Summations Only

Again, how is the fossil evidence evidence for Creationism and you do understand that what it does do is totally refute any Biblical flood or Young Earth nonsense?How is the fossil evidence evidence for Creationism?If all animals were created at the same time, why are no human fossils or human constructed objects ever found in any of the layers containing dinosaur fossils? What is the mechanism, model, process, procedure or thingamabob that explains what is seen in reality?When will any of you provide any evidence of The Science in Creationism?

There is no way to know that after dogs have split into so many different breeds, and I see no reason to know it either if you are trying to relate it to my argument. The argument is only that a reproductively isolated daughter population will lose genetic diversity as it develops new phenotypes. If the original population splits into equal parts then both will lose genetic diversity while developing phenotypes that are quite different from each other and from the original population. Whether wolves or dogs have less genetic diversity could tell you which started out with the smaller population, if the discrepancy is noteworthy, if you feel the need to know that for some reason. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But this information can also tell you the parent populations and the daughter populations.

According to you, every process of creating new breeds or new subspecies subtracts from diversity with any increases in diversity irrelevant. Accordingly the splitting off into so many different breeds cannot confuse the issue. Dogs as a whole, according to your position, must be less diverse than the population of wolves. Yet there is no evidence that such is the case. None. The evidence that does exist is contrary to your claim.You say you see no reason. I can accept that. In fact, I insist that you'll never see any reason that you might be wrong. However the reason directly flows from your own arguments. It is entirely your claim that creating a subspecies is just like creating a breed and that creating a breed requires losing diversity. If it is possible that splitting, and re-merging with wolves, genetic drift, and mutation, etc. can confuse the issue, then evolution, which includes all of those possibilities ought to be just as capable of confusing of the result. Yet according to you, that is not the case. Because... breeds.

OK, let's take a shorter route.If the production of new breeds reduced genetic diversity, then this is what we would observe when we produced a new breed.You have given no examples of this; I have given six examples demonstrating the exact opposite. This means that you are wrong.

Evolutionists are RIGHT that creationism is not science according to the way they define it nowadays. (purposefully defining it so there can be no hint of anything theist) But I would argue that it is not logically consequential, which deflates the evo-balloon. Think about it - the tactic is that evolutionists argue that creation MUST score through the, "science" hoop in order to have any validity, they do this with the apriori knowledge that nobody would ever let Creation count as science. So it's a goal they know there can be no goal scored through. "Hey guy, please kick your football through this goal hoop, and by the way, it's 1,000 foot tall." Unfortunately creationists are naive and do not see the tactic.To remove the focus from, "science" is what one must do.I also agree evolution is the best, most scientific explanation of the creation/design of animals, it's just that what I have said is the logical equivalent of this statement:"I agree that paint congealing on a canvas randomly exposed to differing temperatures and forces, is the best naturalistic explanation of the Mona Lisa."Sure - of course I can agree with that, after all, the "best" scientific explanation of something which isn't best explained scientifically is going to be an explanation that although is scientific, is nevertheless TENUOUS.The best culinary explanation for why you divorced your wife is because you did not like her cooking. But is that the reason you divorced your wife? Probability would tend to go against that, just like probability would tend to go against code creating itself naturally, when 100% of code has a cause that is intelligent design.So the relevant questions are;1. Does something have to be scientific in order to be a sound or strong argument?
Answer: no.
2. If something is a scientific explanation, is that sufficient? Answer: No.
3. If there is a scientific explanation for something, must that be accepted as the correct explanation? Answer: no.The whole thing is a semantic-game, that has creationists jumping through hoops to score a goal the evolutionist knows can't be scored through. The answer isn't to try and fit a square shape in a round slot, the answer is to say that there are other goals we can score through which are just as valid.For example, "truth" is something that matters more to people than what, "science" provides as an explanation, most of the time. If your relative was in prison and they were innocent, but an objective and scientific investigation led to a conclusion that their guilt seemed to fit the facts better, would you accept the science or the truth?People are in prison as we speak, who are innocent, and science cannot prove their innocence. The truth can and does matter more than what a bunch of self-righteous evolutionist prigs SAY matters.No - it doesn't matter if Darwin had an absurd explanation of the eyeball, because we can see that all of the thousands of parts in an eyeball, are contructed to give sight.DISCLAIMER: I am not saying that creationism has no science on it's side, a branch of creationism is intelligent design and nobody would dispute that an eyeball is designed to see, any more than a car is designed to drive, not without committing special-pleading fallacy! (for my opinion on the, "appearance" of design argument, (which is actually a WORD evolutionists use, rather than an argument. LOL.) please read my blog entry on it:Creation and evolution viewsEdited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

The best naturalistic explanation of the Mona Lisa is that it was painted by a large brained ape of the species depicted who was very good at painting.

