The Definition of Real Science

[civic]

Mt St Helens also produced the "mini Grand canyon"

Q: Could the Mount St. Helens eruption be a model of how the Grand Canyon was formed?

In 1980 the Mount St. Helens volcano blew lots of mud and debris into a valley and completely blocked the Toutle River. Twenty-two months later the lake that had built up behind the mud dam got too full and flowed over the top. In less than nine hours, the roaring water cut three miniatures “Grand Canyons.” One was 140 feet deep, 1,000 feet wide, and 2,000 feet long.

Exactly

 

[CrowCross]

And common sense is not how science works. Using common sense will make you miss those things that run counter to common sense, like the earth rotating around the sun, for starters.

Perhaps....but it is common sense that for something to fossilize it has to be buried quickly....or it will rot away, get scavenged or scattered.

Next time you come across a dead bird...come back in a week or two and tell me what happened to the bird.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Perhaps....

Thin soup.

but it is common sense that for something to fossilize it has to be buried quickly....or it will rot away, get scavenged or scattered.

Assuming for the sake of argument that that is always true, it's not because of common sense, but because of empirical observation and investigation. Now, observation and investigation may then become entrenched, so to speak, and pass into common sense, but it's not the common sense doing the heavy lifting, it's the (scientific) observation and investigation.

Next time you come across a dead bird...come back in a week or two and tell me what happened to the bird.

So what? What is your claim such that we're discussing it in an evolution forum?

 

[CrowCross]

Thin soup.


Assuming for the sake of argument that that is always true, it's not because of common sense, but because of empirical observation and investigation. Now, observation and investigation may then become entrenched, so to speak, and pass into common sense, but it's not the common sense doing the heavy lifting, it's the (scientific) observation and investigation.


So what? What is your claim such that we're discussing it in an evolution forum?

The common sense is easily demonstrated by empirical observation and investigation.

How's your dead bird coming along?

 

[Frank Robert]

Just pointing out the political influence has on education, brther.

Woke has nothing to do with education except in the minds of people who are looking for political gain with "hate your neighbor" campaigns, like a governor who has been described as particularly unique dislikeable person by members of his own party. Thank the heavens that he keeps dropping in the polls.

 

[Frank Robert]

FOSSILIZED TREES CUT THROUGH MILLIONS OF YEARS OF ROCK LAYERS

So those "layers of millions of years" of solid rock had to be formed by a great deluge burying them all in that way.

A polystrate fossil is a fossil of a single organism (such as a tree trunk) that extends through more than one geological stratum. The word polystrate is not a standard geological term. This term is typically found in creationist publications.

Scientists interpret polystrate fossils as fossils buried in a geologically short time span - either by one large depositional event or by several smaller ones. Geologists see no need to invoke a global flood to explain upright fossils. This position of geologists is supported by numerous documented examples of buried upright tree-trunks that have been observed buried in the Holocene volcanic deposits of Mount St. Helens.

Polystrate fossils are not unique to any particular geological period or environment. They have been found in rocks of all ages and from all over the world. This suggests that they are not the result of any single, unique event.

Source...

Creation apologetics is not evidence for a young earth

 

[Gus Bovona]

The common sense is easily demonstrated by empirical observation and investigation.

Just as easily as it is denied by observation and investigation, which therefore makes it a poor determiner of scientific claims.

How's your dead bird coming along?

Obvious point about dead birds is obvious.

 

[CrowCross]

A polystrate fossil is a fossil of a single organism (such as a tree trunk) that extends through more than one geological stratum. The word polystrate is not a standard geological term. This term is typically found in creationist publications.

Scientists interpret polystrate fossils as fossils buried in a geologically short time span - either by one large depositional event or by several smaller ones. Geologists see no need to invoke a global flood to explain upright fossils. This position of geologists is supported by numerous documented examples of buried upright tree-trunks that have been observed buried in the Holocene volcanic deposits of Mount St. Helens.

Polystrate fossils are not unique to any particular geological period or environment. They have been found in rocks of all ages and from all over the world. This suggests that they are not the result of any single, unique event.

Source...

Creation apologetics is not evidence for a young earth

Your argument...there are no plystrate fossils...except for where they are.

Should we now move on to recumbent folds?

 

[Frank Robert]

Your argument...there are no plystrate fossils...except for where they are.

Should we now move on to recumbent folds?

We are talking past each other with your emphasis on apologetics and mine on scientific evidence. Apologetics is a way of defending religious beliefs, but it does disprove scientific theories. Perhaps the best way to understand them is to understand that science and religion are different ways of knowing, and they can be complementary.

Polystrate fossils are found in many parts of the world, including: Joggins Fossil Cliffs, Nova Scotia, Canada. This is one of the most famous locations for polystrate fossils, and it is home to a large number of upright tree trunks that extend through multiple layers of rock.

 

[CrowCross]

We are talking past each other with your emphasis on apologetics and mine on scientific evidence. Apologetics is a way of defending religious beliefs, but it does disprove scientific theories. Perhaps the best way to understand them is to understand that science and religion are different ways of knowing, and they can be complementary.

Polystrate fossils are found in many parts of the world, including: Joggins Fossil Cliffs, Nova Scotia, Canada. This is one of the most famous locations for polystrate fossils, and it is home to a large number of upright tree trunks that extend through multiple layers of rock.

Science has and can be used to support biblical accounts. Now I don't expect to see that an axe float being proven by science, but when a world wide flood is mentioned I expect to see the results of such a flood....and when scientist look they see it.

 

[Frank Robert]

Science has and can be used to support biblical accounts. Now I don't expect to see that an axe float being proven by science, but when a world wide flood is mentioned I expect to see the results of such a flood....and when scientist look they see it.

There are likely some biblical accounts that could be support by science. However, I am unaware of any scientific evidence for a worldwide flood or a young earth. Perhaps you have a link to a scientific journal presenting such evidence and how it came about.

 

[CrowCross]

There are likely some biblical accounts that could be support by science. However, I am unaware of any scientific evidence for a worldwide flood or a young earth. Perhaps you have a link to a scientific journal presenting such evidence and how it came about.

ChristB4us posted an excellent video here. You might want to check it out if you haven't seen it already.

 

[Gus Bovona]

ChristB4us posted an excellent video here. You might want to check it out if you haven't seen it already.

I didn't see anything in that video that makes it scientific (which is what Frank was asking for). There were no references to previous scientific works that discussed the topic (the only references I saw were biblical ones), especially articles or books that disconfirm what the video claims. There was no presentation of where the supposed data and facts came from. Without all that, it's not science.

 

[ChristB4us]

I didn't see anything in that video that makes it scientific (which is what Frank was asking for). There were no references to previous scientific works that discussed the topic (the only references I saw were biblical ones), especially articles or books that disconfirm what the video claims. There was no presentation of where the supposed data and facts came from. Without all that, it's not science.

Do you ever practice the real science of observation as actually looking at the evidence or do you always rely on a scientist to do that for you?

 

[EarlyActs]

The definition of real science is what can be observed and proven.

The phenomenon of macroevolution has never been observed nor proven as they do not know the method that causes it for it has never been observed.

What makes a scientific theory valid?

When the phenomenon has been observed in the real world.

Evolutionists roll out the scientific theory of gravity as they hold an object in the air & let go to see it drop to demonstrate the phenomenon of gravity.

This is an example of switch & bait tactic, hoping nobody notice they are not giving an example of macroevolution to observe that phenomenon in the real world.

Some do ask them to give an example of macroevolution, but instead, evolutionists gives an example of microevolution BUT the lizard is still a lizard and a bird is still a bird. That is what the Law of Biogenesis is about as life does not comes from nothing, but life comes from similar life, thus disproving spontaneous generation and along with it, the core of the evolution theory which is macroevolution.

The evolution theory is a false science as they coined microevolution from the Law of Biogenesis, while the devil is hoping you do not see the difference when it comes to macroevolution.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

Some anti-KJVers will say "science" is the wrong word and that it should be "knowledge" but since science deals with facts as observed and proven, we are talking about real science in the same way we are talking about real knowledge.

Have you ever read Lewis "Two Lectures" in GOD IN THE DOCK? You would enjoy. "'Developmentalism' (gradualism-evolution) was made plausible by a sort of trick.".
The essay is Lewis on the chicken and the egg, and it covers all the bases very nicely, especially what you are talking about: what do we observe. We all see the egg come from the parent, but manipulative science tells us that they saw the first egg happen all by itself.

This kind of manipulation was fostered by Lyell about geology, as my essay "The World-Splitter" shows. A very important Lewis quote is the closer for that.

 

[ChristB4us]

Have you ever read Lewis "Two Lectures" in GOD IN THE DOCK? You would enjoy. "'Developmentalism' (gradualism-evolution) was made plausible by a sort of trick.".
The essay is Lewis on the chicken and the egg, and it covers all the bases very nicely, especially what you are talking about: what do we observe. We all see the egg come from the parent, but manipulative science tells us that they saw the first egg happen all by itself.

This kind of manipulation was fostered by Lyell about geology, as my essay "The World-Splitter" shows. A very important Lewis quote is the closer for that.

Thanks for sharing.

May God cause the increase.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Do you ever practice the real science of observation as actually looking at the evidence or do you always rely on a scientist to do that for you?

For common, everyday stuff, I observe a lot; but for anything beyond that, it really takes a scientist. Even then, the common, everyday stuff can be tricky. It took scientists to contradict the common, everyday observation that the sun revolves around the earth.

 

[ChristB4us]

For common, everyday stuff, I observe a lot; but for anything beyond that, it really takes a scientist. Even then, the common, everyday stuff can be tricky. It took scientists to contradict the common, everyday observation that the sun revolves around the earth.

Real science is what can be observed and proven.

Seems laymen such as our selves can do that, sir.

You keep referring to detectives and in a lot of ways they have to do what science has to do and that is prove or disprove a hypothesis.

But nowadays, they just build hypothesis on top of another hypothesis without ever proving one of them. I call that spinning a fairy tale.

Use your common sense and the power of observation.

And if all else fails as it can when it come to those pushing a lie as if it is true, ask Jesus Christ to show you the truth in science as well as the truth in Hs words.

 

[EarlyActs]

I just completed a couple weeks exchange with a man from Europe whose view increasingly reduced to a tautology: evolution is fact, shut up and accept it. The question of micro v macro didn't seem to register with him. My 'problem' was that I was afraid of what I would find out.

Essentially, I found, it is the view that since the cell 'emerged' there is a form of 'evolution-think' in which the 'brain' of a cell keeps trying to find ways to survive and dominate. This can lead to thinking of arms or legs! But if a bear is faster and stronger than a human and would dominate, why are there humans on 2 legs?

As far as I can tell, he was not even familiar with the Cambrian explosion of fossil evidence, and several other things.

I ended up trying to see if he could understand the bird vs the egg principle, and of course, he insisted that the egg could just develop on its own. He kept sending a Tedtalk by Hancyck, in which Hancyck believes he can demonstrate cells doing 'evolving-thinking' of more and more advanced and dominating life forms. I found it naive, theoretical, doctrinaire, inexperienced, tautological. The experiment would have to work on a rock in space and you scoop a bucket from some where else, drop the substances on the rock and wait. There are no other designs or knowledge or forces or measurements allowed.

 

[EarlyActs]

For common, everyday stuff, I observe a lot; but for anything beyond that, it really takes a scientist. Even then, the common, everyday stuff can be tricky. It took scientists to contradict the common, everyday observation that the sun revolves around the earth.

It was already stated in Isaiah, about 2000 years before Capernicus. That is, the fact that the earth is just suspended in space, attached to nothing.