The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science"

quote:

---

In reality anyone can easily draw the conclusion that a worldwide flood happened about 5000 years ago without ever reading the Bible.

---

Name one person who has come to the conclusion that there was a global, catastrophic flood 5,000 years ago without knowledge of the story contained in the Old Testament.

quote:

---

Practically ever culture worldwide has a legend that there was a worldwide flood in which only a few people survived in a boat.

---

Many cultures also had stories about ships falling off of the earth because it was flat. Does that mean that the world is flat? Also, does this mean that the Noah story supports the accuracy of the Chinese and Asian flood stories? If there are so many flood stories, and each one so much different from the other, they why are you claiming only one of them is true? Also, many of those flood stories were about local floods, not global floods. This falsifies the claim that there was a global flood, according to your logic.The only way you could come to the conclusion that the other flood stories support the one in the OT is to first conclude that the story in the OT is true. IOW, you assume the conclusion to reach the conclusion. Again, this is not how science is done.

quote:

---

What I meant was that there is no intrinsic difference. That research consists of all facets of the scientific method, not just the falsification part. I don't know why (if) creationists are not published in those journals. Maybe their bias gets in the way, maybe the editors' bias gets in the way.

---

Or, perhaps creation scientists are not practicing science. I have one scientific publication to my name, and I have two papers right now that have been turned down for publication. Why? The reviewers felt that our hypothesis was not fully supported. Guess what? The editor's are biased, and there bias is towards hypotheses that are supported by solid evidence and well structured experiments. Guess what I am doing about those papers that were rejected? I am running more experiments to fill in the gaps. Guess what creation scientists do when they are rejected by journals? They whine about bias. Give me a break.

quote:

---

Because of option two, creation is not logically proven if evolution is disproven. However, in the absence of another known possibility, it is reasonable to believe that the only known possible way for something to have occured, occured.

---

Option three: The pantheon of greek and roman gods did it.Option four: Time traveling humans went started the first life on earth.Option five: Space aliens started life on earth.Option six: The Genesis Project, as seen in The Wrath of Khan, is real.Option seven: The Invisible Flatulent Pink Unicorn swished her tail and the earth was created.Need me to go on? The creation story in Genesis is just one of many possibilities. Falsifying evolution will not make that story correct and more than it will make the options above correct. Just for an example, can you show me the experiments I can run or the evidence I can use so that I can tell if Zeus, Odin, or the Christian God created the earth?

quote:

---

Creation, if it occurred, cannot be examined. It was a historical event, which occurred in the distant past. As a historical fact, it is not falsifiable.

---

BS. If the world were created in seven days only 6,000 years ago there should be evidence of this happening within the earth and within the DNA of us and other organisms. The lack of that evidence and evidence found contrary to the predictions of such an event happening falsifies "creation" as a historical event. What you should say is that you don't want it to be tested due to the poor track record of science derived from religious beliefs (see geocentrism vs heliocentrism).

quote:

---

Also, it is because of the evidence that I believe creationism; I have not started there looking to prove it. If the evidence wasn't there, I would be an evolutionist.

---

How about the evidence that supports evolution? Are you ignoring that as well? If the evidence wasn't there for evolution, do you think hundreds of thousands of working scientists would use it as the foundation of their work? Did you come to your conclusions in the absence of christianity? Or did you believe in a literal creation due to your religious beliefs?

quote:

---

That is because creationism cannot be proven wrong.

---

You can't prove that there isn't an Invisible Flatulent Pink Unicorn. Does that mean that the IFPU exists? The other problem is that there is no evidence that a literal, six day creation even happened, just as the evidence for my lovely IFPU doesn't exist. So really, you must also believe that the IFPU exists given your own criteria.

quote:

---

I was trying, by exaggeration, to show the difference between the scientist and the science. If an unscientific person works in a certain field of science, that doesn't make the field unscientific.

