why creation "science" isn't science

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--Dean Kenyon of Stanford University was a strong supporter of Evolution, he wrote books on evolution, he got converted and wrote the book 'pandas and people'. They tried to fire him, but they couldn't so they made him a lab assistant. Theres alot of censorship in any kind of teaching in contrast with creationism or creation science in universities and various science magazines. Dispite this, I think 'conspiracy' wouldn't be much of a correct word usage in the context.

---

Could you please attempt to make a modest effort to get basic facts down?Kenyon was at San Francisco State, he was not fired, but removed from teaching an intro class on biology and reassigned to teaching labs not made a lab assistant.What Kenyon was introducing into the classroom is questionable at best. He tried to teach ID, but the problem is there is no scientific work that supports ID. He is teaching a science class and in doing so is introducing a "theory" that has no peer reviewed work supporting it and indeed no empirical support. The stunning thing is that the committee on academic freedom found for him. While academic freedom is a wonderful, it seems to have gone too far here. Kenyon was free to do research as he saw fit--he just was limited from teaching concepts that have no supporting scientific work. Cite a peer reviewed piece that he could have been basing these lectures on ID?You seem to have found a perfect example of how creationists are allowed to carry out research in the academy, though teaching isn't allowed because there isn't any research to base it upon. And even then there was support to allow him to teach the Intro class from the university's committee on academic freedom and the AAUP.The big question is, where is the theory of creationism?

quote:

---

"They are quite vicious in some cases, but I'm unclear on why a creationist couldn't handle this process, but evolutionists can?"
--The ratio of creationists and evolutionists teaching in universities would be somewhat of a simmilarity of these forums or much more, about one creationist for ever so many evolutionists. And as you recognize throughout these forums, I wouldn't point anyone out, but you sense much 'bias' if the word should be used in the context, against a creationists response when they feel they have adiquately refuted their statements.

---

Actually, I am guessing the ratio is even greater in favor of those who accept evolution is science departments. They are scientists after all and they use the scientific method. Something no one has demonstrated creationists are capable of using.The problem with your claim is that it claims that the overwhelming support for evolution is biology and other scientific departments is due to bias that is unfounded. The bias is a result of studying the issue and as such is not an untested assumption, but an inference derived from the evidence. Creationism isn't an issue in biology departments because there is no scientific theory related to it. It is a religious position held by conservative Protestants primariy in the United States.You have made the assertion that this is the result of some bias that exists out there, but offered no evidence that creationists are being judged on anything but the merits of their position. After all, if their position is unable to tell us anything about the natural world, it isn't going to be represented in science. You assert that biologists are wrong, but ignore the obvious conclusion when discussing the scientific consensus that the consensus exists because of the evidence. Complaining about the consensus is rather irrelevant unless you can enter into a discussion of the theory and the evidence. The first step in claiming that creationism is scientific would be to provide a scientific theory of creation.

quote:

---

Now there is no moping or groaning or crying or bickering (hopefully, I have seen bickering in some live debates), but there is bias against. There are so many scientists making millions of dollars doing research on the evolution topic, what would happen evolution were somehow absolutely disproved without a reasonable doubt,

---

Scientists in universities are making millions of dollars on this issue? ROTFL---you are deluded. Research scientists are comfortable, but they are not making millions of dollars. A few like Gould or Dawkins might, but that would be based on their popular writings as much as anything else.If a scientist were able to provide key falsifications to evolution they would win fame and a good deal of fortune starting with the Nobel Prize.What is especially strange about your claim though is that if biology was operating by this sort of system, why would it still be producing so many results? If, as you claim, biology is simply following a herd mentality instead of the evidence, why is biology making so many breakthroughs? Shouldn't the system be breaking down according to your claims? If the scientific method relies on evidence and inference, how could it work so well in most areas, but be ignored in another?

quote:

---

or even there be a recognizable strong influence or comback on the creationists side. I didn't know much anything about the creationists viewpoints untill a couple years ago, and is seldom given reference to in articles and essays and constantly attempting refutation while doing simply a poor job.

---

Again this is an assertion that is based on the unsupported claim that creationism is a scientific alternative. Conversely, and by any reasonable conclusion, one might just understand that evolution is the best theory that fits the evidence. To make this claim you must first address how creationism is scientific and then show how evolution fails.Cheers,
Larry

quote:

---

Hey buddy, you need to chill out. TrueCreation shouldn't have to single-handedly find citations for reasons why all of your excuses are invalid. You should simply use logic and common sense.

