why creation "science" isn't science

Well mark24, while I'm sure you're insult of the Creationist idea may be funny to you, but it seems to me that you're post DOESN'T include a model for the evolutionary explanation of existence. Nor does it contain (in your own words) reasons why the theory meets all three of your requirements. Mockery is not a very good debate tactic. I know that you consider this an analogy, but mockery was surely intended. However, you have no right to insult my idea of a designer without first answering my previous questions.That's ok though. If none of you will create a broad overview, I'll make one for you."In the beginning there was hydrogen which eventually condensed into a huge ball of matter, and soon after exploded. Because of the influence of gravity, the galaxies, stars, and planets were formed. One of the planets that was formed happened to become our home: the planet Earth.Just by chance, molecules formed together and had the ability to reproduce, which marks the beginning of life on the planet Earth. Through processes including mutation and natural selection, this first form of life started to change into more complex species.Humans are one of the steps of this evolutionary process."That about sums it up, eh? I don't see how that broad overview differs much from mine. If you disagree with my model than maybe you could actually take the time to create your own rather than amusing yourself with your goat story.From: joz
"Why is common descent a better explanation of the data than common designer? Because it is simpler in its reliance on natural phenomena only (i.e no goddidit)....."I admit that "goddidit" can be used as a lame explanation, but that still does not mean that common descent is "simpler." Saying that is a baseless assertion, and your explanation is proof of your bias. By saying that it is more effective because it doesn't REQUIRE a supernatural force is total bias against the perfectly reasonable idea that some force designed life.From: wj
"BTW, what is the difference between me questioning the way God made species and you conjecturing what and why God would have done something?"I am only stating possibilities.From: mark24
"Not necessarily so. There is no reason Chimps particularly need to have similar gene sequences to us, in the same chromosomal positions. Firstly, molecules like cytochrome c in other living organisms can be very different from chimps & humans, so why are chimps & humans cytochrome c identical? God used many variations, but made humans & chimps identical? He made all other molecules very similar too? He never had to, all these molecules work in exactly the same way in other organisms but vary in the exact amino acid sequece. Curiously, these molecules vary the more distantly related (from paleontological evidence) the organisms are. This is consistent with mutation over time, by common descent."Well you can play God all you want, but I don't see what objection you have with God using similar methods to create largely different species.From: mark24
"So, either Gods out to fool us, or He was never involved. Remember, humans & chimps AREN'T related according to creation "science". So why does evidence point to common descent?"This looks an awful lot like a baseless assertion. God is not trying to fool you, you're doing a fine job of that yourself! Evidence points to common descent based on an interpretation. Another (perfectly reasonable) interpretation is common designer. I don't see the point debating with you if you can't accept this simple idea.From: shrafinator
"Cute, but not adequate if you want to be scientific. It was "common sense" for a very long time that the Earth was flat."First of all, I was implying that using common sense when interpreting the facts. Why on Earth would you want to diminish the importance of common sense when interpreting facts. Here's the original argument:From: Me
"Under this very vague model, one can see easily how mutations, speciation, and change in allelic frequency all fit in easily to the theory."From: Ibhandli
"Assertion--please support it with testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and how it could be falsified."If I must elaborate on these simple concepts, I will explain:1. Change in allelic frequency.If/when God made life, he could've used the system we know today as genetics. In the system of genetics, much variability is incorporated. When the general characteristics of a certain species fluctuate as time passes, this can be referred to as change in allelic frequency.2. Mutations.If/when God banished the first humans from the Garden of Eden, he may have used mutations to cause harmful effects on all species, including humans.3. Speciation.If/when God banished all creatures from the Garden of Eden, the combined effect of change in allelic frequency and mutation, coupled with the simple concept of natural selection could've caused enough changes to occur so that humans would consider the animal a new species.When using COMMON SENSE, one can clearly see that mutations, change in allelic frequency, and speciation are completely compatible with both theories. If you can't understand this concept than maybe I'm being much to optimistic on the level of common sense most intelligent human beings have. (The "your theory is not a theory" argument will prove nothing until one of you post your own justifications as to why evolution is a scientific theory.)From: shrafinator (discussing Abiogenesis)
"It is not an either/or question. We could just not be intelligent enough to figure it out. Or, more likely, we just need more time to figure it out. Besides, Abiogenesis is largely irrelevent to the ToE."What do you mean it is not an either or question? Life was either created by something or created itself. What other POSSIBLE explanations could there be. Your excuse that Abiogenesis is irrelevant has been discussed a few posts back and if you have any problem with my justification for the importance of Abiogenesis, feel free to make me aware of them.From: shrafinator (on the origin of life)
"Why would it "had" to have started?"What kind of question is that? Life must of started in order for it to exist. Unless you think life is and always has been, which is generally a copout from your own theory and probably not a stance that many respected evolutionists would be willing to take.From: shrafinator (on my claim that aliens didn't cause evolution)
"Strawman argument. I don't know who claims this to be tue. Can you name them?"You have a good point, but this is mostly a misunderstanding. I was saying that if you could HYPOTHETICALLY rule out the theory, THEN a Creator would have to be Godlike.From: shrafinator
"IOW, the closer an organism is to another organism on the tree of life, the closer they are, genetically, to one another. And vice versa. It is really quite easy to see."While the fact that both trees match makes the evidence a bit stronger, I still don't see why this would not be expected from a Supernatural Designer.

In the time it took me to write my last post, Ibhandli had already made his! So now I will go over his points."The problem is that you are confused about the difference between an assertion and an argument."Oh really?argument \Ar"gu*ment\, n. [F. argument, L. argumentum, fr. arguere to argue.] 1. Proof; evidence. [Obs.]There is.. no more palpable and convincing argument of the existence of a Deity. --Ray.Why, then, is it made a badge of wit and an argument of parts for a man to commence atheist, and to cast off all belief of providence, all awe and reverence for religion? --South.2. A reason or reasons offered in proof, to induce belief, or convince the mind; reasoning expressed in words; as, an argument about, concerning, or regarding a proposition, for or in favor of it, or against it.3. A process of reasoning, or a controversy made up of rational proofs; argumentation; discussion; disputation.argument (rgy-mnt)
n.A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate.
A quarrel; a dispute.
Archaic. A reason or matter for dispute or contention: sheath'd their swords for lack of argument (Shakespeare).A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood: presented a careful argument for extraterrestrial life.
A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason: The current low mortgage rates are an argument for buying a house now.
A set of statements in which one follows logically as a conclusion from the others.argument n 1: a fact or assertion offered as evidence that something is true; "it was a strong argument that his hypothesis was true" [syn: statement] 2: a dispute where there is strong disagreement; "they were involved in a violent argument" [syn: controversy, contention, contestation, tilt, arguing] 3: a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal; "the argument over foreign aid goes on and on" [syn: debate] 4: a summary of the subject or plot of a literary work or play or movie; "the editor added the argument to the poem" [syn: literary argument] 5: a variable in a logical or mathematical expression whose value determines the dependent variable; if f(x)=y, x is the independent variable [syn: independent variable]I find it rather funny that assertion is INCLUDED in that last definition. Please stop with this pointless debate. You know EXACTLY what I am arguing against:I DON'T THINK IT IS POSSIBLE TO EXPLAIN EXISTENCE WITHOUT AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER. (If you don't think existence can be explained without an intelligent designer than we should not be debating.)I have reasons for this argument and you know it.1. The lack of a good explanation for how life started without being created.2. The lack of proof that small changes in genetic code (microevolution) can lead to large changes (macroevolution).3. The lack of current biological facts (mutation, speciation, microevolution) to conflict with my basic theory in the slightest."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."Perhaps the theory of evolution that you support does not include this ideaology, but it is certainly true that there are many different levels of belief of evolution, as is true with Creation. The belief that everything created itself is known as naturalism, and that is what I am against. However, I am also against the large-scale ideas of biological evolution (macroevolution).What exactly are your beliefs? How far does your acceptance of science go? Does it go past evolution and into abiogenesis and the Big Bang? Because if it does than your argument is useless. If it doesn't than we should simply debate how much influence an intelligent designer had."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."Fine, then create a model that shows your beliefs on diversity. Provide falsifications."The details of ToE have been given to you. Why should someone create a theory that already exists and is operationalized?"I realize that the theory is in place. I would like YOU to describe it to me so that I decide whether or not your theory meets your own requiremets. You think I'm ignorant anyway, so this is your chance to show me exactly what I am misinterpreting."You didn't bother to address the falsifications in any meaningful manner."Thanks for the opinion."You don't have a model. You have an assertion. Those are my own words. Please provide a scientific model."I asked YOU to supply a scientific model, so that I can see what exactly a scientific model IS. So far you have not supplied your own model so you are being hypocritical in saying that I need to supply a model."Why would one create their own model of evolution?"To express their views on what they think evolution explains and also to give me an example of a "scientific theory."All I am asking is that one of you supply me with a "scientific model" of what you believe evolution explains. This model, in order to be "scientific," should include the 3 supposedly necessary items that have been discussed previously. I believe that once I see this model I will be able to easily slip Creation into a similar model and therefore further my point that evolution has the same flaws as Creation (as a scientific theory).