---

Creation science is what creation scientists do. Therefore, the way in which creation scientists practice their inquiry is exactly what creation science is. If they followed the rules of science, then we wouldn't have to qualify it by calling it "creation" science. They start from the conclusion and cram in evidence where it doesn't belong. They are trying to put the square peg in the round hole while denying it the whole time. Unfortunately, it takes knowledge in the biological sciences and in scientific methodologies to understand just how mistaken they really are. Because of this, they have drug the good names of well meaning christians through the proverbial mud. Not only that, but they have risked the christian walk of many followers by requiring them to swallow their lies in order to be a "real christian". You can't mix good religion with bad science, or Jesus' teachings and outright lies, and expect the result to be anything close to edifying.And just so you know, scientists are trying to disprove evolution as well. Everytime they do a DNA sequence, dig up a fossil, date a rock, or observe an ecosystem it is very possible that their observatioons will falsify evolution. All it takes is finding a bunny rabbit in the same layer as a trilobite. Yet, scientists still search for fossils knowing that they may find exactly that. All it takes is finding the same large DNA sequence in birds and man, yet scientists continually examine the DNA of numerous species and do comparisons ON A DAILY BASIS. Do you see creation scientists looking for these things? Nope. All we hear is name calling, quote mining, strawmen, models that are falsified by evidence available to anyone, ad hoc hypotheses that are supported by zero evidence, and on and on. If creation scientists really wanted to falsify evolution they wouldn't be doing this. Instead, they would be trying to find that bunny rabbit with the trilobites, that DNA sequence that shouldn't be there, that dinosaur fossil that dates to only 7,000 years ago, etc. Creation scientists are nothing more than naysayers with self appointed titles whose own self importance is supposed to make the rest of the world ignore the evidence under their own feet.

quote:

---

What sort of opposition to the theory of evolution which you would accept as scientific? Is there any possible scenario where a supernatural power would be accepted as, although not scientifically investigatable, not ridiculous?

---

I think I listed quite a few up above. Here are some more.1. A fossil that has both avian and mammalian characterstics. In other words, a fossil intermediary between birds and mammals.2. Witnessing of a flood event that sorts fossils in the same manner seen in the fossil record.3. Witnessing of a limestone bed that increases a foot a day.4. DNA samples that show a pristine human just after "The Fall".5. A cytochrome b gene that is identical in two dramatically different species (say a wolf and an elephant).6. Multiple ERV insertions in the same homologous location in the genome between two dramatically different species (say a bird and an elephant).7. A mountain that is created through the collision of two plates within 1 year. This mountain must also be exactly like other mountains that have been hypothesized to be created slowly over thousands and millions of years.That is a start. Want more?

Hehe, the short-sightedness on the part of creationists always makes me laugh. From the AiG quote: Replace "evience" with "The Bible" and the statement is just as true. However, scientific evidence is objective in nature while interpretations of the Bible are inherently subjective. Hence, interpretations of the Bible are less trustworthy since there is nothing subjective to compare them to.

quote:

---

Us creationists simply insist the Bible is a legitamate witness for origins.

---

It takes more than insisting that the Bible is a legitamate witness, you have to have evidence to back it up. Even in civil court, a single witness is not enough to convict a criminal or to default scientific evidence. Evolution does more than insist, it matches up with the evidence, something creationism has yet to do.

quote:

---

BUT then they go a step further. They say they have PROVEN thier view.

---

No, they haven't. Scientists claim that the theory is consistent with ALL of the evidence. However, science is always making new observations and finding new evidence. Therefore, it is possible that new observations or new evidence could falsify evolution. The books are never closed in any of the sciences. Nothing besides math can be proven 100%.

quote:

---

They tell society this and it is insisted by the establishment in our society that is is DONE. Schools etc must submitt.

---

No, creationist websites twist the words of scientists and pass those lies along to their fundie followers. Schools teach the most current, and accurate theories. That just happens to be evolution right now.

quote:

---

We answer well yes wrong about thier conclusion but thats not what we mean. We say WRONG they have not proven thier case and proven us wrong.