---

No, you need to understand what sort of discussion is occuring. He made a specific claim regarding the finding of a fossil that would be problematic for evolution. I asked for a citation supporting that find. What exactly is unreasonable in asking for that? The claim is one of evidence and therefore logic and common sense are rather hard to use without some evidence to discuss that is nothing more than an assertion at this point.

quote:

---

Logic and common sense tell you that scientists (being man) have flaws. One of the flaws just may include bias. Why is it so hard for you to understand that scientists are likely to be biased?

---

I have not said they are not biased, now have I? What I have been saying, rather frequently, is that bias is a product of the scientific method. Let's say one is going to test a hypothesis. The test is done and the evidence fits the hypothesis. What does one conclude from the test then?Generally one would conclude that the hypothesis is correct at least until further testing. This is a bias. This is a good bias in relation to the scientific method. Getting up and yelling that one is biased in discussing scientific work is rather silly. Of course, people are biased, otherwise they would have nothing to report.The absurd way the term bias has come to be used in our society seems to rest on the assumption that no one should ever conclude anything or they may be called bias. Any rational and productive humans beings are biased based on the evidence and conclusions based on that evidence. Saying a scientist is biased is the most self-evident claim I have ever heard because if a scientist wasn't biased, they wouldn't be doing scientific work.The point of the scientific method is to determine how the world works. In doing so, one must develop a bias or one isn't doing science.

quote:

---

I openly admit that Creationists are biased (including myself). The fact that most evolutionists pretend that they are unaffected by the temptation of bias only discredits them further.

---

Nothing has discredited them yet so I'm unclear on your further reference. Perhaps you would like to discuss the scientific theory of creation.

quote:

---

And I am still unclear as to how the "scientific method" washes clean all of the affects of bias.

---

Given your use of the term bias, I have no idea how it is relevant. However, the scientific method does require that one identify tests and carry them out as well as potential falsifications. Perhaps you would like to identify observations that would be potential falsifications of creationism?

quote:

---

I don't think you understand how easy it is to be biased towards evolution. Since most of the evidence scientists have is based on inferences of what occured in the past, it is easy to twist ideas to match your theory.

---

Such as?

quote:

---

Obviously, Creationists are similarly capable of twisting the facts. Therefore, one must choose which bias to be biased under: the Creationist model or the evolutionists model.

---

Or use the scientific method to identify testable hypotheses and test the models. This is the point after all. Of course, we would have to have a scientific theory of creation to test first.Cheers,
Larry

Ed Conrad is your reference? ROTFL---a full blown, out right net kook is probably not the best reference. Hell, he even has his own usenet group--I'm not even sure if Wollman has that.Of course, Ed is a full blown, out-right net kook who has also been repeatedly refuted.
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/carbbones/carbbones.html
Andrew Macrae actually took some time in doing so and Ed has blabbered on for some time about Andrew's incompetence, though he has never offered anything to refute Andrew.

http://posh.roundearth.net/90's.htm
http://www.megabaud.fi/~tsand/miscevo.htmlThe Wall Street Journal was the original source of the top article. Tero kept a series of posts on it as well.

quote:

---

--Have I not demonstrated so? I look forward to rebutals and encourage further discussion on any topic regardless of what creationist aspect it refutes, sure I am more excited when It is the other way around, but unbias is knowledge.

---

How can I rebut something that is not formalized?
And what does "unbias is knowledge" mean?

quote:

---

--There is absolutely nothing that you can observe in biology that I would disagree with, its the conclusions they draw, such as saying this is something new, when its a variant, or if you do this thousands of times it will evolve into something else.

---

Except that in science there must be potential falsifications for a theory. What are they for creationism?

quote:

---

--This is exactly what creation science does, it deals with reality and the real world, no one has been able to show me this is wrong.

---

Then why are you not able to provide a theory? Or even better, why not identify a finding that creationists have discovered in modern biology using a creationist theory?

quote:

---

--The interperetations biologists may make will make contrast with what they feel the evidence points to, it is in need of human interperetation, thus I disagree with nothing you can observe in biology, on the other hand, I do disagree with the conclusions given by them.

---

That is nice. However, those interpretations come with potential falsifications. Please address them for evolution and provide them for creationism.

quote:

---

--Creationism, that is, contributing all the aspects of the biblical creationist, is sertainly unscientific. Creation science I see as the science involved in it. It seems you are asking for a scientific explination of origins, which automatically exits the realm of science, science cannot explain origins, we know next to nothing to explain it by any natural process.

---

So explain the history and diversity of life on Earth. That is what evolution does. How does creation science do it?

quote:

---

--Correct, I wouldn't interperet my assertion on the whole scientific community, heck, some of them are striving to get a descent pay or a job in the least. The 'leading' people and the ones working under them are who I would be refering to.

---

And you are still deluded. While science professors do better than say those in the social sciences for some unexplicable mis prioritization, they aren't making millions of dollars.

quote:

---

--I heard this exact assertion in a debate with I believe Dr. Gould with Kent Hovind, actually what was quite interesting is that Gould displayed quite a lack of understanding of the theories in creationism, thus the statement is unsurprizing.

---

How can he be familiar if it isn't a formal theory. Perhaps you should identify the theory with a clear explanation of what it explains and what it does not. This should include testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsifications and not previously have been falsified.

quote:

---

--As I would emphesize that I would disagree with nothing that biology observes and sometimes even predicts, in biology, evolution technically happens, evolution as change, bacteria are a very large area of biological study and has brought out many breakthroughs and results, though it makes no relevance to whether 'E'volution has happend on a macro scale. It would change no inference if Creationists were opperating the table.

---

As I would emphasize you are completely confused about how science works. Science is about making inferences. If you want to say all inferences are relative, you are not partaking in science. Inferences are made to interpret the evidence. Those interpretations have to be able to be falsified. Saying that two mutually exclusive positions are okay to have around, is saying that science cannot make any conclusions reliably and therefore science is irrelevant. An operating table has little to do with biology in where the discoveries are coming from. Science makes inferences based on the evidence and if it can't do it reliably, it wouldn't be any more reliable in one are than in another.

quote:

---

--Creation science is scientific, but technically isn't an alternative because it is simply science that was given a name so that people would realize there is another interperetation of the facts.

---

So what is the scientific theory of creationism? Or a theory that falls under that model? You seem completely oblivious to the fact that if there are alternative models, we can test those models based on their implications and determine which is more accurate. So far, there is no way to test creationism according to you because it fits all of the facts and all of the potential facts even.

quote:

---

--Can it be observed, or mathematically tested and experimented on with contrast to reality?

---

Yes, evolution can be observed and especially specific features of biology can be tested that fit with evolution. And they have been tested. How about creationism?Science relies on observations. Those observations aren't necessarily experiments, but tests of the implications of a theory. In the case of humans and chimps, given what we know of genetics, they should share more common genetic traits that are non-functional if they share a common ancestor. And surprise, they do. Evolution explains this, how does creationism?Cheers,
Larry

quote:

---

True, the example I gave you is a poor one. However, if you review your posts you will see that you keep expecting citations and literature from TrueCreation. I simply don't think you should ask so much of him all at one time, as I'm sure this is not the only thread he is posting in.

---

Truecreation has chosen to do two things. Open multiple threads and then post assertions over and over again. There is nothing unreasonable about asking him for citations for the assertions he makes. If he can’t cite what he is asserting, then one has to ask why is asserting it in the first place.

quote:

---

Besides, I don't think TrueCreation should have to spend alot of time debating in this topic, because I think this argument is one of the weakest and most hypocritical evolutionists have to offer.
You keep saying that Creationists have no real theory because the theory does not have three supposed key features you deem neccesary to consider Creation a theory. Well, perhaps you should step back and decide whether or not evolution is a real theory under your guidelines. This means you must provide:
1. Testable hypotheses
2. Confirming evidence
3. Potential falsifications
I believe you will have trouble meeting requirement number 3. What exactly would falsify evolution?

---

Several things. In relation to specific lines of evidence, an excellent source for potential falsifications can be found at the 29 lines of evidence for common descent:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Picking out one example here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#pred22
Genetic change is a perfect example for how one could potentially falsify evolution. If we could demonstrate that the mechanisms of evolution were inadequate to produce change it would be falsified.To falsify the overarching TOE there are two basic strategies. One would be to identify the key evidences amongst the 29 or to falsify the mechanisms of evolution. In the first case there is a great deal of evidence supporting common descent and it is available above. In the second case, all of the mechanisms we understand currently have been tested in population genetics. Falsifying them could have occurred, but didn’t.
Some additional issues with the potential falsification of evolution are here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/sep96.html

quote:

---

Evolution and common descent are certainly falsifiable. One way to disprove them would be to show that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Not surprisingly, many creationists are trying to do just that. One could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or trilobites, organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago, would be one way to do this.

