Not science, but rather ideology.

[Jorge]

Get some new material.

Why? The "old" material was absolutely true and it worked so well.

• Edited by a Moderator •

Jorge

Moderated By: rogue06

Stop with the gratuitous insults.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[Jorge]

Jorge with his made up custom definitions again.

Among my "made up definitions" is one that (of course!) has always been ridiculed and totally rejected at TWeb by the likes of Beagle Boy and all of his ideological comrades (O-Mudd, Rogue06, Santa Klaus, Terror ... etc ... etc.). Here I'm referring to the definition/difference between origins (or historical) science and operational science. You people have howled at that every time I post it, calling it a "Creationist invention" among other things.

Of course, I know well that in saying this you people are displaying either ignorance or dishonesty (my vote goes to the latter since my multiple posts and explanations should have pulled you out of the state of 'ignorance' long ago).

But let's just say, for a moment, that I'm the one who is wrong; i.e., this distinction is a "Creationist invention", etc. Okay, so let's see a couple of quotes from two very high-profile Evolutionists:

Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical scienceLaws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative [underline mine]functional biology would explain how it is constructed and operates, while evolutionary biology [underline mine]From so Simply a Beginning, p. 12, Norton, 2006.

Hmmm ... sounds like Mayr and Wilson - two very high-profile Evolutionists - also recognized a distinction between operational and historical science. Oops!


Not that I expect any retractions or apologies from the TWeb howlers
referred to above - they'd rather chew off the hind foot caught in the 'trap'.

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

Among my "made up definitions" is one that (of course!) has always been ridiculed and totally rejected at TWeb by the likes of Beagle Boy and all of his ideological comrades (O-Mudd, Rogue06, Santa Klaus, Terror ... etc ... etc.). Here I'm referring to the definition/difference between origins (or historical) science and operational science. You people have howled at that every time I post it, calling it a "Creationist invention" among other things.

Jorge

No you weren't Jorge. You were touting your stupid made-up definitions of 'evolution' and 'Evolution'. That's the blunder you just got called on again. You cowardly attempt to change the subject is noted though.

[rogue06]

Among my "made up definitions" is one that (of course!) has always been ridiculed and totally rejected at TWeb by the likes of Beagle Boy and all of his ideological comrades (O-Mudd, Rogue06, Santa Klaus, Terror ... etc ... etc.). Here I'm referring to the definition/difference between origins (or historical) science and operational science. You people have howled at that every time I post it, calling it a "Creationist invention" among other things.

Of course, I know well that in saying this you people are displaying either ignorance or dishonesty (my vote goes to the latter since my multiple posts and explanations should have pulled you out of the state of 'ignorance' long ago).

But let's just say, for a moment, that I'm the one who is wrong; i.e., this distinction is a "Creationist invention", etc. Okay, so let's see a couple of quotes from two very high-profile Evolutionists:

“For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.” [underline mine]

—Mayr, Ernst (1904–2005), Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought, based on a lecture that Mayr delivered in Stockholm on receiving the Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Science, 23 September 1999; published on ScientificAmerican.com, 24 November 2009.


“If a moving automobile were an organism, functional biology would explain how it is constructed and operates, while evolutionary biology would reconstruct its origin and history—how it came to be made and its journey thus far.” [underline mine]

—Wilson, E.O. (1929– ), From so Simply a Beginning, p. 12, Norton, 2006.

Hmmm ... sounds like Mayr and Wilson - two very high-profile Evolutionists - also recognized a distinction between operational and historical science. Oops!


Not that I expect any retractions or apologies from the TWeb howlers
referred to above - they'd rather chew off the hind foot caught in the 'trap'.

Jorge

Um, no.

As I have pointed out evolution is indeed considered a "historical science" in contrast to "experimental science." Your quotes confirm this.

Here is what I posted on the "It's official: ID really is creationism" thread (pay particular attention to the underlined part:

I have tried but fools such as yourself continue resisting what is OBVIOUS to even a Middle-School teenager. Briefly ...

AGAIN: there is operational/observational science and then there is historical science...

Let's stop right here.

"Operational science" is actually is a term coined by Ken Ham and his cronies over at AnswersinGenesis (AiG) and used in their opposition to the Big Bang (kind of ironic considering how many atheists opposed it considering its religious implications), abiogenesis and evolutionary theory and is not considered a valid scientific term. What historical science can, and has, been compared to is "experimental science" which is a different kettle of fish as the term is used quite differently by philosophers of science than how evolution deniers utilize "operational science."

Philosophers of science consider both historical and experimental science as entirely valid and that various scientific disciplines and fields can employ both approaches. Moreover, they do not assert that one approach is more valid or empirically verifiable than the other which is the opposite of what YECs try to imply.