---

Why should we (ie scientists) prove something in a field that does not require absolute proof? Science does not rely on absolute truth, just models and theories that are consistent with the evidence and inconsistent with none of the evidence. Creationism doesn't fit the bill because the predictions made by the happenings in Genesis are not evident in the real world. Creationism doesn't fit the evidence, plain and simple. Why should we teach something that doesn't work, and not teach something that does work? Oh, that's right, because it goes against your religious convictions.

quote:

---

We argue against two matters. Evolution etc and second that evolution HAS been proven.

---

You have already won one battle before you even started. Evolution is not proven, nor will it ever be (unless time travel becomes a reality). However, creationism has been falsified which is really a larger problem for you. Why is it that we don't here about fossil hunts for that bunny rabbit in the cambrian sediments? Because if it isn't found creationists will know that they are wrong, and that is the last thing they want. They don't want to test their theories because they know that they can never be supported by positive evidence, so they act like the school bully and pick on other people to make up for their own inadequacies. This is what happens when you domatically start with a conclusion that HAS to be true, you tend to ignore the evidence or stop trying to look for evidence that supports your case. The creationist motto should be "Ignorance is Bliss."

quote:

---

Evolutionists say SCIENCE is the way to prove things. WE agree but then say evolution is not science. It does not fit the rules to be called science. It is but an historical subject.

---

Wrong, evolutionists say science is the best tool for investigating the natural world. Science is a tool. Science requires repeatable observations, objective metrics, and theories that are consistent with all of the evidence. Evolution uses science to uphold it's theories. Therefore, evolution is a science. Creationism ignores the rules of science, and instead relies on religious faith alone. But maybe you should correct me, since I am so wrong. What are the rules of science according to you?Forensics is a science, and it tests history. Paternity tests are a science, and they test history. But really, the fossils are here and now. The layers they are in are here and now. We are studying features of the earth in the present. Evolution is also observed in the here and now, and the DNA similarities between species are here and now. The theory of evolution can be falsified by these same pieces of evidence, by the same methodologies. How can creationism be falsified? How can creationism be tested by the fossil record or DNA? Creationism isn't even a historical subject, it is a dogmatic position that ignores history.

quote:

---

we say creation science is the same as evolution science but evolutionists say we don't fit the rules to be called science.

---

First rule: positive statements must be supported by positive evidence. You have yet to do that. Claiming something is true, without evidence, until proven otherwise is non-scientific.Second rule: Your conclusion must be reached by the collection of evidence and observations. Creationists assume the conclusion in spite of the evidence. Creationists ignore data if it doesn't fit their conclusion. Creationists fail miserably at fitting into the rules of science.Third rule: Natural mechanisms for natural phenomena, also called methodological naturalism. In other words, claiming miracles is not a scientific principle.

quote:

---

Either evolution is science and thus its conclusions should hold the weight of ideas like gravity etc. or those who believe evolution is science have got the equation wrong on the blackboard.

---

Being that evolution fits all of the data, as does the theory of gravity, I would say they are equal. They are both written correctly on the blackboard.

quote:

---

50% of America say evolution is wrong. In 2004 this should not be if you are right.

---

The truth is not something you vote on, it is something that you test. 2,000 years ago, 100% of the population would have said that the sun orbits the earth. Popular opinion can be wrong. That is why science relies on objective, instead of subjective (voting), evidence to test their theories. Objective evidence is impervious to bias, subjective evidence is swayed by bias and unsupported opinion. If evolution is wrong, then we should have found that bunny in the cambrian, that grass pollen in the Jurassic, that modern buffalo in the Triassic. If evolution is so wrong, why do stratigraphy and cladistics match up, why do DNA similarities match up with the fossil record, why do we find patterns of ERV's that match evolutionary predictions? In fact, why doesn't something conflict with the theory of evolution? If it is wrong, why is it always right? If creationism is right, why does it have to be supported with theories that have zero evidence behind them (such as your now famous "concentrated mammals")? Why do you have to assume creationism is right in order for it to work? Shouldn't the evidence lead you to the conclusion that the earth is 6,000 years old instead of having to explain the evidence away?

