Show of HandsShow of Hands

citethesource February 9th, 2014 8:46pm

Is there a legitimate distinction between "historical science" and "observational science"?

12 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

Alph4omega
02/09/14 8:38 pm

I think I'll have brain damage due to the number of facepalms I had whenever Ham spoke

Reply
Alph4omega
02/09/14 8:39 pm

can't we just put these young earth creationists into an airlock and remove all the oxygen from it?..

inthehole
02/09/14 11:22 pm

Sounds like Hitler.

NatlTurkey Virginia
02/09/14 7:49 pm

If we came from British people, then why are there still British people?

Reply
NatlTurkey Virginia
02/09/14 6:27 pm

According to Ken Ham, if you didn't watch his debate with Bill Nye, it didn't happen.
"Were you there derp derp?"

Reply
Maynard Londor
02/09/14 8:00 pm

Ken Ham is a joke. He used an article that just got published a few weeks ago, that hadn't had a chance to be falsified yet, and called it evidence against evolution. Don't call your self a scientist, if your not going to act like one.

ThePhlegm The Lone Star State
02/09/14 2:56 pm

Isn't historical science archeology and observational science chemistry and physics?

Reply
citethesource Socialist and Atheist
02/09/14 8:40 pm

That's not what Ham and YEC mean by it. What they apparently mean is any time you draw a conclusion about the past from the present, it is invalid "historical" science. Radiocarbon dating? Historical. Geological record? Historical. Core samples?

citethesource Socialist and Atheist
02/09/14 8:42 pm

Historical.

It's is a false, made-up distinction to give YEC a way to accept scientific advances (like electronics), but not accept information that goes against their worldview.

I've read too much about this today.

fourwinds box of rain
02/09/14 2:56 pm

Lmao no. Just no.

Reply
Zod Above Pugetropolis
02/09/14 2:13 pm

Not when used in a scientific sense, but often the term "historical science" gets used in a way that implies it is in some way different than observational science.

scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/07/27/historical-and-observational-science/

Reply
susanr Colorado
02/09/14 3:16 pm

Thanks for that link. I was actually baffled about the two phrases; I don't think I've seen that particular phrasing before (although the concept isn't foreign to me). I was feeling sort of left out, as a scientist. Now I know why.

146787456777 .......
02/09/14 2:04 pm

Every time Ham said "historical science" I found myself thinking what does that even mean??? It makes absolutely no sense at all. who ever heard of "historical science? I honestly think he made it up.

Reply
zman117 Ohio
02/09/14 2:06 pm

He changed the meanings of a few terms, and yet he kept saying that others were the ones doing the high jacking.

citethesource Socialist and Atheist
02/09/14 2:08 pm

I was in the same boat, so I thought I would post a question and ask. Then, TeaPartier said evolution isn't science and I realized that it's just bullshit of the highest grade to fertilize unhinged fundamentalist denial.

I knew it was bad,

citethesource Socialist and Atheist
02/09/14 2:09 pm

...just not quite that bad.

zman117 Ohio
02/09/14 1:56 pm

It's right up there with "micro evolution" being different than "macro evolution".

Reply
TeaPartier Dont Tread on Me
02/09/14 1:55 pm

Evolution is not science. It's atheistic religion. So to answer the question, Yes there is a huge difference.

Reply
citethesource Socialist and Atheist
02/09/14 1:57 pm

And you are an ignorant fool wading fully submerged in confirmation bias.

I hope you do not have children that you can hinder with such backwards, anti-science, anti-reason views.

zman117 Ohio
02/09/14 1:59 pm

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

HayleyS looking up.
02/09/14 2:11 pm

Evolution is atheistic religion???? What?

zman117 Ohio
02/09/14 2:18 pm

Atheistic religion is crazy enough. But the fact that evolution is not science, it's actually.... I don't even know. I'm confused.

146787456777 .......
02/09/14 2:21 pm

talk about an oxymoron...

osouless Whats Next
02/09/14 2:28 pm

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! Teapartier that was the funniest post ever. I need a laugh thanks!

palindrome California
02/09/14 3:01 pm

what the fu....?

citethesource Socialist and Atheist
02/09/14 1:50 pm

This false distinction is an example, in my opinion, of the great lengths some people will go to protect their cherished beliefs, in direct opposition to all available evidence and reason. It's highly absurd, but some feel it is their unbeatable

Reply
zman117 Ohio
02/09/14 2:04 pm

I lost count how many times Ken Ham used it in the debate the other night. He kept harping on it. And like you said, every time he used it in his presentation he truly thought it was a winner.