Sorry for the long delay - I was busy with my son's birthday party. It's amazing the chaos a dozen 3rd graders can invoke!
Jig wrote:
I'm saying this is a limitation in methodological naturalism. Looking at supernatural explanations require another philosophical approach to acquiring knowledge.
Yes, it means you are using a different method (not science). Just don't call it science. No one is saying that you can't posit supernatural explanations, so please stop saying that someone is doing so. Do you agree that you operate on methodological naturalism in your daily life, checking for natural causes first, and if they are sufficient, not resorting to supernatural ones? That's all anyone is doing with regard to evolution, anyway.
Okay, I went to your link. I saw nothing but observation this and observation that. This website did not help your claim that observation is not needed to use the scientific method.
Just because it used the word "observation" doesn't mean that only future events can be studied. Please don't just look for words and say that it proves your point. The website shows that the scientific method steps are consistent with studying events in the past, as long as you can still make predictions. The subsequent steps are to make a hypothesis, then a prediction of test results based on that hypothesis, then to test it by experiment. For isntance, one can predict that the ratio of isotopes in a rock with a trilobite fossil will be below 0.02%, or such. That's because The scientific method does not require direct observation of whatever is being studied, it simply requires making and testing a prediction. I'm still waiting for any reason why the OJ application of science below is somehow "not science"
1. Might OJ have killed her?
2. Observe blood stains, flight information, gloves, etc.
3. Hypothesize that OJ killed her,
4. Predict that if OJ killed her, OJ's DNA will be found in the blood.
5. Test the blood for OJ's DNA
6. Support the hypothesis if OJ's DNA is found, reject it if not.
This is science also. In fact, deduction and inference are used all the time, in science - that's why your "historical" vs "operational" idea doesn't fit the real world.
For instance, if a doctor observes that I have cells in my liver with certain properties, he may diagnose cancer if those fit the properties of cancer cells. That's using deduction and inference, just as most of science uses. He doesn't have to culture every cell to see it if grows in a cancerous way. It's like the whole thing about "does your dog have a heart?". I can find that and post it if it will help you understand deduction in science.
Notice also that the doctor is assuming that the physical laws we've seen in all times and places measured are the ones operating in all times and places. He's assuming that what was observed before to be cancer is how things work in this different place (his office). After all, the original work on HeLa cells wasn't done at his office. You accept that, right? Even though the physical laws may be different in his office, since they were never measured?
But they are not talking about "today" in historical science, they are talking about the past: millions and billions of years ago. Beyond observational sciences scope.
Yesterday can't be observed again either. It's irrelevant. You mentioned that there were "many assumptions", Yet when I pointed out that the only assumption was that the physical laws we've seen in all times and places measured are the ones operating in all times and places. You were going to list the other assumptions, and I'm still waiting.
You didn't answer if you agreed that Genesis has clear metaphors in it. Maybe make that Q7? And you were going to say which verse labels the genre of the Song of Solomon (Q8).
Scientists assume things were similar (such as decay rates) 2 billion years ago. This also implies the world was in existence 2 billion years ago. The premise evolutionists use is just "begging the question".
The data is the only thing that says the world was in existance 2 billion years ago. It's not an assumption. For instance, a general dating method could give an age of anything between 0.0000003 nanoseconds to 842 terayears. The fact that the methods give a much smaller age of just billions of year, and that they all agree, is the evidence speaking, not an assumption, because no prior age was assumed.
I don't ignore the evidence - evidence is neutral. I don't even ignore the interpretation of the evidence you are trying to give me. I just choose to believe in another interpretation of the evidence.
Evidence is not neutral. That's why science can advance at all.
Think were we'd be if every piece of evidence were greeted with "oh, evidence is neutral, so that can mean anything." Oh, that vaccination prevented the disease? No, evidence is neutral so it might not work, so let's not use it. Oh, geological evidence shows layers found above oil deposits? No, evidence is neutral so no point in drilling there. The point is that letting the evidence guide our knowledge is what brought us out of the dark ages, and that's exactly the opposite of denying evidence by saying that all evidence is neutral.