Hey Mike, science could give a fart about creationism.It's not on any of the millions of working scientists' lists of anything remotely relevant to them. The rules of science were made for other scientists to follow regardless of discipline; if a scientist has found something that he thinks is of interest to science he must follow the rules no matter what it is. The rules have absolutely zip to do with creationists.You have a couple of ways to go with this:1. Ignore science and get on believing whatever you like.2. Show scientifically, using the rules of science, that creationism is science.Personally, I'd go with 1 if only because you've admitted that attempting 2 looks more than a bit tricky - as you say, the hoop is pretty high given what you've got, but it's the same height for everyone.

Tell it to the creationists. Then they can stop trying to play the game that they play so badly. Then we won't have to fight their attempts to foist their failed game plan on our schools.

But your assumption is wrong. ID, does start with abductive reasoning, we work from the inside out. It doesn't start with a general idea, then try to find that in things. It sees design and purpose from the internal working parts, we don't imagine itBut see thats the silliness of getting caught up in all these specifications of words, validity and soundness are enough to establish evidence, whether deductive, inductive or abductive.Falsifiability is not necessary or useful where obvious truths exist., ie the existence of things, the existence of consciousness, and design and purpose. Whether those things are real or not, actual or truthful, is not determined by whether they can be falsified, they are actual and real simply by observation and deduction. No qualifications or definitions of reasoning, ie, abductive, inductive, etc, are necessary to know this in truth .More twisting and confusion of my words, no pun intended. Well this could not possibly be true, if I am Assigning only one meaning to a word. If you wish to call an investigation something else, then you have to show by reality itself that can mean something else.You can't just ascribe a word like science another meaning, other than an investigation, which it truly what it is, then hope that meaning will you give it, will conform to realityYes I understand the difference in inductive, abductive, and deductive but I error designations are not so strict that thier meaning would change thee nature of evidence.Your goal was to show it meant anything more than an investigation in reality. But you have not done this Well this is not true. I have said from the start it is simply an investigation. I have added nothing, If so point it out.Thank you for admitting I have excluded Astrology as NOT being the same thing as Creationism and and ID. If you want to discuss these other two items, feel free to do so. Not really, since I have demonstrated it is aligned and supports, one of the only two logical possibilities of how and why things are in existence in the first place, ie,they always existed or something that always existed created those things.Wow I'd say that not only a lot more than Astrology, it is a very good indication of evidence by any standardDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I will note that this thread to show the Science in Creationism was created by Dawn Bertot after the rest of us told him that his goal was futile. In this thread, Tangle has already expressed the idea that such arguments are pretty silly. Of course just asserting things does not seem to work on a debate site. Hopefully you would follow that up by showing us how to score those other goals. Your point is well taken, but it does not go far enough. I think, given the definition of design being used here, that plenty of people would dispute such a claim. People might instead argue that an eyeball has evolved to provide a function of seeing.

What you have just described is starting with a general idea and finding that in things.

