A frequent contributor in many bombastic threads in the Natural Science made the following comment in a post (emphasis mine).
Question for y'all: Do YECs make a distinction between "origins" and "historical" science?
To me it seemeth that they are very different concepts.
"Origins" to me implies "ultimate origins" -- e.g., the origin of the singularity for Big Bang theory. The origin of matter and energy. The question of whether our Universe formed from colliding "branes" or perhaps is one of a (possible) infinity of Hubble Spaces.
"Historical" science to me includes the geologic record. The record in the genomes. The astronomical record of Deep Time due to a finite c. The many many astronomical and geologic events that (apparently!) occur at wildly different times.
I believe a writer that I quoted referred to the later as "forensic science" -- and that is a great analogy since everything happens in the past.
So, is the implied equivalence of the terms "origins science" and "historical science" yet another YEC canard?
K54
Originally posted by A frequent NS participant
To me it seemeth that they are very different concepts.
"Origins" to me implies "ultimate origins" -- e.g., the origin of the singularity for Big Bang theory. The origin of matter and energy. The question of whether our Universe formed from colliding "branes" or perhaps is one of a (possible) infinity of Hubble Spaces.
"Historical" science to me includes the geologic record. The record in the genomes. The astronomical record of Deep Time due to a finite c. The many many astronomical and geologic events that (apparently!) occur at wildly different times.
I believe a writer that I quoted referred to the later as "forensic science" -- and that is a great analogy since everything happens in the past.
So, is the implied equivalence of the terms "origins science" and "historical science" yet another YEC canard?
K54
Comment