---

quote:

---

And for requirement number one, I expect that you have testable hypotheses for nearly all aspects of evolution. This includes the big bang, abiogenesis,

---

First, abiogenesis and the Big Bang are not evolution they are separate theories. Either one could be wrong and have no bearing on the accuracy of biological evolution. Second, one of the recently verified tests of the Big Bang involves the testing of background microwave radiation which was detected when tested. Abiogenesis on the other hand is really several different theories and no where near as well developed or certain as is biological evolution or the Big Bang.

quote:

---

and tests that prove (to at least a reasonable degree) that all of the minor changes in nature could lead to the formation of complex creatures (birds, whales, humans, etc.)

---

See the note above about population genetics.

quote:

---

What am I saying? Should we stop studying the "evil" theory of evolution? Of course not. I'm simply saying that scientists should realize that many of the conclusions they make (however reasonable they may be) are outside the realm of traditional science.

---

Please cite specific conclusions found as stated in the peer reviewed research or at least work based in the peer reviewed research .

quote:

---

"So explain the history and diversity of life on Earth. That is what evolution does. How does creation science do it?"
I'm sorry, but this does not seem to be a very reasonable question.
Creationists explain history and diversity by an almighty God who has extreme power. This almighty God created everything. If you didn't know that then you should be studying up on Creation instead of debating in this topic (whether or not you believe Creation is "real" science.)
However, if you meant by the question that you want Creation to explain the diversity of life by purely natural means, then surely the question can't be serious. Creationists don't think life CAN be explained by purely natural means, which is a perfectly reasonable assumption under current evidence.

---

It is an extremely reasonable question actually. Unless the evidence has been purposely tampered with, science should be able to study the natural world. Even if an event occurred that can’t be directly observed, it should leave all sorts of evidence lying around. Even if a supernatural event occurred, there should be evidence of said event occurring and having effects on the natural world. Where is the evidence?

quote:

---

"Science relies on observations."
No kidding. The fact that certain (tiny) bits of the theory of evolution can be observed matters little. Besides, most "observed" instances of evolution are definitely compatible with a Creation model. Speciation, mutations, change in allelic frequency, etc. all easily fall under the framework that the universe and it's life is designed.

---

To make this assertion you must first identify a creationist model. Please do so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
A creation model is very simple.

​

An almighty being created the universe, the earth, and life. Soon after, He created man (in his own image.) Man sinned (big suprise) and as a result the almighty being decided to cast the first humans out of the perfect world and into a world in which one must struggle to survive.

---

So how does one test this model? What is the evidence of this theory that confirms it? How would one know if it is false? This is a scientific discussion, not a discussion by assertion. Please offer up more than vague assertions

quote:

---

Under this very vague model, one can see easily how mutations, speciation, and change in allelic frequency all fit in easily to the theory.

---

Assertion--please support it with testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and how it could be falsified.

quote:

---

This model also agrees with another scientific idea in an alternate way. Common descent can easily be exchanged with common designer.

---

How so? To make this claim you would have to have a scientific theory that is testable, has confirming evidence and can be falsified. You have not identified such a theory. Please do so. Saying the evidence fits both models is an assertion, you need to support this assertion by providing a scientific theory that does what you assert. To date you, nor anyone else, has been able to.

quote:

---

"Abiogenesis on the other hand is really several different theories and no where near as well developed or certain as is biological evolution or the Big Bang."

​

Abiogenesis is very important. If abiogenesis cannot be explained, neither can life by purely natural means.

---

Evolution doesn't claim that. It does claim that since the first life we are able to detect, evolution accounts for the history and diversity of life on Earth. How that life started is largely irrelevant to evolution. Abiogenesis, panspermia, divine intervention, intelligent intervention, all could have started life on Earth and not affect the evidence for evolution.

quote:

---

Besides, as I pointed out earlier, most (if not all) biological concepts fit fine with a Creation model.

