why creation "science" isn't science

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.

Moose :"What "different conclusions" are they going to come up with, other that the "Biblical perspective" they already have going into the study?"
TC--interperetation is something you will see all throughout the debate, we see things in a different interperetation, for example, dating methods, you would say that these give you dates, we say they give you measurements, not dates, strata, you say that they were deposited over millions of years being why they are so uniform and contain fossils displaying evolutionary time scales, we say that thes signify a Massive flood of a Global scale, etc.
"What if the creation scientists discover that that earth wasn't created in 6 days, isn't quite young, etc.?"
--Then we've got a problem.Moose: The radiometric record of the sample functions as a clock,if you have the ability of how to read it. It's a clock than can malfunction or be misused. Just like reading a book, except in a different language. Creationist may be getting measurements, but science knows the language to read the measurements for meaning. The creationist side may think that they know how to read it, but they don't have the needed education.I hope to comment more of TC remarks later."Just like the Rev. Adam Sedgewick did, many years ago."
--Argument from athority doesn't really work too well.The Rev. Sedgwick (correct spelling this time, I hope) was a minister of high regard, in the (I presume) church of England. He had the full fundimentalist beliefs: 7 days of creation, young earth, flood - But he was also one of the great early geologists. He came around to a long creation, old earth, no evidence of flood belief. Sould be a strong witness for both science and the church.------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

--Pretty close, the bible says everything that has the breath of life And dwelled on the earth died.

---

My Cokesbury RSV mentions "swarming things" as well, so I think insects (such as termites, mosquitoes, biting flies, and fire ants) are pretty much covered.Genesis 7:21"And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, birds, cattle, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm upon the earth....(23)He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the air...."And it goes on for a few more lines.

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.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
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.

---

Not really. Hutton understood that a young earth was not viable as early as the late 18th century.

quote:

---

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?

---

It shows that science has been through this before. You are setting us back a couple hundred years.

quote:

---

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, everybody make mistakes.

quote:

---

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!

---

What did they say about the age of the earth?

quote:

---

(My source was the book Creation: Facts of Life by Gary E. Parker.)

---

I don't suppose your book tells you that...

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.

Given that evolution doesn't expect half formed organisms your first point makes no sense. Your second one is begging to be operationalized. How specifically would one identify such evidence in the genomes of current populations and how would one falsify it?Cheers,
Larry

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?

