Summations Only

Yes it is. I am talking about what 'science' means. By definition this is a semantic argument. One of the complaints I have already raised in this thread, it's nice you concur. Well thank you for verifying my comment. If you have a different version than I know, please illuminate me. You have given no such argument. And again, thank you for confirming that you are not interested in a Creation Theory, you are interested in building any knowledge. You are just trying to falsify evolution.To do this though, you need to be scientific and you need the theories and mechanisms for how these built in alleles came about and how you know this.The argument fails against evolution through not understanding evolution. I'll give you that it is in the right direction of science to try and falsify evolution, but this argument simply doesn't work. I would be surprised if you could find many creationist scientists who would admit that all they are doing is trying to falsify evolution, they usually pretend to have their own theory somewhere that they have evidence in favour of. Then the design argument is philosophy and not science. It doesn't falsify evolution, evolution acknowledges an explanation for the design is needed and explains the designer in such great detail that you are able to construct an argument about allele frequency loss to try and falsify it.You guys don't have any theory that allows for this.Your idea makes no risky predictions, can never be wrong and explains anything and everything.There's no positive scientific thing related to Creationism. It's simply criticism and trying to fit the evidence to a pre-existing story.Creationists criticize evolutionists for changing the stories. That's science, the story changes as the theory is perfected and as the evidence is accrued. The story is dependent on the evidence, on the theory. Yours is not. Whatever the evidence, you'll find a way to make it look like its consistent with your story. Either it is not relevant, or it was a powerful and destructive force or it was a gentle flow whatever you need whenever you need it. It's not science. Story:

quote:

---

A narrative or story is any report of connected events, nonfiction(actual) or fiction(imaginary), presented in a sequence of written or spoken words, or still or motion picture|moving images

---

History is about stories. It's all stories. I've missed it. Whenever a creationist says something like this to me I like to ask a question, it goes something like this:Marsupial mice exist
Placental mice exist
They look very similar to one another
Yet they are more genetically different from one another than Humans and Cows are.All of this is observed and documented.Evolution's explanation is well known and public knowledge.
What's yours?Remember, [qs]And it does.{tie into a coherent whole}
It has to be a coherent whole. Your explanation can't be ad hoc, it has flow naturally from your existing theory. Or that theory is bunk and you need a new one. Well it's something, but it's a negative position, a lot less positive than Dawn's intent in this thread. Or alternatively, I understand them well enough to understand this is not true. Did either one of us saying this help? You misunderstand. I was talking about traps in reasoning. Faulty human reasoning that leads to faulty conclusions. I get that you think evolution is the result of faulty reasoning. Fantastic. I can give you true science explanation for the marsupial problem above. Can you give a true science explanation that does not involve humans being related to cats? It had been established, and embraced by many, long before the world wide web. You've basically admitted it a variety of times in a variety of ways. All you have is sniping at evolution and a philosophical argument. I think that's a nice conclusion to your argument.All I've got from you that attacks evolution is that alleles diminish as the breed becomes 'superfocussed' (or whatever), and you've made little attempt to address the source of new alleles. Merely waving them away as impossible or improbable.You haven't even day dreamed about a friend of yours having a nightmare about almost putting a dent into a theory that evolution once knew in high school.Why don't you apply this theory to the marsupial problem, see if it gives you any answers - evolution provisions me with a fairly natural answer to this question