"Do you now understand why there is a difference between a theory & a scientific theory? Do you understand the necessity for drawing a distinction?"Actually, I have understood the difference for a long time. And this is not the first time that a story like this was used in attempt to make me realize how stupid my idea is. However, the point I am trying to make is that the ToE is very similar to the Theory of Creation in that they are both involve inferences from the past, and neither can be falsified to any reasonable degree. If you were to post your own theory of evolution I may be able to show you what I mean.By the way; what does falsified mean? Does it mean disproven completely or made to seem unlikely. Please verify.

That is exactly my point, all you evolutionists out there. All to often you lead me to tremendously huge links and expect me to research it all and then refute everything the link has to say. It would be much more convienient if you would post your own thought's and arguments on the issue.By the way, here are all relevant links to the 29 evidences.Original document:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/Rebuttal from trueorigins:
http://trueorigins.org/theobald1a.aspResponse to the rebuttal:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
You have given me a REALLy good laugh tonight, thank you!

​

---

You're right, I did contradict myself. But I have a pretty good idea of what a falsification is, I was only wondering whether or not falsification meant that it was falsified WITHOUT A DOUBT. However, I do feel stupid for saying that."We have observed evolution. We have observed speciation. I have linked to specific evidence. I have posted specific evidence."We have observed evolutionary IDEAS that are consistent with Creation framework (speciation). I don't understand how observing things that are consistent with both theories is a problem for Creation."Young Earth Creationism HAS been refuted about 200 years ago."That's a pretty bold statement and it's also a baseless assertion."If you want to champion ID go to the stonehenge thread and answer the question that John Paul wouldn`t/couldn`t.... How do you differentiate between a natural system and a designed one...."Are you going to argue that Mount Rushmore was created by natural processes? I hope not. For similar reasons, I think it is unlikely that life (infinitely more complex than Mount Rushmore) can form without intelligent design.

Yes, I must say that is a very intelligent statement for a rookie! Don't let them persuade you otherwise. Evolution requires faith in an idea that we are all from a common ancestor. The mechanisms for this are rather unrealistic (in my opinion), but the mechanisms are even doubted by many prominent evoluitionists. Also, the skeptic file is a good read, but don't believe it unconditionally. The way it was written, it is clear that the writer was not an unbiased source. I tend to think science should be the attempt to find THE TRUTH. I don't see why a designer (God) is viewed as so unrealistic in the evolutionary camp. I suppose they think science is only the study of natural means, not supernatural means, but I think searching for the truth is more important than following an evolutionists guideline for science.P.S. I have been busy recently, but I soon will reply to all of your posts.

Sorry for the long wait for a reply, but I'm a busy man you know! I will go over your model to see where the conflicts are, and then I will provide my own biological model.1. "If all the offspring that organisms can produce were to survive and reproduce, they would soon overrun the earth."True.2. "As a consequence, there is competition to survive and reproduce, in which only a few individuals succeed in leaving progeny."True.3. "Organisms show variation in characteristics or traits that influence their success in this struggle for existence. Individuals within a population vary from one another in many traits."True.4. "Offspring tend to resemble parents, including in characters that influence success in the struggle to survive and reproduce."True.5. "Parents possessing certain traits that enable them to survive and reproduce will contribute disproportionately to the offspring that make up the next generation."True.6. "To the extent that offspring resemble their parents, the population in the next generation will consist of a higher proportion of individuals that possess whatever adaptation enabled their parents to survive and reproduce."True.All of those points add up to a (good) definition of natural selection. (Of course, I do not AT ALL disagree with the process of natural selection.)1. "There must be heritable variation for some trait. Examples: beak size, color pattern, thickness of skin, fleetness, visual acuity."I agree. Great variability.2. "There must be differential survival and reproduction associated with the possession of that trait."Naturally.As of yet, I have no problem with your theory. Let's continue."Heritable variation occurs by mutational changes in an organism’s DNA (any change in the hereditary message — base pair substitution or insertion/deletion of new bases) leading to the creation of new genetic material AND/OR creation of new genetic combinations through transposition (changing the position of a gene changes what it does), recombination (through cross-over during meosis), or genetic reshuffling (through sexual reproduction). Without getting too deep into it, selection can only act on the phenotype. A gene can be present, but not expressed (e.g. a recessive allele). Only homozygous recessives will show the trait and be selected for or against. In addition, selection acts on the whole organism (a conspicuously-colored moth, for ex, can have all sorts of wonderful genes, but if a bird nails that moth, its entire genotype is gone). And finally, selection doesn’t have to cause changes. It also can maintain the status quo."This is where I start to disagree with you (and indeed some evolutionists do as well). I do not believe that mutations can be the raw material for evolution. First of all, beneficial mutations are extremely rare. Second of all, I've never heard of a beneficial mutation that increased the amount of information. This is where Creation and Evolution go seperate ways. Creationists don't think mutations could ever cause the amount of change required, evolutionists do. If you want to debate further, this would be an excellent area to debate."Therefore, the general predictions of evolution are:1. Given heritable variation over time, new species can and do arise."I agree with this statement.2. "Over sufficiently long time periods, due to various mechanisms surviving populations will vary sufficiently from the parent population to constitute new taxa."I do not agree with this statement. This is an important area of debate. (Please note that even some evolutionists do not agree with you, so I am not making a bold statement to disagree with you on this particular point.)Now for MY biological model for Creation. (As with your model, mine will not involve origin.)1. Mutations should almost always cause a bad effect.2. Mutations should rarely or never increase the amount of information.3. Speciation should occur as a product of the great variability programmed into living things, combined with mutations.4. All living things should be fully formed from the start. (i.e. no reptiles with "half-wings" or "half-feathers."5. Due to the typically negative effect of mutations, speciations should arise primarily as a result of LOSS or CORRUPTION of information, which makes the species less varied.SO, my predictions for Creation would be:1. Fully formed creatures in the fossil record (no "half-features")2. An increased genetic burden over time as a result of the negative effect of mutations.I hope you find my model at least somewhat scientific, although I have a feeling not too many people will. Ah well, let the debate rage on.

