Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Is "Origins" Science differ from (to) "Historical" Science?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    It sounds almost like the distinction is between observation and inference. After all, observations are always inferences based on a model of some lower level of abstraction. We watch apples fall, and we infer gravity. We measure gravity directly, and we infer gravitons or some other underlying cause. If it were not for inferences, science could not make predictions, since predictions are derived from a model constructed of inferences from prior observations. Experiments are not only means by which less ambiguous observations can be made, they are tests of hypotheses arising from a model. Confirmation by others helps verify (but not necessarily validate) the model. Model construction and test is common to all types of scientific observation.

    Of course, we all know the problem here is that a means must be found to invalidate models (regardless of how well supported) which are theologically uncongenial. But why try to fabricate an operational/historical distinction when it's much easier (and far more honest) to divide models into godly and ungodly categories? A scientific litmus test is problematic because all observations recede into the past from the moment they are made, and all inferences are based on past observations. A theological litmus test is much easier, since one need only decide whether one's theology can tolerate a given inference. In much the same way that Stalin listened to each Shostakovich symphony before the first public performance to decide whether the music was politically correct.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by rwatts View Post
      So heliocentricism (at least before the invention of the satellite) would have been in the same basket as historical science. Atomic theory, before the invention of the electron microscope would have been likewise classified as historical science. Stellar fusion theory is equivalent to historical science. As is any theory dealing with the origin of the earth's magnetic field.

      Any theory dealing with microevolution of organisms in the wild is likewise historical science.
      This isn't too hard - except for those that are 'blinded' by false ideologies. Listen ...

      In each of those that you mention, here are a few questions to ask: "Are we today able to directly observe the phenomenon in question? Can we repeat our observations? Can we conduct sound, honest experiments to support our observations and the theories that we derive from them?"

      Compare the answers to those questions today with the answers from, say, the 13th century.

      The bottom line is that you will that some fields of human inquiry contain elements of both operational science and historical science. And that's okay. What is not okay is when the two are packaged and sold as if it were ALL operational science. Enter Evolution, stage right.

      Jorge

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
        This brief reply is for others since I regard you as a lost cause (at least for now - there remains hope that God may 'lightning-bolt' you out of your present state). My response ...

        There's no doubt that there is a substantial difference between origins (/historical) science and operational science - only the uniformed or intellectually dishonest would ever question this. Succinctly, in operational science we always find present and direct (i.e., 'hands-on') observation. We are able to perform repeatable experimentation and the results may thus be confirmed by others. None of that may be done in origins (/historical) science.

        As summarized above, origins science and historical science are different from operational science. But why are origins and historical sciences different from each other? Are they different from each other? Yes, there is a difference. Origins science is seeking/studying Primary causes (in the philosophical sense of the term) whereas historical science is seeking/studying Secondary causes (again, in the philosophical sense of the term).

        Whether it's origins science or historical science, sound logic and methodology are practiced just as in operational science. It is the spatial-temporal location of the subject matter that forces the differences.

        As a final comment: the modern "education" systems leave students completely in the dark on such topics. I believe that this is one of the reasons why so many get bamboozled into believing things such as 'Evolution'.

        Jorge
        So "origins" science and "historical" science are the same thing?

        Gotcha.

        Thanks for clearing this up! I hope the participants and lurkers take note of this reptilian YEC apologist linguistic trick.

        So conjectures about multiverses and colliding branes and oscillating universes are on the same level as paleontology, radiometric dating, data from SN1987A 160Kly distant, wildly varying erosional states of mountain belts, meteor craters in various degrees of apparent age, measured movement of the Pacific Plate over a Hot Spot and the correlation with the Hawaiian Islands and the Emperor Seamount chain, ... and millions of other consilient observations?

        Really?

        I guess ANYTHING that indicates the Cosmos is much older than Earth and that both older than 10Ka is verboten, nicht wahr?

        K54

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
          This isn't too hard - except for those that are 'blinded' by false ideologies. Listen ...

          In each of those that you mention, here are a few questions to ask: "Are we today able to directly observe the phenomenon in question? Can we repeat our observations? Can we conduct sound, honest experiments to support our observations and the theories that we derive from them?"

          Compare the answers to those questions today with the answers from, say, the 13th century.

          The bottom line is that you will that some fields of human inquiry contain elements of both operational science and historical science. And that's okay. What is not okay is when the two are packaged and sold as if it were ALL operational science. Enter Evolution, stage right.

          Jorge
          Yes, we can repeat our astronomical observations by finding more supernovae ans proto-star systems. And we can repeat our paleontological observations by continuing to find more and various fossils, we can continue to date minerals, we can continue to observe ice cores and the stratigraphy of rock cores, we can predict where petroleum might be found from the paleoenvironmental conditions observed in rock structures, we continue to observe directly the movement of the lithospheric plates and their correlation with ancient structures (e.g. correlation of stratigraphy from the UK to New England), we can continue to replicate in the lab the conditions for sulfide mineral origin (I used to work in a lab with rocking autoclaves for high temp and pressures simulation hydrothermal conditions.), etc., etc., ...

          Your ignorance/fideism/arrogance/reptilian rhetoric does not obviate the evidence of Deep Time and History.

          Pure and simple.

          K54
          Last edited by klaus54; 08-02-2014, 02:06 PM. Reason: typos

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
            So "origins" science and "historical" science are the same thing?
            Stanley Miller's experiments[1] would definitely qualify as "origins" science[2], but were definitely not "historical" science.

            Roy

            [1] and the subsequent follow-ups using different chemical compositions
            [2] if any such thing existed
            Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

            MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
            MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

            seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Jorge View Post
              This isn't too hard - except for those that are 'blinded' by false ideologies. Listen ...

              In each of those that you mention, here are a few questions to ask: "Are we today able to directly observe the phenomenon in question? Can we repeat our observations? Can we conduct sound, honest experiments to support our observations and the theories that we derive from them?"

              Compare the answers to those questions today with the answers from, say, the 13th century.

              The bottom line is that you will that some fields of human inquiry contain elements of both operational science and historical science. And that's okay. What is not okay is when the two are packaged and sold as if it were ALL operational science. Enter Evolution, stage right.

              Jorge
              Jorge?

              You claimed that:-

              Originally posted by Jorge
              Succinctly, in operational science we always find present and direct (i.e., 'hands-on') observation. We are able to perform repeatable experimentation and the results may thus be confirmed by others. None of that may be done in origins (/historical) science.
              Stellar fusion theory claims that when you get a gadzillion tons of hydrogen and helium gas, it will self gravitate into a sphere such that the internal pressure becomes large enough to build up a high enough temperature such that continual fusion reactions between the hydrogen ions occur.

              Can you tell me who has actually directly observed:-

              1) fusion reactions occurring in the centre of the sun, and

              - can you tell me who has actually repeatedly:-

              2) Gotten a gadzillion tons of hydrogen gas together to see if this actually happens?

              No one has and so according to you, this cannot be operations science.

              Ditto with heliocentricism. Before the invention of the satellite, no one could have directly seen the earth orbiting the sun. Before the invention of the electron microscope, no one could have directly seen an atom. (And even now it's a moot point that we directly observe atoms.)



              Here are two experiments dealing with macro evolution:-

              Replaying evolutionary transitions from the dental fossil record

              From dinosaurs to birds: a tail of evolution

              a. These are repeatable experiments are they not?
              b. They involve observations that can be repeatedly made, don't they?
              c. Both are about processes that happen now. (No one thinks that evolution stopped some time yesterday). Am I correct?
              d. The experiments are in the present, correct?
              e. Others can perform the same experiments or similar experiments to confirm the ideas of those who did both experiments I link you to above, right?
              f. Like stellar fusion theory, the subject of the theory itself cannot be directly observed, but evidence for its reality is observed and used to test ideas about it and confirm the reality of the process, correct?

              Like all those sciences I mentioned in my list, direct observation of the theory is not had. Rather, direct observation of the data is made, and these data are used to repeatedly test the theory, and these tests and tests like them can be repeated, and confirmation (or otherwise) had.

              If direct observation of the theory itself was the sole criterion, then we would not need scientists. Everytime we wanted to know something, all we would need do, according to you, is go and look, and if it were not directly observable then there is nothing scientific we could say about it.. This is why creationist acceptance of microevolution in the wild, is bunk. It's why their acceptance of speciation is bunk. We infer that these happened after the event. That is, we infer that these happened in the unobservable past.

              It's for these reasons you, and other creationists don't know what you are talking about. Your opposition to evolution is purely ideological. You have no coherent and consistent understanding of science.
              Last edited by rwatts; 08-02-2014, 04:03 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                Yes, we can repeat our astronomical observations by finding more supernovae ans proto-star systems. And we can repeat our paleontological observations by continuing to find more and various fossils, we can continue to date minerals, we can continue to observe ice cores and the stratigraphy of rock cores, we can predict where petroleum might be found from the paleoenvironmental conditions observed in rock structures, we continue to observe directly the movement of the lithospheric plates and their correlation with ancient structures (e.g. correlation of stratigraphy from the UK to New England), we can continue to replicate in the lab the conditions for sulfide mineral origin (I used to work in a lab with rocking autoclaves for high temp and pressures simulation hydrothermal conditions.), etc., etc., ...

                Your ignorance/fideism/arrogance/reptilian rhetoric does not obviate the evidence of Deep Time and History.

                Pure and simple.

                K54
                Exactly.

                And when creationists claim to accept that microevolution happens in the wild, and that speciation happens in the wild, they suddenly abandon all their objections to macroevolution. We infer that this microevolution and/or speciation happened after the event. Creationists never directly watch it happening. They only "know" about it after it happened. And this is because they directly observe the evidence which allows them to infer that it had happened.

                But its all in the unobservable past, the very objection they raise against macroevolution.

                Besides, who on earth thinks that evolution actually stopped sometime in the past?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by rwatts View Post
                  Exactly.

                  And when creationists claim to accept that microevolution happens in the wild, and that speciation happens in the wild, they suddenly abandon all their objections to macroevolution. We infer that this microevolution and/or speciation happened after the event. Creationists never directly watch it happening. They only "know" about it after it happened. And this is because they directly observe the evidence which allows them to infer that it had happened.

                  But its all in the unobservable past, the very objection they raise against macroevolution.

                  Besides, who on earth thinks that evolution actually stopped sometime in the past?
                  The key is the YEC axiom "Elohim created everything no more than 10Ka."

                  As per the AiG oath of allegiance that paraphrased states, any scientific theory that explains anything that appears older than that CANNOT BE TRUE.

                  The AKJV1611 sez it, I believe it, end of story.

                  K54

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by rwatts View Post
                    Jorge?

                    You claimed that:-



                    Stellar fusion theory claims that when you get a gadzillion tons of hydrogen and helium gas, it will self gravitate into a sphere such that the internal pressure becomes large enough to build up a high enough temperature such that continual fusion reactions between the hydrogen ions occur.

                    Can you tell me who has actually directly observed:-

                    1) fusion reactions occurring in the centre of the sun, and

                    - can you tell me who has actually repeatedly:-

                    2) Gotten a gadzillion tons of hydrogen gas together to see if this actually happens?

                    No one has and so according to you, this cannot be operations science.

                    Ditto with heliocentricism. Before the invention of the satellite, no one could have directly seen the earth orbiting the sun. Before the invention of the electron microscope, no one could have directly seen an atom. (And even now it's a moot point that we directly observe atoms.)



                    Here are two experiments dealing with macro evolution:-

                    Replaying evolutionary transitions from the dental fossil record

                    From dinosaurs to birds: a tail of evolution

                    a. These are repeatable experiments are they not?
                    b. They involve observations that can be repeatedly made, don't they?
                    c. Both are about processes that happen now. (No one thinks that evolution stopped some time yesterday). Am I correct?
                    d. The experiments are in the present, correct?
                    e. Others can perform the same experiments or similar experiments to confirm the ideas of those who did both experiments I link you to above, right?
                    f. Like stellar fusion theory, the subject of the theory itself cannot be directly observed, but evidence for its reality is observed and used to test ideas about it and confirm the reality of the process, correct?

