Faith's Participation in EvC

quote:

---

It's your theory. If you or evo scientists have not considered the issue and shown that Faith's idea is wrong, then they clearly have not properly substantiated their claims. I mean heck yea, you have to substantiate your claims on the theory.

---

So does Faith. She didn't. Why not admit that ?

quote:

---

Because the Flood made many creatures extinct. The fossil record is really a graveyard of pre-Flood forms of life.

---

And the pattern of extinction just happened to be in great agreement with evolution ? Come on, you can do better than that.

quote:

---

I didn't claim absolute perfection for my arguments, Paul, I claimed that they are very good answers to the evo claims and they are.

---

But they aren't good answers. They don't really deal with the issue at all. You know perfectly well that you have to avoid discussing the fossil record in anything more than a superificial manner for your claims to even appear to stand up.

quote:

---

The changes just reflect the differential deposition of different types of life. We've been over this a zillion times. I'm going to bed.

---

So you've been shown to be wrong a zillion times. And you stil won't admit it.

quote:

---

She did substantiate it as far as she could, discussing well-known processes leading to a loss of genetic diversity

---

...And not discussing the rate of loss at all. In other words "as far as she could" didn't even get close to substantiating it.

quote:

---

You guys claim mutations can overcome that, but you offer nothing to prove that

---

Obviously mutations DO increase genetic diversity. However I should point out that this group does not have access to the whole of human knowledge. If neither side knows enough to resolve the issue then we cannot declare victory for one side. In fact the evolution side had a mild edge on the argument.

quote:

---

I mean what the heck? Can't you see that asserting something as factual when in reality it is an untested hypothesis borders on a fraudulent claim, and if not fraudulent, at least ignorant.

---

Then you're calling Faith a fraud.

quote:

---

What has been proven is observed microevolutionary processes decrease genetic diversity in the long run, correct?

---

No. Because mutation is part of microevolution. We need measurements of rates before we can come to that conclusion - Faith tried to come to the conclusion wihtout bothering to find the evidence - so I guess her argument was "fraudulent".

quote:

---

What we observe thus far contradicts what you assert

---

Completely wrong. We have no observations showing that Faith's "inevitable decrease" really is inevitable - or even common.

quote:

---

So you guys, meaning the entire evo community, have asserted for decades now that beneficial mutational rates are sufficient to overcome the natural decrease in genetic variety through observed microevolutionary processes, but YOU HAVE NEVER TAKEN ANY MEASUREMENTS TO VERIFY THIS CLAIM!!!

---

In fact we don't know that that is true. All we know is that the people here weren't able to locate anything that directly addressed the issue. And that applies to BOTH sides. Faith claimed that mutation couldn't keep up with loss - and SHE certainly didn't have any measurements.However even if it were true it wouldn't be much help to you. Any theory must have gaps where our knowledge is incomplete. IF the real situation is that nobody knows and we have no good evidence either way - and at least in the case of bacteria it seems that mutations can and do occur with sufficient frequency for lab experiments to turn up beneficial mutations - then it can't be decisive either way. We do have other lines of evidence for evolution - which is why evolution is a well-established theory. To reject it on a "maybe" is not how science works.

quote:

---

And yet you claim this is an empirical-based approach

---

Because it is. We know that mutations happen. We know that natural selection happens. We have strong evidence that macroevolution has happened. So we apply known mechanisms ro explain a known phenomenon. That sounds like an "empiricial-based approach" to me. What else would you call explaining empirical observations in terms of empirically known mechanisms ?

I think Faith has several severe problems1) Bias - she doesn't really apply critical thinking to her own ideas and has an exaggerated idea of their value. She evaluates arguments more on whether she likes the conclusions than on their merits.2) Lack of knowledge should not be used as an excuse for not looking at evidence that contradicts her views. If she doesn't know enough to understand the evidence then she doesn't know enough to reliably come to a conclusion.3) She has to understand that science does not accept religious beliefs as fact, or an adequate reason to reject conclusions that have been well established on the basis of empirical evidence. Carbon dating is solid science - so is evolution (even if many details may be revised).4) If she wants to argue about what science should and should not include she needs some basis more than asserting that her beliefs are "facts". By Popper's standards the Flood has been falsified and should be rejected. By Lakatos' standards Flood geology is a degenerate research program that should be abandoned. The only reason for continuing with it is a religious dogma held in spite of the evidence. That is fundamentally anti-scientific.I don't like the idea of banning anyone, but Faith hss in the past asked to be banned from the science fora. If she asks again then I see no reason not to grant the request. On the other hand if she makes a good-faith effort to improve and deal with her problems then she shoould be permitted to stay.

quote:

---

There is no need to ban Faith from the science fora, she is certainly capable of simply not posting there. Banning her from that side will be used by her as as a crutch, much as she uses Original Sin and the Fall.

