Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Science in Creationism
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 6 of 986 (783117)
05-03-2016 5:06 PM


The Basics
The first hurdle that creationism needs to get over, at least in the arena of biology, is in explaining the basic observations.
What mixtures of physical characteristics should we see or not see in both living and fossil species, and why? Should we see fossils with a mixture of bird and mammal features? Yes/No, and why?
When we compare the DNA sequence of genes from different organisms, what does creationism predict we will see, and why? If there is a 10% sequence difference between a mouse and human gene and a 20% difference between that same human gene and the orthologous chicken gene, then what should the difference be between the chicken and mouse gene, and why?
If creationism can't answer questions like these in a testable and falsifiable manner, then it isn't a scientific theory.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-03-2016 8:19 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 49 of 986 (783215)
05-04-2016 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Dawn Bertot
05-03-2016 8:19 PM


Re: The Basics
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-03-2016 8:19 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 05-04-2016 11:43 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 50 of 986 (783216)
05-04-2016 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Dawn Bertot
05-04-2016 1:22 AM


Re: Show Me The Evidence
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-04-2016 1:22 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 51 of 986 (783217)
05-04-2016 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Dawn Bertot
05-03-2016 9:11 PM


Re: Falsification
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-03-2016 9:11 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 53 of 986 (783220)
05-04-2016 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by jar
05-04-2016 11:43 AM


Re: The Basics
jar writes:
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.
Accurate predictions are considered evidence in science. Accurate predictions are considered explanations.
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 05-04-2016 11:43 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by jar, posted 05-04-2016 12:09 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 55 of 986 (783227)
05-04-2016 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by jar
05-04-2016 12:09 PM


Re: The Basics
jar writes:
But I fear many folk today simply don't understand what a prediction in science really is.
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.
The importance of prediction is not simply to get it right but to provide new information that can later be tested and verified.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by jar, posted 05-04-2016 12:09 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by jar, posted 05-04-2016 1:34 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 58 of 986 (783250)
05-04-2016 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Dawn Bertot
05-04-2016 12:37 AM


Re: Falsification
Dawn Bertot writes:
Here is an illustration, in reality we have laws and then we have humanly devised principles. Gravity and existence are two of the actual laws. Falsifiabilty and Parisomony are humanly devised principles
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-04-2016 12:37 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-04-2016 4:15 PM Taq has replied
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 05-04-2016 4:39 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 60 of 986 (783254)
05-04-2016 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Dawn Bertot
05-04-2016 4:15 PM


Re: Falsification
Dawn Bertot writes:
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 Bertot
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-04-2016 4:15 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 79 of 986 (783281)
05-04-2016 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Faith
05-04-2016 4:39 PM


Re: Falsification
Faith writes:
Don't know how Dawn will answer you but I think it's the difference between a reality and a verbal formulation.
It is the verbal formulation that has to be open to testing and falsifiability. For example . . .
That remains a physical reality, a divine law if you will, even if a more precise understanding would put it differently.
How is the claim of divinity open to testing and falsifiable?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 05-04-2016 4:39 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 81 of 986 (783283)
05-04-2016 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Dawn Bertot
05-04-2016 6:45 PM


Re: Show Me The Evidence
Dawn Bertot writes:
As I suspected you use indirect evidence based on its design to determine that something as uncomplicated as a mug was designed
But you want us to provide absolute evidence not indirect evidence for something as complicated and intricate as the human brain
If ID/creationism is to be scientific, then the claim of design needs to be testable and falsifiable. If ID/creationism is not scientific, then now would be the time to say so before the thread continues.
If you want to claim that ID/creationism is scientific then you have to demonstrate that it meets the criteria of being scientific. A good analogy would be baseball. If you are playing baseball then you have agreed to play by the rules. You can't decide halfway through a game that a run is scored by simply getting to first base because you are having difficulty making it all the way to home. You can't redefine what science is simply because ID/creationism can't meet the already existent definition.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-04-2016 6:45 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-04-2016 8:08 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 82 of 986 (783284)
05-04-2016 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Dawn Bertot
05-04-2016 7:20 PM


Re: Show Me The Evidence
Dawn Bertot writes:
Here's the problem Dr A. When a secular fundamental humanist asks us for Evidence, they mean direct absolute evidence.
The rules of science require empirical evidence. If your evidence isn't empirical, then ID/creationism isn't scientific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-04-2016 7:20 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(5)
Message 83 of 986 (783285)
05-04-2016 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Dawn Bertot
05-04-2016 7:10 PM


Re: Show Me The Evidence
Things are getting tough aren't they Dr A. Please give me and example of something a human designed that does not have a purpose
If you can't I'll need to assume correctly that intricate design has a purpose.
Humans make ice in freezers. We find ice at the North Pole. Therefore, the ice at the North Pole was made by humans in freezers.
Does that make sense?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-04-2016 7:10 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 85 of 986 (783288)
05-04-2016 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Dawn Bertot
05-04-2016 7:57 PM


Re: Falsification
Dawn Bertot writes:
ou need to demonstrate a question I've asked is irrelevant
You see How You avoid answering. Do things exist. Yes or no
Whether a thing exists is irrelevant to the question of a claim being scientific.
Rainbows exist. The claim that invisible unicorns create rainbows is not testable and not falsifiable, and is therefore not scientific. You can't evidence invisible unicorns simply by pointing to rainbows.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-04-2016 7:57 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-04-2016 8:57 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 89 of 986 (783292)
05-04-2016 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Dawn Bertot
05-04-2016 8:08 PM


Re: Show Me The Evidence
Dawn Bertot writes:
But my simple friend I'm showing you you don't get to make the rules as to what constitutes science, that is decided by laws in nature.
Scientists make the rules as to what is and isn't science. The rules are already in place, and they require a hypothesis to be both testable and falsifiable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-04-2016 8:08 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Coyote, posted 05-04-2016 8:20 PM Taq has replied
 Message 93 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-04-2016 8:27 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 92 of 986 (783295)
05-04-2016 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Dawn Bertot
05-04-2016 8:17 PM


Re: Show Me The Evidence
Dawn Bertot writes:
I use the same indirect evidence you use to establish that things are here by soley natural causes
You don't use them in a scientific manner. If you want to claim that ID/creatoinism is scientific, then you need to use the evidence as part of a testable and falsifiable hypothesis.
Now that we have established per my question about human design that purpose is clearly different than function, is be justified and reasonable concluding that the intricate design at least indirectly supports Creation, correct?
Not correct. You have not produced a testable and falsifiable hypothesis. All you have is the claim that intricate design is produced by a deity. You have nothing but that claim.
Just because humans can create intricate design does not mean all intricate designs are created by an intelligence. I would think that would be obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-04-2016 8:17 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024