                    Like all those sciences I mentioned in my list, direct observation of the theory is not had. Rather, direct observation of the data is made, and these data are used to repeatedly test the theory, and these tests and tests like them can be repeated, and confirmation (or otherwise) had.

                    If direct observation of the theory itself was the sole criterion, then we would not need scientists. Everytime we wanted to know something, all we would need do, according to you, is go and look, and if it were not directly observable then there is nothing scientific we could say about it.. This is why creationist acceptance of microevolution in the wild, is bunk. It's why their acceptance of speciation is bunk. We infer that these happened after the event. That is, we infer that these happened in the unobservable past.

                    It's for these reasons you, and other creationists don't know what you are talking about. Your opposition to evolution is purely ideological. You have no coherent and consistent understanding of science.
                    You never - absolutely never - grasp anything unless it is explained to you in childlike terms. Additionally, what I detect is that instead of wanting to seek the truth of a matter, you are far more interested in 'tripping-up' people like me so as to promote your ideological agenda. That was the primary reason why I stopped responding to your posts for a long while. It is time to follow that wisdom, but first ...

                    Here you speak of the "fusion inside the sun". Listen child: obviously no one has observed that. But fusion has been 'observed' here on Earth and in fact reproduced in the laboratory and in the H-bomb. That is direct, repeatable and palpable. All the rest follows from applying certain assumptions, maths and logic to theories. For example, that "gravitational self-collapse is able to create a fusion reaction is NOT something that has been observed" - it is a purely theoretical conclusion and its acceptance is partly ideological, not scientific. The same may be said of SETI and a great many other "scientific" enterprises.

                    I shan't be responding to your stupidity for a while but you may feel free to have the final word.

                    Now kindly keep out of my way.

                    Jorge

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                      You never - absolutely never - grasp anything unless it is explained to you in childlike terms. Additionally, what I detect is that instead of wanting to seek the truth of a matter, you are far more interested in 'tripping-up' people like me so as to promote your ideological agenda. That was the primary reason why I stopped responding to your posts for a long while. It is time to follow that wisdom, but first ...

                      Here you speak of the "fusion inside the sun". Listen child: obviously no one has observed that. But fusion has been 'observed' here on Earth and in fact reproduced in the laboratory and in the H-bomb. That is direct, repeatable and palpable. All the rest follows from applying certain assumptions, maths and logic to theories. For example, that "gravitational self-collapse is able to create a fusion reaction is NOT something that has been observed" - it is a purely theoretical conclusion and its acceptance is partly ideological, not scientific. The same may be said of SETI and a great many other "scientific" enterprises.

                      I shan't be responding to your stupidity for a while but you may feel free to have the final word.

                      Now kindly keep out of my way.

                      Jorge
                      So Jorge:-

                      Originally posted by Jorge
                      But fusion has been 'observed' here on Earth and in fact reproduced in the laboratory and in the H-bomb.
                      1) You admit that fusion in the sun has not been directly observed. Fusion in a lab and an H bomb are not direct observations of supposed fusion in the sun.

                      2) Observing fusion in a lab simply proves that if it happens in the sun then an intelligent designer must cause it there too. (Nothing to do with gravity, pressure and temperature). Isn't this an oft make argument by creationists and IDers? That is, when an evolutionist claims to have demonstrated something about evolution in the lab, this is really evidence that and ID (God) actually did it.

                      3) We do observe gene duplication, nested hierarchies, protein functional redundancy, transposons, mutation bringing about new genetic functionality, and other things in the lab. What makes you think that we do not? These are great evidences for macroevolution, just like fusion reactions in labs and H bombs are evidences for fusion reactions inside stars. (BUT lab fusion and H bombs are not fusion reactions inside stars.)


