Observational Science Vs Historical science?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-03-2014, 03:05 PM
Observational Science Vs Historical science?
Ken Ham has a pattern of going historical science vs observational science. Ken uses this so that when something about the past in history is found that destroys his lie he can just say it is historical science and you weren't there. However Ken Ham and his followers don't know what the actually definition of observation is. It is also Ken Ham trying to sneak in something else he can use, something in which if anyone found out he would realize that his lie would be in trouble for it.

Observation has about 5 definitions. Dictionary.com gives these definitions of observation.

1.
an act or instance of noticing or perceiving.
2.
an act or instance of regarding attentively or watching.
3.
the faculty or habit of observing or noticing.
4.
notice: to escape a person's observation.
5.
an act or instance of viewing or noting a fact or occurrence for some scientific or other special purpose: the observation of blood pressure under stress.

Watching is only on thing you can do to make an observation. However what his followers doesn't know that definition number 5 is the one science is used for. The evolution of life in the past is used for scientific purposes based on similar traits of certain organisms, which is why transitional fossils are so important.

Now what is Ken Ham really going for? Well it is actually eyewitness accounts for scientific discoveries that he is going for. Rainbow Vomit Sorry this tactic makes me sick. We all know eyewitness testimony is the worst type of evidence. However it makes creationism look better for Ken Ham seeing as how he can say that humans have been around when time began because god created them. However eyewitness
testimony can be subjective and many times can't be verified with other sources.

It is a good tactic Ken, but it fails when you realize the actually definition of observation.

[Image: birdevolutionpc2.gif]
This was made based on observationsBig Grin

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] ♪僕は恐怖の一定した状態に住んで、不幸、逃すもう?僕は、それはもう痛いときも気づかないと
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2014, 03:06 PM
RE: Observational Science Vs Historical science?
There is no such thing as historical science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like donotwant's post
11-03-2014, 03:13 PM
RE: Observational Science Vs Historical science?
And the easiest way to slap Ken Ham is to say you weren't there either when it comes to his ark, etc. Where's the ark Pig boy?

Check out my atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WillHopp's post
11-03-2014, 03:25 PM
RE: Observational Science Vs Historical science?
(11-03-2014 03:13 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  And the easiest way to slap Ken Ham is to say you weren't there either when it comes to his ark, etc. Where's the ark Pig boy?

The problem is Will is that christians like Ken can say we have faith, but they know we don't use faith. It is a win for them because they can use the faith and someone who was always there excuse.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] ♪僕は恐怖の一定した状態に住んで、不幸、逃すもう?僕は、それはもう痛いときも気づかないと
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2014, 10:30 PM
RE: Observational Science Vs Historical science?
That's when I tell them they have no leg to stand on because EVERYTHING they spout comes down to faith and that isn't a virtue, it's a crutch.

Check out my atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WillHopp's post
11-03-2014, 11:06 PM
RE: Observational Science Vs Historical science?
Apparently Ken Ham does not "believe" in the use forensic evidence in criminal investigations then; he only believes in eye witness testimony. Well, Ken, how do you know the bible is true....were you there?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: