Is there a legitimate distinction between "historical science" and "observational science"?
I think I'll have brain damage due to the number of facepalms I had whenever Ham spoke
can't we just put these young earth creationists into an airlock and remove all the oxygen from it?..
Sounds like Hitler.
If we came from British people, then why are there still British people?
According to Ken Ham, if you didn't watch his debate with Bill Nye, it didn't happen.
"Were you there derp derp?"
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.
Isn't historical science archeology and observational science chemistry and physics?
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?
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.
Lmao no. Just no.
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.
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.
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.
He changed the meanings of a few terms, and yet he kept saying that others were the ones doing the high jacking.
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,
...just not quite that bad.
It's right up there with "micro evolution" being different than "macro evolution".
Evolution is not science. It's atheistic religion. So to answer the question, Yes there is a huge difference.
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.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Evolution is atheistic religion???? What?
Atheistic religion is crazy enough. But the fact that evolution is not science, it's actually.... I don't even know. I'm confused.
talk about an oxymoron...
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! Teapartier that was the funniest post ever. I need a laugh thanks!
what the fu....?
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
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.