Summations Only

And with that, I must refrain from going any further down this path as it would be dishonest of me to not make note that we are FAR off topic. Faiths delusions about science do not have a damn thing to do with the OP and we have spent far to many messages discussing it. Apologies for my part in it. I am confident that onlookers can see any point I was making from what is already posted.

You told that falsehood already, remember? It didn't impress me. But perhaps you'd have more luck telling it to your fellow-YECs ... oh, wait ... AnswersInGenesis has the "no new species" claim on their list of "Arguments that should never be used". Creation Ministries International says "New species have been observed to form." The CreationWiki says: "Species have been observed to form".Now, when an claim is so flagrantly untrue that even leading creationist brands have given up trying to sell it, that's untrue, Faith. Some people would find it hard even to imagine a lie so huge that CMI wouldn't tell it --- but here it is.

The "species" that are created by the process of "speciation," which does in fact occur though it is misnamed, are not new Species, just varieties of the same Species that can no longer interbreed with the mother population, and in fact usually have such reduced genetic diversity there is no more variation possible to them anyway. I have an argument with CRI if they are claiming anything other than that. Perhaps they have fallen for the artificial definition of a new Species as inability to interbreed with the mother population.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Sorry, I have no problem with the real sciences, including scientific methodology

---

Obviously you don't have a problem with the CONCLUSIONS of the science you don't hate. But it's the methodology that leads to the conclusions.So as I said you SHOULD have a problem with all science. Whatever your problem with the methodology of geology or astronomy REALLY is, it's in all of science.

quote:

---

was in high school when the Sputnik science craze was going on and we got an indoctrination in the principles and history and value of science that couldn't possibly be outshone by any or all of you at EvC, and I never lost any of that although I never pursued science myself. Evolution, however, is ABOUT THE PAST, it is NOT SCIENCE AS REAL SCIENCE is SCIENCE, the kind of science that can be replicated in the laboratory, that produces things, that builds things and so on

---

So many errors. Your criterion is silly. Science has always used on observations in the natural world and always used inference from observation. Newton couldn't put the Solar System in his laboratory to replicate his findings on the relationship between the orbits of the planets and gravity. And he observed gravity there through its effects, not as a thing he could directly see. But you don't have a problem with that.To use a more modern example cloud chambers let us find sub-atomic particles by setting up conditions where the effects of their passage will be magnified. Working back from the traces actually seen to the particles themselves is inference - not direct observation. But you don't have a problem with that.So your vaunted education doesn't seem to have left you with anything other than misconceptions - misconceptions that could easily be corrected with just a little thought.

quote:

---

I laugh right back at the laughing ones who can't tell the difference

---

I know the difference. Your "REAL SCIENCE" is just the science you don't hate and lie about.

You disagree with all mainstream science. You disagree with all non-Christians. You even disagree with almost all Christians.You disagree with old earth creationists Christians and now you disagree with young earth creationists too.Very soon Faith, you'll only have yourself to disagree with. But of course we've found that you disagree with yourself all the time because you constantly have to make up new excuses for being in the wrong.

You can do science by observing effects too, of course, and there are plenty of ways of testing gravity by its effects, but there are no effects of the supposed ordering of the fossil record that demand the theory of evolution to explain them. It's purely a conjecture based on nothing but imagination, that can be answered by other conjectures. There is no way to test or prove it. It remains a theory for this reason, a hypothesis, a conjecture. The worldwide Flood does a much better job of explaining the actual phenomena of the geologic column than evolution does. Which has the most plausibility or credibility is what it's all about, since replication of any of it is not possible, and that's not the usual criterion for hard science.

quote:

---

You can do science by observing effects too, of course, and there are plenty of ways of testing gravity by its effects, but there are no effects of the supposed ordering of the fossil record that demand the theory of evolution to explain them

---

But the FACT of the ordering of the fossil record is itself an observation, and one that YECs have failed to explain. The theory of evolution not only explains the existence of the ordering but, to a large degree, it's nature too. Thus it is evidence for evolution.If your inability to find evidence for evolution amounts to denying that the evidence exists and refusing to understand the reasoning that leads us to identify it as supporting evolution then it is clearly a failure on your part, and no weakness at all.

quote:

---

The worldwide Flood does a much better job of explaining the actual phenomena of the geologic column than evolution does

---

Of course, in reality, Flood geology is a hopeless failure and mainstream geology - by comparison - is a huge success. That's why the Flood ISN'T mainstream geology.

quote:

---

Which has the most plausibility or credibility is what it's all about, since replication of any of it is not possible, and that's not the usual criterion for hard science.