Very interesting picture. Sandstone? Suggests my original thought about the "blobby blob" picture, that these particular deposits were in lumps and blobs rather than strata, perhaps because there was not enough water or not enough sediment to make layers, just enough for the blobs -- or something like that. There would still have been the effect of the receding Flood waters and the subsequent carving by normal weathering nevertheless.But that is not a layer of the Geo Column. It certainly looks like it was originally saturated with water though, a mass of wet sediment like a lump of shapeless clay except in this case it's sand (?), that got plopped down on top of the strata.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sorry for the lateness of my response, got busyModulous writes "I'll tell you what. Since you are having a tough time. I'll concede. What you did was science.
The science of biology.
Which nobody disputes."Now notice class first Modulous claimed we were not doing science.
Then I asked him to demonstrate that even if not as complicated and involved as the SM that what we were doing WAS NOT SCIENCE.Now knowing that he cannot do this, he cannot do the impossible, he he turns his inabilty to do this into an insult.Now in debate this is known as an evasion. He knows he cannot extricate himself from that request to do the impossible, so in a very insulting sad way, he turns it into a halfhearted lie.That is so sad that when someone has been avoiding truth in general areas, that he can't even admit small obvious truths in a honest manner.So since I dont think Modulous is a simple person, I'll have to assume he's dishonest and probably not a good person in general.So now he admits it's science. The Science of biology.Well that's was not my point. My point was that any investigation and in particular the one involving creation science, was itself also scienceHaving established that fact, which any honest person would have already conceded, we now know that the Process and Method of Creation Science IS indeed on an equal footing with the So called SM to support each of its tenative conclusionSo we ask, what is the problem?If the conclusion of the evolutionary process IS science, it's natural conclusion, is things are here by Natural Causes, yet there is no Direct evidence for that conclusion,How does any of our Methods differ from the SM, to exclude it as a teachable item in the classroomNow we will give Modulous another impossible task, in this instance, to show why there is any reason to exclude creation science as a teachable tenet in the classroom.Now we will see if he actually and fairly deals with the the points of my next question, keeping in mind he has agreed what we do IS actually scienceI mean you've heard that expression, " Its not Rocket Science"
But does that means it's not scienceAnd BTW if one wonders why I'm forcing him to answer these questions, I'm show in the Science in creationismYour up ModulousEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

And you think wet sediment would have stood up like that? Normal weathering doesn't go that fast. It is in fact part of a layer in the geological record.---I don't even see how your fantasies about deposition are meant to work. Are you yourself forming any sort of mental picture, or are you just typing words?

Thank you for having the grace to apologize, even as I politely advise there's no need to do so. I claimed that

quote:

---

We deduce evidence of a creator from intricate design in nature

---

Relies on logic that is disputed, and still is. I said that the indirect vs direct stuff is irrelevant to science, and I pointed out that something being evidence for something doesn't mean you have science going on.My views on these things have not changed during this thread. I accepted the conclusion of the existence of a designer in my first post, Message 274, when I said that "Minor premise 2: We don't know the designer of life" is disputed. I'm pretty sure we do know. Evolution. Right from the outset. In Message 300 I conceded "life is designed." and suggested we figure out the nature of the designer. I dismissed the argument as so trivial that calling it science wasn't merited, and if you insist that noticing we have feet is science then whatever, it's not going to help you anyway. Unless you decide to jump over those hidden premises and leap to an unwarranted debate position? That's as far as you've gone so far. Your argument is too broad to be specialised better than that. To be honest, it's really natural philosophy, but I'm feeling generous we can call it biology.There's no creator in it so calling it creation science at this point is obviously nonsense. We've discussed one investigation. You haven't tied it to creation science. That is not adequate data upon which to arrive at a general claim that ANY investigation involving the subject of creation is science.I can disprove the claim thusly:I am looking into the tealeaves to determine the existence of Adam's bellybutton. I see...an anchor....a sailboat....and by the uniform that looks like a Lieutenant
Junior Grade....hrm, it appears Adam must have had a navel.Is this science? I investigated the subject of creation. If it is not your goal is doomed. That a design and a designer can be concluded using science has been established, and that's all. The fact of a designer was never in dispute with me. Nope.So far you haven't done any creation science. You've observed design and the need for a designer. That's pre-Creation science stuff, it's the fundamental setup to the Creation Science. Now we've established that there is something that needs to be explained, you need to provide your explanation so we can see if you are still doing science.You don't get to make an argument about one thing, and shoehorn an entirely different elephant into the room. Sorry about that I don't know. We did all that science stuff, the whole kit and kaboodle. Not just the stuff people who hadn't invented toilet paper had figured out for themselves, but way more besides. Now you bring up some ancient philosophy and we look at you skeptically and say 'So what is the problem?' It doesn't and it isn't. The methods of Observation and Inference from the evidence are taught in the classroom. It might work in an RE class.There's no science to teach in a science class.So....does that resolve the 'impossible task'? It does not mean it is not science. It means it isn't difficult.You can do simple science if you like.
Just for the love of your designer, please start. I think I answered them all, even though you accuse me of being a liar, jeopardising the chances of maintaining any good faith. As a gesture to restore good faith, perhaps you could answer the questions I've been raising. Balls in your court, has been since I first conceded a designer exists and its nature needs an explanation. 200 creationist posts and nothing yet....Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This thread was titled "The Science in Creationism," by a creationist no less. Nonetheless, there has been no demonstration that creationism qualifies as a properly constructed scientific theory or hypothesis. What instead has been attempted is a re-defining of what "science" is and the predictable attacks on the theory of common ancestry.Since Dawn's incoherent posts -- which lay waste to rather elementary rules of grammar and verbal logic -- appear to make manifest the poor state of education in much of the U.S., I will direct most of this summation to my various exchanges with Faith.First, there is the consistent presumption that the appearance of design is in itself evidence for rational design. However, the appearance of design is merely an observation; it cannot be evidence of anything in particular since both teleological and non-telic processes can produce structures and systems that look designed.The example of irreducible complexity was raised by Faith; yet I dismantled this argument thusly:(1) First, there are -- in principle -- natural processes which can produce irreducibly complex systems without the presence of agency. For example, a river can eventually bore a hole through rock and produce an arch. An arch, if functioning as a bridge, is irreducibly complex (remove a chunk of the arch and the whole thing collapses) -- yet natural, non-telic processes produce arches all the time.(2) Within biology itself, there are many examples of systems that can easily become irreducibly complex through the elimination of functional redundancy. I pointed to the ExbB-ExbD system in cyanobacteria (Message 358) as just such a system that could rather easily become irreducibly complex without the intervention of agency.Thus we see that irreducible complexity can not only be created by Neo-Darwinian evolution, but also that this can occur despite the fact that irreducibly complex systems "look designed." This, in turn, means that the mere appearance of design is not evidence for agency; it is, instead, simply an observation.We have also seen, throughout this thread, a prominent theme: Faith doesn't at all have a strong background in genetics and molecular and cell biology. This is an important point, because it is representative of the overall intellectual laziness that is prominent among those who deny various scientifically supported theories (such as anti-vaxxers, GMOs-are-horrible-horrible-things proponents, etc.).In short, despite the fact the Faith only has a high school understanding of the relevant biological disciplines, Faith has chosen to outright deny the scientific strength of the modern evolutionary synthesis. But Faith does this from a position of ignorance, not knowledge; she could not understand herebdragon's example of cytochrome c and why it refutes the common design argument for molecular nested hierarchies -- despite the fact that all the terms used by herebdragons are rather rudimentary (electron transport chain? That's basic stuff I learned in high school). So despite being an active participant on this forum for several years (AFAIK), Faith has apparently not done much in the way of real learning of biology, instead trusting in her elementary understanding of the most basic biology.At this point, I could go on and on about the nature of scientific inquiry, what constitutes scientific evidence, and why the evidence for common descent rivals the evidence for the atomic theory of matter or germ theory. But here I will take a different approach.I have no particular ideological attachment to accepting common descent or rejecting creationism. Indeed, I openly acknowledge that there are parts of the biotic world which may be better explained by agency.So why do I accept common descent? The enormous mountain of evidence in its favor aside, it's really simple really. When it comes to genomics research, creationism would leave me absolutely blind. On the other hand, the theory of common descent continues to hold tremendous explanatory power. I will provide a brief example here. Most of this will likely go over your head, Faith; I trust you have the intellectual fortitude to read up on the relevant disciplines -- as I am not an educator, and you're not a high school student anymore.Without getting too technical, if a given phylogeny of a prokaryotic protein does not match the consensus phylogeny of bacteria phyla (based on rRNA and highly conserved proteins), there are two main explanations from the perspective of common descent: (1) that these proteins were horizontally transferred and thus their phylogeny is a reflection of horizontal transfer rather than vertical descent; (2) that there were gene duplications and subsequent losses, leading to a scenario wherein the protein tree does not wholly match the species tree.We can test these two competing evolutionary models using a variety of bioinformatic approaches. One way to test the validity of the horizontal gene transfer model is to compare the G+C content of the genes under consideration with the genomes from which they are thought to have been transferred from. If the G+C content matches, then this would indicate they originally came from the genome of some other bacterial clade. On the other hand, if the G+C content does not match, then the gene duplication + loss scenario becomes much more likely.So the common descent model offers these two competing hypotheses, and a way to test these hypotheses. I've done (and published) research on prokaryotic flagellar and other systems; and over the course of this research, I have tested the horizontal gene transfer model against the gene duplication + loss scenario. In this particular line of research, the G+C content of the genes hypothesized to have been horizontally transferred match the G+C content of their "host" genomes to a statistically significant degree -- exactly what would be predicted under the HGT model.Now, creationism would leave me absolutely blind. This is not because I am operating under a common descent paradigm; it is, rather, because creationism has no workable model. Creationism attributes molecular similarity to "common design." How, then, am I to account for gene similarities that do NOT match most hierarchies of gene similarities? I cannot invoke horizontal gene transfer, as that would imply evolutionary descent, as would the gene duplication + loss model. What, then, am I to do?On the one hand, I have a working theory that leads to two competing alternatives; I can rigorously test these alternatives against each other, with the predictions of one of the models being perfectly confirmed.On the other hand, if I invoked creationism, I would be at a loss for an explanation. I could not make any predictions regarding G+C content; and if the G+C content of the genes match the G+C content of some other "host" genomes, I could not make sense of this, either, under the creationism model.All of this is my way of shining light on why exactly I reject creationism; it's not because I have an ideological bent towards rejecting creationism. Rather it is because it is horrible as an explanatory framework for the biological world; meanwhile, common descent continues to make sense of everything from protein sequence data to disease prediction to vaccine development. It simply works. And that's science.

