Noah and the rainbow

[Papias]

Jig wrote:

It is not that I am getting ALL my information from one source. I merely used that one particular source to quote from.

You presented that source as a reason to think that science can't be used to learn about past events. As we've seen, that source doesn't support your point, instead it just explains how a MODIFIED scientific method can indeed tell us about past events. You've yet to show any source that advocates your view. My point was that your view that science can't be used to learn about past events is simply wrong, and is a common creationist canard.

​

This is because eyewitness reports (anamnestic evidence) are intimately involved. Something that is only available for recent past events.

Again you seem to have misunderstood the whole point of the article. An important point of the article is that anamnestic evidence can be tested by, and thrown out, based on scientific evience. So when the two don't agree, the testimony (which is known in legal circles to be unreliable) is thrown out. Jig, are you advocating throwing out testimony if it contradicts the findings of science? That's what the link you used for support is advocating.

It seems to me that you only read the abstract.

No, of course I read the whole thing. As you saw, it shows that a modified scientific method is perfectly applicable to learn about past events.

But to answer your question: Yes I do.

Good. So then you agree that science can be used to test past events, and that testimony doesn't trump scientific evidence. In the case of Genesis, it should be noted that a person's interpretation of Genesis doens't trump scientific evidence, but instead suggests that the interpretation is wrong.

Do you agree with this quote from that same link?</B>

Sure. As before, if you read the whole article, you'll see that your quote is only pointing out that the traditional form of the scientific method needs to be modified to test past events, into a MODIFIED FORM OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which is perfectly applicable to past events, which is why science works fine to determine the truth about past events.

To try to use objections to the traditional form to imply that all forms of the scientific method can't be used seems to be misleading at best.

This is because each field dabbles in both aspects, the operational and the historical.

Might it be because the whole distinction about "operational" and "historical" is a misleading description on the part of creationists, which not observed in the actual use of science?


It's good to see you agree that practically all fields of science use sciece all the time to accurately tell us about past events.

A brain surgeon in the field of medicine does not need to subscribe to Darwinist beliefs to operate successfully on his patients.

If you'd like to start a thread on the impact of evolution on medicine, you are welcome to. While there are many ways (and more each day) where understanding evolution directly improves medical care, it's off topic here, and wasn't being discussed - it looked too much like a Gish Gallop (where when a creationist is shown to be wrong, he or she changes the subject rather than admit being wrong).



Papias

 

[KerrMetric]

The terms "operational science" and "historical science" are bogus terms made up by Creationists. They have no validity in the practice of science. They are simply strawmen.

 

[Jig]

If we go any further I'll just end up repeating much of what I've already posted. I'll conclude with this:

It has been agreed upon that presuppositions influence the way we interpret the evidence and that everyone has the same evidence available to them.

Papias you agreed (in post 101) that we cannot observe the past, predict the past, or design experiments or controlled observations to determine what happened in the past. The scientific method simply cannot be used for past events.

The article discussing forensic science detailed a modified method. This method was unable to generate hypotheses - as the scientific method would. In this method it is the eyewitness that provides the hypothesis.

Quote from article:
"Scientists using the scientific method generate hypotheses from the observations of physical evidence only. Once again, this does not work when dealing with past events."

The distinction between historical and operational science is certainly not misleading. I've yet to read any real reason as to why this distinction is false. I've only seen people making claims that it is false without backing them up.

Thanks for an interesting discussion.

 

[JVPITER]

If we go any further I'll just end up repeating much of what I've already posted. I'll conclude with this:

It has been agreed upon that presuppositions influence the way we interpret the evidence and that everyone has the same evidence available to them.

Pity. It was just getting interesting. We had agreed presuppositions influence how we interpret both physical and biblical evidence. You asked a great question: "How do you determine whose presuppositions are more reasonable?" I was looking forward to discussing that.

Papias you agreed (in post 101) that we cannot observe the past, predict the past, or design experiments or controlled observations to determine what happened in the past. The scientific method simply cannot be used for past events.

