Summations Only

Yes, I am, I am constructing an alternative explanation to the accepted explanation. The point is that the accepted explanation is presented as fact as if it were not just an interpretation that could be challenged. That is actually not true. I've been reading a standard geology text lately that presents whole hypthetical historical scenarios about the hypothetical transgressions and regressions of hypothetical seas over hypothetical hundreds of millions of years in terms of absolute fact. There is nothing unusual about this. All the scenarios invented in the service of evolution do this. Whatever is said about dinosaurs is described in terms of an absolutely known history of the beasts and their environment as if they'd conducted an interview with T. Rex. Or pick any layer in the geologic column, it represents a time period in which hypothetical flora and fauna lived in a KNOWN climate etc. etc. etc, This sort of dogmatic language will be found in most (I have found one now and then that does use hypothetical language) discussions of these things, check Wikipedia for instance. But they do not present their explanations, to the public at least, as merely "best explanations," they use the language of dogmatic fact. A lot of this supposed mutual support is plausible only because it can't really be tested and the interpreters are free to treat whatever seems to fit into the picture as fact without risk of being seriously contradicted. If it is contradicted it can only be contradicted by another imagined scenario. It's all an exercise in interpretation out of one's own imagination, nothing at all like the sciences where you can arrive at a clear replicable conclusion in the lab from a clear set of facts and procedures and once the conclusion has been established anyone can repeat it and come to the same conclusion. Once the correct facts and procedures are in place anyone can prove the structure of DNA. That is NOT true of any theory about the prehistoric past. You are applying the Scientific Credo here, which unfortunately is not really what is going on in the prehistoric sciences. (I realized if they were "historical" there would be witnesses; really they are prehistoric, not that there's really much risk of causing confusion with the term). 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. Since just about any fact can be made to fit the prevailing theory through sheer imagination without risk of serious contradiction, the prevailing theory can always be confirmed over and over and over. ("Those are indeed leg bones in the whale, not merely bones that support the genital system; that iridium layer at the surface of the rock identified with the "Cretaceous period" proves a meteor hit earth in that time period that is probably the cause of the death of the dinosaurs; as opposed to it proves a meteor all right but in the time frame of the Flood where it probably contributed to the overall death of everything; since to imaginative judgment there seems to be a sequence of inner ear designs from one fossil to another up the geologic column, that is good evidence for the ToE rather than evidence for design or the normal gradations we see in microevolution, despite the fact that it is probably the best series anyone will ever find in the "fossil record." And of course the "fossil record" itself is regarded as evidence for the ToE, although if you really spent the time to imaginatively construct the evolutionary pathways from one creature to another you'd find that it requires a really convoluted unbelievable series of steps. Which isn't going to stop an avid believer in the ToE, because any pathway imagined can't be seriously contradicted anyway. The ONLY objective evidence the ToE has is atomic dating systems, which nobody except creationists will admit are not anywhere near as reliable as they'd have to be for the purpose they are used for. Oh and Darwin's finches are explained by long periods of evolution by natural selection rather than simple isolation of small numbers that reproduce in isolation over very short periods time which is the explanation I keep offering here that I think makes terrific sense, and IS supported by the rapidity of domestic breeding and that example of the Pod Mrcaru lizards -- great great evidence but because it contradicts the prevailing theory it's all dismissed as if there were any real evidence against it rather than merely the ToE itself (a perfect example of endless begging of the question although I'm the one accused of that), aggressively dismissed, ridiculed and me along with it.Once there is a theory in place that everyone thinks makes sense, just about anything can be imagined into it you see. Any contradictions will come from contrary imaginative scenarios but if one scenario that seems to fit well has become popular it will prevail because there is no way to actually PROVE it wrong. What creationists are doing, what I am doing, is reimagining the known evidence into support for the Flood. I keep getting answers from the contrary scenario as if they were fact, as if the Evidence actually supported them when it doesn't, it is merely established by shared belief in it. This is false. Design IS evidence of a designer. Oh but we have lots of evidence for a Designer if you want it, but you don't -- that too is reimagined in the most absurd ways by those who just don't like the idea, which they can get away with just because the Bible is a historical document itself that relies on interpretation. It's full of evidence corroborated by witnesses, but that of course is open to judgment. You either believe them or you don't. No evidence could possibly suffice to dissuade someone who is determined to disbelieve in the witness evidence given. The historical evidence of the Bible is even absurdly compared to completely nonhistorical religions. Anything will do for those who are determined to discredit it. Yep, that's about the level of it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Utter nonsense Faith. How do you know your understanding of nature is the "true understanding?" How do you distinguish a "true understanding" from crackpot ideas? Easy... by the scientific method; by systematically studying natural systems and testing hypotheses and drawing conclusions based on all available evidence.I have a silly exampleThere is a hillside south of campus that has a "MSU" cut into the grass. One day I drove by and the logo was not there. The next day there were cows in the field and on on the hillside and holy cow!, the logo was there! So my conclusion is that the cows chewed the grass into the shape of the MSU logo. No one was there to see it since it happened at night, so my conclusion is as good as anyone else's.How would you determine if this is "true" or a crack-pot idea?Well you might suggest that I interview people on the farm to see if they used a mower to cut the grass. But nah.. I'm not interested in pursuing that, it doesn't have anything to do with my argument since my argument is about cows.You might suggest that cows don't do that sort of thing. But how do you know? Cows eat grass right? They bite it close to the ground right? They were on the hill right? All this evidence supports my conclusion.You might suggest that there is a more logical explanation for the phenomenon. But I don't think so, my conclusion seems very logical to me, it totally makes sense to me.All my observations are "natural," so my conclusion is scientific, right? I didn't include any supernatural explanation, so it is scientific, right?So how do you know if my conclusion is the "true" conclusion or a crackpot idea?HBD

