why creation "science" isn't science

"I am saying that some people have stronger educations in some areas, relative to other people."
--This is a much better way to put it, as it seemed from what you said previously, as if you were directing towards Creationists in general that they don't have an education or something of the nature."Everyone is ignorent in many areas - For example, I am not remotely qualified to argue with Stephan Hawkings in his area of expertise."
--I think that anyone with a open mind that has an interest with a basic knowledge of the concepts qualify for discussion, though I would say that anything that they discuss whether win or lose in the debate if there is an obvious win or loss depiction, makes no relevance. Simply a discussion of what is on your mind and opening up and ready to receive new information, though I would say that entering in such a discussion, should have to the minimum basic knowledge."I am not able to read the information of complex mathematics."
--Likewize, I rely quite a bit on others calculations, as I am not too prone towards the calculus and physics implications in scientific equations, I will admit I get stuck in a rut when someone asks me for calculations ."I think that most creationists are indeed ignorant in the theory and methodologies of isotopic dating."
--I don't think we are ignorant, I anyone could point out someone in either side ignorant of different aspects and scientific variants. As for myself, I am not being ignorant, I know in the beginning of this radioisotopic dating discussion about 40 posts back or so, it seemed to be that way, but I found that there was either ignoring of what people were saying, or missunderstanding towards ones point. Right now I thik the aspect of contamination is important."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."
--Hm.. It would be nice to discuss Sedwick and some of his material I think, I was unaware of him previously."I don't think that citing the conclusions of the Rev. Sedgwick is an "argument of authority"."
--Oh, ofcourse this would not be an argument from athority, as discussion of his conclusions is very much urged (as long as you can keep up with the science, as I am not aware of his biological knowledge and the sufficience in his possible high educated grammer would be tough to grasp), what would be an argument from athority is saying that, for example, since Sedwick is so knowledgable in so and so field, these calculations are very much true or valid, that is, to present the argument not on the basis of the conclusion but the person and his high standard."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?"
--Wouldn't know really."Until his scientific enlightenment, he was as much of a creationist as anyone. I think citing such an experts opinion is most valid."
--I agree it is valid, but not valid to the degree of since he was an expert that his conclusion has to be right, or something of the nature.------------------

"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."
--I think it would be accurate to say that the scientific method is 'how' you would be to 'look' at science. Science to me is most accurate when depicted as a study of the universe and everything in it. The scientific method would be to examin of how or why it works the way it does, thus a hypothesis on the observable then you descend in the hierarchy towards theory with potential falsification and fact if possible."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."
--I don't think incorrect is the right word, but not a full depiction seems logical.------------------

The Google search for "Adam Sedgwick":
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22adam+sedgwick%22&btnG=Google+SearchFrom the top of the Google list:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/sedgwick.html

quote:

---

Sedgwick's own geological views were generally catastrophic -- he believed that the history of the Earth had been marked by a series of cataclysmic events which had destroyed much of the Earth's life. In this belief he followed Cuvier, and he was opposed to Charles Lyell's models of slow, gradual geological change and a more or less steady-state Earth. However, Sedgwick was interested in the possibility that at least some of the "catastrophic" changes implied by the rock record might be shown to be gradual. He originally followed his collegue William Buckland in believing that the uppermost Pleistocene deposits had been laid down by the Biblical Flood, but retracted this belief after many of these deposits turned out to have been formed by glaciers, not floods. Sedgwick also did not object to evolution, or "development" as such theories were called then, in the broad sense -- to the fact that the life on Earth had changed over time. Nor was he a young-Earth creationist; he believed that the Earth must be extremely old. As Darwin wrote of Sedgwick's lectures, "What a capital hand is Sedgewick [sic] for drawing large cheques upon the Bank of Time!"

---

See the entire paper.I must confess, I seem to have overstated Sedgwick's earlier fundimentalism.Also note - Schrafanater's info on Sedgwick is at message 182 of this topic.The bottom line remains - Sedgwick's work was quite fundimental in the development of the science of geology.Added by edit: Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873) - To point out the time frame.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

​

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"--I think it would be accurate to say that the scientific method is 'how' you would be to 'look' at science. Science to me is most accurate when depicted as a study of the universe and everything in it. The scientific method would be to examin of how or why it works the way it does, thus a hypothesis on the observable then you descend in the hierarchy towards theory with potential falsification and fact if possible. [/QUOTE]

​

In the modern since we are talking about the method. The above is barely understandable. It doesn't appear to be any sort of critique of the method.

​

[QUOTE] "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."
--I don't think incorrect is the right word, but not a full depiction seems logical.

​

[/b]

---

So would you bother telling us what a full depiction is?

Hi Cobra, as promised:

quote:

---

Now for MY biological model for Creation. (As with your model, mine will not involve origin.)

