Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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.
This whole YEC thing is driving me right to becoming an out-and-out atheist/antitheist.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
Therefore, according to you, it is an assumption that cannot be tested.No. That's historical science.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?