Good grief, HBD, my statement is true as it stands. Any true understanding of nature IS science. How you determine what is a true understanding is another subject. Good grief man.

I'm not asking you which rocks you think weren't formed by the Flood.I'm asking you what you think a non-Flood rock would look like. Are there any conceivable hypothetical qualities that a hypothetical sedimentary rock could have that wouldn't make you think it was formed by the Flood?To put it another way, what do you suppose rocks would look like if they were formed by real processes? How would these differ from rocks produced by a magic flood?(For example, if aeolian sandstone was to be lithified, what would that look like?)If you can't answer, then your opinion that every sedimentary rock that you see looks like a flood rock should be meaningless even to you, since you would think that about any darn rock no matter how it was actually produced.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yeah, for example people --- including, shockingly, creationists --- will always talk as though living ceratopsians definitely existed, as though that's a known fact. How dogmatic of them! Don't they know that there's an equally good alternative explanation, namely that an invisible sky-wizard made the ceratopsian fossils by magic to fuck with us?... wait, that isn't equally good. And it is not excessively "dogmatic" to discuss reality while neglecting this possibility. But you remember how you made this up? Sure, creationists have access to the evidence. But they prefer to ignore it and make shit up.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I don't know since they all look absolutely identical, all hardened in a way that suggests immersion in water. It should take immersion in water to produce all sedimentary rocks, which is evidence for the reality of the Flood. You aren't going to get solid rocks without that immersion, followed by compaction, followed by cementation which is the product of minerals filtering through WET sediments. It would be soaked in water and deposited like any sediment in layers, unless something inhibits the formation of layers or interferes with them, in which case it would be shaped by whatever force water might exert on them, into swirls or lumps or heaps that eventually get sculpted into interesting formations --- its cross bedding produced by the shape of its grains already formed by Aeolian exposure.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Your post is a perfect example of mere belief determining science.

Hi Faith. I *was* trying to have a nice civil discussion with you about your ideas. Apparently now you are accusing of making the topic of this thread up in my head and with your 'sheesh' comment you are saying *I'm* morally blameworthy for frustrating you.You are being unpleasant and unfair.And wrong.

quote:

---

The Science in Creationism

---

That's the subject of this topic. You can't have missed it.But maybe the subject is misleading?

quote:

---

In a previous thread it was loosely argued that several factors such as Falsifiability, Parsimony and other factors cause Creationism to fail as science and fail to qualify for any serious scientific investigation

​

It was further intimated that Creationism cannot stand up to empirical testing and that it could not be considered scientific in the way the term Science is currently defined

​

And lastly it was directly stated in that same thread that Creationism could not stand the test of debate and that it has failed as a testable theory

​

From this it was concluded that many creationist had abandoned this website, due to an indefensible doctrine, theory or ideology

---

quote:

---

It is my belief that with closer exaimination of these allegations and assertions coupled with the Actual scientic evidence that supports Creation Science, it will be demonstrated that CS very much passes a scientific investigation

---

So Faith, in every post of mine here I have unequivocally been criticising this position. I have repeatedly made it clear, including in my prior posts to you, that this is about Science in Creationism.Yet you come into this thread, post a bunch of stuff that doesn't seem related to the topic, then tell me that it isn't related to the topic, and then have the gall to call me delusional and feign frustration at me?Well since you can't defend the OP, I win the debate. Fine by me.

Expound.

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.