---

You have asserted it before. You have not demonstrated that this is true by identifying any theory. Perhaps you could explain how identical retroviral insertions in humans and chimps are explained by the 'creation model.'Also, this is a strange statement given that the unifying concept of biology is evolution and yet you seem to think it can be separated from the field on a whim.Larry

quote:

---

The evidence lies mostly in the extreme complexity of life.

---

How do we test this? And how is it falsifiable? You have declared creationism correct because of the current state of the worldnot by any testing with this statement.

quote:

---

And for the most part, any evidence against evolution is essentially evidence for Creation.

---

Incorrect. A theory should be able to support itself without even mentioning another theory. A theory rests on positive evidence for it, not the lack of evidence for another theory. You should be able to describe the scientific theory of creation and its supporting evidence without even mentioning evolution if it is indeed, a scientific theory. Now, after doing that you might want to compare the theories for parsimony or other aspects, but to describe the basic theory evolution should be irrelevant.

quote:

---

The universe either made itself, was made, or a combination.

---

Again, evolution doesn’t concern itself with the universe as a whole. It does explain the history and diversity of life on Earth. Scientific theories don’t explain everything, the explain specific phenomenon. Your insistence on continuing to claim it does is nothing more than a strawman argument.

quote:

---

If the universe was either made or made using methods of itself (combination), then the basic principle that we were created by an intelligent being is correct. Therefore, flaws and huge gaps in evolution are evidence of a creator.

---

No, if such flaws existedand you are completely unable to point them out without resorting to a strawman argumentit would be falsification of evolution. You must provide positive evidence of a theory for it to be accepted, not negative evidence of one alternative.

quote:

---

Abiogenesis (despite your admittance to this being an important part of evolution) is a great example. Even you admit that Abiogenesis does not have alot of evidence going for it at the current time.

---

No, it is a horrible example. It shows how devoid of content your argument is. If abiogenesis doesn’t account for the beginning of life on Earth, it is simply false, not evidence for another theory.

quote:

---

How about you use common sense instead?

---

Because common sense has little to say here. Common sense isn’t a scientific tool. You make the claim that creationism is scientific. Support that assertion. If you want to say that creationism is correct, but not scientific, you are welcome to your faith. However, you have claimed it is scientific and science has standards.

quote:

---

You're fooling yourself. If life wasn't created by natural means then it was created by intelligent means.

---

1) there are potentially other natural means besides abiogenesis
2) You need to provide a testable theory to support you contention if you are going to claim it is scientific.
3) I am not fooling myself, I am pointing out that you don’t understand science and have made erroneous statements regarding creationism being scientific.

quote:

---

This intelligent being would likely be God. Unless of course you state that aliens brought first life here. Two problems with that theory:
1. Life would of had to start on some planet at some point in time.
2. The idea that aliens brought the first cell to earth sounds much more like a fairy tale than the story of the bible, in my opinion.
So if one can say that (almost definitely) life did not start by aliens throwing the first cell on our planet, then we can assume beyond reasonable doubt that life had to of been started by an intelligent designer.

---

Assertion. Do you have a scientific theory that can test this? Yes or no? If so provide. If not, admit creationism is not scientific.

quote:

---

What is wrong with that assumption if the evidence fits into my model

---

Assumptions in science are generally testable and usually have been tested previously. Just assuming something without good scientific reason is not science. It is wishful thinking.

quote:

---

to tell you the truth, I don't want to falsify this claim because it fits perfectly to a Creation model. I strongly predict that a foreign, non-nucleic acid of genetic material will be found as well. My reason? Common creator, common system of creating. There is no reason to suspect God would stray to far from the near-perfect system of DNA he created when he developed new species.

---

To make this claim you would need to have a scientific theory of creationism. It may be true that some evidence could be equally handledhowever, there would have to be a competing theory to judge such an issue. Please provide said theory.

quote:

---

.
As for the confirmation, I don't find it a big suprise. On a side note, Linneaus was a Christian (which you probably knew).

---

So am I and a person’s religion is largely irrelevant to the scientific evidence.

quote:

---

As for the falsification, firstly I doubt evolutionists would stop considering macroevolution fact if some mammals had wings.

---

Some do. I have no idea why you made the above claim. External features such as wings or fins are not at issue, but more at issue would be a shark and dolphin sharing identical features internally.

quote:

---

Secondly, I don't see why scientists think God would of done it any other way! Anyways, this point is another moot one because it fits a Creation model.