From the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA - a Christian organization of scientists with the stated purpose of "investigat[ing] any area relating Christian faith and science" and makes a point of "not tak[ing] a position when there is honest disagreement between Christians on an issue"):

Source: Young-Earth Creation Science: Is the science of young-earth creationism strong or weak? Is the earth young or old?" by Craig Rusbult

Attack the Reliability of Historical Sciences

"Even though we cannot directly observe events in the ancient history of nature, can we by a logical analysis of historical evidence reach reliable conclusions about what happened in the past, on the earth and in other parts of the universe? Most young-earth creationists say NO. They challenge the credibility of all historical sciences that claim the evidence indicates an old earth and universe. They ask 'Were you there? Did you see it?', and imply that 'no' means 'then you can't know much about it.' Their skepticism about historical science is similar to the postmodernism of radical relativists who challenge the reliability of all science by claiming that scientific evidence is always inadequate, so the conclusions of scientists must be determined by their nonscientific beliefs. But despite this postmodern skeptical relativism, when we ask "is historical science reliable?" it's easy to answer "yes" and here is why. Although historical data is limited, since we cannot do controlled lab experiments, historical science is empirical (based on observations) with plenty of observations available, and scientists have developed methods to reduce the practical impact of data limitations. Occasionally there are rational reasons for caution, but in most areas (and for all important questions about age) most scholars who carefully examine the methods of historical science will confidently agree that 'historical sciences [in fields like geology, radiometric dating, and astronomy] have a solid foundation — the logical evaluation of empirical evidence — that provides a reliable way to learn about the history of nature.'"

Source

© Copyright Original Source

And from another source:

Source: "Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method" by Carol E. Cleland

"Insofar as historical hypotheses cannot be tested in controlled laboratory settings, historical research is sometimes said to be inferior to experimental research. Using examples from diverse historical disciplines, this paper demonstrates that such claims are misguided. First, the reputed superiority of experimental research is based upon accounts of scientific methodology (Baconian inductivism or falsificationism) that are deeply flawed, both logically and as accounts of the actual practices of scientists. Second, although there are fundamental differences in methodology between experimental scientists and historical scientists, they are keyed to a pervasive feature of nature, a time asymmetry of causation. As a consequence, the claim that historical science is methodologically inferior to experimental science cannot be sustained."

Source

© Copyright Original Source

As an aside I should note that trying to determine how particular historical events occurred (historical science) is the basis of forensic sciences -- something I don't think YECs ever complain about when it is used to convict someone of a crime.

Furthermore, when scientists do make a distinction between historical science and research that is aimed at identifying laws (experimental science) they aren't declaring that there exists a neat clean line between them or saying, as noted above, that one is more reliable than the other.

Source: "Philosophy of Biology 2nd ed" by Elliott Sober

1.4 Historical Particulars and General Laws

Some sciences try to discover general laws; others aim to uncover particular sequences of historical events. It isn't that the "hard" sciences only do the former and the "soft" sciences strive solely for the latter. Each broad discipline contains subareas that differ in how they emphasize one task or the other.

...

Laws take the form of if/then statements. Isaac Newton's universal law of gravitation says that the gravitational attraction between any two objects is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The law does not say that the universe contains two, four, or any number of objects. It just says what would be true if the universe contained objects with mass.

In contrast, astronomers typically will be interested in obtaining information about a unique object. Focusing on a distant star, they might attempt to infer its temperature, density, and size. Statements that provide information of this sort are not if/then in form. Such statements describe historical particulars and do not state laws.

This division between nomothetic ("nomos" is Greek for law) and historical sciences does not mean that each science is exclusively one or the other. The particle physicist might find that the collisions of interest often occur on the surface of the sun; if so, a detailed study of that particular object might help to infer the general law. Symmetrically, the astronomer interested in obtaining an accurate description of the star might use various laws to help make the inference.

Although the particle physicist and the astronomer may attend to both general laws and historical particulars, we can separate their two enterprises by distinguishing means from ends. The astronomer's problem is a historical one because the goal is to infer the properties of a particular object; the astronomer uses laws only as a means. Particle physics, on the other hand, is a nomothetic discipline because the goal is to infer general laws; descriptions of particular objects are only relevant as a means.

The same division exists within evolutionary biology. When a systematist infers that human beings are more closely related to chimps than they are to gorillas, this phylogenetic proposition describes a family tree that connects three species. The proposition is logically of the same type as the proposition that says that Alice is more closely related to Berry than she is to Carl ... Reconstructing genealogical relationships is the goal of a historical science.