Of course not. It got carved into that shape after it was hard enough. Why do you always assume some ridiculous explanation like that? I think it got calculated somewhere at EvC for the hoodoos quite some time ago. No problem at all to carve those shapes in 4500 years. It's without the compaction that makes layers, it's without the form of a layer, nowhere near it, it's just the shell of the remains of a deposition that never became an actual layer. I'm always visualizing my arguments. You just always invent ridiculous scenarios for me.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I admit defeat. You win.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well the problem is that you're teetering between two ridiculous explanations. The less work you give the flood to do, the more work you give erosion to do. In order to find out how exactly you wish to make yourself look ridiculous, I have to ask. Yes, there is in fact a problem. The hole in Stevens Arch is 220 feet wide and 160 feet high. So just to make the damn hole, leaving aside all the other erosion required, you'd need half an inch of erosion per year. In which case (for example) a brick-built house in Garfield county would last less than a decade before its walls had been entirely destroyed by aeolian erosion. I have no idea what you think you're talking about. The Navajo sandstone is a well-established stratum. It spreads across four states, Faith, and has a maximum thickness of 700m. And that arch is part of it. Really? Can you draw us some pictures? You give me too much credit.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I give up.You win, Genomicus wins, Mod wins, HBD wins, and I hope I haven't left anyone out. Oh jar wins, PaulK wins, Tanypteryx wins, ThinAir wins, Coyote wins, and all the others I've forgotten.Thank you all for the opportunity to try to make my case. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Truth wins. Evidence wins. Reason wins. Consistency wins.JB

And me! But yeah, I'll admit to having a little help from the facts.