Cobra: Outstanding!! Thanks for your efforts. Your post has to be one of the best attempts at defining (in biological terms, anyway Okay, now that I’ve congratulated you, let’s discuss your model.I’ll start with your first area of contention: [QUOTE]
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.[/QUOTE]Actually, no evolutionist (do you also say atomist?) disagrees with what I said. There is considerable debate in biology about the relative importance of the mutation factor (c.f. debate between selectionist, mutationist, and neutralist), which has implications for the relative importance of natural selection, evolutionary stable strategies (ESS), gradualism vs PE, etc, but no one to my knowledge denies mutations provide most of the raw material. After all, even Gould’s exaptations had to have arisen by mutation. This is kind of a minor point, and I don’t want to get too far off-track. I personally find the debate fascinating, so would be happy to discuss it further later, if you’d like. Also, I’d be interested in reading one of the evolutionary biologists you say disagree.<b>Beneficial mutations are extremely rare</b>: There are a couple of problems with this statement. In the first place, what does beneficial mean in the context of evolution? Generally, evolution by natural selection implies that an organism will be sufficiently adapted for its <b>current</b> environment to survive long enough to reproduce. A grass species adapted for existence in a certain soil and climatic type obviously implies that the alleles that allow it to do so be beneficial. These adaptational alleles would be either neutral or deleterious in another location. This can be shown quite well in the adaptation of closely related species to different environments. Here’s an example: <i>Lepus arcticus</i> and <i>Lepus townsendi</i>. Both are hares. Both are well adapted to their local environment. However, <i>L. arcticus</i> has thick, multi-layered fur, short limbs and small ears to enable it to retain heat in an extremely cold environment. Its relative <i>L. townsendi</i>, on the other hand, has short fur, very long ears and limbs, in order to better shed heat in its desert environment. Take either of these two species of hares out of their current environment and place them in the other's and they will quickly succumb.Obviously, it’s hard to observe this taking place in slow-generational organisms. Microbiologists have provided substantial experimental evidence for beneficial mutations. Here’s a short list (some on line): [URL=http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/98/20/11388] Contribution of individual random mutations to genotype-by-environment interactions in Escherichia coli[/URL]
Changes in the substrate specificities of an enzyme during directed evolution of new functions. Hall BG Biochemistry 1981 Jul 7 20:14 4042-9
Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. Boraas, M. E. 1983. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
Functional divergence of the L-Fucose system in Escherichia coli Lin, E.C.C., & Wu, T.T. (1984) John Kimball’s Biology Pages[/URL].<b>Second of all, I've never heard of a beneficial mutation that increased the amount of information.</b> I really can’t answer this question until you define what you mean by an increase in the amount of information. If you are talking about new bases in the genome, almost anything that increases (from duplication and crossover to retrogene insertion) the number of base pairs will increase information. To be honest, the concept of information in genetics is somewhat misleading in the first place. A gene simply provides a chemical template for a particular protein (or is part of a cascade building a particular protein). Although comparing DNA/RNA to the bits and bytes in a computer makes it easier to conceptualize, the analogy shouldn’t be taken too far. In addition, most changes in genome that permit the organism to live at all are evolutionarily neutral (taken in context of an organism’s survival potential in its current environment). It’s only when the organism’s environment changes — or when some selective advantage accrues — that unexpressed mutated alleles become important. Also, benefit does not imply any increase in the amount of genetic material!!! A mutation can be a change in <i>existing</i> genes that provide the organism some advantage in passing on its genetic inheritance. [Note: I am aware this is simplistic — but unless we want to get in to genetic loading, deleterious/neutral/beneficial allelic fixation rates, etc, I think the above is sufficient for this discussion.][QUOTE]
<b>2. "Over sufficiently long time periods, due to various mechanisms surviving populations will vary sufficiently from the parent population to constitute new taxa."</b>
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.)[/QUOTE]Actually, I figured you wouldn’t agree with this — after all, this is the definition of so-called macroevolution. [IMG] However, I would need to read some literature on evolutionists not agreeing. Could you provide a reference?Anyhow, what do YOU disagree with? What is the barrier that prevents statement 1 (speciation) from eventually having statement 2 be true? At what taxonomic level does this supposed barrier occur? Remember, it isn’t expected to be visible over the lifetime of a human. It takes, by my model, a whole lot longer to see changes in family, for ex, than in genera, but the mechanisms are identical. The only difference is time scale required. One way this idea can be argued is comparison of the relative rates of change of specific proteins. Based on pairwise comparisons between different taxa, different proteins, such as cytochrome-c (an electron transport molecule in cells) evolve at a constant rate. This rate then can be used to determine the degree of relatedness, or time of divergence of different taxa. Here’s a chart showing the divergence of higher taxa based on cytochrome-c comparisons:
[IMG]
As you can see, there is solid molecular evidence that taxa diverged in the past. There is substantial fossil evidence (at least for certain lineages) to back up the molecular evidence (or vice versa). http://www.evcforum.net/Images/Smilies/wink.gif[/IMG]-->

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

<image limit exceeded>

In the fossil record, we see both general lineages and species-to-species transitions, both of which lead to changes in higher taxa. See Kathleen Hunt’s transitional fossil page for an excellent detailed description of numerous transitions of this type.The last question on the divergence of higher taxa is how we know they are related. One way is the presence of retrogenes in identical locations on strands of DNA. Retrogenes are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. The inheritance of a piece of viral DNA is a fairly rare occurrence, as it can only happen if the infection occurs in a germ-line cell (sperm or egg). Finding a retrogene at the identical locus on the same chromosome of two different animals is pretty solid evidence of relatedness. For example, all the small cat kind [IMG] (<i>Felis spp</i>) have just such a retroviral insertion — from domestic kitties to African wildcats to the margay of Latin America. HOWEVER, the large cat lineage that led to both the new and old world large cats (leopard, jaguar, lion, puma, cheetah) do NOT have this retroviral insertion. What does this mean? It means that the speciation event that ultimately led to the large cats diverged from the general cat lineage way before the speciation events that created all the individual species of cats (small or large). Here we have evidence of a divergence of higher taxon in the distant past.I lied. I promise I’ll get to your model in my next post. The above is already too bloody long. [IMG]

"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."
--I would be to disagree with this being what science is, as this seems to be lower on the hierarchy of the definition of science, as science does infact tell us these things, what we do is make a hypothesis, a hypothesis is not science, a hypothesis is 'scientific', not direct science. For the scientific method you would be completely right, but not for what science is in its foundation.------------------