---

What creation model? Fine, it fits the creation model. Could you be bothered to provide said model instead of just asserting that it fits everything?

quote:

---

The problem with this is that the current tree that evolutionists propose now could easily be replaced by other trees. So if evolutionary assumptions lead to a certain tree, what is to say that these evolutionary assumptions are correct? Therefore, the idea that it can be falsified is not neccesarily true, because any new evidence would cause the tree to change instead of cause scientists to doubt the idea of common descent.
I think you can find alot more at trueorigins.org

---

You are confused over what the line of evidence states. The TOE as it is formulated, postulates one true phylogenic treeand that is what we find. If we didn’t find that the TOE that is being argued for by science today, would be false. Perhaps there could be two trees or something, but that would be an entirely different theory. You are confused because you have conflated falsifications of evolution as being evidence of creation. They aren’t, they are evidence of the current theory as formulated. The current theory could be falsified, and then other theories would be formulated. Those theories may be similar to evolution as formulated, but they would be different in key points. Your argument is silly because it is based on the assumption that creationism is correct. If creationism is correct, then you should be able to produce a theory. Because there is a successful theory that explains part of creationism claims to explain, does not mean that if that successful theory were to be falsified, that the other alternative is only creationism.

quote:

---

First of all, the falsification is not really very good. Even the author admits that a mammal-bird intermediate would be merely "highly inconsistent" with the theory.

---

So such a finding would certainly falsify the tree we are working with. What is the problem here? I have no idea why the falsification is not goodbecause we don’t observe it is only a sign of the accuracy of evolution. [QUOTE] Secondly, I find it very odd that Archaeopteryx is the only example with a link.

quote:

---

We also have an exquisitely complete series of fossils for the reptile-mammal intermediates, ranging from the pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta, up to primitive mammalia (Futuyma 1998, pp. 146-152). Another impressive example is the collection of land mammal-to-whale fossil intermediates.
One of the most celebrated examples of transitional fossils is our collection of fossil hominids (see Figure 1.4.1 below). Based upon the consensus of numerous phylogenetic analyses, Pan troglodytes (the chimpanzee) is the closest living relative of humans. Thus, we expect that organisms lived in the past which were intermediate in morphology between humans and chimpanzees. Over the past century, many spectacular paleontological finds have identified such transitional hominid fossils.

---

It isn’t. And the references are there so why is a link the standard? I find it strange you are complaining given the references are available and a link to land mammals and whales is also included.

quote:

---

Therefore, one can only assume Archaeopteryx is the best example available.

---

Why would you assume that? Why don’t you bother to go and read some sources actually instead of making poor assumptions? Additionally, you don’t bother even addressing the example? Why not?

quote:

---

But when I look at the Archaeopteryx, I see fully functional feathers. How did these get there?

---

Scales that were selected for over generations?

quote:

---

Thirdly, I don't see why an intermediate would not be created by an intelligent designer.

---

1) Then it wouldn’t be an intermediate
2) I have no idea since there is no way to evaluate claims concerning what an intelligent designer would or would not doyou don’t have a theory and everything seems to fit with what an intelligent designer might do
3) an Ider would then seem to be planting evidence to fool us.

quote:

---

Archaeopteryx seems like a wonderful creation, and if God made reptiles and birds, why should he be expected to not make an organism that has (fully functional) characteristics of both?

---

So again, all evidence fits the designer? You have the responsibility of explaining such cases in the framework of a scientific theory. Please do and stop this, well God could have done it this way argument that does nothing in supporting a scientific theory.

quote:

---

I will add # 5 to my list when I have time.

---

When you do, why don’t you address the science this time?

quote:

---

Every time I make a good point it is countered by "Well you don't really have a theory so there!"

---

The problem is that you are confused about the difference between an assertion and an argument. To date you have made an assertion that evidence for evolution is consistent with evidence for a common designer. You have not bothered to provide an argument about how one infers a common designer other than to say that you believe it. That isn't an argument, that is an assertion. And you have made the assertion repeatedly without supporting it repeatedly. You claim that the thing you assert is as good or better than evolution, but you can't produce the argument for what you are asserting is supported.

quote:

---

One thing I must clear up here. I don't think you all understand what I am arguing against. My main argument is:

​

I DON'T THINK IT IS POSSIBLE TO EXPLAIN EXISTENCE WITHOUT AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER.