Truth and reality do have a habit of winning it seems. Often fantasy is nice but science actually works and the old earth geology explains what is really seen and the Theory of Evolution explains what is really seen while Creationism and Young Earth never succeed in explaining anything that actually exists.

Modulous writes"Relies on logic that is disputed, and still is. I said that the indirect vs direct stuff is irrelevant to science, and I pointed out that something being evidence for something doesn't mean you have science going on."Well that makes no sense and is typical of someone clinging to a Method that is extreme in nature.Modulous writes
"I accepted the conclusion of the existence of a designer in my first post, Message 274, when I said that "Minor premise 2: We don't know the designer of life" is disputed. I'm pretty sure we do know. Evolution. Right from the outset. "And the conclusion of evolution is disputed right from the outset.
Knowing about evolution gets one nowhere.
So If you don't know you conclusion, either your not doing science or both of us areModulous writes:
"That's as far as you've gone so far. Your argument is too broad to be specialised better than that. To be honest, it's really natural philosophy, but I'm feeling generous we can call it biology.
There's no creator in it so calling it creation science at this point is obviously nonsense."Again the presumption of the Scientific Method Modulous. I don't need to go any further, my position and evidence don't need to be specialised, anymore than the conclusion of "evolution".I don't need to be anymore sciency for design to be a observable demonstratable fact. If you don't like it's natural conclusion complain to reality not meNow if you could show in comparison with your process and conclusion, Why I need to have more science or do more elaborate science for my process or conclusion to be valid, then by all means
Feel free to do soJargon and verbiage are not helping youModulous writes"We've discussed one investigation. You haven't tied it to creation science. That is not adequate data upon which to arrive at a general claim that ANY investigation involving the subject of creation is science."More jargon to complicate simple issues. Of course it's adequate data to establish a valid proposition and conclusion
Of course I've tied it to design, hence the very probable conclusion of a designer
One investigation is sufficientModulous writes: "I can disprove the claim thusly:
I am looking into the tealeaves to determine the existence of Adam's bellybutton. I see...an anchor....a sailboat....and by the uniform that looks like a Lieutenant
Junior Grade....hrm, it appears Adam must have had a navel."Well that sure showed me.
Seriously ModulousModulous writes
"Nope.
So far you haven't done any creation science. You've observed design and the need for a designer. That's pre-Creation science stuff, it's the fundamental setup to the Creation Science. Now we've established that there is something that needs to be explained, you need to provide your explanation so we can see if you are still doing science."Making stuff up Modulous won't help you, there is no such thing as pre-creation science. Its IS science or it is not. Since it is it is as valid as any conclusions drawn by evolutionI don't need complicated science to demonstrate axiomatic truths. I never stopped doing scienceModulous writes:
"might work in an RE class.
There's no science to teach in a science class.
So....
does that resolve the 'impossible task'?"Well I think you missed the point. You have no possible way to make the Science in creation Go Away. Talking it away doesn't help
There is nothing wrong with its premesis, it's process or its conclusion
Claiming its not sciency enough doesn't work. You simply need to make its actual components Go Away
But the you might as well claim that Things in existence don't actually exist
When I said your task was impossible, it still is.
I'm sorry you don't like it's conclusions or the very valid processesModulous writes
"Balls in your court, has been since I first conceded a designer exists and its nature needs an explanation. 200 creationist posts and nothing yet...."I've seen nothing yet that eliminates the deduction of design and the logical process of how it's established
It's not complicated
And it's really that simple
But if you think Ibe missed something
Please in Simple uncomplicated English present it