Summations Only

And that point would, of course, be bollocks. Now that Dawn has told us that "direct evidence" for a thing means seeing that thing oneself, it is perfectly plain that no evolutionist is demanding that any creationist should have been an eyewitnesses to creation. We're not hypocrites and morons like Ken Ham bleating out "were you there?"; we have no need of stupid and dishonest arguments. If you can see it, perhaps you can describe it. No. We had a whole thread on this, you couldn't do it then either. ... like you can in geology and paleontology. ... like geologists and paleontologists have. So now were not allowed to use science to discover complicated things? Sheesh. OK, for starters let's say goodbye to the Krebs cycle. I never liked it anyway. Clearly this is one of the things that's too complicated to be the product of real science, so instead we should believe that ATP is produced by magic. No conclusion is inevitable if the person doing the concluding is an idiot. There are people who deny that the Earth is round, but that doesn't prove that this is in some way bad science, it proves that morons are stubborn. The people who discovered the helical structure of DNA were Crick and Watson. They, of all people, know exactly how they did that. So, let's hear from them, and 70 other Nobel laureates. Look, it's no good, Faith. You've decided what conclusion you want to reach, and now you're trying to fudge up some reasoning to make it look like you arrived at this conclusion by some process of actual thought. But you didn't. You know you didn't: the fact that after having announced your conclusion you are now struggling to rationalize your position must make that as clear to you as to everyone else.And you will never, ever succeed.

I have no idea what you are saying here. It does what it's designed to do, what further explanation would be needed? It has a an "explanation for the recognized design?" Which is?All I was trying to do was provide some ways of recognizing or defining design since its very existence has been in question. I came up with some criteria. Now you want me to go on to what? Explaining what? Design implies a designer, as opposed to being the product of selection from a bunch of random changes over hundreds of millions of years. You seem to be changing the subject, although I must say I really don't know what you are doing. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Arguing with Dawn "liar for Spock" Bertot is clearly an exercise in futility, so this is for the people actually interested in the truth. Dawn's "contradiction" is in reality a consequence of following one of the basics of science, the principle of parsimony.

quote:

---

Your so-called science does not test it's conclusion, but it has a conclusion, Soley Nature Causes. What is your direct evidence for your conclusion

---

Others have pointed out that "direct evidence" is not a requirement for scientific conclusions. Also, that the "conclusion" is a misrepresentation. But there is a greater error that completely invalidates the claim.The principle of parsimony essentially states that we should not assume additional factors unless the evidence requires them. Since it is easy to imagine any number of additional factors it is a simple matter of practicality to discount them unless the evidence provides adequate justification. Science could not work, otherwise.Since the natural processes of evolution are known to occur, because we have evidence that evolution did occur, because evolution accounts for some aspects of the "design" of living beings better than design and because we know evolution-like processes can produce "designs" we need far more than the "design" we see to assume any additional causes - supernatural or not. No additional causes are needed, given the current state of the evidence.Thus the "conclusion" is more properly stated as "at present, it appears that known natural causes are adequate". If creationists wish to claim that they are doing science in proposing additional causes it is down to them to make a scientific case for it. Complaining that the ordinary workings of science are somehow scientific is mere foolishness and must rightly be rejected.

I thought the point was just that creationists are always hearing "Show me the evidence" as if giving criteria for distinguishing design from nondesign, and arguing that design implies a designer is not evidence.You cannot replicate history, that's what I mean by not having tests. Geology is history. One-time events that can't be repeated.When I said the science was describing simple physical things I was referring to HBD's examples. Of course there are plenty of other less simple things science can accurately describe. But they are all physical things for which the conclusion does inevitably follow from the correct assembly of facts and correct series of steps, AS OPPOSED TO the kinds of facts that are the basis for the imaginative Time Periods, that do not inevitably lead to the particular imagined scenario but are always open to interpretation, particularly of course the interpretation that they are merely the flotsam of the Flood. As the conclusions of the hard sciences from a given set of facts are not open to other interpretation.You are not quoting Crick and Watson about the steps involved in recognizing the helical structure of DNA which is what I was talking about. Quoting their faith in evolution is something else.Your post is really a hodgepodge of disconnected thoughts that is very hard to follow and as usual more aimed at obfuscation than clarification. it is always hazardous even to try to figure out what you are saying since it is usually some attempt to confuse the point being made in the post you are answering. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As ever what creationists are missing is prediction and discovery. Evolution predicts, and as a direct result of that prediction, discovers tiktaalik and other transitionals.Tell me the predictions and consequent discoveries made by creation "scientists"....?

