Summations Only

Arguing with Dawn "liar for Spock" Bertot is clearly an exercise in futility, so this is for the people actually interested in the truth. Dawn's "contradiction" is in reality a consequence of following one of the basics of science, the principle of parsimony.

quote:

---

Your so-called science does not test it's conclusion, but it has a conclusion, Soley Nature Causes. What is your direct evidence for your conclusion

---

Others have pointed out that "direct evidence" is not a requirement for scientific conclusions. Also, that the "conclusion" is a misrepresentation. But there is a greater error that completely invalidates the claim.The principle of parsimony essentially states that we should not assume additional factors unless the evidence requires them. Since it is easy to imagine any number of additional factors it is a simple matter of practicality to discount them unless the evidence provides adequate justification. Science could not work, otherwise.Since the natural processes of evolution are known to occur, because we have evidence that evolution did occur, because evolution accounts for some aspects of the "design" of living beings better than design and because we know evolution-like processes can produce "designs" we need far more than the "design" we see to assume any additional causes - supernatural or not. No additional causes are needed, given the current state of the evidence.Thus the "conclusion" is more properly stated as "at present, it appears that known natural causes are adequate". If creationists wish to claim that they are doing science in proposing additional causes it is down to them to make a scientific case for it. Complaining that the ordinary workings of science are somehow scientific is mere foolishness and must rightly be rejected.

Since it seems that I have made the mistake of underestimating Dawn "liar for Spock" Bertot's error I will correct my statement:The "conclusion" Dawn Bertot refers to is more accurately stated:
"at present, it appears that known natural causes are adequate to explain the development of life on Earth from its origins to today". Naturally "how it all started" is outside the scope of evolutionary theory, and thus evolution offers no conclusion on that matter whatsoever.

quote:

---

Well since natural processes are real they had a start or got started somehow, and's not a product of the imagination, it would in REALITY have had a beginning

---

Not only would any answer be beyond the scope of evolutionary theory, the question itself is flawed. There is no reason to assume a beginning to natural processes in general - we just don't know. And we don't need to know. Again, it is for those who propose a role for supernatural causation to bring evidence. Speculating in ares where humanity is currently ignorant is not evidence.

With all due respect, I would point out that the epithet is based on an actual event, and is given in quotes to allow for the possibility that Dawn is actually unable to understand the word "they"

quote:

---

but the POINT WAS THAT NOBODY SAID THEY HAD NO RIGHT TO DO SCIENCE BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED THE BIBLE.

---

Faith, nobody has said such a thing about you or about anyone in this thread either.What is quite obvious, though, is that you ARE putting your interpretation of the Bible above an honest interpretation of the evidence - ignoring evidence that doesn't fit, no matter how great it is, claiming things about the evidence that just don't make sense.And in fact you are putting your interpretation of your selected evidence as the only true one, despite the fact that people of far greater knowledge of both the evidence and the facts needed to help interpret it say otherwise - practically without exception. (Indeed, it was a Creationist who shot down the last "evidence" for the Flood. Nobody says that he had no right to do science - and unfortunately for your position, he did)If you want discussion and understanding you can't go around shouting down everyone who disagrees with you. You really need to explain your position, explain why your interpretation of the evidence is correct, and giving good reasons to ignore any evidence that you choose to ignore.Two examples :First, you ignore the order in the fossil record because it does not fit with your Flood conclusion. That is unscientific - ignoring such a massive piece of evidence is simply not acceptable in science (at least not without a massively overriding case, which you don't have, and likely will never have the knowledge to assemble)Second, you tell us that sequences following WLthers law are somehow evidence if the Flood. But you also tell us that we can't know what the Flood would do - which is a contradiction - and it is hardly obvious that a short-term violent Flood would produce the same results as gradual changes in sea-level, stretched out over millenia. That really needs explanation. And I haven't seen one.

Perhaps you can explain why you are so certain that reality agrees with your opinion.

quote:

---

I can't, but I have no doubt that a good understanding of what a worldwide flood would do, how it would deposit sediments, how it would sort corpses, would account for both quite well. Meanwhile there's nothing unscientific about pointing out that the evidence of water-formed strata and the fossilized remains of all the living things in the world is indeed stupendously good support for such a worldwide flood.

