Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2019 6:41 AM
23 online now:
(23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,059 Year: 15,095/19,786 Month: 1,818/3,058 Week: 192/404 Day: 6/73 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34Next
Author Topic:   what is a scientific theory of creation
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 58 (4506)
02-14-2002 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by lbhandli
02-12-2002 2:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by lbhandli:
Your 'model' wasn't a model. It was two claims that completely avoided anything unique and testable. Of course, if you would like to stop whining and post it again it can, again, be pointed out why it was useless.

While I'm simply flattered that you hold such a high opinion of my efforts, I still don't see much attempt to thoroughly show why my claims are way off base.

I also find it interesting that a few posts back, TrueCreation asked for some specifics. Seems to me nobody has offered him any. I would have to conclude that you don't WANT to see a theory of Creation because then your point would be refuted. It also might be of interest if you post your own theory so that TrueCreation or I could see exactly what your criterion is for a scientific theory. If you don't feel like spending your time doing this, so be it. It will only show even further that you have no real interest in hearing a scientific theory of Creation.

[This message has been edited by Cobra_snake, 02-14-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by lbhandli, posted 02-12-2002 2:34 PM lbhandli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by lbhandli, posted 02-14-2002 3:14 PM Cobra_snake has not yet responded
 Message 25 by nator, posted 02-15-2002 9:10 PM Cobra_snake has not yet responded

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 58 (4507)
02-14-2002 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Cobra_snake
02-14-2002 3:05 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
While I'm simply flattered that you hold such a high opinion of my efforts, I still don't see much attempt to thoroughly show why my claims are way off base.

So exactly how does your 'model' explain creationism? Elaborate. Repost your theory, explain how the physical evidence fits with it and how it could potentially be falsified.

quote:

I also find it interesting that a few posts back, TrueCreation asked for some specifics. Seems to me nobody has offered him any. I would have to conclude that you don't WANT to see a theory of Creation because then your point would be refuted.

I find it interesting that he can't provide a theory. I've given him as much latitude as anyone could want. Either he can provide a theory or he cannot. I want one, why is giving him latitude a problem in the provision of one?

quote:

It also might be of interest if you post your own theory so that TrueCreation or I could see exactly what your criterion is for a scientific theory.

First, let's stay to the subject of this thread, okay? My thery is irrelevant to the status of a scientific theory of creationism.

Second, I posted a link to such a theory for common descent in this thread. If you wish to discuss it, let's start another thread.

Third, my criteria is the scientific method. What are you unclear about concerning the scientific method?

quote:

If you don't feel like spending your time doing this, so be it. It will only show even further that you have no real interest in hearing a scientific theory of Creation.

How is providing you a competing theory relevant to the status of the scientific theory of creation? Either it exists or it does not. If you wish to discuss the scientific theory of evolution let's start a new thread. However, the question of this thread is what is the scientific theory of creation.

[This message has been edited by lbhandli, 02-14-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-14-2002 3:05 PM Cobra_snake has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 58 (4517)
02-14-2002 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by lbhandli
02-12-2002 2:36 PM


"Stop with this nonsense and provide a theory. I've already given you as much latitude as you could possibly have and your response so far was to post a could be scenario that wasn't scientific, but a "could be" scenario that was quickly pointed out to be wrong. Either provide a theory or admit you can't."
--I can provide a theory, and I will (actually I already have), my question is are you looking for a theory on creation, ie, how did god create, or just any old theory involved with a young earth?

-------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by lbhandli, posted 02-12-2002 2:36 PM lbhandli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by lbhandli, posted 02-14-2002 4:44 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 58 (4519)
02-14-2002 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by TrueCreation
02-14-2002 4:38 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Stop with this nonsense and provide a theory. I've already given you as much latitude as you could possibly have and your response so far was to post a could be scenario that wasn't scientific, but a "could be" scenario that was quickly pointed out to be wrong. Either provide a theory or admit you can't."
--I can provide a theory, and I will (actually I already have),

I meant scientific theory. What you proposed was a scenario that you claimed could be. However, it was rather quickly dispatched by gene. You need to provide a scientific theory that has not been falsified, has testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsifications.

quote:

my question is are you looking for a theory on creation, ie, how did god create, or just any old theory involved with a young earth?

