why creation "science" isn't science

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
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,

---

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. Are you so casual about the truth that you don't care if what you cite is accurate or not? You need to work on your standards of behavior.THE ARTICLE THAT YOU CITED IS
Evolutionary Theory under Fire
Roger Lewin, Science, New Series, Vol. 210, No. 4472. (Nov. 21, 1980), pp. 883-887.I confused Lewin with Lewontin. How could you have cited this without knowing the source? How? Do you have any shame?

quote:

---

I would be glad to read it.

---

Why didn't you read it in the first place? You know, before you made grand claims about it?

quote:

---

However, I don't see a problem with citing something out of a Creationist book.

---

Why are you citing something that you have no knowledge of?

quote:

---

Where else am I going to find out the stuff that evolutionists don't want us to know?

---

Yeah, scientists are hiding this stuff in one of the primary science journals. HARD TO FIND THERE ISN'T IT? Who would have thought to look in a journal of all places.

quote:

---

(Gary Parker also used to be an evolutionist, but after he re-examined the FACTS, he became a Creationist.)

---

He is also a liar which you would know if you bothered to read what you cite.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." [/quote]The next sentence is:
"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."Anyone who had bothered to read the article for more than dishonest quote mining would know the next paragraph described what the topics were that were seriously discussed:
1)tempo of evolution
2) mode of evolutionary change
3) constraints of the physical form of new organisms.And if they had continued a person honestly reading the paper would know the discussion focused on mechanisms at the level of speciation and above that account for the patterns in the fossil record. I'd say given this, Mr. Parker needs some lessons in honest quoting, don't you?

quote:

---

This conference was not questioning evolution of course, only the mechanism. But they found the mechanism inadequate,

---

Really, where did you read that? Or did they say there are mechanisms at the macroevolution level too? I've read the article and I'd say the second. Do you disagree? Could you point out a specific point where such a claim is made in context?

quote:

---

yet that same mechanism remains in the textbooks and in many of your arguments.

---

That would make sense given the article discusses how additional mechanisms were discussed, not that others were incorrect.

quote:

---

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.

---

The difference is you don't know anything about the article and are misrepresenting it.

"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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

​

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.

---

And drift, LGT, recombination and other mechanisms have long been known and included. You appear to be arguing against an interpretation of evolution that didn't exist. Even when the Modern Synthesis was formed, scientists understood drift played a role. Your limited knowledge of the subject is not the limit for the scientific literature.\

"'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'"
--Sometimes people need emphesis on my grammer, as sometimes I freely admit, it looks like a jumbled mess. I use many run-on sentances much of the time too, I try to space them out with periods though. But anyways, I do emphesis a little on what I mean later on in the paragraph when I say '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.' Lets continue with the response, I believe you responded to this so we can move on."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."
--What would your own definition of the scientific method be, so we could compare and contrast."What is missing here? I know, A VERB! And it is a run-on sentence from the last one. A TWOFER!"
--Hm.. ok I think that is enough on the grammmer, a comment on what I state besides my grammer would be nice."Hierarchy has no known meaning here because you haven't identified it."
--Hierarchy, in this usage it would be as if it were a tree with branches spreading with higher divisions of specialization, or higher grade or rank to the explination. Thus, hypothesis would be the lowest, then theory, then fact, then absolute at the top, though I don't think absolute is appropriate unless we are contrasting on something that infact we are seeing. Ie I know there is a monitor in front of me, or something of that nature."While you are able to form a sentence, you haven't addressed why it is logical."
--Why what is logical? My perception on the definition of science and the scientific method, I am simply giving you my straw man, so we can work from there."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."
--I think Gibberish is a missconception, though I do make errors alot of the time, missunderstandment is more logical to the criticism of my grammer."That is a definition of science."
--This is a much more elaborated and brauder definition of science than mine, but both have the same logic to it."Now, the scientific method is more involved and described here:"
--Also a more elaborated definition of mine, they both have the same logic to it, mine was like a straw-man though."Now, 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?"
--I think these are appropriate, I don't find any radical difference in them by contrast. I just put it into my own miniscule vocabulary and wording.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-03-2002]

"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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
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.