We can all read, Jig. This is a grossly misleading characterisation of Papias' post. If you were intending to bow out of the thread gracefully, you failed.

The distinction between historical and operational science is certainly not misleading. I've yet to read any real reason as to why this distinction is false. I've only seen people making claims that it is false without backing them up.

Because all sciences can only ever test the past. We cannot test the future, and we cannot test the present because all information travels at a non-instantaneous speed.

Think about it.

Thanks for an interesting discussion.

It was. Cheers.

 

[Papias]

Jig wrote:

Papias you agreed (in post 101) that we cannot observe the past, predict the past, or design experiments or controlled observations to determine what happened in the past. The scientific method simply cannot be used for past events.

Now that this is on the same page, anyone can page up, read my post #101, and see that your statement here is simply false.

The article discussing forensic science detailed a modified method. This method was unable to generate hypotheses - as the scientific method would. In this method it is the eyewitness that provides the hypothesis.

Again, you show that you simply don't understand the scientific method.

In the scientific method (including modified versions of the scientific method) the source of the hypotheses is completely irrelevent. The hypothesis for the structure of benzene came from hallucinating into a fire, and many hypotheses come from dreams, watching cartoons, or so on. The scientific method in no way requires that hypotheses only come from observations, though they can and often do.

The distinction between historical and operational science is certainly not misleading. I've only seen people making claims that it is false without backing them up.

It is a common creationist tactic to try to shirk the burden of proof. You are the one who made the claim that the supposed distinction is relevant and real, so of course it is up to you to prove it.

I've yet to read any real reason as to why this distinction is false.

OK. Maybe you should read more.

Thanks for an interesting discussion.

You are welcome. Have a good day.

Papias

 

[Jig]

Jig wrote:
Now that this is on the same page, anyone can page up, read my post #101, and see that your statement here is simply false.

I asked if you agreed with the quote I posted and you said "sure". Was that you saying you didn't agree?

 

[Papias]

Jig, are you familiar with the creationist tactic of quotemining? Quotemining is taking just a part of someone's quote, and then presenting it in a way that makes it sound like the person was saying something other than what they were saying. More at: Fallacy of quoting out of context - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's useful to understand that the article you quote out of context is saying the exact opposite of what you are trying to present it as saying. So when you ask if I agree with the article - of course I do, that article doesn't, and never has, agreed with your position, nor with what you are trying to present the article as saying.

You wrote:

I asked if you agreed with the quote I posted and you said "sure". Was that you saying you didn't agree?

You took one word from my response, and then went on to say that I agreed that with you that "we cannot observe the past, predict the past, or design experiments or controlled observations to determine what happened in the past. The scientific method simply cannot be used for past events.
" (your words).

You took that one word of mine from this :

Papias wrote:

Sure. As before, if you read the whole article, you'll see that your quote is only pointing out that the traditional form of the scientific method needs to be modified to test past events, into a MODIFIED FORM OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which is perfectly applicable to past events, which is why science works fine to determine the truth about past events.

As others have pointed out, it is clear that you are either repeatedly grossly misundertanding both your own link as well as my posts, or are misrepresenting both. I'll still look on the bright side and lean toward you misunderstanding them - though I may be accused of being naive.

Papias

 

[Jig]

Jig, are you familiar with the creationist tactic of quotemining? Quotemining is taking just a part of someone's quote, and then presenting it in a way that makes it sound like the person was saying something other than what they were saying. More at: Fallacy of quoting out of context - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's useful to understand that the article you quote out of context is saying the exact opposite of what you are trying to present it as saying. So when you ask if I agree with the article - of course I do, that article doesn't, and never has, agreed with your position, nor with what you are trying to present the article as saying.

You wrote:


You took one word from my response, and then went on to say that I agreed that with you that "we cannot observe the past, predict the past, or design experiments or controlled observations to determine what happened in the past. The scientific method simply cannot be used for past events.
" (your words).