I want a scientific theory that is 'creationist science.' This would mean that it must fit whatever particular brand of creationism you follow. What is unclear her?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by TrueCreation, posted 02-14-2002 4:38 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 58 (4528)
02-14-2002 10:25 PM


I believe what TrueCreation is asking is, do you want a flood model theory, a biological theory, a young-earth theory, etc. The concept of Creation science is too large to create an all-encompassing theory.
Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by TrueCreation, posted 02-14-2002 11:00 PM Cobra_snake has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 58 (4532)
02-14-2002 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Cobra_snake
02-14-2002 10:25 PM


"I believe what TrueCreation is asking is, do you want a flood model theory, a biological theory, a young-earth theory, etc. The concept of Creation science is too large to create an all-encompassing theory."
--Exactly, this is what I am wondering, thanx cobra.

lbhandli-->

"I meant scientific theory. What you proposed was a scenario that you claimed could be. However, it was rather quickly dispatched by gene. You need to provide a scientific theory that has not been falsified, has testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsifications."
--You mean my two theories on impact craters? That is still under way, I do think my culdra theory is quite lacking, but my other one, as I stated before I posted them, I would more readilly cling to.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-14-2002 10:25 PM Cobra_snake has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Peter, posted 02-18-2002 9:50 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4099 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 22 of 58 (4542)
02-15-2002 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by lbhandli
02-12-2002 2:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by lbhandli:
Your 'model' wasn't a model. It was two claims that completely avoided anything unique and testable. Of course, if you would like to stop whining and post it again it can, again, be pointed out why it was useless.

Ilbhandli: I find myself in the rather odd and somewhat uncomfortable position of actually backing a creationist over a fellow non-creationist on this particular issue. Yes, cobra's model wasn't very elegant or refined, and (of course ) it's erroneous - but it's still one of the best "scientific" models of creationism I've seen. It has a hypothesis, assumptions that must be true if the hypothesis is true, and two tentative predictions. It is, in short, couched in nearly scientific form, and well worth the effort to refute. Maybe if I restate it for him, with my comments as to what I consider the current "state of play" in the discussion, you'll see what I mean. (Note: the debate thus far has primarily been focused on the implications of the assumptions. Cobra has not yet gotten to presenting positive evidence for the model.) (Cobra: correct me if I mis-state something.)

In the first place, he begins with (obviously) the unstated, but I'd say stipulated, premise that a creation event occurred in accordance with the Biblical genesis. IOW, Creation Happened.

He then goes on to posit five assumptions that must be true if the initial premise is true.

1. Mutations should almost always cause a bad effect. Comment: We haven't gotten beyond discussing the implications of the assumption (ever-increasing deleterious mutational load leading to negative marginal fitness leading to error catastrophe). Evidence countering this assumption has been provided:
a) the persistence of natural populations cannot be explained by this assumption.
b) beneficial mutations do exist
c) the vast majority of all mutations are neutral
Conclusion: the assumption is invalid as written. Note: this does NOT invalidate the entire theory, merely implies that the assumption needs either to be revised or discarded.

2. Mutations should rarely or never increase the amount of information. Comment: As could probably be expected, the discussion has devolved into a discussion of what constitutes “new information”. The counter-argument has been:
a) “information” is not necessarily a valid concept used with genetics
b) there are a variety of mutational effects, all of which either increase, decrease or change the DNA code. My position is that such changes constitute “new information”.
Conclusion: None reached. I am awaiting Cobra’s definition of new information, or agreement with mine. In addition, positive evidence from nature needs to be provided at this stage before the assumption can be further explored.

3. Speciation should occur as a product of the great variability programmed into living things, combined with mutations. As a corollary to this assumption, Cobra provided the following amplifications:
a) The overall diversity of species INCREASES over time.
b) The overall diversity of the new species is less than that of the first species
The discussion has so far been devoted to presentation of observations that would tend to show that biodiversity (a) and inherited variation (b) are not linked as suggested. In addition, evidence of substantial increases in both inherited variability of individual species AND increases in biodiversity are both possible. Positive evidence has been requested to show how speciation causes decreased variation, or evidence of decreased variability within a population.
Conclusion: Awaiting positive evidence from the creationist side.

4. All living things should be fully formed from the start. (i.e. no reptiles with "half-wings" or "half-feathers.") Comment: Discussion has focused on the following:
a) The assumption is based in part on the postulate of linearity and increased perfection in organisms over time, which is a violation of both assumption 1, 3, and 5.
b) Examples were provided showing analogies with modern organisms with “partial” adaptations
Conclusion: Under discussion.

