Observational Science vs. Historical Science?!

[Duke Guilmon]

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.



This was made based on observations

[Whateverist]

Ken Hamm really doesn't deserve anyone's serious consideration, unless you just enjoy the spectacle of someone fluently speaking utter bullshit.

[Duke Guilmon]

Ken Hamm really doesn't deserve anyone's serious consideration, unless you just enjoy the spectacle of someone fluently speaking utter bullshit.

I do need to laugh once in a while.

[FreeTony]

The "you weren't there" line is particularly ironic when the entire Christian religion is based on an old book.

[Duke Guilmon]

The "you weren't there" line is particularly ironic when the entire Christian religion is based on an old book.

I am going into a long winded explanation but bare with me.

There is a reason why they don't worry about us using it is because they have two things. The first is "witnesses". To them people where there to witness the events of Jesus. They ask you weren't there as a statement referring to homo sapiens in general. This can be refuted by simply referring to human evolution before we became homo sapiens sapiens but after we were homo sapiens. They can argue no written history but cave drawings.

Second is faith, which is just a cop out they know we can't use do to our intellectual honesty.

[Godlesspanther]

There are other problems -- are they saying that one uses an entirely different form of science when dealing with discovery of the past? I would want to know exactly how the scientific method actually breaks down and becomes useless when dealing with questions of the past. Then I would like to see exactly how the only logical option to the useless scientific method is -- magic book-ism. Then I would like to see that magic books actually work to answer questions about the past.

[Angrboda]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jMVYdgVVgc
~ Thanks to Stimbo for the video

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

What Ham and his gaggle of knuckle-dragging slackwits don't seem to grasp (along with oh so much else) is that science depends as much on inference as it does on observation.

Boru

[MJ the Skeptical]

"Historical science" is a term used to describe sciences in which data is provided primarily from past events and for which there is usually no direct experimental data, such as cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, geology, paleontology and archaeology. The term is often misused by creationists for any science that "interprets evidence from the past and includes the models of evolution and special creation." It is used to designate those sciences which creationists have complaints about, such as evolution and abiogenesis, and is the opposite of operational or experimental science.