My experience...Ken Ham and YEC.

[KWCrazy]

Oh, so you start with a no true Scotsman fallacy and now accused everyone of lying.

No, I said, "First of all, everyone who tells you that evolution is proven science is lying."
That is a true statement.
Moreover, you know it to be a true statement, which is why you changed what I said to saying that everyone is lying. Everyone is NOT lying, only those who say evolution is proven science.

Moreover, the proof has not been produced to affirm that the laws of physics are absolute and and inviolable; that miracles and acts of God are precluded by the supremacy of natural law. The truth is that science cannot study the supernatural. Science is the study of the physical world.

Science cannot prove nor can it disprove the existence of anything supernatural. It all comes down to where you put your faith.

 

[CabVet]

No, I said, "First of all, everyone who tells you that evolution is proven science is lying."
That is a true statement.

Thanks for admitting that you are misleading your readers. Even though it is a true statement, it is true from a scientific point of view, not a popular one. Here, I will give you another "true statement": "whoever tells you that gravity is proven is lying". That is also a true statement, but it is misleading to use it in a context of "gravity is wrong", which is the context in which you present evolution. There is as much support for the scientific theory of evolution as there is for gravity. Stating that it is not "proven" is misleading to say the least, and using it in a context where you want to say that evolution is wrong is dishonest.

Moreover, you know it to be a true statement, which is why you changed what I said to saying that everyone is lying. Everyone is NOT lying, only those who say evolution is proven science.

Give me a link to a single scientific source that says that "evolution is proven". I want to know who those liars are.

Moreover, the proof has not been produced to affirm that the laws of physics are absolute and and inviolable; that miracles and acts of God are precluded by the supremacy of natural law. The truth is that science cannot study the supernatural. Science is the study of the physical world.

Wrong. Science doesn't work on proof.

Science cannot prove nor can it disprove the existence of anything supernatural. It all comes down to where you put your faith.

Neither science nor evolution are trying to prove or disprove the existence of anything supernatural. The fact that scientific observations contradict your personal interpretation of the Bible has nothing to do with science.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

This post seems to have gotten off to a horrible start. You accuse so many people of lying. For what purpose?

Science doesn't have all the answers and all the answers cannot be found in science.

But scientists don't pretend to have all the answers. If we had all the answers there would be no point to continued scientific inquiry! By contrast, some religions do pretend to have all the answers.

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.

How do you know that?

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.

So why should we place our faith in your particular Creation story? Because it cannot be disproved? Actually, the scientific claims that emerge from a literal interpretation of Genesis can be falsified.

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.

What? You seem to be using the word "impossible" however it suits you. Can you please justify your usage of the word here? How do you know that it is impossible for God to lie?

 

[EternalDragon]

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."

But who killed him?

(Your original post):

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.

 

[Strathos]

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.

So when do you define your arbitrary cutoff point for when you can't make any inferences about the past from evidence in the present? It's all the same principle.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

But who killed him?

(Your original post):

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.

That's not my original post.

 

[EternalDragon]

So when do you define your arbitrary cutoff point for when you can't make any inferences about the past from evidence in the present? It's all the same principle.

That's historical science and there is no cut off. You can make as
many inferences as you would like to. For example, the big bang.
There have been many thoughts on that subject and the start of
the universe. But since it was a one time, past event that is not
observable, it is historical science. You can't observe it, test it or
repeat it.

 

[EternalDragon]

That's not my original post.

Sorry, Strathos said that.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That's historical science and there is no cut off. You can make as
many inferences as you would like to. For example, the big bang.
There have been many thoughts on that subject and the start of
the universe. But since it was a one time, past event that is not
observable, it is historical science. You can't observe it, test it or
repeat it.

But you don't have to in order to do science. Several individuals have already dispelled this misconception.

 

[Dizredux]

That's historical science and there is no cut off. You can make as
many inferences as you would like to. For example, the big bang.
There have been many thoughts on that subject and the start of
the universe. But since it was a one time, past event that is not
observable, it is historical science. You can't observe it, test it or
repeat it.

As you have had explained to you many times, we cannot directly observe a long past event but we can directly observe the effects of those past events. That is what science studies and it uses what we can observe now, in the present, the here and now. All science is observational in that sense. Ham's idea of historical science as he means it just doesn't fly or as we would say here in Texas "That dog don't hunt."

Dizredux

 

[lasthero]

That's historical science and there is no cut off. You can make as
many inferences as you would like to. For example, the big bang.
There have been many thoughts on that subject and the start of
the universe. But since it was a one time, past event that is not
observable, it is historical science. You can't observe it, test it or
repeat it.

What about the craters, ED? We observe them. A lot of them.

 

[Split Rock]

That's historical science and there is no cut off. You can make as
many inferences as you would like to. .

Yes.... inferences, not assumptions. Are you finally getting the difference?

 

[Loudmouth]

But who killed him?

Are you really ignoring all of the scientific evidence that was used to identify a person from the past?

 

[Loudmouth]

That's historical science and there is no cut off.

Then all of science is historical by your definition. Any measurement of an event is necessarily a measurement of an event that happened in the past, if even a nanosecond in the past.

But since it was a one time, past event that is not
observable,. . .

Past events create evidence that we can observe, or did you forget that?

 

[ChetSinger]

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

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. To me, the purpose of history is to explain the past, while the purpose of science is to predict the future. Do their methods overlap? Yes. But they have different aims.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. To me, the purpose of history is to explain the past, while the purpose of science is to predict the future. Do their methods overlap? Yes. But they have different aims.

The purpose of science is to explain the world we observe, future, past, and present are all fair game

 

[Dizredux]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. To me, the purpose of history is to explain the past, while the purpose of science is to predict the future. Do their methods overlap? Yes. But they have different aims.

I don't see any conflict with history and science. While history can use the scientific method it usually deals with documentary evidence. Science mostly uses publically verifiable and measurable observations.

As a point, to predict the future is not science's main purpose. It is to explain when we observe in the natural world. Predictions are how we test theories and the theories are to help us understand empirical reality.

Dizredux

 

[Loudmouth]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. To me, the purpose of history is to explain the past, while the purpose of science is to predict the future.

That isn't how scientists view it. The present and future are products of the past, so the past is as much a part of science as anything. The purpose of science is to explain observations, and those observatons deal with the past, present, and future.

How does evolution explain why humans have four limbs in the present? That explanation has everything to do with the scientifically established evolutionary history of all tetrapods. The evidence for that history is found in the present in the form of genetics, embryology, and fossils. The scientific method is applied to all these data sets.

 

[EternalDragon]

The purpose of science is to explain the world we observe, future, past, and present are all fair game

Unless that explanation describes an ID. Then that explanation
is not allowed as it isn't a "natural" one that adheres to the
current consensus.

 

[EternalDragon]

What about the craters, ED? We observe them. A lot of them.

What about them?