                      Originally posted by Jorge
                      For example, that "gravitational self-collapse is able to create a fusion reaction is NOT something that has been observed"
                      So when did you or anyone observe a gadzillion tons of hydrogen gas causing fusion reactions at the unobservable core or that mass of gas? Before the invention of the electron microscope, when did anyone observe an atom?

                      And don't you believe that a gadzillion tons of hydrogen gas can self-gravitate? If you think this cannot happen, then what keeps the sun together? It must surely rip itself apart because of radiation pressure if self-gravitation does not occur.

                      Originally posted by Jorge
                      Listen child: ... you are far more interested in 'tripping-up' people like me ...
                      You have no coherent or consistent argument against the points I/others make. You never have.

                      Originally posted by Jorge
                      I shan't be responding to your stupidity for a while but you may feel free to have the final word.

                      Now kindly keep out of my way.
                      Don't be such a coward.
                      Last edited by rwatts; 08-02-2014, 05:38 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Jorge,

                        This pretty much sums it up, dunnit?

                        K54


                        Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                        The key is the YEC axiom "Elohim created everything no more than 10Ka."

                        As per the AiG oath of allegiance that paraphrased states, any scientific theory that explains anything that appears older than that CANNOT BE TRUE.

                        The AKJV1611 sez it, I believe it, end of story.

                        K54

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                          You never - absolutely never - grasp anything unless it is explained to you in childlike terms. Additionally, what I detect is that instead of wanting to seek the truth of a matter, you are far more interested in 'tripping-up' people like me so as to promote your ideological agenda. That was the primary reason why I stopped responding to your posts for a long while. It is time to follow that wisdom, but first ...

                          Here you speak of the "fusion inside the sun". Listen child: obviously no one has observed that. But fusion has been 'observed' here on Earth and in fact reproduced in the laboratory and in the H-bomb. That is direct, repeatable and palpable. All the rest follows from applying certain assumptions, maths and logic to theories. For example, that "gravitational self-collapse is able to create a fusion reaction is NOT something that has been observed" - it is a purely theoretical conclusion and its acceptance is partly ideological, not scientific. The same may be said of SETI and a great many other "scientific" enterprises.

                          I shan't be responding to your stupidity for a while but you may feel free to have the final word.

                          Now kindly keep out of my way.

                          Jorge
                          We want it explained in adult-like terms.

                          Bald-faced projection.

                          Ever heard of a t-Tauri protostar/star? These HAVE BEEN OBSERVED.

                          BTW, we're you there to see YHWH Elohim dictate the Pentateuch to Moses?

                          You weren't? Hmmm...

                          Sounds like a double standard to me.

                          Our side has it a lot easier -- we can observe "historical" scientific data over and over and over and over again. Why you ask? FYI, the speed of light is finite and Hutton's Laws of stratigraphy -- for good general examples.

                          K54

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Jorge,

                            Is this how you talk to your Primary Sunday School children at your local GARB Church?

                            K54

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                              We want it explained in adult-like terms.

                              Bald-faced projection.

                              Ever heard of a t-Tauri protostar/star? These HAVE BEEN OBSERVED.

                              BTW, we're you there to see YHWH Elohim dictate the Pentateuch to Moses?

                              You weren't? Hmmm...

                              Sounds like a double standard to me.

                              Our side has it a lot easier -- we can observe "historical" scientific data over and over and over and over again. Why you ask? FYI, the speed of light is finite and Hutton's Laws of stratigraphy -- for good general examples.

                              K54
                              For Jorge, processes in the past can never leave things in the present for us to observe and measure, and thereby test our ideas against.

                              What's funny is that he will accept the assertion that the Bible is the word of God, even though its writing is a series of past events and he was never there to observe whether or not God had a hand in any of its authorship.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by rwatts View Post
                                For Jorge, processes in the past can never leave things in the present for us to observe and measure, and thereby test our ideas against.

                                What's funny is that he will accept the assertion that the Bible is the word of God, even though its writing is a series of past events and he was never there to observe whether or not God had a hand in any of its authorship.
                                Then what DOES he do with all these data? How can he honestly ignore them?

                                The key word is "honestly".

                                K54

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X