quote:

---

Is there any articulate intelligent evolutionists believer out there who can prove evolution subjects are scientific subjects. (in 30 words or less)

---

Sure, here we go (those don't count towards the 30).When someone claims that they have evidence, you should be able to physically verify that the evidence exists. If someone claims evidence that is not verifiable, then they are not doing science. (going beyond my 30 words) If someone constructs a theory that is not supported by the evidence, then that is not a scientific theory.

quote:

---

There is currently a movement to improve communication from science to reporter to public - unfortunately it seems to be developing rather slowly.

---

Pinky, I am in utter agreement on this issue. One of science's biggest enemies is the media. "Nebraska Man" is probably a good example. Even the Discovery Channel is pretty sketchy on how they portray scientific findings, not to mention some of the junk on CSI. On the other hand, scientists also need to do a better job of communicating directly to the public. The first step should be in the science classroom, where Mr. Byers has somehow learned that science is about absolute proof. If people don't start off with a solid understanding of how science is constructed then the media will continue to distort things toward publicly held misunderstandings.

quote:

---

I would be interested in what objective evidence you have that falsifies the theory of evolution.

---

I would like to see it too. You would think, with all of these scientists abandoning the theory of evolution, they would have come up with at least something.

quote:

---

Potentially if the method was stressed in relation to each experiment/concept students could better evaluate the status of the theory. Unfortunately most just want to know if they need-to-know-it-for-the-exam...

---

It can be done though. Unfortunately, science labs in high school already of the methodology laid out. Instead, there should be one class period devoted to the construction of the experiment, including what kind of controls are needed and what the null hypothesis is. Teachers of this era are put under the stress of having to cover a massive amount of information for standardized tests, which is a real shame. Education isn't a race, it is a process.Just a sample experiment off of the top of my head:Goal: What effect does UV radiation have on E. coli survivability.Students would have to factor in possible variants, such as the surface area exposed to the UV light compared to the overall volume of the culture. What should the exposure times be? What should the controls be? How do we measure the number of bacteria? Give them the question and let them figure out how to solve it. I would even stress to teachers that they shouldn't lead them to the right answer. Instead, let them screw it up. This is how science is done. If it worked the first time it would be called search instead of research.This directly applies to the evolution debate. What evidence would you look for if you want to disprove evolution? A verse in Genesis or a fossil in the ground? What is the null hypothesis within the theory of evolution? What controls or outgroups are needed to make the conclusions derived from evidence. Really, these type of questions can only be answered by those familiar with the scientific method. At one time I wasn't that familiar with radiometric dating of rocks. Just to be fair, I entered with an open mind with creationist arguments ready (just to be fair, mind you). Every step of the way I kept thinking "but you have to control for that", and in the very next paragraph they listed those exact controls. Science really is a tool, and it is easy to see when it is not being used, at least to those that are knowledgable about it's use. If you ask someone "What happened in your control group" and you get a blank stare in return you know that it is junk.But perhaps the best evidence for a non-scientific stance is the statement "Prove that I am wrong." Somehow, among the non-scientific laity, fantasy is reality. If I can dream it, it must be until proved otherwise. Positive evidence before a conclusion, no falsifying evidence, control for all possible variants, and repeatable: the only way science is done.

quote:

---

am quite sure that creation occured. I am quite sure evolution did'nt. I believe that way because of the evidence I have seen, not because I need to believe it for my religion.

