We cannot test or repeat a supernova, but still harvest reams of data about the process, neutrinos, isotope production, shock waves, and more than I can bring to mind, all from observing the event. This is not a repeatable experiment, but still surely counts as observational science - which is why telescope facilities are called observatories.
1 Like
Actually according to cosmologist Dr John Hartnett, ācosmology is not scienceā. When it comes to bodies in the distant cosmos, we donāt have access to them and cannot experiment on them, so a lot of such speculations fall short of being operational science.
Galileoās astronomical observations supporting a heliocentric solar system is not real science?
1 Like
Dr. John Hartnett is not a cosmologist. He appears to be a retired engineer. You have to stop relying solely on creationist sources, as they have a tendency to misinform.
8 Likes
All of it is bogus science, Iām afraid. You have to stop relying solely on creationist sources. Think for yourself. Read the actual scientific literature.
4 Likes
Itās not an āargument.ā Itās mountains of evidence that creationists canāt explain, so they deliberately and dependably ignore it and misrepresent that evidence as vague āsimilarity.ā
Sound familiar? Iāll bet you have the straw-man āargument from similarityā cued up.
That avoidance would appear to be yet another falsification of his claim to merely interpreting the same evidence differently, no?
But what about when it comes to doing experiments on peacocks to test sexual selection hypotheses? Thatās both evolutionary and āoperational,ā at least by the definition youāre using right now.
Iām concerned about you carrying those goalposts around for so long.
Yes, and every time he cites people instead of evidence, he falsifies his own claim that creationists are merely interpreting the same evidence differently.
I do and I have. It supports Sanfordās thesis.
Which actual scientific literature are you referring to there, specifically? Certainly everything Iāve published precludes any YEC explanations.
Sanfordās presentation of the lifespan decay curve in his book Genetic Entropy, was so mathematically misleading that I would consider it to be unethical. It was too doctored to be merely inept.
5 Likes
Remind me to come back to this in a dedicated thread sometime.
What scientific evidence do you have that continents moved and mountains rose during the flood?
Both old earthers and young earthers agree that those things have happened, they just disagree on the speed and timescale.
Everyone: please stop deviating from the main topic. Not every thread that @PDPrice participates in should devolve into a general free-for-all about YEC. The topic here is supposed to be about the claimed distinction between historical vs. observational science.
7 Likes
Thereās a dedicated thread for your YEC science right here.
For some reason you have nothing to post there. 
As with all these disputations YEC has with scientific rates, once again in mainstream science we have a empirically measured observational range of rates of tectonic plate movement. YEC, which harps on about the distinction between observational science and historical science, has NO observational science to back the possibility of the claimed movements which are several orders of magnitude faster and would probably melt the earth [ if the accelerated radioactive decay has not already vaporized it ]. YEC is not science, be it observational or historical, it is their brand of theology. It is not about interpreting evidence for the past, but dismissing evidence.
Where in the primary scientific literature is Sanfordās ādecreasing age of the Biblical patriarchsā data which was offered as āevidenceā for genetic entropy?
1 Like
All very nice, but heās avoiding that too. Further, itās relevant, since heās denying that everything refuting YEC can be āobservational scienceā.