[Fester Chugabrew]

You cannot reasonably assert definitions of science most scientists would consider childishly silly.

On the contrary, you cannot assert human science extends beyond what humans have been able to observe first hand and report. Where assumptions are made regarding past or future events, the human mind is all there is, and the human mind according to the story of evolution, wasn't around 4.5 billion years ago.

[VadeRetro]

Where assumptions are made regarding past or future events, the human mind is all there is, and the human mind according to the story of evolution, wasn't around 4.5 billion years ago.

Which would reduce the claim that the Earth was just cooling from its accretion 4.5 billion years ago to the status of "some kind of guess or speculation." This is a very uninformed position. To disallow the inference of the Hadean Earth, you have to throw out astronomy, nuclear chemistry, and various other multiple lines of evidence that the whole solar system was formed 4.5 billion years ago (versus 14 or so billion years for the universe as a whole).

To go there, you have to really want a Young Earth. It means that the laws of physics we observe now are a fluke of recent times, or just an illusion. You have disallowed any sort of forensic reconstruction of past events from present evidence. YECs happily accept the bargain. None of that stuff is important.

[donh]

On the contrary, you cannot assert human science extends beyond what humans have been able to observe first hand and report.

I note that you are avoiding answering my questions so that you can be pinned down as to what, exactly, consititutes "first hand observation".

I think you can rest assured that many fossils have been recovered "first hand" by archaeologists, and that their chronological placement in the fossil record due to their morphological configuration has been achieved by first-hand observation of relative congruities between forms, as well.

How does this differ from investigating conjectures about how semi-conductor configurations behave, using oscilloscope signals in the nanosecond range? Can you detect signals that occurs in a few nanoseconds with your eyes, or your bear hands? Your perceptions basically don't exist in the nanosecond range so you can only read an oscilloscope signal long after what it measured actually occured. How can you claim to be making "first hand" observations when you read a high speed oscilloscope?

Or do you now contend that anything I read off a high speed oscilloscope can't be science?