You took that one word of mine from this :

Papias wrote:



As others have pointed out, it is clear that you are either repeatedly grossly misundertanding both your own link as well as my posts, or are misrepresenting both. I'll still look on the bright side and lean toward you misunderstanding them - though I may be accused of being naive.

Papias

I didn't really want to respond again, but I guess you were not as clear as I thought you were.

I originally posted this:

Do you agree with this quote from that same link?

First of all, one cannot observe the past. Items in the past may be remembered by some, but they cannot be seen, smelled, heard, tasted, or sensed in any way. Observation is an activity in the present that requires the use of the senses.

Secondly, one cannot predict the past. Prediction is an activity in the present that looks to the future, not the past...

Thirdly, one cannot design experiments or controlled observations to determine what happened in the past. Experiments or controlled observations might help one see if a situation is possible or not possible under a set of defined circumstances, but one cannot design an experiment that will replicate the complex variety of conditions that existed in the past &#8212; conditions that are often not known in full detail. An experiment or set of controlled observations also cannot provide information about the order and timing of past events."

Yes or no?

The doctor is making absolute statements here. These statements do not change regardless of which method you are using. Either you agree with him on these points or you don't. Plain and simple.

 

[JVPITER]

I didn't really want to respond again, but I guess you were not as clear as I thought you were.

Hi Jig

I for one would like to see this discussion continue. We had just got to an interesting point where (1) we agreed the evidence in Lake Suigetsu is not faked, and (2) we agreed human reasoning and presuppositions are involved in biblical interpretation just as much as in evidence interpretation -- in other words, we were kind of on the same page at last.

I acknowledge that you were handling discussions with various different posters, and appreciate that you gave responses to pretty much everyone for a time.

As others have pointed out, it is clear that you are either repeatedly grossly misundertanding both your own link as well as my posts, or are misrepresenting both.

I originally posted this:

Do you agree with this quote from that same link?

First of all, one cannot observe the past. Items in the past may be remembered by some, but they cannot be seen, smelled, heard, tasted, or sensed in any way. ... <snipped>

Yes or no?

The doctor is making absolute statements here. These statements do not change regardless of which method you are using. Either you agree with him on these points or you don't. Plain and simple.

Jig, harping on about this is pretty unimpressive. To anyone who can read, Papias and the referenced paper were crystal clear that "science works fine to determine the truth about past events". Why don't you engage with the substantive issues of evidence, presuppositions and subjectivism instead of playing word games?

Whether science can determine the truth about the past is a substantive issue. Who said what in some quote is not a substantive issue.

And it is a fact that science does determine things about that past that are true -- for example, geologists use science to determine likely locations to look for oil, coal, precious metals etc. These methods actually work. So the fact that science can determine things about the past is no longer a presupposition, its a strongly supported conclusions.

Looking forward to your response -- no obligation of course.

Kind regards

 

[KerrMetric]

I guess the word inference is lost on some people.

 

[Jig]

Jig, harping on about this is pretty unimpressive. To anyone who can read, Papias and the referenced paper were crystal clear that "science works fine to determine the truth about past events". Why don't you engage with the substantive issues of evidence, presuppositions and subjectivism instead of playing word games?

I am certainly not playing word games. If I am going to continue in this discussion it is important that I understand Papias correctly. It seems he does not want give me a straight answer.

I have provided a proper academic source that agreed with one of my position's objectives. Namely that we cannot observe the past, predict the past, or design experiments or controlled observations to determine what happened in the past. This means the scientific method cannot be used for past events.

I would like to know if he agrees or disagrees with forensic expert Dr. Thomas Young on these absolute statements about past events.

I fully understand that Dr. Young also proposes another method that can be used to help determine the validity of some recent past events. The process in which this method works has zero bearing on the discussion at hand since the past event we are looking at had no primary human eyewitnesses and is certainly not recent.

Dr. Young's method doesn't work for determining how the layers formed on the bottom of Lake Suigetsu.