---

If you assume that the Flood - somehow - acted against all reasonable expectation - for no scientific reason whatsoever just to lay down the strata and fossils - not to mention the numerous other problems then they cannot be considered scientific evidence of the Flood,By everything we know scientifically the strata were laid down over a long period of time - and while most were laid down by water that is explained by water being good at depositing sediments. Likewise there is absolutely no scientific reason to suppose that the fossils are remains of creatures that died in a single catastrophe, even a world wide one (especially as the evidence shows no sign of such a catastrophe)Until your wonderful explanation turns up (which is about on the same likelihood as somebody inventing a perpetual motion machine) it is unscientific to claim that the geological and fossil records are evidence of a Flood - not least because it is a ludicrous falsehood.

quote:

---

I'm not completely oblivious to the "sedimentary record." I'm aware that the prevailing theory has to do with many transgressions and regressions of the ocean onto the land, which is constructed from clues in the sediments. It's so close to almost postulating a worldwide flood I have to suspect that the clues they are looking at could probably just as easily support such a flood.

---

Your suggestion would be wrong. First, there are terrestrial deposits. Second the evidence does not show us any point in time where the entire land surface was supposed. Third the evidence indicates that the transgressions and regression were relatively slow events (a catastrophic flood would look quite different). In short the picture painted by the evidence is only similar at a very vague and superficial level. And relying on that frankly is a mark of desperation, obviously clutching at straws.

quote:

---

Well, the "fossil record" is a construct of the ToE, so asking a Floodist to account for it is unfair in a pretty cheeky way. A Floodist has a single catastrophic event in mind that would order things quite mechanically, according to laws of course, no doubt, but mechanical laws which render the "fossil record" just an artifact of the overactive evolutionist imagination.

---

The fossil record is an observed fact. And an appeal to mechanical sorting to explain the order in the fossil record is laughably absurd. So the only one with an overactive imagination here is you. Really, why should anyone accept silly things you make up as a fact ?Really, really Faith you need to think much more careful about things instead of jumping at every excuse you can to pretend that you're right and your opponents are all irrational and wrong no matter what the evidence really says. It is arrogant and insulting - and to the extent that you do get any unfair criticism you really do invite it (much of the criticism is quite fair, and often understated) Bad behaviour has consequences.

quote:

---

The fossil record is not an observed fact, it is an interpretation of the facts.

---

Again, it is an observed fact. Fossils, and the places they are found are observed facts. I cannot understand what you are disputing here.

quote:

---

There were no terrestrial deposits. That's a misreading of the evidence.

---

The opinion of someone who has not examined the evidence, and often refuses to consider the evidence is worthless. And that is all you are offering.

quote:

---

It took five months for the flood to rise to its greatest height. While no doubt there were violent events during the Flood the overall rising of the water was not necessarily violent.

---

No. After 5 months the Ark is grounded (Genesis 7:11, Genesis 8:4), so obviously the waters are subsiding by then. In fact it seems that the high point is reached after the forty days and nights.

quote:

---

There would probably have been temporary shorelines created during its rise and fall, there would have been shallow areas at its foremost edge, deeper water behind it. In other words the conditions that are the evidence for the many transgressions would likely do just as well for the one worldwide transgression and regression.

---

Obviously it would not show multiple transgressions - and even if it were gentle, a very short single transgression is the most that could show. Which is not at all what you claim.Edited by PaulK, : Faith added another point.

Looking for excuses to say that you are right - and often failing to understand what you are saying - is no way to convince others. Nor is declaring your opinions to be unquestionable truths. Nor is sneering at anyone who tells a truth you don't like.If you can't produce good arguments - and no, declaring bed arguments to be good is not sufficient - you are not going to convince anyone. And the arrogance and the nastiness and the hypocrisy just makes it worse.

quote:

---

But it isn't a matter of actual evidence, since we all have access to the same evidence when it comes to this kind of science, it's a matter of how the evidence is interpreted

---

Except not all interpretations are equal, and there are limits on the interpretations that are even viable.Equal access to the evidence is irrelevant - you need equal support for the evidence and you do not have that, not even close.If the geological and fossil records really were obviously due to the flood then geologists woul really believe in the flood. They do not, because such an interpretation of the evidence is not viable.If it were easy to explain al, the evidence, no matter what then you would be able to do so - and you cannot - even though you have the advantage of being far less constrained by intellectual honesty or any concern for the truth. Just making things up doesn't work, as you should know by now since it has failed you so often.You know all this because you constantly have to ignore evidence, make up excuses to set aside evidence and even demand that others ignore evidence.

quote:

---

HBD, the point wasn't to come up with a rigorous definition of science, it was just to object to the theme song here that creationists are doing religion, not science, the point being that if we come up with a true understanding of the physical properties of the world we are doing science and not religion.