---

Excellent. We’re at least on the same sheet of music.Your assumptions:
1. Mutations should almost always cause a bad effect. I guess the first thing to do would be to ask to what extent, or at what scale, mutations have effects which can be unambiguously classified as either beneficial, deleterious, or neutral. IMO, The answer would depend on the particular phenomenon you’re trying to explain. As I pointed out above, the most parsimonious explanation for the different adaptations of hares is that some combination of beneficial traits —based on lagomorph change over time — allowed each of the distinct species to adapt to their environment. Obviously, these traits would be beneficial in the organism’s current context.However, that is the evolutionary paradigm, and shouldn’t be used as a basis for determining the truth or invalidity of your model.Restating your assumption: It has been observed that mutations arise continuously in all populations, and the vast majority of those which effect fitness are deleterious. I would say this could actually be expected, because most organisms are at least sufficiently adapted to survive or they wouldn’t be there, and any mutation that effected the functioning of an organism would tend to be negative. Over time, the net effect of mutations would thus be a continual decline in the correlates of fitness in a population. IOW, over time, if all mutations are negative, the deleterious mutational load on a population will ultimately lead to its extinction. In short, there would be a net decrease in biodiversity over time as populations reached their crash threshold.Is this what is observed? No. The persistence of natural populations at all indicates that there is some other effect in operation. The deleterious mutation/crash effect would be especially evident in spatially isolated populations such as islands. It turns out that the exact opposite occurs: in geographically isolated ecosystems (such as islands), and dependent on the carrying capacity of the particular area, a net increase in species diversity is observed. The most famous example for animalia is the Galapagos Archipelago. On the Galpagos, 34% of plant species (eg the cactus Jasminocerus thousari), 63% of reptile species (eg the land iguana Conolophus subcristus, the marine iguana Ambyrhynchus cristatus and its seven subspecies) and 73% of land bird species (eg the hawk Buteo galapagoensis, the martin Progue modesta and the rail Laterallus spilontus, the penguin Spheniscus mendiculus, plus the finches of course) are endemic, found nowhere else in the world. There are endemic rice rats (Oryzomys), bats (Lasiunis brachyotis), and a flightless cormorant (Nannopetrum harrisi). Lava lizards of the genus Microlophus are found only on the Galpagos. There are seven Microlophus species endemic to the archipelago — and each island that has Microlophus has a different species. This represents a literal explosion of diversity.Galagpagos does not represent a unique case. Every island visited throughout the world shows similar patterns of explosive diversity. In addition, each isolated lake ecosystem contains endemic species: an example are the cichlids of Laguna Xiloa and Lago de Apoyo in Nicaragua. Less than ten miles apart, these two lakes each contain half a dozen species of native cichlids not found anywhere else in the world - and which are not the same species in both lakes! The same holds true for cave systems.It does not appear that this assumption is valid.Assumption:
2. Mutations should rarely or never increase the amount of information. I have already noted my problem with the concept of information when discussing biological systems in my previous post. Information is a weak and misleading analogy for genetics. The assumption — taken only at face value — would also presuppose that there is no possibility of increasing the amount of genetic material in an organism. Given the experimental evidence available (some of which I noted previously) showing how new biological pathways can develop, even this assumption falls flat.Assumption:
3. Speciation should occur as a product of the great variability programmed into living things, combined with mutations. In the first place, this assumption would seem to directly contradict your assumption one. The consequences of assumption one — that there will be a net decrease in diversity — indicates there should be less variation observable in nature via subtraction of species which have gone extinct. Another implication is that, given similar environmental conditions, the same type of organism will be found where ever these environmental conditions apply (within the limitations imposed by the programmed variability, whatever that is, within species). Again, this is not what is observed. Similar niches are filled with (often radically) different organisms. Australia lacks placental wolves or big cats, for ex, but it did have marsupial equivalents. A woodpecker finch is practical only in the absence of woodpeckers - thus there is a Galpagos woodpecker finch, Cactospiza pallidus. The pattern is always by area, not by environment type.Assumption:
4. All living things should be fully formed from the start. (i.e. no reptiles with "half-wings" or "half-feathers.") On the face of it, this is a true statement. No organism ever made a living as a transitional form. There are actually two difficulties with this assumption, however. In the first place, there is an implicit assumption of linearity or purpose in nature that is not borne out by observation. Living organisms are observed to be, in general, sufficiently functional in their current environment to reproduce their species. Again, however, we have a contradiction of assumption one. If assumption one is true, that there is a net increase over time in the deleterious mutational load on a population, unless all organisms’ environments are also deteriorating at a nearly one-to-one ratio, including all abiotic factors, all populations will rapidly become extinct, as there is no possibility of "positive" adaptations to changing conditions in the absence of beneficial or novel alleles.Finally, there are numerous modern examples of organisms caught in the act as it were with partial adaptations. One example is the existence of radically different organisms with various mechanisms for gliding, including lizard, frog, several squirrels, a marsupial, etc. All of these organisms have various types of membranes — some more or less effective — to enable them to glide greater or longer distances. Here are transitional forms between terrestrial/arboreal and flight. In addition, several species of fish seem to be transitional between fish and amphibian (ex, lungfish and mud skippers) with various adaptations to — at least temporarily — breath air rather than relying solely on gills [there are also several species of goby which I have personally witnessed having the ability to jump out of their intertidal zone pool and survive on land for up to ten minutes by gulping air.]Therefore, there exist sufficient examples from nature that tend to falsify this assumption.Assumption:
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. Although primarily a restatement of assumption one, this assumption more explicitly states that no improvement can occur (as such, directly contradicting assumption two, three and four.) The assumption seems to imply that if species change over time, such change would make them less fit for their environment. In addition, this assumption explicitly states that daughter species, if they arose, would have net negative fitness correlation as compared to the parent species.Again, there are numberless examples from nature that show either increased fitness over time or epistasis over time. Even artificial manipulation of populations results in similar improvements, ultimately developing new or improved organisms in accordance with a pre-determined (in this case) normative standard or desired result. "Wild" populations show similar improvements or stability.