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. Comment: Discussion has focused on the following:
a) Violation of assumption 4 and corollary (a) of assumption 3.
b) Assumption rests on the validity of assumption 2, which is disputed
c) Evidence or example from nature has been requested showing how negative mutations (“loss or corruption of information”) can cause speciation
Conclusion: Under discussion, but shaky.

Cobra follows his assumptions with two tentative predictions of what science would observe if the assumptions were true.

1. Fully formed creatures in the fossil record (no "half-features") Comment: Prediction follows directly from assumption 4. Discussion began with a definition of transitional fossil.
Conclusion: Prediction tabled pending Cobra’s review of relevant geological and paleontological literature to gain an understanding of the fossil record.

2. An increased genetic burden over time as a result of the negative effect of mutations. Cobra provided a corollary: “The species can still be well fit (due to change in allelic frequency), but the species will have an increased genetic burden.” Comment: Prediction follows directly from assumptions 1 (invalid), 2, 3, and 5. The argument against this prediction revolve around the arguments against the assumption. Positive evidence has been requested showing examples from nature.
Conclusion: Under discussion.

Not a bad effort for a creationist. Feel free to jump in and help dismantle it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by lbhandli, posted 02-12-2002 2:34 PM lbhandli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by lbhandli, posted 02-15-2002 1:51 PM Quetzal has not yet responded
 Message 24 by TrueCreation, posted 02-15-2002 3:52 PM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 58 (4616)
02-15-2002 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Quetzal
02-15-2002 4:36 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
Ilbhandli: I find myself in the rather odd and somewhat uncomfortable position of actually backing a creationist over a fellow non-creationist on this particular issue. Yes, cobra's model wasn't very elegant or refined, and (of course ) it's erroneous - but it's still one of the best "scientific" models of creationism I've seen. It has a hypothesis, assumptions that must be true if the hypothesis is true, and two tentative predictions. It is, in short, couched in nearly scientific form, and well worth the effort to refute. Maybe if I restate it for him, with my comments as to what I consider the current "state of play" in the discussion, you'll see what I mean. (Note: the debate thus far has primarily been focused on the implications of the assumptions. Cobra has not yet gotten to presenting positive evidence for the model.) (Cobra: correct me if I mis-state something.)

This is exactly what I was trying to get him to repost and discuss. Thanks. Now maybe we can either spin off each discussion or try and keep it here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Quetzal, posted 02-15-2002 4:36 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 58 (4624)
02-15-2002 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Quetzal
02-15-2002 4:36 AM


"Not a bad effort for a creationist. Feel free to jump in and help dismantle it."
--No one wanted to respond to my comments on Cobra's Theory.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Quetzal, posted 02-15-2002 4:36 AM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 397 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 25 of 58 (4658)
02-15-2002 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Cobra_snake
02-14-2002 3:05 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
[B] It also might be of interest if you post your own theory so that TrueCreation or I could see exactly what your criterion is for a scientific theory. [/QUOTE]

Here is the link to a very good definition of science, which contains an explanation about what makes a theory a scientific one:

http://www.skepdic.com/science.html

"The logical and empirical methods of science

There is no single scientific method. Some of the methods of science
involve logic, e.g., drawing inferences or deductions from hypotheses,
or thinking out the logical implications of causal relationships in terms of necessary or sufficient conditions. Some of the methods are empirical, such as making observations, designing controlled experiments, or designing instruments to use in collecting data.

Scientific methods are impersonal. Thus, whatever one scientist is able to do qua scientist, any other scientist should be able to duplicate. When a person claims to measure or observe something by some purely subjective method, which others cannot duplicate, that person is not doing science. When scientists cannot duplicate the work of another scientist that is a clear sign that the scientist has erred either in design, methodology, observation, calculation, or calibration.

scientific facts and theories

Science does not assume it knows the truth about the empirical world a
priori. Science assumes it must discover its knowledge. Those who claim to know empirical truth a priori (such as so-called scientific
creationists) cannot be talking about scientific knowledge. Science
presupposes a regular order to nature and assumes there are underlying
principles according to which natural phenomena work. It assumes that
these principles or laws are relatively constant. But it does not assume that it can know a priori either what these principles are or what the actual order of any set of empirical phenomena is.

A scientific theory is a unified set of principles, knowledge, and
methods for explaining the behavior of some specified range of
empirical phenomena. Scientific theories attempt to understand the
world of observation and sense experience. They attempt to explain
how the natural world works.

