May 4, 2012 -- 5:37PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

 

iama:  Where does The Scientific Method state / claim that a scientists' hypothesis CANNOT arise from The Bible's historical recording re: The Creation or The Fall or The Flood or The Tower of Babel incidents?  What makes a question which a scientist has arising from what is stated in The Bible, a non-eligible "what do you want to know or explain?" or "Use observations you have made to write a question that addresses the problem or topic you want to investigate"?

Because the Bible contains no testable evidence, which is a basic requirement of the scientific method.

Did Humphreys comply with any forensic method requirements?

 

No.

May 4, 2012 -- 5:37PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

iama:  Where does The Scientific Method state / claim that a scientists' hypothesis CANNOT arise from The Bible's historical recording re: The Creation or The Fall or The Flood or The Tower of Babel incidents?  What makes a question which a scientist has arising from what is stated in The Bible, a non-eligible "what do you want to know or explain?" or "Use observations you have made to write a question that addresses the problem or topic you want to investigate"?

The Scientific Method of Investigation:

1. What do you want to know or explain? Use observations you have made
to write a question that addresses the problem or topic you want to investigate.

2. What do you think will happen? Predict the answer to your question or the outcome of the experiment.

3. How will you test your hypothesis? Develop a procedure
for a reliable experiment and address safety rules.

4. Follow the steps in your procedure to perform your experiment. Record data and observations!

5. Is the data reliable? Does your data and observations from the experiment support your hypothesis?

Yes No
Yes
_________________________________________________
Is the data reliable? Does your data and observations from the experiment support your hypothesis?
Is your data inaccurate or the experiment flawed?
____________________________________
Rewrite your procedure to address
the flaws in the original experiment.

6. Write a conclusion that summarizes the important parts of your experiment and the results.

iama: Where do you claim that Humphreys did not use the Scientific Method of Investigation regarding starlight reaching the Earth, on Day 4 of The Creation Week?

Remember that this is not OPERATIONAL SCIENCE, but HISTORICAL SCIENCE.

Did Humphreys comply with any forensic method requirements?

.

We can see the M.31 spiral galaxy in Andromeda with our own eyes when it is almost 3,000,000 light years away? 

May 4, 2012 -- 5:37PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

Where does The Scientific Method state / claim that a scientists' hypothesis CANNOT arise from The Bible's historical recording re: The Creation or The Fall or The Flood or The Tower of Babel incidents? 

The scientific method assumes that the investigator isn't a damned fool. He's supposed to start with an observed phenomenon.

iama wrote:

> Did Humphreys use the scientific method to study the past? Yes? No? Why?

No, he did not, and for the same reasons as the last time you asked that same question.  If you read our explanations as to why you are wrong, you might not have to ask the same questions over and over again without learning anything from the answers.

> Since the scientific method requires observational evidence, actually related to

> the investigation, and since The Creation of the stars / starlight / The Universe,

> is not available to us as observers,

As has been explained to you over and over again, observation of the evidence left behind by events is enough to do science; you don't have to observe the events themselves to observe the evidence left behind.  The evidence we can observe today has enough information to do extensive science on the past, and entire branches of science are based on that: paleontology, cosmology, archaeology, geology, large parts of molecular genetics, evolution, etc.  You dismiss the validity of those branches of science only because their results conflict with your religious dogma, not because of any actual problem with doing science on those fields.

You are repeating nonsense over and over when you claim that science cannot be done on anything but the present.

> did Humphreys conduct historical science?

Humpreys did not conduct science at all, due to not following the scientific method.  Do you remember any of the reasons why I claimed that?  I rather suspect not, because you didn't read it.  Nor do you intend to read my answers this time.

> I believe, that, according to The Bible, The Universe was supernaturally created to

> reveal to us, humans, "the great power and Godhead" of our Creator-God.  

That's not science, that's a personal religious belief.  You just can't tell the difference ... because learning to tell the difference would require your admitting that the branches of science you disagree with are indeed science, while the articles you keep presenting here are not science.

Now, so far you have diverted from Steven's question repeatedly with non-science and religious dogma rather than the science he asked for.  I think it is about time that you either answered Steven's question or admitted that you can't.

A scientist can be inspired by anything including the Bible to decide what to investigate.  Humpfreys is safe there.  So the first thing he should do is examine the actual evidence in that regard.

If he had honestly done that, he would find precisely what every real scientist --- Christian, atheist, pagan, Hindu, whatever -- found before him: there is no evidence whatsoever that a literal reading of the Bible depicts what really happened on Earth and a huge body of evidence illustrating that those stories didn't happen.

That's the scientific process: the evidence leads you to the conclusion. 

And that is precisely why what Humpfrey's and all the other YEC posers do isn't science at all. 

Instead of allowing the data to dictate what conclusion they draw, they invent nonsensical scenarios to eliminate all the data that doesn't fit the conclusions they already hold.  They ignore every fact we really have observed in multiple scientific disciplines to create impossible scenarios for no other reason than to pretend there is actual evidential support for their fairy tales.  But flood water can't intelligently sort its own debris; there are physical limits to how fast sediments can be laid down and lithified or a  glacier can move or erosion can take place; heat sufficient to boil away the Earth's ocean isn't really magically dissipated by Jesus Potter; a breeding pair of animals can't produce full robust populations of multiple species all around the world in a couple of hundred years.  The real world shows just how nonsensical YECism is.

Not only is what posers like Hummpfrey's do not scientific, it's not honest and its not ethical, no matter how often or how loudly the YEC rank and file bleat otherwise.

As always, the intellectually puerile YEC "model" fails again.