---

Before she has argued that she is not capable of restraining herself. If she admits that she is not up to it then she cannot honestly use it as a crutch. Not that that will stop her.

No, that's just an example of the problem - confusing religious apologetics with science.

quote:

---

Which is exactly the sort of handwaving Faith is supposed to respond to day after day.

---

So the real problem is that Faith has to cope with people pointing out the flaws in her arguments. And you call it "handwaving" as if it were wrong to tell the truth instead of unquestioningly agree with you.

quote:

---

Where Newton et al confusing religious apologetics with science when they developed scientific methodology?

---

I didn't say that. What I do say is that you are handwaving the difference between that and taking religious dogma as unquestionable fact - when the scientiifc evidence is firmly against it. Did Newton et al do that ? And if they did, do we accept it as science ?

quote:

---

The thread in question asserted that it was not possible to do science if one held Goddidit.

---

If you read it, it held that holding beliefs as unquestionable dogma was anti-scientific. I agree.

quote:

---

Faith frequently has to field arguments which dismiss the possibility of doing science simply because one believes, a priori, that Godidit.

---

No she does not. This is the same handwaving again. The issue over the Flood is NOT how it happened but IF it happened. Science says that it quite definitely did not. So how can you be doing science if you work on the basis that it did happen, no matter what the evidence ?Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Of course you do. You hold to an Enlightment philosophy of science. Science is completely open-ended. Nothing is assumed to be before it is shown to empirically be. Bottom up science as opposed to the top down science of a believer. Both are based on a philosopy - and about as polar opposite as they can be - as is reflected here at EvC.

---

So fine, you count astrology, alchemy, Flat Earth beleifs and all the rest as science becasue your "philosphy" allows ANY dogmatically held belief to be counted as science. I'll stick with a definition that reflects how thee word is actually used, instead of one invented to prop up your position.

quote:

---

The founding fathers of science were totally convinced that God existed. They didn't have it in their day but any science that claimed to support the notion of a perpetual universe would have been rejected because of an a priori belief in a Creator God.

---

Whether it would have been rejected doesn't matter, The question is whether such a rejection would have been counted as science. We don't count Newton's alchemy or theology as science.Your argument again and again refuses to deal with the real issue. All you've doen is equivocate between a beleif in God and allowing that belief to control scientific conclusions to the point of rejecting the scientific method whenever it produces the "wrong" results.

quote:

---

The founding fathers developed the scientific method in order to leave behind the disorder involved with the likes of alchemy. Thus was born chemistry for instance.

---

Newton certainly didn't. He spent a lot of time with alchemy. And the Flood is just as much a casualty of the scientific method as astrology. If you are trying to make special exceptions for dogmas that you happen to beleive then have the honesty to say so - or to at least admit that you want ANY dogma to be accepted as valid in science - whether it be alchemical beliefs, astrology or the Flat Earth.

quote:

---

Creationists are not entitled to "the flood happened and me saying so means it is scientific" Creationists are entitled to believe the flood happened and then go about making an empirical case for it just like any scientist must. They are allowed to compete with alernative views based on the evidence.

---

Yes, they are allowed to do that if they can do so honestly and scientifically. That is not in dispute. The fact is that they have failed. We have the example of the order in the fossil record raised here - empirical evidence that contradicts the flood. According to Faith we should just accept the lame explanation that she likes (because it assuems the Flood, not because it is any good at explaining the evidence) and ignore all the evidence that doesn't fit. That isn't science. That's not even good apologetics.And they are certainly not allowed to declare the Flood as fact in a scientific discussion - when they DON'T have a valid empirical case And THAT is what Faith has been doing. That's the sort of behaviour that triggered Percy's concerns.

quote:

---

The OP in question said they were not allowed to do this. Creation science cannot be - because of the starting principle.

---

Well it isn't science until they actually have a decent case. And they don't. Again we come back to the Flat Earthers and the Alchemists and all the rest. According to you, so long as they are attempting to make an empirical case we've got to call it science and accept their views as valid. Well I call BS on that. All the crap which has been thoroughly refuted like the Flat Earth, Astrology and Flood Geology isn't entitled to be called science.

quote:

---

Contrary to your claim that there is no creation science, regardless of what you personally think of flood geology, bonafide practicing geologists who research flood geology arriving at alternative interpretations of what is observed are doing science.

---

I note that you couldn't offer any evidence to refute my statements. In what sense is what they are doing "science" ? I say that it's just pseudo-science, trying to prop up falsified religious dogma. It's continued failure to adequately deal with the evidence is proof of that. The order in the fossil record has been known for a long time. Flood geology still can't explain it. Mainstream geology can.