---

Your statement is generally wrong, cobra_snake. Many of the TalkOrigins articles have links to creationist rebuttals, and further response. I have seen this occassionally at TrueOrigins but never in answersingenesis or ICR.I recall referrring you to an exchange at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-geochronology.html Did you read it? If so, why say what you said above? The "evolutionists" are not afraid of making all of the information available because they are confident it supports the theory of evolution.

​

[This message has been edited by wj, 02-03-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

​

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.

---

You were doing more than that. You were trying to use what you read as evidence that scientists have a doubt about the accuracy of evolution. Just passing information along is a lot different then taking a position and then using information to support it.

quote:

---

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.

---

Professional summaries lie and quote out of context? Sorry, but no. You were quoting a dishonest source that is trying to mislead people. You did make grand claims regarding the article because you tried to claim it shows scientists seriously questioning the occurrence of evolution which is simply not true.

quote:

---

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.

---

lie from OED:; a false statement made with intent to deceiveIt is a false statement that the scientists at the conference questioned the occurrence of biological evolution. This lie is supported by the selective quoting that is out of context. That is lying.

quote:

---

"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?

---

from before

quote:

---

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!

---

Your claim is that evolution was refuted 20 years ago because there were supposedly claims that microevolution couldn't be simply extrapolated into macroevolution. But that isn't the point of the article you cited---the point was that there are mechanisms that take place at both levels. Thus, there is no question of whether or not evolution occurred, but a question of what mechanisms account for specific patterns. 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. The article indicates that microevolution and macroevolution are really a continuum with differing mechanisms taking place in each, but that these mechanisms overlapped in between the two.Cheers,
Larry

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
"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.

---

That is completely false.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.Almost every article has a gray box at the top with the title "Other Links", and if a creationist rebuttal or critique to the article exists, it is linked to there.Also, here is a LONG list of creationist sites which talkorigins provides. It is not buried or hard to find. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links-cre.htmlThe point is, there are LOTS of links to opposing opinions on talkorigins.It is PRECISELY the fact that talkorigins includes a lot of Creationist links and information and WELCOMES responses from people who disagree that demonstrates that it is a trustworthy site that is interested in the evaluation and discussion of ideas on their relative merits, rather than attempting to further a dogma.Creationists sites, as you have mentioned, do not tend to link to scientific sites, because they are not interested in an open and free discussion of the evidence. They are interested in preaching their ministry, as it were. It is in their best interests to keep people from learning anything about science or the evidence.

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-04-2002]

i do not see the point of this topic. can someone explain in laymen's terms for a "young whippersnapper". 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.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
i do not see the point of this topic. can someone explain in laymen's terms for a "young whippersnapper". 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.

​

---

Except to show creation science isn't science, of course.Creation "science" is an attempt to legitimise the bible with science, in order that it can be taught in schools (US) alongside & equal to science.Fine, but creation "science" either meets the scientific method, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, it isn't science, if it does, it is.So, can you show an example of a creation, or flood theory that meets the scientific method?If not, the bible isn't legitimised by science.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-04-2002]

Well some of us are attempting to have an evidence based discussion, but the creationists can't seem to do that. Now, in the specific case Cobra tried to claim that 20 years ago evolution was disproven. The point was to demonstrate that if he read the article that purported to state such a thing, it said nothing of the sort. IOW, his source was lying.

"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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
"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.

---

If scientific journals are adequate for science, then perhaps we should use them as references. Books are not peer-reviewed sources and if we could use any books we wanted we could get into all kinds of misleading and inaccurate information. Hollow Earth and marauding aliens are tame compared to some of the "science" titles out there and so there should at least be some consensus as to what makes a book credible, not just which side it supports.If both sides cannot agree on their information sources, this debate will not go very far. The fact that we have had a disagreement over the interpretation of the same source, the Bible, on a relatively simple question (if bugs were threatened by the Flood) does not bode well for this thread and perhaps both sides should discuss which forms of evidence are acceptable. Books are often rehashes of the journals and perhaps one should also include the bibliography reference for a claim and be wary of books that don't have such references.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-04-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
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.)

---

Allison is a she last I checked. But more importantly is you aren't dealing with the evidence that falsified a young Earth nearly 200 years ago.

quote:

---

was refuted 20 years ago. I was simply trying to show that shrafinators remarks are unfair.

---

Why? You should be arguing about evidence, not what is "fair".

quote:

---

"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.

---

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, 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.