"The radiometric record of the sample functions as a clock,if you have the ability of how to read it. It's a clock than can malfunction or be misused. Just like reading a book, except in a different language. Creationist may be getting measurements, but science knows the language to read the measurements for meaning. The creationist side may think that they know how to read it, but they don't have the needed education."
--To imply that creationist don't have their education is not the brightest idea in any debate, as it is not an attack of the evidence but of the creationist. Considering the Radiometric Clock, this would be finely used but it makes many assumptions as makes relevance to the clock, as I stated a while ago in the Dating Methods contrevorsey discussion, which would considerably throw the whole concept off."The Rev. Sedgwick (correct spelling this time, I hope) was a minister of high regard, in the (I presume) church of England. He had the full fundimentalist beliefs: 7 days of creation, young earth, flood - But he was also one of the great early geologists. He came around to a long creation, old earth, no evidence of flood belief. Sould be a strong witness for both science and the church."
--Not really, its someone to discuss with, but again to make the relevance of whether anything is right or wrong on a persons judgment such as this, is an argument from athority, if I could use it freely, the ToE would be in rubble.------------------

"My Cokesbury RSV mentions "swarming things" as well, so I think insects (such as termites, mosquitoes, biting flies, and fire ants) are pretty much covered."
--Yes it does say swarming things..that breath through nostriles, insects and the like don't breath through nostriles.Genesis 7:21"And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, birds, cattle, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm upon the earth....(23)He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the air....""And it goes on for a few more lines."
--Yes and it does go on a few more lines, including directly afterword:Genesis 7:22 - "Eerything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died."--It is a continuity of the sentance before, as we use the same method of grammer abundantly today.------------------

quote:

---

Moose: The radiometric record of the sample functions as a clock,if you have the ability of how to read it. It's a clock than can malfunction or be misused. Just like reading a book, except in a different language. Creationist may be getting measurements, but science knows the language to read the measurements for meaning. The creationist side may think that they know how to read it, but they don't have the needed education.

​

TrueCreation -- To imply that creationist don't have their education is not the brightest idea in any debate, as it is not an attack of the evidence but of the creationist. Considering the Radiometric Clock, this would be finely used but it makes many assumptions as makes relevance to the clock, as I stated a while ago in the Dating Methods contrevorsey discussion, which would considerably throw the whole concept off.

---

I am saying that some people have stronger educations in some areas, relative to other people. Everyone is ignorent in many areas - For example, I am not remotely qualified to argue with Stephan Hawkings in his area of expertise. I am not able to read the information of complex mathematics. I think that most creationists are indeed ignorant in the theory and methodologies of isotopic dating.

quote:

---

Moose: The Rev. Sedgwick (correct spelling this time, I hope) was a minister of high regard, in the (I presume) church of England. He had the full fundimentalist beliefs: 7 days of creation, young earth, flood - But he was also one of the great early geologists. He came around to a long creation, old earth, no evidence of flood belief. Sould be a strong witness for both science and the church.

​

TrueCreation -- Not really, its someone to discuss with, but again to make the relevance of whether anything is right or wrong on a persons judgment such as this, is an argument from athority, if I could use it freely, the ToE would be in rubble.

---

There is a more detailed summary of the work of the Rev. Sedgwick, posted by Schrafanater, somewhere at this site. I found it before, using the search feature, but now, searching for "Sedgwick" turns up nothing.

quote:

---

From http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#authority :
Argument From Authority: The claim that the speaker is an expert, and so should be trusted.
There are degrees and areas of expertise. The speaker is actually claiming to be more expert, in the relevant subject area, than anyone else in the room. There is also an implied claim that expertise in the area is worth having.

---

I don't think that citing the conclusions of the Rev. Sedgwick is an "argument of authority". He was an expert in both theology and the study of geology, in his time. Would you claim that the good Reverend had a bias against creationism? Until his scientific enlightenment, he was as much of a creationist as anyone. I think citing such an experts opinion is most valid.MooseEdited to correct UBB format
Added by edit: Shrafanater "Sedgwick" cite found, at message 182 of this topic.------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 02-01-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 02-01-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

​

--I would be to disagree with this being what science is, as this seems to be lower on the hierarchy of the definition of science, as science does infact tell us these things, what we do is make a hypothesis, a hypothesis is not science, a hypothesis is 'scientific', not direct science. For the scientific method you would be completely right, but not for what science is in its foundation.

---

That is nice, but when one refers to science in the modern sense one is referring to that which is understood according to the scientific method. Your postmodern dissembling to the contrary, that is what reasonable people understand. Other uses of the term in a discussion over evidence concerning how the natural world works is silly.If you disagree provide what you think science is. Of course, your response will center on something about how this is incorrect and not spelling an argument of yours.
Cheers,
Larry