Historical Science vs. Observational Science
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-01-2015, 03:27 AM
RE: Historical Science vs. Observational Science
(01-01-2015 09:53 PM)0ptimusPr1me Wrote:  I hear many apologists and Ken Ham use this argument to discredit, or cast doubt in people's minds about what we can know about the age of the earth and even the fossil record. They basically say it we can't KNOW about things that happened that far in the past because we weren't there to observe them in real time therefore compromising the reliability of the scientific method.
Can someone speak to this, or point me in the right direction? I'm sick of not having a good response to this. Thanks.

Point out the fact that, by that reasoning, they don't know shit about Jesus and everything else in the Bible. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
03-01-2015, 03:59 AM
RE: Historical Science vs. Observational Science
(01-01-2015 09:53 PM)0ptimusPr1me Wrote:  They basically say it we can't KNOW about things that happened that far in the past because we weren't there to observe them in real time therefore compromising the reliability of the scientific method.

It is reasonable to apportion belief according to evidence. The judge and jury are never present at the time a crime is comitted. Yet they can secure a conviction based on the evidence. This is reasonable. Therefore it is unnecessary to be at the time of the incident to reach a reasonable conclusion.

8000 years before Jesus, the Egyptian god Horus said, "I am the way, the truth, the life."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 06:38 AM
RE: Historical Science vs. Observational Science
Creationist nonsense, and more science rubbishing.

I think it's an attempt to set up the false dichotomy that we either know everything about something, and know it 100% accurately, or we know nothing at all about it. Then they swoop in with their arrogant full knowledge of God and his antics.

Not that different from Si Ten or whatever he's called, getting the atheist to admit to the problems of solipsism, then claiming to be able to sidestep them with his revelation.

Apologetics are liars and tricksters, the only question is whether they are also lying to themselves. Truth doesn't need tricks.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2015, 06:40 AM
RE: Historical Science vs. Observational Science
Edited

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2015, 08:45 PM
RE: Historical Science vs. Observational Science
(01-01-2015 11:54 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  There goes the Bible.

By this standard, we can't reliably know anything prior to about 1900. There are no living eye-witnesses, so the reign of Queen Vicky can't be backed up. That only sounds absurd because we're starting with a ridiculous premise. There's no magical dividing line between the 'reliable' past and the 'unreliable' past. Millions of years ago are just further into the past.

What's worse is that we don't even have to go to the past to get foolish. The overwhelming majority of science isn't done by direct observation. We fire atoms down the flight tube of a mass spectrometer and get the composition of a sample. No human sense ever measures them. Hell, even something as straight forward as taking a temperature goes out the window. A thermometer doesn't display a temperature, it displays the height of mercury in a calibrated glass tube.

Almost every measurement that we take requires deductive reasoning and inference. The fact that the data was preserved at some point in the past doesn't make it any different.

You beat me to the punch. Well said.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2015, 08:51 PM
RE: Historical Science vs. Observational Science
There is only science. It matters not if it is "historical" in nature or "observational."

Both are ultimately observational, but one version is based on observation of direct and indirect evidence and the other is based on direct and indirect evidence in the present.

Geology is based on modern observations, and it uses observations in the rock record to reconstruct the past. It is still direct, it just isn't happening in real time (in the sense that you aren't actually watching the minerals form or the sediments lithify).


Basically the AiG argument is complete BS, it seeks to split science into strawmen versions of itself and then attacks the strawman it creates. That strawman is either this splitting of science, or claiming that there is macro and micro versions of evolution.

What is important to note is that it doesn't matter what criticisms AiG has of science or evolution and geology more specifically, the onus is still on them to support their own claims in their religion. If they did manage to disprove evolution and the whole of modern science, they still have not proven their religion.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
05-01-2015, 09:30 PM
RE: Historical Science vs. Observational Science
Ham never saw his god create the fucking earth, either. Think he applies that standard to his shitty bible?

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2015, 10:15 PM
RE: Historical Science vs. Observational Science
(05-01-2015 09:30 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  Ham never saw his god create the fucking earth, either. Think he applies that standard to his shitty bible?

Survey say...

Of fucking course not.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2015, 05:34 AM
RE: Historical Science vs. Observational Science
(05-01-2015 10:15 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(05-01-2015 09:30 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  Ham never saw his god create the fucking earth, either. Think he applies that standard to his shitty bible?

Survey say...

Of fucking course not.

If I had a nickel. The argument used is not how it is worded. What he is going for is not people today, but people period. To him god is the ultimate witness, there for god was there to see him self create the earth for ham. So the question can't be used on him because he does have a witness.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2015, 05:53 AM
RE: Historical Science vs. Observational Science
(06-01-2015 05:34 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(05-01-2015 10:15 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Survey say...

Of fucking course not.

If I had a nickel. The argument used is not how it is worded. What he is going for is not people today, but people period. To him god is the ultimate witness, there for god was there to see him self create the earth for ham. So the question can't be used on him because he does claims to have a witness.

And can't produce the witness either Drinking Beverage

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: