Summations Only

No.

You keep using "law" in an incorrect way.In science, a law is a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature, such as "the laws of thermodynamics."In other words, a "law" is devised by humans to describe what we observe.

Your ears can hear - input is measured in hertz and decibels & output in nerve signals in amps and volts.
Your eyes can see - measured in hertz and lumens & output in nerve signals in amps and volts.Your coffee cup exists - measured in millimeters and gramsI can measure your coffee cup and get the same numbers (within margin of error) as you. These measurements are repeatable by anyone.You see Purpose? What does Purpose look like?If I say I don't see Purpose, how do you argue that it exists? How do you measure Purpose?For me, I can't follow your leap from eyes & ears operating under the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology to an unmeasureable Purpose.

quote:

---

While I understand your questions please explain how and why these observations would apply to whether a thing was created, or created to operate in this manner you suggest or came about as a natural process directed by chance
How would this change my propositions concerning how creation is initially considered

---

It applies to the question of creationism's scientific merit. A scientific theory must be a testable and falsifiable model that explains the observations. If creationism can't explain the observations, then it isn't scientific.I think we are all granting that creationism can be a religious belief that can't explain the facts. You aren't arguing that position, however. You are arguing that creationism can have scientific merit. In order to support this argument, you must show how creationism can make testable and falsifiable predictions as it applies to the observations made in the field of biology.

quote:

---

Do my ears hear things, do your eyes see things. How would you describe this other than a design with a purpose, regardless of how it came about

---

No scientific theory is supported solely by the lack of any other explanation. Every scientific theory must make positive claims that are testable and falsifiable. You need more than an argument from ignorance.

quote:

---

Why will you not answer my simple question. Do things exist or not? If things exist do they they have the potential to be falsified?

---

Things that don't exist do have the potential of being falsified. If a supernatural designer of life does not exist, then it can be falsified.

I think a little bit more than that is needed; for example there needs to be some evidence that there is some designer and that Dawn's Creationism explains what is seen in the world better than the evolved under natural causes explanation.There have been many posts over the decades pointing out the significant differences between what is seen in things known to be designed and in what is seen in those things not known to be designed. Dawn needs to present evidence that explains those differences and also explains what is seen better than the current theories.

Accurate predictions are considered evidence in science. Accurate predictions are considered explanations. I tried to start the conversation down that path with my first post in this thread. Could a designer who created both mammals and birds also create a species with a mixture of bird and mammal features? It would seem so to me. Perhaps Dawn could chime in.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

But I fear many folk today simply don't understand what a prediction in science really is. Back over a decade ago I tried to point this out using the development of the periodic table as an illustration in Message 1.The importance of prediction is not simply to get it right but to provide new information that can later be tested and verified.

If someone wants to claim that a model is scientific, it is their duty to learn what science is, how science works, and what a scientific explanation is.If you fear that there is a creationist in this thread who doesn't understand what science is, your fears may be justified. I think we would also be justified in concluding that there is a creationist in this thread who doesn't understand how the observed facts evidence the theory of evolution, or even what those observations are. In my experience, most creationists don't understand what phylogenies are, or how important phylogenies are in the overall field of biology. All too often, we see wrong statements like "a common creator could produce species with similarities as well, completely ignoring the fact that it isn't simply similarities that evidence evolution. They never seem to realize that it is the PATTERN of similarities that evidences evolution. More to the point, creationists have yet to produce a single explanation for the pattern of similarities seen in biology. Completely agree. I like this prediction made in 1965, well before DNA sequencing data was coming in (yanked from talkorigins):"It will be determined to what extent the phylogenetic tree, as derived from molecular data in complete independence from the results of organismal biology, coincides with the phylogenetic tree constructed on the basis of organismal biology. If the two phylogenetic trees are mostly in agreement with respect to the topology of branching, the best available single proof of the reality of macro-evolution would be furnished. Indeed, only the theory of evolution, combined with the realization that events at any supramolecular level are consistent with molecular events, could reasonably account for such a congruence between lines of evidence obtained independently, namely amino acid sequences of homologous polypeptide chains on the one hand, and the finds of organismal taxonomy and paleontology on the other hand. Besides offering an intellectual satisfaction to some, the advertising of such evidence would of course amount to beating a dead horse. Some beating of dead horses may be ethical, when here and there they display unexpected twitches that look like life."Emile Zuckerkandl and Linus Pauling, discussing the possibility of the twin nested hierarchy before the first molecular phylogenies had been made.
(1965) "Evolutionary Divergence and Convergence in Proteins." in Evolving Genes and Proteins, p. 101. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Or the differences between what we see in nature and what we see in known designed objects. See Message 8