Rocks do not all look absolutely identical. What would a rock look like if the water involved in its cementation was not part of a magic flood produced by a lunatic genocidal wizard who lives in the sky? Try again. If wind-deposited dunes were to be lithified, but not by magic flood water, what would that look like?

No it is not. Science is a systematic way of understanding natural phenomenon. You are simply making stuff up and trying to pass it off as science. How do you KNOW that your understanding of nature is right? It is a simple question and it IS what this thread is about; science in creationism. Good grief yourself. How you determine what is the best understanding of a natural phenomenon is what science IS all about. Otherwise we just make stuff up.You are certainly good at criticizing evolution and geology for not being scientific, but you have no idea as to how to make that assessment, except that you don't agree with the conclusions - or that the conclusions of evolution are wrong, therefore it is not science.Why can you not understand this and just explain how what you are doing is actually science or at least has some scientific merit? Declaring your position is right and provides a true understanding of nature IS NOT science.HBD

Well I'm talking about the complexity and diversity of life. That did happen.It's one thing to point out the phenomena the theory explains doesn't exist, it's another to point out that the theory doesn't explain the phenomena."God did it by wishing" is fine as a hypothesis, even for non-existent events. But a hypothesis isn't science, right? It's how you address the hypothesis that makes it science. Disproving the phenomena is science. Providing evidence for the entity (God) or process (wishing) would also be science.When Darwin said 'life changes and new species form' people said 'how?'. I mean not literally, but that's the first thing you think of. You first want to know how its meant to work, then you look at the evidence that supports the notion that those workings would result in the outcome we see. I mean obviously, being human, something of the magnitude of evolution in a background of Genesis tradition, your first question is probably not 'how' so much as 'how did this devil have the gall to publish such drivel?', but 'how does it work' is a primary concern of the rational part of life.You could disprove that life changes and new species form, and that would be science. But it wouldn't be the science of creation.The science of creation needs more than 'creation happened'. They have a hypothesis, in fact they have whole suites of hypotheses.How did life get complex and diverse? Chance variation, selection, competition
How did life get complex and diverse? God, chance variation, selection, competitionCompare the kind of information we can say about the mode of operation of evolution, how variation and selection work towards adaption, neutral drift, a natural struggle for resources in a hostile environment etc., with 'God'. Lot's can be said about God. But when it comes to life? 'He said it'. Do we have any evidence that divine proclamation CAN create complex designs and implement them in a physical universe?No. Creationists like to talk about how 'mutations and selection' are not sufficient. How do we know divine speech is sufficient? Obviously the theory says this is so and this is because some guy said so, but how do we *know*?I say the only way to claim knowledge is through faith based reasoning.
Science has not been able to provision us with knowledge that divine speech, divine clay modelling are possible and have the claimed effect when applied to 4 dimensional spacetime. And if creationists want to complain at the burden, that's what they must do.But until they carry it, they aren't completing science. What they are doing is lawyering. They are spinning a subset of the evidence to make a story stick.I don't need the story. I'll abandon natural history. I don't need it to demonstrate evolution with more scientific confidence than any creationist. Our natural history is a conclusion of the theory of evolution with the physical evidence. Genesis should be the conclusion in Creation Science. The conclusion should fall out of the theory when it is considered in light of the physical evidence. I'm trying to show exactly this backwardness behind creationist attempts to claim scientific credibility.Naturally I won't persuade many people. Dawn just wants to yell 'Design' for a 100 posts over and over like some demented Marketer. Faith just wants to let us all know that alleles get divided between subpopulations leading to those populations reaching a dead end. Oh and a flood happened. And she's using some form of empirical reasoning therefore she is being scientific because she's right.

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. If you understand this in the context in which it was intended you ought to see that you are pursuing a completely different subject. Nothing you've said in your last two posts relates to what I was saying. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OK, sorry for the tone then, but this thread is not about the Creator and it IS frustrating to have someone make a whole post saying it is. Creationism implies a Creator but it's not about the Creator, it's about the created world which is the subject of science. Unpleasant and unfair to object to your imputing things to me I didn't say? OK, but I'm not wrong. This thread is NOT about the Creator. No. As the title says, the thread is about Creationism, not the Creator. I don't recall participating much on that thread and on this thread I came into it on the subject of design in nature. Design implies a designer but the design is discussed as a scientific point apart from the designer. I thought I was demonstrating science in creation in accordance with the topic. I also apparently had no idea what you were doing. The context of the former thread wasn't in my mind, and you were including the Creator and I objected rightly. That's all I know, and this whole discussion is out of the blue for me, no idea where it came from, the history of it anything though apparently you've been keeping close track. Well, that was easy. I object to a false idea of yours and you win the debate. Hooray.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.