© Copyright Original Source

Sober continues by noting that some evolutionary biologists are utilizing the sort of mathematical modeling that isn't historical in this sense, but in fact instead seeks after the type of general "if-then" statements which include scientific laws. IOW, evolutionary theory is really both a "nomothetic" science as well as being an historical science.

Critics of historical science either don't realize or ignore the fact that it still makes predictions that can be tested. This means that in a way all science is historical science. As theoretical physicist and cosmologist Lawrence M. Krauss explains

Source: WHY THE ONE APPEALING PART OF CREATIONISM IS WRONG

We make observations about past events, based on everything from data gathered in the laboratory yesterday to remnants of phenomena, like meteor impacts or stellar explosions, which may have happened billions of years ago. We then use them to make predictions about the future, about experiments or observations that have not yet taken place. To quibble about how long ago the original data was generated is to miss the point.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

IOW, all science is historical science, it is just that some events occurred very recently, and some occurred very long ago.

Krauss cites several examples to support his contention one of which involves plate tectonics and continental drift. He notes that the latter is measurable and points out that "given the measurements and the current shape of continents, one can speculate that, in the distant past, at periods determined by measurements made using modern physics and chemistry, which allow us to model the dynamics of the crust and the mantle of Earth, the currently existing continents were fused together, apparently several times, in a supercontinent."

Of course such a theory will lead to predictions that can be checked such as if this is correct we should be able to find identical geological structures at the edges of the current continents that were once fused and notes that this is the case.

And if someone still insists on criticizing historical science consider the observation made by KBertsche in a post concerning the Ham/Nye debate earlier this year:

In fact, some areas of "observational" science (e.g. particle physics) are much more indirect and "iffy" than some areas of "historical" science.

Finally, I find it incredibly ironic that for all the carping that evolution deniers do about historical science, Casey Luskin, the vocal Intelligent Design proponent, seeks to legitimatize ID by proclaiming that "Intelligent Design Is a Historical Science, Just Like Darwinian Evolution."

Fail better.

[rogue06]

No you weren't Jorge. You were touting your stupid made-up definitions of 'evolution' and 'Evolution'. That's the blunder you just got called on again. You cowardly attempt to change the subject is noted though.

Jorge has created his own personal definitions for many different words -- including but not limited to "Macroevolution," "Methodological Naturalism," "Distort," "Religion" and prefers his "GToE” (General Theory of Evolution – containing the Big Bang, abiogenesis, plate tectonics, natural star formation and extra-solar planets) -- and gets peeved if everybody doesn't immediately accept them.

[klaus54]

Jorge,

Your input on the "Literal Genesis 1:3" thread would be most appreciated.

Thanks!

K54

[klaus54]

Among my "made up definitions" is one that (of course!) has always been ridiculed and totally rejected at TWeb by the likes of Beagle Boy and all of his ideological comrades (O-Mudd, Rogue06, Santa Klaus, Terror ... etc ... etc.). Here I'm referring to the definition/difference between origins (or historical) science and operational science. You people have howled at that every time I post it, calling it a "Creationist invention" among other things.
....

Argument by neologism...

...Ah, forget it. You wouldn't understand anyway.

K54

[Omniskeptical]

Evolution is not a science. It is a theory of biology at best.

[Omniskeptical]

Among my "made up definitions" is one that (of course!) has always been ridiculed and totally rejected at TWeb by the likes of Beagle Boy and all of his ideological comrades (O-Mudd, Rogue06, Santa Klaus, Terror ... etc ... etc.). Here I'm referring to the definition/difference between origins (or historical) science and operational science. You people have howled at that every time I post it, calling it a "Creationist invention" among other things.

Of course, I know well that in saying this you people are displaying either ignorance or dishonesty (my vote goes to the latter since my multiple posts and explanations should have pulled you out of the state of 'ignorance' long ago).

But let's just say, for a moment, that I'm the one who is wrong; i.e., this distinction is a "Creationist invention", etc. Okay, so let's see a couple of quotes from two very high-profile Evolutionists:

“For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.” [underline mine]

—Mayr, Ernst (1904–2005), Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought, based on a lecture that Mayr delivered in Stockholm on receiving the Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Science, 23 September 1999; published on ScientificAmerican.com, 24 November 2009.


“If a moving automobile were an organism, functional biology would explain how it is constructed and operates, while evolutionary biology would reconstruct its origin and history—how it came to be made and its journey thus far.” [underline mine]

—Wilson, E.O. (1929– ), From so Simply a Beginning, p. 12, Norton, 2006.