quote:

---

SO, my predictions for Creation would be:

---

1. Fully formed creatures in the fossil record (no "half-features") True as stated. There can be no such thing as half features, for the simple reason that half features would not allow survival. However, the fossil record is replete with forms — obviously related by morphology — which are different in the aggregate, but share numerous traits in common (such as dentition, number and arrangement of phalanges, etc). In addition, the fossil record shows that there is a distinct stratigraphy associated with these fossils: i.e., fossil type A found in a lower (and hence geologically older) strata with primitive features or traits distinctive of one particular taxonomic order, followed in successively younger strata by fossil type B of obviously related organisms which shares traits with A but which also has traits related to a different taxonomic order. Finally, pure forms of this new order (fossil C) are found which share traits with B but not with A, again in younger geologic strata. Now obviously, there may not be a direct linear relationship between A, B, and C. However, it is possible to estimate degrees of relatedeness fairly accurately based on morphological similarity. It may not always be possible to distinguish a direct ancestor, principally because of the vagaries of fossilization, and the disturbance/destruction of fossils over time — in general, a brother or sister of the missing link is close enough. The prediction is proven false by the available evidence.2. An increased genetic burden over time as a result of the negative effect of mutations. This prediction is probably true in the absence of beneficial mutations or natural selection. If this prediction were true in nature, there should be a net decrease in overall population fitness of any given population of organisms over time. If this was the case, the survival of a given population over more than a few generations is questionable, and relates strictly to the rate that major deleterious mutations occur. Even with the action of natural selection (in the sense that it can select against negative mutations), the best that a population can hope for is a very tenuous equilibrium — that would be completely upset if the environment changed. Again, the evidence we would see would include rapid population crashes, and given the interrelatedness of populations within a given ecosystem, continuous (rather than episodic) mass extinctions. This is not the pattern we observe.

quote:

---

I hope you find my model at least somewhat scientific,

---

It was certainly a valiant attempt.

quote:

---

although I have a feeling not too many people will.

---

Probably not.[Cobra: I will be traveling in Poland next week, so may not have access to the ‘net. I will try and check several times, but you know how that goes I will look for a response to any of your comments next Sunday. It’s been a pleasure.]

"In the modern since we are talking about the method. The above is barely understandable. It doesn't appear to be any sort of critique of the method.
So would you bother telling us what a full depiction is?"
--How does it not appear to be any sort of critique of the method? Am I missing something, I think that my depiction needs some development, I don't think drastic alterations will be neccessary though.------------------

​

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

"See the entire paper.I must confess, I seem to have overstated Sedgwick's earlier fundimentalism.Also note - Schrafanater's info on Sedgwick is at message 182 of this topic.The bottom line remains - Sedgwick's work was quite fundimental in the development of the science of geology.Added by edit: Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873) - To point out the time frame."
--Wow, I think I understated my own understandment from the start of the Sedgwick conversation, I was to presume he were still alive! Thats a bit of a time ago there have I might add a very many advancements in mainstream and flood geology since the day. He was I would agree a fundemental in the devlopment of geology.-------------------