Shrafinator:
"Young Earth Creationism HAS been refuted about 200 years ago."Cobra (me!):
That's a pretty bold statement and it's also a baseless assertion.Shrafinator:
"Be careful. I do not generally assert that which I cannot back up."First of all, I must say I am impressed that you had something to back up your claim. However, are you implying that because 200 years ago, Creation scientists didn't think a Noachian flood was possible, and because of this YEC shouldn't even be considered?If your answer was yes, you should prepare to eat your words.20 years ago, a conference of evolutionists took place in Chicago. The primary question of the meeting was: whether or not the mechanisms underlying microevolution could be extrapolated to explain the phenomenon of macroevolution. Can you take a wild guess as to what their conclusion was? NO!So, if I must withdraw my ideas based on the conclusions of Creation geologists 200 years ago, CERTAINLY you must withdraw your ideas based on the conclusion of Evolutionary scientists merely 20 years ago!(My source was the book Creation: Facts of Life by Gary E. Parker.)

From: edge
"So, everybody make mistakes."INCLUDING Creation geologists 200 years ago!From: edge
"What did they say about the age of the earth?"I don't see how this relates to the discussion in the slightest. Why are you trying to change the topic like this?From: Ibhandli
"Instead of quoting Gary Parker you should have read Lewontin's article. The debate concerned mechanisms such as PE, not whether the basic mechanisms of evolution were inadequate. Read the article next time."If you would like to supply me a source for the article, I would be glad to read it. However, I don't see a problem with citing something out of a Creationist book. Where else am I going to find out the stuff that evolutionists don't want us to know? (Gary Parker also used to be an evolutionist, but after he re-examined the FACTS, he became a Creationist.)From: wj
"Cobra, does your book by Parker provide specific details of the conference of evolutionists? If so, please advise. And does it have a specific statement of the outcome of the conference?"In the book, this is according to the proffesional summary:"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macro-evolution.At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No."This conference was not questioning evolution of course, only the mechanism. But they found the mechanism inadequate, yet that same mechanism remains in the textbooks and in many of your arguments. If you don't want to believe they were right, that's fine. However, I should get the same ability to not think Creation geologists (200 years ago) were right. There are some evolutionists (like Gould) that don't think mutation-selection is adequate, just like there are some Creationists that don't believe in a global flood.

"And BTW Cobra,there is nothing that evolutionists "dont want you to know"...i'm growing tired of hearing about this "evolution" conspiracy nonsense."I wasn't saying it is a conspiracy. I'm just saying a source like Talkorigins will not be too quick to provide information on something that is not good for evolution. I expect the same from a Creationist source.