---

If you had any familiarity with the philosophy of science you'd know that that's wrong. Plausibility and credibility BASED ON the physical facts and well-established theory is what all scientific conclusions really are. No scientific conclusion can be proven beyond all doubt. How did Newton show that planetary motion is due to gravitational forces and not angels guiding the planets in their courses ? He certainly didn't do it by dragging planets into his laboratory and examining them for angel's footprints!And really, your opinions don't enjoy much credibility at all. Close-minded prejudice is not a reliable guide to reality.

Nevertheless, ALL you have is this observation and your interpretation of it and that is not science, it's hypothesis at best, untested, unproved. You have nothing replicable or testable, you have only your conjecture. There are other facts about the geologic column that are far better explained by the worldwide flood that need to be put up against your interpretation of the fossil order. Nobody is talking about "proven beyond all doubt," we're talking about replicability and testability. Your entire theory is nothing BUT theory, conjecture, period. You have no REAL evidence.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Nevertheless, ALL you have is this observation and your interpretation of it and that is not science, it's hypothesis at best, untested, unproved

---

That's not true - we have a lot of other observations, too.

quote:

---

You have nothing replicable or testable, you have only your conjecture

---

And that's not true either - the order of the fossil record is strongly replicable and testable and that is why it hasn't been falsified since it was discovered back in the 18th Century.

quote:

---

There are other facts about the geologic column that are far better explained by the worldwide flood that need to be put up against your interpretation of the fossil order

---

Even if you can find a few - and I doubt even that - there is much more evidence for mainstream geological views, as foreveryoung discovered. To point out just one, simple,example, remember that quartzite boulder embedded in sandstone in the Grand Canyon? Still waiting for you to explain that one.

quote:

---

Nobody is talking about "proven beyond all doubt,"

---

Then you admit that plausibility and credibility is a valid way of choosing between the many possible explanations ?

quote:

---

we're talking about replicability and testability. Your entire theory is nothing BUT theory, conjecture, period. You have no REAL evidence.

---

Then you're flat out wrong. We have replicable observations, as required. We have any number of tests, as required.

To be fair, though, we are lacking a magic book, written a few thousand years ago, by bronze age priests with no scientific awareness.

I'm sure we could rustle up one of those with almost no effort - compared with the effort required for scientific enquiry, it would be trivial. For god's sake, if the mormons can do it......Cracked it.

Yeah the order of the fossil record appears to be consistent, but that's not testability. You need something outside the fossil record that validates your interpretation. The Flood explanation has more testability than that, since layers do form in water.

Remarkable how the evos bring the Bible into this discussion when all I've brought into it is scientific considerations.

Then continue with the debate on this where we left off. Message 357

quote:

---

--Human and dinosaur fossils (or, more accurately, bones) are found in the same strata.

This is not at all necessary according to the Flood view which has all the strata having been laid down at the same time so that all the fossils in all the strata represent creatures that were all living at the same time.

But that is just a post-hoc rationalization of the pre-conceived Flood scenario. That is, you don't have any idea what the Flood conditions would have done, you just already believe in the Flood, then you see that the strata looks a particular way, so then you decide that the Flood must have done it that way. That is not intellectually honest, its just wishful thinking.

​

Anyways, the fossils in the strata are organized so that more primitive animals are on the bottom and more advanced ones are on top. Too, there's not a single advanced organism in the bottom strata nor any primitive ones in the top. Like this:

​

​

You never find any of the holocene animals in the cambrian layer, nor any of the jurassic animals in the holocene layer.

​

It is impossible for The Flood to have filtered out and organized all the animals into neat layers like that without a single exception anywhere in the world. Not one single arrowhead made its way down with a trilobyte into the lower layers. Not a single dinosaur escaped the layers that ended up fossilizing everything. There's no way for that to happen with a Flood without some sort of magic directly from God. But that's not what Flood proponents argue, they act as if it was all due to naturalistic mechanisms. Unfortunately, if you do invoke God, then you have to admit that he is playing a trick on us in making it look like it happened over a long period of time.

---

But reply in that thread as its off topic here.

Radiometric dating and fossil seriation do just fine.Both, however, say the flood story is complete nonsense.