"Now for MY biological model for Creation. (As with your model, mine will not involve origin.)"
--As I should do, as unbiased discussion is knowledge is my little motto, I will go through some of your potential ambiguities associated with the mechenisms driving your theory into locomotion."1. Mutations should almost always cause a bad effect."
--This statement is almost true today, as we are very much specialized today almost any mutation is bound to be ill-beneficial, though after the Flood when variation was at a minimum, many mutational effects would have been very beneficial, though it is possible it was an pre-existing gene activated, mutational effects could have conjured up the polar bear in its different characteristics from the brown or black bear. It has slightly webbed feet, no pigment inducing variations in color of hair, a more narrow snout, etc."2. Mutations should rarely or never increase the amount of information."
--The concept of 'Information' is quite vague I would have to say in my own understanding, ofcourse I would know what new information is, but it is hard to define it to a more elaborated standard. New information would be the causes of added DNA makeup that induce new features into an organism, ie, if something never had stomach tissue previously, and as we see it has now, this would be new information, or the quadrant of the brain that gives us the capability to speak, the cone cells in the eye, a new type of cell with different advancements in its celluar makeup. Though this is very vague, you would see the point, but more emphesis would be needed."3. Speciation should occur as a product of the great variability programmed into living things, combined with mutations."
--Hm..I think emphesis would be needed on this potential ambiguity."4. All living things should be fully formed from the start. (i.e. no reptiles with "half-wings" or "half-feathers."
--This is not neccessarely true, it is true that all living things should be fully formed from the start, but how do we know what these forms were? Technically there could be a reptile with its own specialized feathers, (I highly doubt it and would probley even dismiss it myself unless I were to have more understandment on the issue) but yes the point being that all things should be fully formed from the start is true. Considering half wing/half feathers, I once heard the argument from an Dr. Gould that they presume to instate the argument involving new information. His mechenism was that they can observe viruses carry new information from one organism to another. I don't know much about archaeopteryx, but even if the thing is what they presume it to be, ie a reptile with feathers, It could have been from this mechenism, though this does not contour too well with the ToE on new mechanics in organismal traits and advancements."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."
--Less varied? Variation produces more specialization, not less, if this is what you are to impose. And infact I believe new information (not in a scence of it not previously existing) arises by being activated and thus bringing about its genetic trait, thus speciation. And Mutational effects would have been very much a causality, but much more beneficial mutational effects would have been abundant compaired to the rarities we see today."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."
--It is a scientific hypothesis, ready to enter discussion.-------------------

​

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

​

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

Gee, because it is a run-on sentence with no real point to it?

"Gee, because it is a run-on sentence with no real point to it?"
--Are you looking for emphesis because you don't understand what I am writting, or are you saying that there is no point, because the point is clear, this is my rudimentary definition of science and the scientific method. I am asking if there is something I am missing or should add.------------------

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.

I really wonder why it is that creationists only see two sides of this equation...an evolutionist re-examine the FACTS and then becomes a creationist? What facts could these possibly be? Where is there a fact that proves the existance of a creator? Can you show me this creator? Can you provide evidence of its existance? Could you kindly tell him/her/it that i'd very much like to speak with him/her/it? Evolution science has the merit of not clogging itself with abstract and completely baseless concepts,which is why i prefer it to creationism...thats not to say that i buy into the ToE...the fact is i dont know...but i certainly dont base my initial position on ancient books of superstition. i start with i can see/touch/smell/taste/hear and go from there....as do evolutionists...And BTW Cobra,there is nothing that evolutionists "dont want you to know"...i'm growing tired of hearing about this "evolution" conspiracy nonsense.

No, you miss my point.The arguments that YEC use to this day to explain the Noachian flood were refuted 200 years ago by Creationist Geologists.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.Since we are talking about Flood geology, and not evolution, why do you bring evolution up at all?

tc:--I think it would be accurate to say that the scientific method is 'how' you would be to 'look' at science.'the scientifice method is how you would be to look at science' has some sort of meaning to you? To me it looks like gibberish. This is probably because 'you would be' is inappropriate as the verb for 'to look at science'tc: "Science to me is most accurate when depicted as a study of the universe and everything in it. The scientific method would be to examin of how or why it works the way it does,'the scientific method would be to examin of how or why it works the way it does' is supposed to express something of substance? The sentence is a train wreck starting with the rather strange usage of the passive voice.tc: "thus a hypothesis on the observable then you descend in the hierarchy towards theory with potential falsification and fact if possible."'thus a hypothesis on the observable then'What is missing here? I know, A VERB! And it is a run-on sentence from the last one. A TWOFER!" then you descend in the hierarchy towards theory with potential falsification and fact if possible."Hierarchy has no known meaning here because you haven't identified it.tc:--I don't think incorrect is the right word, but not a full depiction seems logical.While you are able to form a sentence, you haven't addressed why it is logical.Making grammatical errors in posting isn't a big deal unless you end up with nothing but gibberish. I make them all of the time, however, you have ended up with nothing but gibberish.From the OED:
4. a. In a more restricted sense: A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain.That is a definition of science.Now, the scientific method is more involved and described here:
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000Now, given I have no idea what you are trying to communicate, could you provide some intelligible reasons why these aren't appropriate for the describing what science is in a discussion of studying the natural world?

"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.