"The difference being that the Creationist Geologists of 200 years ago had intellectual integrity enough to acknowlegde all of the evidence, and realize that it did not support the idea of a worldwide flood."Right... And evolutionary biologists had enough integrity to acknowledge that mutation-selection was not adequate. I really don't see what is so different about this."Since we are talking about Flood geology, and not evolution, why do you bring evolution up at all?"You are trying to tell me that I shouldn't believe in a worldwide flood because 200 years ago, creationist geologists saw that the evidence pointed otherwise. I tried to show that your arguments were unfair, because evolutionary biologists 20 years ago saw that the evidence does not support mutation-selection. I realize that the fields are not the same, but the principal remains:If I should have to realize my ideas are wrong because Creation scientists 200 years ago thought they were wrong, then you should have to realize your ideas are wrong because evolutionists thought they were wrong 20 years ago. The reason I brought up evolution was to show you that your reasoning was hypocritical.

"Gee, you quoted it, why don't you know it? This is simply irresponsible nonsense. If you are going to cite something you have a responsibility to know what you are talking about."I was just passing on information I read in a book. Although I agree that it would be a good idea for me to read the article, I don't know to get ahold of a certain article from a magazine published twenty years ago. I think it is perfectly reasonable for me to pass on information I read in a book."I confused Lewin with Lewontin. How could you have cited this without knowing the source? How? Do you have any shame?"Actually, I do know the source (although I haven't read the article). Sorry if I didn't give you this impression."Why didn't you read it in the first place? You know, before you made grand claims about it?"Well, the reason is that I didn't know how to get the article. So, quoting the proffesional summary seems reasonable. I wasn't giving "grand claims" about it, I was giving a bit of the proffesional summary."Why are you citing something that you have no knowledge of?"I DO have some knowledge, but all I know is from the summary in the Creationist book. We can debate about the validity of the book (which I believe you do shortly)."He is also a liar which you would know if you bothered to read what you cite."A liar? Did the summary indeed include what the book said? If yes, I don't see how that could be considered lying. Perhaps misleading, but far from lying. Parker shouldn't have to show the entire summary in his book."What is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is completely decoupled from macroevolution: the two can probably be seen as continuum with notable overlap."I don't really understand what this means. Could you please show me how this makes the statement I provided misleading?I am going to try to find the article and read the whole thing.

"i did however notice that you are all trying to use others opinions and actions to prove the opposite side's opinion wrong and that doesnt get you anywhere."Very true! This brings up a good point. I was not trying to say that evolution was refuted at the Chicago Conference. I was merely using the same unfair technique of supposed refutation that shrafinator provided. (He said that YEC was REFUTED long ago because of the scientific interpretations of a few scientists.)If anywhere back in my posts I claimed that evolution has been REFUTED, please point it out to me and I will quickly delete it. I don't think you can refute something because certain scientists a while ago thought the evidence didn't fit the theory."Thus, there is no question of whether or not evolution occurred, but a question of what mechanisms account for specific patterns."That is mentioned in the book."You, using Parker's lie, tried to claim that evolution was refuted 20 years ago. It wasn't. Nothing in the article says anything of the sort."Like I said above, I didn't claim evolution was refuted 20 years ago. I was simply trying to show that shrafinators remarks are unfair. I don't have a problem with shrafinator providing the information she did, but I don't think that the information should count as REFUTING Creation. I am sorry if I was misleading in what I was posted, but I NEVER said that evolution had been refuted and I NEVER said that the Conference doubted evolution. If I did, I will be glad to erase what I said because I certainly don't mean it."lie from OED:; a false statement made with intent to deceive"Right... but it wasn't a false statement. Parker NEVER claimed that the conference doubted evolution and the quote WAS accurate."You must not have read anything on talkorigins (despite being directed there for more information several times), or looked at it closely enough to read an actual article, because there are a LOT of links to creationist rebuttals, sites, and information there."I have read talkorigins and I have seen the links. But where do the sites lead? To CREATIONIST sources. Anyways, I would like to drop the argument. I didn't mean that evolutionists are trying to make it hard to find Creationist information, I just meant that GENERALLY one should look in a Creationist book if one wants to find evidence against evolution.P.S. I will get to your post soon Quetzal, but I currently do not have much time and I want to make sure I post a thourough response.

"No, only in a postmodern sense is it an accurate statement. He took a statement out of context deliberately and used it to lie about what the conference covered."No. His book provided a snippet of the proffesional summary (which he had nothing to do with). If the summary lied, that is neither Parker's nor my fault.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lbhandli:
So, let's get this straight. If I author a book and it includes false information, I have no responsibility as long as I'm only including it? Fascinating. I don't think you will get very far arguing that.

---

Actually, what you did here is you have taken what I said out of context. The proffessional summary was an opinion. Therefore it is not "false information" to post somebody's opinion. You may argue with Lewin's opinion, but you have no reason to argue with Parker for him putting Lewin's opinion in a book.