---

If this is so, then you should be able to point to a scientist that came to the conclusion of a 6,000 year old earth without ever having read or heard about Genesis. Unfortunately, I have never been able to find that person. Perhaps you could start a thread that talks about specific points of evolutionary theory that you have a problem with. My experience with creationists is that they only rely on creationist sites for information pertaining to evolution. This is like learning about christianity from a muslim fundamentalist website. Also, I have often found that creationists have very little knowledge in the biological sciences. This isn't an insult, but it is rather presumptious to decide that thousand and thousands of scientists are wrong, after spending years researching and years in school. You must be familiary with quite a bit of biology, geology, and physics before anything really starts to make sense.

quote:

---

For the record, I wasn't whining about bias. I fully admit(ed) that in many instances, rejection is fully the fault of the creationist attempting to get published. However, if an editor thinks that evolution is a "fact" (which many evolutionists do), they would reject a paper which goes against the "facts" and supported creation.

---

Editor's won't reject a paper because it goes against the accepted paradigm. In fact, quite the opposite. If they are able to publish a paper that falsifies one of the most heavily supported theories in science, they will actually advertise the article since it will increase sales and increase the prestige of the journal. However, the falsification must be grounded in objective observations. This is the problem that creationists have, expecting their theories to be accepted on faith without support of evidence, or accepted in the face of contradicting evidence. This is the same reason an astronomy journal will not publish a paper on the earth being the center of the solar system, because the theory has been falsified by the evidence.

quote:

---

LM: Option four: Time traveling humans went started the first life on earth.

​

This is a logical contradiction. Something cannot be its own cause.

---

But it is possible, which is all you asked for. It is just as possible as a supernatural being created a whole universe 6,000 years ago from scratch that looks to be billions of years old by every scrap of evidence that we look at. It seems that the only evidence for a literal Bible is a literal Bible. IOW, your run into the same logical contradiction by using the Bible to describe YEC.

quote:

---

Since these are non-naturalistic explanations, they are outside the range of science. Creation science, as I defined it, does not deal with these questions.

---

Young Earth Creationism is also a non-naturalistic explanation, and so it too is outside the range of science. YECism requires miracles that go against the laws of physics, biology, and chemistry. Creation science deals with a diety that is not testable by science, a creation event that defies scientific laws and principles, and explanations that are falsified by scientific observations. Creation science can't get more non-natural than that.

quote:

---

After you have decided that there must have been a creation event, you must evaluate the different religions that have creation events. I have done so and believe christianity, as set forth by the Bible, is the true religion. However, that is not in the scope of creation science.

---

Show me how creation science has scientifically ruled out other creation myths. I dare you. My contention is that creation science assumes the conclusion (Genesis is literal fact) before looking at any of the evidence. They also automatically rule out other creation myths, not because of evidence but because of their religious convictions (as is shown by the oath that creation scientists sign). Please explain to me why other creation myths are outside the purview of creation science. From what I have read, creation scientists claim that evolutionists are ignoring other possibilities, but it seems that creation science is doing the same. Would it be accurate to claim that evolution only ignores one more god that creation science does?

quote:

---

In the most extreme, someone could say that God creatd the world 6,000 years ago to appear as if it was billions of years old. That is not falsifiable.

---

Any statement that is not falsifiable by objectively measured evidence is not a scientific statement. I could state that the earth was created last thursday, and God placed all of our memories in our head. This has just as much support as anything you have put forward. So why shouldn't we accept my Last Thursdayism Theory?

quote:

---

Anyway, what changes in the earth and DNA would we be able to see? I am open to the idea that creation is falsifiable, it just never occured to me that that would be possible.