And it is a fact that science does determine things about that past that are true -- for example, geologists use science to determine likely locations to look for oil, coal, precious metals etc. These methods actually work. So the fact that science can determine things about the past is no longer a presupposition, its a strongly supported conclusions.

My position has never been that science cannot determine things about the past. My position is that physical evidence is interpreted under influence from presuppositions.

 

[Jig]

I guess the word inference is lost on some people.

Dictionary.com:

Inference: the process of deriving the strict logical consequences of assumed premises.

>Different presuppositions may produce different logical conclusions.<

 

[shernren]

Hey Jig, since you like this Dr. Thomas Young so much, I guess you'd be a big fan of his Inferential Test for Expert Testimony, wouldn't you?

One can be reasonably certain if witness accounts of the past are consistent or not consistent with physical evidence in the present, but one cannot reliably surmise past events from physical evidence unless there is only one plausible explanation for that evidence.
​

Heartland Forensic Pathology: An Inferential Test for Expert Testimony

Let's apply that test here.

Did I give a plausible explanation for the evidence at the bottom of Lake Suigetsu? Yes.
Did you give a plausible explanation for the evidence at the bottom of Lake Suigetsu? No.

What would the good Dr. Young say now? That we can reliably surmise past events from physical evidence, pending a better explanation from Jig? Most likely.

 

[1whirlwind]

This is something that I've been thinking lately. In the Bible, if taken literally, it is said that God has given the rainbow as a sign of the covenant between the Lord and humanity which would last until the end.

My question is this: did the rainbow exist before being used as a sign by God? Did God use a thing and gave it a different meaning, or did He create it in that moment?

Also, how do you understand this story? Is it true, or is it a myth? I would like the opinions of all of you, if possible.

Blessings,

Emanuel

Genesis 9:13-14 I do set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between Me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:


The makeup of a literal rainbow is water and sun. Those were both around before Noah's flood. So, what is the rainbow?


Revelation 4:3 And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald.

Revelation 10:1 And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and a rainbow was upon His head, and His face was as it were the sun, and His feet as pillars of fire:


The rainbow speaks of God's elect. His cloud of witnesses through whom He rains truth on the earth.



.

 

[JVPITER]

I have provided a proper academic source that agreed with one of my position's objectives. Namely that we cannot observe the past, predict the past, or design experiments or controlled observations to determine what happened in the past. This means the scientific method cannot be used for past events.

Now I'm confused.

On the one hand, you say one of your position's objectives is the scientific method cannot be used for past events.

My position has never been that science cannot determine things about the past. My position is that physical evidence is interpreted under influence from presuppositions.

But, on the other hand, you say your position has never been that science cannot determine things about the past.

Doesn't that look like a contradiction to you, Jig? What is your position? Please choose (a) or (b):

a. The scientific method can be used to make sound, valid conclusions about past events.
b. The scientific method cannot be used to make sound, valid conclusions about past events.

Thanks and regards

 

[dies-l]

My position has never been that science cannot determine things about the past. My position is that physical evidence is interpreted under influence from presuppositions.

Could not the same be said about biblical evidence?

 

[Revelantion21:10]

...it is said that God has given the rainbow as a sign of the covenant between the Lord and humanity which would last until the end...

Wrong!



With animals too!



Genesis 9:9 "...I establish my covenant with you..."

"And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth." verse 10

Also 12,

"And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:"

God made a covenant with animals too!

O.O

That's actually very important to some. Those who study God's relationship with other living creatures.

Hmmm.... "living creature"... Genesis 1:21 "And God created great whales, and every living creature." The Hebrew: "chay nephesh"

Genesis 2:9... "living soul"... get your concordance because you won't believe me... Hebrew also: "chay nephesh"

"For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." James 2:26

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" Romans 5:12

"How long shall the land mourn, and the herbs of every field wither, for the wickedness of them that dwell therein? the
beasts are consumed, and the birds;..." Jeremiah 12:4

If that is so.. then shouldn't this also be so? :

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 1 Corinthians 15:22 If Adam was enough to cause this wouldn't Christ stop it? Or wasn't Christ enough to cover ALL the effects of sin?