These points are not entirely correct and allow creationists to drown us in BS: Now, it is quite true that supernaturalistic explanations are untestable and that hypotheses that depend on the supernatural are also untestable and hence completely useless when trying to formulate an actual scientific theory. That much is true.However, it is not true to say that "creation science" is untestable. It is testable! "Creation science" makes definite statements and claims about many very real things in the physical universe, statements that can be examined and evaluated, and tested and proven to be right or wrong. When they say that the earth and universe are very young (to the order of 10,000 years old), then we can test that! When they say that most of the geological features of the earth were formed by a single year-long world-wide flood, then we can test that! When they make astronomical claims (eg, "shrinking sun", effects of solar mass loss, effects of the slowing of the earth's rotation, thickness of the moon's layer of meteoric dust), then we can test that! When they make claims concerning inter-species protein comparisons (eg, Gish's infamous "Bullfrog Affair"), then we can test that! When they make claims about evolution itself (even though they never address evolution itself, but rather just their misrepresentative "evolution model"), then we can test that! When they quote-mine scientific sources, then we can test that and we can see what those sources really said!In short, "creation science" does make many statements and claims that are testable, that have been tested, and that have failed those tests.By ignoring that state of affairs and proclaiming "creation science" to be untestable, we give creationists a free pass to wave their hands and to try to bury us in BS as we now see Dawn doing yet again.

---

Back in 1984, I heard Duane Gish cite a philosopher of science, Larry Laudan, claiming that he said that Judge Overton's judgement was wrong and it would have serious repercussions on science for years to come. Upon request, Gish sent me a copy of that article (Science at the Bar -- Causes for Concern by Larry Laudan, Science, Technology and Human Values 7, no. 41 (1982):16-19). Upon reading it, I saw how Gish had misrepresented the article, which is actually a strong indictment of "creation science". What Laudan was criticizing was Overton's definition of science and of what was scientific (which pretty much matched what you cited, Phat), including the claim that creationism is untestable and unfalsifiable.From that article with my emphasis added:

quote:

---

At various key points in the Opinion, Creationism is charged with being untestable, dogmatic (and thus non-tentative), and unfalsifiable. All three charges are of dubious merit. For instance, to make the interlinked claims that Creationism is neither falsifiable nor testable is to assert that Creationism makes no empirical assertions whatever. This is surely false. Creationists make a wide range of testable assertions about empirical matters of fact.

​

Thus, as Judge Overton himself grants (apparently without seeing its implications), the creationists say that the earth is of very recent origin (say 6,000 to 20,000 years old); they argue that most of the geological features of the earth's surface are diluvial in character (i.e., products of the postulated worldwide Noachian deluge); they are committed to a large number of factual historical claims with which the Old Testament is replete; they assert the limited variability of species. They are committed to the view that, since animals and man were created at the same time, the human fossil record must be paleontologically co-extensive with the record of lower animals. It is fair to say that no one has shown how to reconcile such claims with the available evidence -- evidence which speaks persuasively to a long earth history, among other things.

​

In brief, these claims are testable, they have been tested, and they have failed those tests.

​

. . .

​

What counts is the epistemic status of Creationism, not the cognitive idiosyncrasies of the creationists. Because many of the theses of Creationism are testable, the mind set of creationists has no bearing in law or in fact on the merits of Creationism.

​

. . .

​

Rather than taking on the creationists obliquely in wholesale fashion by suggesting that what they are doing is "unscientific" tout court (which is doubly silly because few authors can even agree on what makes an activity scientific), we should confront their claims directly and in piecemeal fashion by asking what evidence and arguments can be marshaled for and against each of them. The core issue is not whether Creationism satisfies some undemanding and highly controversial definitions of what is scientific; the real question is whether the existing evidence provides stronger arguments for evolutionary theory than for Creationism. Once that question is settled, we will know what belongs in the classroom and what does not. Debating the scientific status of Creationism (especially when "science" is construed in such an unfortunate manner) is a red herring that diverts attention away from the issues that should concern us.

---

And from a later article (More on Creationism by Larry Laudan, Science, Technology and Human Values 8, no. 42 (1983):36-38 (my emphasis added)):

quote:

---

...the soundness of creation-science can and must be separated from all questions about the dogmatism of creationists. Once we make that rudimentary separation, we discover both (a) that creation-science is testable and falsifiable, and (b) that creation-science has been tested and falsified -- insofar as any theory can be said to be falsified. But, as I pointed out in the earlier essay, that damning indictment cannot be drawn so long as we confuse Creationism and creationists to such an extent that we take the creationists' mental intransigence to entail the immunity of creationist theory from empirical confrontation.

---

Newton's Laws of Gravity were devised by the human named Isaac Newton. Those laws were falsifiable, and they were in fact falsified by work done in part by Einstein's Theory of Relativity.How do you explain that? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

I am going to get the main ideas out of each of thewe numerous post and respond in that manner
To many post to respond to each on individually
I hope this not offensive. Oncr having done this your free to point out anything you think I've missed
Thanks for you patience
Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

If you could, I would be much more interested to hear how creationism is able to predict what patterns we should see in biology, both at the morphological and genetic level. Which physical features should we see together, and which should we not, and why? What patterns of shared and divergent sequence should we see when we compare genomes, and why?For example, would a designer be able to mix things like feathers and three middle ear bones? Would a designer be able to use the a gene from jellyfish, mice, and chickens all in the same organism, with the same exact sequence as found in those other species?Those are the types of things creationism needs to tackle if it is going to be considered a science.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.