the last Pharaoh of Egypt. It is historical science. Along with everything else in a school history book that was not observed by those students.

Should we throw all that out and not teach it because it wasn't observed? You seem to want to do that with the bible but I don't see you making protests to the school system about their history books.

You seem to think so. You posted here in this thread (and many others) over and over that historical science is all "assumption," that cannot be tested.