---

Every layer of soil is an observed change in the geologic record. Every living species holds the changes in DNA that their ancestors accrued. These separate, independent variables (fossil record and DNA of living species) fit perfectly into the theories of evolution. Every fossil that is dug up, and every stretch of DNA sequenced, is a challenge to the theory of evolution. You need look no farther than these two things. However, creationism tries it's best to downplay the corroboration between these variables. Instead, if they were doing science, they would try to falsify evolution by using the very same methods that are used to support it.Let's step away from evolution and look at another theory within the sciences, the theory of gravity. Years back, scientists mapped out the orbit of Neptune. They found that the orbit was not consistent with the theory of gravity. The test was this, either the theory was wrong or there was another planet that was affecting the orbit of Neptune. Guess what, they found Pluto. This is how science is tested, by finding anamolies and testing them. Creationism does the opposite, they see the faulty orbit of Neptune and proclaim that God is in control. This stifles all research, and it keeps us from finding out what is really going on in nature.

quote:

---

Anyway, what changes in the earth and DNA would we be able to see? I am open to the idea that creation is falsifiable, it just never occured to me that that would be possible.

---

Good, it is quite refreshing to here this from a creationist. However, also keep in mind that I am not trying to separate you from your faith, only point out that your faith shouldn't rest on man's translation of God's word. God wrote another book directly, it is called Nature and from it we can directly read HOW he created without being bogged down by the scientific ignorance of the biblical authors.

quote:

---

You are assuming that because someone is trying to disprove something, they must be practicing deciet, or just plain stupidity. That is not the case.

---

In every creationist argument there is deceit. They willfully cover up falsifying evidence, something a real scientist never does. Just a personal note, a paper I recently wrote directly contradicts the hypotheses of a competing lab. However, instead of ignoring their paper I directly reference it and mention it in my arguments. I show why our hypotheses (our=my lab group) are more accurate and how our experiments shed light on the mechanisms better than the other lab groups. This is how science is done, by directly confronting other hypotheses and theories with POSITIVE evidence using methods that are repeatable and evidence that is objective. Creationism does the opposite. They ignore falsifying evidence (eg refusing to admit that there are transitional fossils) while constructing theories on zero evidence, and relying on blind faith for acceptance.I will say this, creationism can be scientific. However, in doing so they will have to admit that their theories have been falsified. Without the support of blind faith, and without the ability to put forth theories without evidence, their "scientific" movement would come to a screeching halt. Evolution attempts to falsify itself on a daily basis. Every fossil is a potential falsification. Every DNA sequence is a possible falsification. Every biological observation is a possible falsification. What creationism fails to understand is just how testable evolution really is. Or perhaps they do realize this, and instead use realms of evidence (unfalsifiable evidence) instead of following the scientific method, a realm where they have already lost.

quote:

---

I'm more or less tossing ideas around and seeing what fits, and seeing what the evo reaction is. I only wish that everyone would do the same.

---

Before we can toss around an idea, we first need to know three things:1. The evidence that supports the idea.2. How we can test the idea.3. How we can falsify the idea.Without those three things we can't do anything. It is like tossing around the idea that UFO's are shooting mind control rays from outerspace causing us to see a blue sky when in fact it is green. Without some basis in reality, or some way to test it, it isn't worth thinking about.

quote:

---

I am just saying it would be nice if there was some competition.

---

There was, and it lost. The competition lost because it was not able to explain the contradictory evidence without relying on ad hoc hypotheses. In fact, a young earth lost out before Darwin or Wallace ever published their works on evolution. It could be said that Darwin's and Wallace's ideas stemmed from the work of creationists who found finely detailed sorting in the fossil record, sorting that led to the creationists concluding that the earth was old. For the same reason, there is no competition for the Germ Theory, the theory of Gravity, The Theory of Thermodynamics, etc. In science, if there are two competing theories one wins out by the weight of the evidence. A theory doesn't hold out just because it has popular or religious backing; it must have evidencial backing.

quote:

---

I mean evos have had millions and millions of man-hours put into their theory, so I cannot hope to compete,

---

And many of those evos are christians. You would think that if there was a conspiracy to hide falsifying evidence that christian evolutionists would have come out with it by now. Also, it shows the egotistical nature of creationists who think that they can overturn all of those man-hours of work by using such simple arguments, such as "lunar dust" and "a shrinking sun", not to mention "no transitional fossils". Somehow, having a degree in eletrical engineering in one hand and Genesis in the other allows one to flat out ignore millions of man hours of work. But then again, it is entertaining and, dare I say, intellectually stimulating to have such open-minded, logically bent creationists as yourself to stop by on occasion. Hope you continue to contribute in the biologically themed threads.

quote:

---

And evolutionists do ,PS, I insist say evolution is the truth in the same way as the laws of gravity.