"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." Romans 5:19

"And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever." Revelation 5:13 ...Assuming man doesn't learn to live in the sea... or takes to living under the earth, or in the sky/heaven.

This is getting slightly off topic, as it is more of a doctrinal study for people who care about animals... (It is very important to some, and you've taken animals out of God's promise) so the only point I'll make is:

At the very least, we should be careful not to put a period where God puts a comma.

 

[Papias]

Jig wrote:

I didn't really want to respond again, but I guess you were not as clear as I thought you were.

I originally posted this:

Do you agree with this quote from that same link?

[/QUOTE]

Jig, as I pointed out before, you are quote-mining the article. The article shows how science is properly used to learn about the past. It's main points are that science can accurately tell us about the past, and that to do so, it uses a modified form of the scientific method. By quote-mining part of the article, you are making it look like the article says the exact opposite (that science cannot be used to learn about the past).

So, the author himself, as shown by the very paper you quote from, would disagree with the quote you quote-mined out, if shown out of context as you have done.

Yes or no?

To answer your question as simply and directly as possible:

No, I disagree with the quote as shown by you out of context, because it misleads one to conclude the exact opposite of the paper it lifted from.

Yes, I agree with the quote when in the context of the article it is from, because then it is used to show the author's correct point, which is that science can and is used to determine past events.

The doctor is making absolute statements here.

No, he is writing a whole article that shows that science, properly used, can and does tell us about past events. To lift quotes out of context, treat them as "absolute statements" and make them say things that are the opposite of what the author's article says is quote-mining.

I work hard to avoid quote mining because to me it appears to violate the 8th (Catholic) or 9th (Protestant) commandment.

These statements do not change regardless of which method you are using. Either you agree with him on these points or you don't. Plain and simple.

They certainly change meaning depending on if they are lifted out of context or not. Do you, Jig, agree with his article? I say that I do. If you don't agree with his article, then why do you think that lifting isolated parts of it out is an honest practice?

*******

It seems he does not want give me a straight answer.

Now that it seems you aren't leaving the conversation, it's worth looking back at some of the points you haven't addressed.

I previously asked: Jig, are you advocating throwing out testimony if it contradicts the findings of science? That's what the link you used for support is advocating.

Since you've agreed that practically all fields of science use science all the time to accurately tell us about past events, why do you have a problem with it in biology?

Still waiting on any reference from you showing a real distinction on the applicability of the scientific method on "historical science" vs. "operational science", after you tried to shift the burden of proof.

I have provided a proper academic source that agreed with one of my position's objectives. Namely that we cannot observe the past, predict the past, or design experiments or controlled observations to determine what happened in the past. This means the scientific method cannot be used for past events.

Again, you appear to have misunderstood the paper, which explicitly says that a modified form of the scientific method can indeed be used for past events.

it concludes:

It is my hope that forensic scientists, law enforcement officers, the legal community, and others who scientifically analyze events from the past will uniformly embrace the modification of the scientific method for past events: the forensic scientific method.
​

It is useful to include the link again, so that everyone reading can read the whole article for themselves: Heartland Forensic Pathology: Forensic Science and the Scientific Method

I am certainly not playing word games.

Jig, do you consider quote-mining a word game?

Jig, do you understand quote mining? In the case where a creationist gives the first half of the Darwin Eye quote, and then truncates it before the conclusion that the eye can evolve, do you think that the creationist has fairly and accurately represented Darwin's position, Yes, or No?

Papias

 

[Jig]

This is ridiculous. Quote-mining? Really. The original context was not jeopardized and you know it! How else could that quote be understood? When Dr. Young says "cannot" I guess he really means "can".

Believe what you want. I'm out.

 

[shernren]

Post #113 still stands.

Just saying.