A scientific theory must have some logical consequences we can test
against empirical facts by making predictions based on the theory. The
exact nature of the relationship of a scientific theory making predictions and being tested is something about which philosophers widely disagree, however (Kourany 1997)."

There is more at the site. Please read it.

------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."

-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-14-2002 3:05 PM Cobra_snake has not yet responded

    
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 58 (4826)
02-17-2002 12:53 PM


Great.... Now I have Quetzal, Mark, AND Ibhandli dismantling my theory! I'm screwed.
Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Quetzal, posted 02-18-2002 3:19 AM Cobra_snake has not yet responded

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 58 (4828)
02-17-2002 1:10 PM


I read the entire article, front to back (I read it about a month ago when you last provided the link). However, I am somehow under the impression that the person who wrote this definition is not much of a supporter of Creation Science:

"Those who claim to know empirical truth a priori (such as so-called scientific creationists) cannot be talking about scientific knowledge."

Well the question is not whether or not this author thinks Creation science is science, the question is whether or not he is correct in his claim. First of all, I know of at least ONE evolutionist who changed his thinking to become a creationists (Gary Parker). I do realize that there are probably quite a few examples of Creationists changing to Evolutionists, but this simply does not matter, because the principal is the same. Also, I think the claim is unfair because I think many evolutionists start of with a bias towards a naturalistic point of view.

I promise, I DID read the article and I DID find it fairly interesting.


Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by nator, posted 05-02-2002 1:05 PM Cobra_snake has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3260 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 28 of 58 (4832)
02-17-2002 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lbhandli
02-11-2002 8:12 PM


Ib, in order to do this it is Opinon o nly that it would require the 1973 Bayes vs Mendelianism of Wright NONdistinction Dispute to not exist in evolutionary discourse. Rather what seems more acceptable to discourse in evolution is a certain number of topics and dispostions such as units of selection. One must first know what it is that is being created that would have to move without forced man-made motion and this would have to not be all of nature. Now if this is such a trivial excercise why was I not permitted to get a degree at Cornell to do just this and saying I am crazy is not the response as much as one may like. I may have been "crazy" to find no need for one gene-one enzyme but this does not exchange naturalism with materialism. I am trying to formulate outside the Frech contribution what the words and not the equations would look like and then to put the words in equation reliance from which falisfication would be possible for within a creationist historical contuity of hertiage but such is as big or bigger project than Gould's next book. I do not see how the view of Wright on Bayes can be simply topoligized and left for math.

I know that the set up response is no match for the set up question but there are some clear things rather that could gain attention in the mean time such as increasing the corrleation between points rather than pointing out the Decline as Wright did and this would be within my response to you interetsting question that can be researched and worked on. This of course is not what is economically expected.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lbhandli, posted 02-11-2002 8:12 PM lbhandli has not yet responded

    
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4099 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 29 of 58 (4905)
02-18-2002 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Cobra_snake
02-17-2002 12:53 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Great.... Now I have Quetzal, Mark, AND Ibhandli dismantling my theory! I'm screwed.

Such is science! I hope you'll get a chance (soon) to respond to my last contribution on the "why creation science isn't science" thread. I look forward to continuing the discussion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-17-2002 12:53 PM Cobra_snake has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Brad McFall, posted 04-22-2002 1:50 PM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 2151 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 30 of 58 (4923)
02-18-2002 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by TrueCreation
02-14-2002 11:00 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I believe what TrueCreation is asking is, do you want a flood model theory, a biological theory, a young-earth theory, etc. The concept of Creation science is too large to create an all-encompassing theory."
--Exactly, this is what I am wondering, thanx cobra.

lbhandli-->

"I meant scientific theory. What you proposed was a scenario that you claimed could be. However, it was rather quickly dispatched by gene. You need to provide a scientific theory that has not been falsified, has testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsifications."
--You mean my two theories on impact craters? That is still under way, I do think my culdra theory is quite lacking, but my other one, as I stated before I posted them, I would more readilly cling to.


What is being asked for is a Theory of Creation Science.

If that decomposes into a number of theories (i.e. CS is a FIELD)
then give us the component theories.

Perhaps I could give you a start.

Provide evidence for::

A young earth (I have opened a How Old is the Earth? thread for this).

The mechanism by which a flood could create a consistent global
burrial record (including why some remains are fossilised and
others aren't)

That (for me) would be a start.

I would like to see a theory/premise/assertion followed by
the logical outcome if that assertion were true, followed by
the empirical evidence that shows that the assertion holds.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by TrueCreation, posted 02-14-2002 11:00 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
34Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019