---

And evolutionists do insist that the theory of gravity is as true as the theory of evolution, since both are tentative, accurate with all known evidence, and observable. Where is your problem again?

quote:

---

And evolutionists do ,PS, I insist say evolution is the truth in the same way as the laws of gravity.

---

The truth being that the theory of gravity is consistent with all known evidence and observations, just like the theory of evolution. However, you are extending the meaning of "truth" within science to the more general term used by the public. Just as in court cases, when somebody is found to be guilty by a jury does not mean that they did the crime, only that the evidence shows they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, how can someone be guilty and walk away when evidence clears them of a crime? Even the public knows the difference between a tentative truth and an absolute truth, that is except for a few in the minority like yourself.

quote:

---

You gave an excellent definition of the scientific method. This is what creationists also say.

---

So you agree that creationism is falsified since it is contrary to the evidence?

quote:

---

Your part "...and then test those hypotheses..."etc.

​

Thats it. Testing them by confirming or falsifying them with objective evidence.

​

And we say this does not and can not take place. And this is why evolutionaty subjects do not qualify as scientific subjects.

---

Yes we can. We can look at the human genome, for example, and claim that evolution would be refuted if the human genome contains large stretches of DNA that are identical to a bird genome. Are you telling me we can't test this? Are you that ignorant?Evolution is testable, whether you like it or not. Evolution has been tested, is being tested, and will continue to be tested. The discovery of DNA is probably the biggest test of the theory so far, and it continues to pass with flying colors. However, creationism was tested 200 years ago, and it failed miserably. No one could reconcile the detailed and sorted fossil layers with the stories in Genesis, and so it was dropped once and for all. At least within Science.

quote:

---

Perhaps you could show why they do indeed employ the scientific
method and we are wrong in saying they don't.

---

There are 29 tests, and potential falsifications, of the theory of evolution found here. You could also search the extended catalog of publicly available gene sequences and try to find DNA that is identical in divergent species, such as snails and bacteria. Or, you could try and show that a daughter species is found consistently beneath a parent species in the fossil record. Please tell me how these aren't tests of the theory of evolution.

quote:

---

I do not even use this idea though if I was to program i might do some Perl with it.

---

Reading your posts, I assumed that you were always using encryption.

quote:

---

The fear is that I will misspeak or be unclear and have that immortalized, especially because of the public and political attention on this project.

---

And even a greater fear is that the media will twist your words into something spectacular, but still inaccurate. Just one personal example (and it had nothing to do with science). I local news station had a roving camera crew asking people if the Aryan Nation should be allowed to march in a town in northern Idaho. Paraphrasing, I answered "Yes, I believe that the our freedom of speech should extend to everyone even if the speech is hateful or unpopular." Guess what made it on the news . . . My face and me saying "Yes". The clipped off the rest of my statement and left my views on racism up in the air. I have seen other scientists selectively quoted by the media in an effort to sensationalize an issue. Sometimes ratings supersede accuracy. This is why someone should get their info straight from the scientists mouth instead of the filtered soundbytes we recieve through the popular media. Real science is written about in the primary literature (as I am sure you know already).

quote:

---

Why are they called scientists?