Chasing the supernatural moment as far back as possible, huh? Wouldn't want it to mess up your assumptions. Either way, some supernatural moment in the past had to occur. God could not have done everything naturally. Purposed creation is not natural.
Following where the evidence leads. No assumptions needed other than the one we've already agreed upon. I have no problem with a supernatural moment at some time, just that I don't posit one when the evidence shows that it wasn't where you are putting it. Why aren't you arguing that God created everying (including your memories) five minutes ago? Hint: our one agreed upon assumption
(question 1) do you recognize that scientific evidence, and the determination of a "fact" do not require that a person witness the original occurance being studied?
(being discussed)
Question 2a. Do you recognize that the description of dendrochronology using the idea of an "isolated log" was not correct?
This question implies that I was wrong. I already told you that I do not believe I was wrong.
OK, let's review this.
- Jig claims that dendrocronology works by taking isolated sets of tree rings, and then using carbonn 14 dating to put them in order.
- The actual method doesn't use carbon 14, but links the different sets by overlapping long sections that are well beyond what could match by chance.
- Jig then claims he wasn't wrong.
Jig, is that accurate?
Question 2b. Do you recognize that continuous sets of tree rings reach back through the entire time measured?
All this means is that tree rings can be counted.
No, it doesn't. When I took the time to explain how the series of different widths of the tree rings gives a matching series that is far too detailed to match by chance, did you understand that? If not, then what part of that did you not understand?
question #3 - Do you recognize that dedrochronology is independent, and that varves are independent, and that speleotherms are independent, and that coral is independent?
Still waiting for assumptions other than that the physical laws we've seen in all times and places measured are the ones operating in all times and places.
what framework, specifically, alters the measurement of varves? What alters the measurement of dendrochronolgy? (Q4)
Q5 - what a real, peer-reviewed journal is.
Yes. Do you know that there is more then one valid venue to display scientific work?
No, there isn't. Peer review is one of the ways we can tell pseudoscience from real science. No scientist with legitimate findings need fear peer-review, even evolution deniers like Behe and Sanford can publish in peer-reviewed journals, as long as their data supports what they are claiming.
So those creationists and design advocates who actually have professional degrees in their respected fields, don't understand their field? Or is it that they don't agree with the assumptions the status quo field has made?
Again, still waiting to hear what those assumptions are, other than the one we've already agreed on. Besides, they do publish in peer reviewed journals. Just do a lit search on Behe, or on Sanford or so on, and you'll see that they are free to publish real data.
It does not need to be in an Darwinain bias peer-reviewed journal.
Still waiting on why all those scientists, with different religions, different worldviews, different ages, different countries, different backgrounds, and different fields of study are all biased against something.
You're focus on what's different and not on what's similar. Their religious background and motivations have little to do with their work within naturalistic science. All the same assumptions are made.
Their religious backgrounds and motivations have little to do with their support for evoluiton and an old earth, and their rejection of creationism? Are you not the same person who agrees that the Bible is the main reason why they reject an old earth? And again, what assumptions are made other than the one that we've agree upon?
I am claiming that your position is equally philosophical.
Sorry, it's based on evidence. Which philosophy is it based on? That philosophy of the thousands of Christians who support it, or the that of the thousands of Muslims? Or maybe the philosophy of the Hindus? Or that Atheists? Or that of the Buddhists? Creationism is pure philosophical based on a literal interpretation of selected parts of Genesis, while the findings of science are based on evidence.
Could the Earth have formed within the last million years? No. Evolutionists must have an old Earth to work or their theories cannot make sense.
Again, you ignore history and how science works. The biologists who have discovered biological evolution are not the geologists who are independently finding the 4.5 billion year old age for the earth. This is starting to sound like the old creationist line that all of science is in a black helicopter conspiracy against Christianity, even though millions of scientists are Christians themselves. That leads to Q6:
Q6 - Do you know about the Rev. Adam Segewick?
(Because an old earth was first worked out in the Christian framework).
Thanks, have a good day -
Papias
PS, and for the other discussion - Exodus 19:4, so if we use a literal interpretation, the God brought the Jews out of Egypt as in the Hobbit?
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...red/tolkien/h-2-0242-eagle-dori-bilbo.jpg&t=1