Hmmm ... sounds like Mayr and Wilson - two very high-profile Evolutionists - also recognized a distinction between operational and historical science. Oops!


Not that I expect any retractions or apologies from the TWeb howlers
referred to above - they'd rather chew off the hind foot caught in the 'trap'.

Jorge

How about concentrating on the difference between interpretational science versus operational science, Jorge? Wait you don't know enough science?

[klaus54]

"A theory of biology" is not science.

Interesting.

K54

[phank]

"A theory of biology" is not science.

Interesting.

K54

But conversely, a theory of biology compatible with ideology rather than evidence IS science. In the creationist world, ideology defines evidence, so if a claim supports the ideology, it's evidence even if it's incorrect or outright fabricated. Facts conflicting with the ideology are not evidence, because they CANNOT be evidence. The ideology prohibits this.

So we're back to here:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2014...nding-c-7.html

[klaus54]

But conversely, a theory of biology compatible with ideology rather than evidence IS science. In the creationist world, ideology defines evidence, so if a claim supports the ideology, it's evidence even if it's incorrect or outright fabricated. Facts conflicting with the ideology are not evidence, because they CANNOT be evidence. The ideology prohibits this.

So we're back to here:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2014...nding-c-7.html

Correct.

But if it wasn't obvious I was being sarcastic with OS's silly remark. Not sure if he's a completely scientifically illiterate or troll or both.

In any case, he doesn't understand the meaning of "theory" in science.

K54

[Jorge]

Among my "made up definitions" is one that (of course!) has always been ridiculed and totally rejected at TWeb by the likes of Beagle Boy and all of his ideological comrades (O-Mudd, Rogue06, Santa Klaus, Terror ... etc ... etc.). Here I'm referring to the definition/difference between origins (or historical) science and operational science. You people have howled at that every time I post it, calling it a "Creationist invention" among other things.

Of course, I know well that in saying this you people are displaying either ignorance or dishonesty (my vote goes to the latter since my multiple posts and explanations should have pulled you out of the state of 'ignorance' long ago).

But let's just say, for a moment, that I'm the one who is wrong; i.e., this distinction is a "Creationist invention", etc. Okay, so let's see a couple of quotes from two very high-profile Evolutionists:

“For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.” [underline mine]

—Mayr, Ernst (1904–2005), Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought, based on a lecture that Mayr delivered in Stockholm on receiving the Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Science, 23 September 1999; published on ScientificAmerican.com, 24 November 2009.


“If a moving automobile were an organism, functional biology would explain how it is constructed and operates, while evolutionary biology would reconstruct its origin and history—how it came to be made and its journey thus far.” [underline mine]

—Wilson, E.O. (1929– ), From so Simply a Beginning, p. 12, Norton, 2006.

Hmmm ... sounds like Mayr and Wilson - two very high-profile Evolutionists - also recognized a distinction between operational and historical science. Oops!


Not that I expect any retractions or apologies from the TWeb howlers
referred to above - they'd rather chew off the hind foot caught in the 'trap'.

Jorge

"Not that I expect any retractions or apologies from the TWeb howlers
referred to above - they'd rather chew off the hind foot caught in the 'trap'."

Prediction fulfilled!!!

WOW!!!

I just finished reading the responses to my post above. Talk about REVISIONIST HISTORY! I'm certainly not going to waste my time seeking the many posts (if the old TWeb posts were still here, these would number into the hundreds) where historical vs. operational science was ridiculed and called a "Creationist invention". Now, as if by magic, that never happened ... now it has to do with OTHER things that I've talked about.

Yes, of course, now why didn't I think of that?

I have indeed spoken of other things here such as 'evolution' vs. 'Evolution' and others. I've always made considerable efforts to make my meaning clear on these things - hundreds of posts. That you people refuse to accept the truth is your problem - don't try to make it mine.

Your childishly-transparent revisionism is hereby identified and exposed for all to see.
.
.
Time for another "break" from you people - I can only take so much.

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

I have indeed spoken of other things here such as 'evolution' vs. 'Evolution' and others. I've always made considerable efforts to make my meaning clear on these things - hundreds of posts. That you people refuse to accept the truth is your problem - don't try to make it mine.

Jorge

All these years and Jorge still doesn't get that "it's true because I said it's true!!" will never cut it in a scientific discussion.

[klaus54]

All these years and Jorge still doesn't get that "it's true because I said it's true!!" will never cut it in a scientific discussion.

You forgot the "insult and retreat" strategy when he's run out of ammo (always with a little projection thrown in):

Your childishly-transparent revisionism is hereby identified and exposed for all to see.
.
.
Time for another "break" from you people - I can only take so much.

K54