---

Because their conclusions and hypotheses were constructed using the scientific method. Someone can be both a real scientists and a creationist. The difference is in how they reach their conclusions, not the title behind their name.

quote:

---

(I think that the area of genetics holds many problems for the TOE)
  —JT

---

This would actually be a good topic within this thread on how "creation science" can use the scientific method to distinguish between a creation event and evolution.Perhaps JT (or anyone else up to the challenge) can propose how the study of genetics can do one or any the following:1. Provide evidence that DNA similarities are not due to common ancestory.2. How DNA is insufficient as a mutable source for morphologic change over time.3. How the patterns and sequence in DNA is better ascribed to a creative event than to slow mutation and selection over time.4. What is the separating line between large differences in morphology and speciation events at the genetic level.5. What are the created kinds, and how can we distinguish between them using genetics?What objective tests can we run that will separate the theory of creationism from the theory of evolution. What we seem to be running into is that creationist claim that creationism is just a "different interpretation" yet their predictions, or actually post hoc reasoning, simple takes the supporting evidence from evolution and selectively places into an unsupported model. Take the HERV sequences, for example. Creationists claim that God used these viral insertions to design organisms. They then claim that even though these insertions support a common creator this is only a secondary effect, not the primary mechanism of creation. If this is so, then there should be a way to distinguish the primary mechanism (creation) from the secondary, and supposedly false, effect of DNA viral insertions supporting previously constructed cladistic trees.What are the tests within genetics that can separate the effects of a creation from the supposedly false scheme of evolution? Are these tests subjective, such as "It looks designed", or are they specific predictions such as "If these two were created separately, then their sequences should have such-and-such characteristics"? If creationism is the correct theory, then someone should be able to make bold statements about genetic similarities between separate species, specific statements about genetic diversity within species, and predictions about mitochondrial DNA. Anybody care to take a stab?

quote:

---

You have an interesting list of challenges, but I currently know very little about genetics (although I am learning), and can't answer them right now. Someday...

---

Then why do you proclaim that genetics offers serious problems for the theory of evolution? Are you simply parroting creationist websites or is this an opinion from experience?

quote:

---

Creationism cannot make sure predictions about things like mitochondrial DNA, because God could have made them however he wanted.

---

And what evidence led you to the conclusion that God was not bound by rules when he created DNA sequences? What evidence led you to the conclusion that God even had anything to do with constructing DNA sequences? Is your evidence a subjective translation of an ancient text or is it objective evidence from the genomes themselves and evidence in the fossil record? Are you starting from the conclusion and shoehorning in the evidence? If so, what stops me from concluding that aliens fooled with our DNA in ways that can not be predicted?Then why are geneticists able to make bold predictions using the theory of evolution? And why are those predictions bourne out in experiment after experiment? If God could have made it anyway he wanted to, why does mit DNA support evolution and common ancestory? If evolution were not true, and God made it however he wanted it to, why are these predictions excluding God right all of the time?

quote:

---

All I can say about mitochondrial DNA is that it will resemble bacterial DNA to the extent that mitochondria resemble bacteria (I know that that is extremely weak).

---

Evolution can go one more step. Evolution claims that sequence similarities in mitochondrial genes should reflect common ancestory and evolution, and it does. If creationism were correct, you would think that creationists would be better at making specific claims and having those claims be supported by the genetic evidence. Why should mitochondrial DNA follow common ancestory if creationism is true? Why should pattens of viral insertions mimic the fossil record if creationism is true?

quote:

---

The only prediction I can make with confidence is that there is much, much less "junk DNA" than is currently supposed. Actually, that is what my research will hopefully be about.

---

I will agree with you, but this in no way refutes evolution. Remember, junk DNA is defined as vestigial, not non-functional. For example, if you used a computer keyboard to pound in a nail, does that make the keyboard a hammer? Or does it make the keyboard a complex tool being used in a manner that it wasn't designed for? The keyboard, in this example, is a vestigial tool being used as a hammer. It serves a function, but it's original function is still quite obvious. The same can be said for junk DNA. It may serve some purpose, but role is obviously not what that DNA sequence originally filled in an ancestor species. Functional "junk" DNA is expected, and more such sequences will be found. However, the mutations in those sequences of junk DNA still support common ancestory which is something separate from the function of that sequence.