I’ve seen both in the literature but, yes, you’re right that operational is usually used when it’s just the two categories (that’s what I should’ve used). However, I’ve even seen the breakdown to origins vs. historical vs. observational vs. experimental. By “observation,” I assume the (YEC) person means observation of present-day events, as opposed to “observing” past events (not simply observing data). (And experimental would mean actually going into the lab and reproducing.) This is their way of downplaying so-called historical sciences and/or amassing more presuppositional baggage at that level.
I referenced the Haarsma and Haarsma book above. AiG has tried to distance themselves from this dichotomy being a creationist invention. And, at times, the distinction has been assumed by those responding to YEC (this article makes the point you did).
I guess I’m thinking strategically in interacting with YECs. If we just say “no, there’s no difference,” they can point to others who occasionally make the distinction. But if we say, “well, yes, there are differences in such and such, but it’s not the sharp distinction (or clash of worldviews) you’re trying to make it out to be. Both types of science are empirical, follow the scientific method, and produce reliable results.”
Timothy, I don’t mean this rudely, but this will be my last reply to you. Although I am a person who actively seeks out and engages with challenges to my beliefs (I’m determined to not “live in a silo”), and one who thrives on criticism (it makes me a better person), I’m also not one who has a need to defend myself. And more importantly I don’t see you as an individual worth dialoging with. It didn’t take me very long here a PS to come to that conclusion. BTW part of that was your list of three questions you feel I’m required to answer.
I’m sure you’ll find plenty of others to dialog with here.
You seem pretty committed in your fight against us pesky “ID-Creationists”. I wish you the best of luck with those endeavors!
No worries. I didn’t expect you to provide any answers. Creationists like you have been dodging questions about your blustering claims for decades. You’re just the latest to make empty boasts and run. I’ll just keep posting scientific rebuttals every time you post more vacuous YEC nonsense same as I do to PDPrice. Your silence and refusal to engage the science will send everyone reading the message of how scientifically worthless your YEC claims are loud and clear!
Any other YEC out there want to take a shot at answering these questions? Despite being asked politely jeffb has admitted he can’t.
What is the scientifically determined age of the Earth in years +/- error range? I’m looking for a numerical value, not just “it’s young” or “it’s not that old”.
What is the scientifically determined date of Noah’s Flood years +/- error range? Again I’m looking for a numerical value, not just “it happened”.
What is the scientifically determined boundary layer between Noah’s Flood deposited sediment and pre-Flood bedrock? References to published geology papers appreciated.
No one is asking you to defend yourself, just your claims. If you claim there was a global flood, or the creation of the earth was recent, then you must support these claims with good evidence. Its that simple.
We haven’t seen you defend your YEC claims here, but Tim offers science-based rebuttals to YEC claims on PS on a regular basis. Its you that we have to decide if its worth dialoging with, since you are yet to fully engage with other parties on topics here.
There is nothing wrong in being committed to refuting pseudoscientific claims.
This YEC model uses the Friedmann metric and leaves the tau value of time a free parameter which could easily be a value of 6000 years and we still get to witness a vast universe just like the one we see. The only constraint is the beginning temperature of the system as tau values change. Other competing YEC models do basically the same thing as this one, so take your pick.
I like what Tas Walker posted today where standlines in Gilazi Valley, Azerbaijan might very possibly place an upper date on the global Flood at 9600 years ago.
That is an ongoing investigation and a YEC matter of debate, but that is how science works. I like a lot of what Oard has to say below. But we also know that Cretaceous limestone shows that half the globe was covered in water simultaneously in the past (BTW, another strong evidence of global flooding). I am still undecided about the boundary but all the serious YEC discussions about it are very scientific, make no mistake.
Well I do have to admit, you have a valid point here Michael. Plus I really wasn’t trying to be rude. (although it might have sounded that way, and for that I do apologize).
But I do believe it’s worth being selective with who one dialogs with. I’m over 50 now, and have wasted far too much time in the past on dialogs that were completely unfruitful.
As for me not fully engaging with others; Like I mentioned, I’m still pretty new here and may limit my engagement for a bit…
@jeffb, discussions here are in many ways more like bulletin board conversations than dialogues: while there might be 5 active participants in a thread, there are likely 10x as many ‘lurkers’ interestedly reading the discussion. I guess another image is a public debate, but it’s much less structured than that. I find that ‘writing for the lurkers’ rather than attempting dialogue with a couple of specific interlocutors can make it easier to stay focused on evidence rather than on personalities.