---

To list the problems with this:First, science does have methods, and if you follow some other method you are not doing science. At the least you would have to show that your methods are reliable (and they obviously aren't).Second, it has not been demonstrated that creationism has come up with a true understanding of the physical world.Third, by setting up certain beliefs as unquestionable fact regardless of what the scientific evidence might say creationism is clearly anti-science.Finally, your own objections to sciences that come up with conclusions you don't like become irrelevant. So long as those conclusions are true, they would be doing science by your definition. And since their conclusions are far more likely true than yours, the odds are rather against you.

quote:

---

Nothing you've said in your last two posts relates to what I was saying.

---

And there is an example of the failure of your methods. Declaring facts that contradict your claim to be "irrelevant" is hardly a good way to find the truth. Making up excuses to pretend that you are right is not an attempt to find the truth - it is an attempt to cling to error.

quote:

---

Fossil record? Pure imaginative interpretation of accidental locations of fossils.

---

Perhaps you could explain the factual basis for this claim.

quote:

---

If there are any increases in diversity they interfere with the development of the new phenotype or breed. It's perfectly logical.

---

It's perfectly ridiculous. Unlike your idealised model of human breeding, evolution has no intended form for a new species. New variations can be incorporated into the population just fine.And let us note - again - if Hunan breeding is the model for speciation why has human breeding not produced any new animal species ?

quote:

---

Yes, but it's not evolution until they are selected or otherwise reproductively isolated. That was Darwin's whole theory -- selection is what powers evolution. If new variations are incorporated into the population that's not evolution.

---

Well, I'm glad you agree that your "perfectly logical" assertion was incorrect, but you're wrong again. Mutation is the engine that drives evolution. Evolution requires a constant stream of new variation - and the evidence tells us it is there.

quote:

---

Because the theory that evolution leads to speciation is wrong. Speciation in reality is nothing but the formation of a highly genetically depleted subspecies which has lost the ability to interbreed with either the parent population or other subpopulations.

---

That doesn't answer the question. If it doesn't happen when humans drive the process, why should we believe that it happens in nature ? Human selection is much stronger than natural selection, so it should achieve the same results much faster - if selection is all there is. Just asserting that you are right is no way to answer evidence that you are wrong.

quote:

---

Agreed to no such thing.

---

"Yes" signals agreement.

quote:

---

Mutation cannot drive evolution because it adds genetic material which isn't evolution

---

That is how it DOES drive evolution. Your own argument establishes that without a source of new variation evolution would halt. How else should we describe the element that keeps evolution going ?

quote:

---

A constant stream of new variation is not only impossible...

---

Why would it be impossible ? Especially given that it is established fact.

quote:

---

...but could only interfere with evolution as Darwin understood it to be driven by selection

---

Absurd. You have never given any valid reason to suppose that new variation can interfere with evolution.

quote:

---

You know it happens in nature though. The question is why not in human breeding -- if in fact that's true across all species, and I don't know, do you?

---

Are you going to turn around and deny that speciation happens in nature now ? You've been rather insistent on it happening before.

quote:

---

I don't know, but I also don't see that it proves anything one way or the other with respect to what I'm arguing.

---

The success in establishing new varieties rather argues that human selection operates quite effectively, more so than nature typically manages. But no new species. If selection is all there is that is definitely odd. If there is more to it, then it is far less surprising.

quote:

---

But it's a good enough way of answering assertions that I am wrong, which is really all that has been offered here, not evidence.

---

The fact that the animal breeds developed by humans do not become species - even your idea of species - is evidence that you are wrong. Asserting that conventional understanding - which produces no such expectation - is wrong is hardly an answer.

quote:

---

I know it's hard to accept but increases in genetic diversity do absolutely nothing to further evolution as such

---

It is hard to accept because it is obviously false. It's simply what you want to believe.

quote:

---

To get a new subspecies still requires selecting from that genetic diversity, losing more or all of it.

---

Losing some of it, which will be replaced in future generations - if the lineage continues, as many do not. You have neither evidence nor reason on your side here.Why should it not be a shifting dynamic equilibrium - as reason tells us to expect - rather than a continuous decline

quote:

---

It's CHANGE that is considered to be evolution, change that becomes characteristic of a whole new population, subspecies, breed etc

---

Commonly, since population genetics came to the core it is "change in allele frequencies". The appearance of a new allele and its spread into the population is such a change.

quote:

---

Random scattered changes within a population are not evolution, they have to be selected from, isolated, worked through to the point of characterizing a new population. And that process reduces genetic diversity OF NECESSITY, which eventually makes further evolution impossible.

---

"Random scattered changes" are a part of evolution and permit it to continue onwards. There is no need anywhere in your argument for a continuous decline in diversity. Why should there not be a cycle of increase and decrease ? Fluctuations about a mean, rather than decline ?