To be fair, theists are not blameless. When we went looking for God and couldn't find him, when started running tests against divine claims and they didn't pan out the predicted way...that was when the theists started talking about the inscrutable god who cannot be proven by putting his claims to test.Science tried to tighten itself up too, of course, but the priniciple reason for the change was to get rid of pseudoscientific ideas in the likes of Freudianism or Lysenkohism. Creationism was just one of many victims. No, not 'have any validity'. More like 'be called science' or to 'be taught in a science classroom as science to children'.1: All men are mortal
2: Socrates is a man
C: Socrates is mortalThis is valid. It is not science. This is not true. If, for example, someone was able to study the questions scientifically, we'd call it science. It's your hypothesis. Is God testable? Is the Creation of Life testable? Are God's methods reproducible? Agreed It depends. Sufficient for what? Agreed. It's kind of tautologous as scientific explanations are necessarily tentative. Yes. Creationists want to define their terms so that they can get their religious ideas taught to kids using the credibility science has gained for itself by being strict about what kinds of ideas pass muster.They've lost the semantic game. Creationism lost as science, because 'God' is a problematic hypothesis - so they tried ID. It turns out that even if 'the designer' is an acceptable hypothesis, they still don't meet the standards of science (Kitzmiller and this thread have shown that any attempt to define ID into a science turns Astrology into science). Their last hurrah, I believe has been "Critical Analysis of Evolution". That's Faith's position in this thread. It's their best bet towards scientific credibility. But as soon as they actually reach scientific credibility, the trajectory of their losses suggest their work will be indistinguishable in character from the scientific critical analysis of evolution that happens in journals every day. Well of course. The question is, how do we know what is true?One method we have to answer this question is called science.Science isn't necessarily true.
It's the collection of that which we can be most confident is true. The issue is that science doesn't conclude guilt. Juries do. And juries aren't scientists.Realistically, if you know the truth, then its probably through observation. You can still follow the scientific method on personal observations, but unless someone else can make the observation it's no use to anybody but you and anybody who trusts you.Presumably if you know they are not guilty, vital people in the system don't find you credible. Evolutionist prigs rarely have say in criminal matters. I suppose if someone were to inject HIV into someone, evolution theory could be used to prove the relatedness of the victim's HIV to the perpetrator's HIV. I suppose evolutionary biology might be used to prove the genus of a species in a case where someone was poaching rare birds. I'm struggling to think of good examples. I think your self-righteousness might have led to a blurring between metaphor and the point you were driving towards. Both true, the latter being suggestive of an evolutionary process. I don't. But nobody would claim that being designed to see means an intelligent designer designed them to see unless they wanted be accused of jumping to conclusions.

Odd that you've never raised this point until now and have been insisting on deductive reasoning being sufficient. That's what I said. You are still arguing with that imaginary thing your head, it seems. So you aren't saying that Creationism is an Investigation?Just tell me what makes something Creationism and only Creationism. What separates Creationism from everything else. What makes an idea 'Creationism'?What makes something science and only science?Science is an investigation.Yes.But what investigations are science? All of them? Or are there more rules such as a connection to reality, chain of causation and types of reasoning etc? Then astrology is a science since astrology is simply an investigation. But then you objected:

quote:

---

Astrology makes no attempt to explain how and why things exists.

​

It does not use the observable properties in nature to deduce design or a design argument.

---

Therefore, you are now saying that To be science, it must be an investigation that attempts to explain how and why things exists using the observable properties in nature to deduce design.That's the change I was referring to. Which definition do you prefer?
Your first one includes Astrology.
Your second one excludes your argument. OK. Astrology does that to.Human affairs exist. Those things must have reasons. Those reasons are the actions of the gods. The gods created everything. That's the connection to the possibilities of the how and why things are in existence. Here is your current definition: To be science, it must be an investigation that attempts to explain or is aligned and supports the logical possibilities related to the how and why things exists using the observable properties in nature to deduce design.Isaac Newton's Laws of Motion seem to be excluded. Did you mean to leave out Newtonian Physics from the definition of science?

But other people manage perfectly well to get the ball through the hoop. For example astronomers and chemists, and physicists and zoologists.And if you think the game's rigged against you, here's some news --- sometimes it's not all about you. You're like a deaf man complaining that the purpose of music is to make you feel excluded. This is paranoid nonsense, and you wouldn't think it for a moment if you'd ever heard any music. No it isn't. The best naturalistic explanation is that someone painted it. Then there is something really wrong with you. Alas, if there was no evidence for the truth, I would accept the science. 'Cos of me not being a magical oracle of some sort. How about you? Do you have some sort of supernatural talent that would enable you do ignore all the evidence and perceive the truth directly? You can't see that: you imagine it.If you have any evidence for it, please show me the evidence. It is hardly "special pleading" to discount a claim for which there is no evidence in favor of a claim for which there is. That's kinda what people are meant to do.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.