---

You have made this clear. You just haven't supported this assertion in the scientific framework that this discussion would require.

quote:

---

The ToE I am debating against is the theory that everything made itself.

---

This is untrue and people have repeatedly pointed this out to you. The ToE explains the history and diversity of life on Earth using specific observed mechanisms and corroborating evidence. It is not a theory "that everything made itself." If you want to make a claim, you would need to find a source by a scientist who argues for evolution and then cite exactly where such a claim is made.

quote:

---

That INCLUDES Abiogenesis, Big Bang, and Biological Evolution.

---

You have your facts wrong and this has been pointed out to you repeatedly. Please correct your understanding.

quote:

---

What you must understand is, if God DOES exist, I have no problem with ideas like Abiogenesis and Big Bang. God would be able to supply the miracles required for these theories. So, the explanation of Abiogenesis is important to ME. I am mainly debating against the idea of naturalism.

---

Actually you are arguing against a strawman argument.

quote:

---

The bible, while not necessarily giving evidence towards my idea, is cosistent with it. Of course, your argument (whoever next replies) will be "You don't really have a model." This is despite me posting a model earlier:

​

"An almighty being created the universe, the earth, and life. Soon after, He created man (in his own image.) Man sinned (big suprise) and as a result the almighty being decided to cast the first humans out of the perfect world and into a world in which one must struggle to survive.

​

That is the world we live in today. The many species God created were created using the DNA code. He created them how he wanted them, with much variability. After the perfect world ended, errors in the code (mutations) began to affect all species. These errors along with the coded variation of species led to the world today in which we find many different species."

---

That isn't a model, it is an assertion. You need to demonstrate how you would test such a claim, what confirming evidence exists and what are the potential falsifications.

quote:

---

I challenge any of you to create (your own) evolutionary model which explains everything from the beginning of time (naturalism).

---

That would be quite a silly enterprise given no one is arguing any such thing. Again, you are trying to argue against a strawman argument.

quote:

---

Don't go into details, just a broad overview.

---

The details of ToE have been given to you. Why should someone create a theory that already exists and is operationalized?

quote:

---

Also, you claim my theory doesn't have the three things you deem necessary to be a theory:

​

1. Testable hypotheses
2. Confirming evidence
3. Potential falsifications

​

I must first ask, where did you get these requirements?

---

The scientific method. I have pointed out why several times.

quote:

---

Secondly, I will ask you to give me answers of how evolution fits these requirements.

---

Speaking of heads and walls, what do you think the 29 lines of evidence is?

quote:

---

Giving me a link to the 29 evidences doesn't count.

---

Why not? Fiat by cobra?

quote:

---

I've already tried to show that the falsifications for the evidences were bogus,

---

No, you made some amorphous claims concerning how the evidence was not exclusive without any way of telling if your claims were correct. You didn't bother to address the falsifications in any meaningful manner.

quote:

---

but I was not able to get past #4 before you again blasted me with the claim that my model has nothing to do with science. I would like the explanations in your own words.

---

You don't have a model. You have an assertion. Those are my own words. Please provide a scientific model.

quote:

---

I will address the other points as soon as I get back. In the meantime, have fun creating your own model for evolution.

---

Why would one create their own model of evolution?

Unfortunately the scientific method is designed to test "interpretations" of the data. Please provide how to test the creation "model" that everyone keeps claiming exists. Indeed, weren't you off to come up with one? What happened there?

A question has been posted in a new thread. Please address it.

And science is designed to choose between different interpretations. This isn't a postmodern enterprise. Saying you have a different interpretation is rather irrelevant. What is relevant is whether your 'interpretation' stands up to being tested.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"And science is designed to choose between different interpretations."
--Not exactly right, science tells us what we are viewing, ie science tells us we have so much of a quantity of radioisotopes in a given sample, science tells us their decay rate, science tells us many other things about the world, what we do is say what this means, ie the interperetation.

---

Congratulations. You have just changed the scientific method. Of course, you are completely wrong, and in a manner that is astounding.Science is a method that infers from tests of hypotheses. Those tests seek out evidence to confirm or falsify the hypothesis. You seem to be redefining it as a collection of facts. This is simply incorrect. The scientific method is specifically designed to determine what fits the evidence best. Any claim to the contrary is silly.