That's why I carefully said the conclusion is inevitable from a particular set of facts. You gave the conclusions and it can be shown how the conclusions were arrived at from the facts and operations that led to the conclusions in the first place, so that anyone can replicate these and come to the same conclusion. If you change the facts or how you put them together you'll get a different conclusion, but the conclusion will inevitably follow from those facts and operations that led to it, and all this can be demonstrated -- WHICH IS NOT THE CASE with historical events, with the wild and fantastical interpretations of Time Periods. No, neither the facts nor the conclusions have that inevitability in evolution and historical geology, it's a completely different kind of science.I have to come back to this tomorrow. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Science is about advancing human knowledge.
'Advancing' human knowledge to where we were 2,000 years ago (the ancient Greeks, Aquinas etc) really can't be called science. If all you are doing is observing the bloody obvious, you aren't doing science. "The sky is up", "Ice exists", "It rains".Science is about asking follow up questions "What is the sky? Where does it begin, where does it end? Why is it blue? What are those white fluffy things? What about those white dots we can see when the big yellow thing isn't there. What's that big yellow thing? Why does it go away every few hours? Where does it go? Why does it come back?"If all you have is an observation, you haven't got 'The Science in Creationism', you've got the 'Eyes of a Human'. Erm, that it was designed through a process of chance variation and selection based on the criteria of reproductive success. But you knew this. I'm not questioning it, so let's get passed the observation and onto the science about that observation. How did the design get there? Is the design still happening? Why did the designer design life? Why do the designs seem to fall into the patterns they do based on space and time? Why is the eye this way and not that way? You know, the science bit of science. Correct. And 'Ice' implies an ice maker. The more interesting question is, is the ice maker a mindless process or is there a Jack Frost? Well that's how one proposed designer did it, and we can already begin to answer some of the other questions from this.Creation proposes that a God is the designer. So have at it, show me some of the science you will now do to provision us with the answers that are derived from this theory. I'm agreeing with your opening argument and opening the door for you to now present your case that there is any degree of intellectual equality between the theory evolution and the theory of Creation.I realize you'd probably rather continue bickering over whether there is design, because you feel that's an argument you are a winner on. I'm not contesting it, so let's move forwards.

I appreciate that you have your hands full.

quote:

---

Design

​

2. purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.

---

A pile of rocks at the bottom of a hill has no design but what if they fall down and create a dam that forms a lake that grows a fish that feeds thousands? If a pile of rocks has no design then neither does a plague or a flood or a volcano. A hail stone has no design unless it falls on the head of your enemy?The problem with inferring design of the universe by comparing it to the designs of humans is that humans have learned how to design things by looking at the way that the universe works. The human race will never design anything that is not simply a directed application of the forces that we find in nature.It should be clear to any reasonable person that inferring design of the universe because we can design things that look similar to what we find in the universe is faulty reasoning. A pyramid is the same shape as a pile of rocks and mug holds liquid the same way that a puddle does. Airplanes look like birds and robots can be made to walk like a human.

Well, Dawn hasn't done that. He just insists that there is design in nature. And that he can "see" it.You yourself haven't actually provided criteria that work; and what criteria you have supplied are an exercise in begging the question. And as geology is eminently testable, perhaps you should have said something else. For example, you could have said "The Cretaceous Period is in the past, like last Tuesday, and so believing in them is equally sensible and scientific", and then we would have had no disagreement. As I pointed out, all data are open to other "interpretations" if presented to a sufficiently stubborn idiot. The obdurate stupidity of creationists doesn't cast doubt on evolution any more than the obdurate stupidity of flat-Earthers casts doubt on the shape of the Earth. There are people who have an alternate explanation of this data, Faith. A photograph. As near to what you call "direct evidence" as they can get without personally going into space. Now, as with them, your "alternate explanations" are risibly stupid. And, in some cases, non-existent, unless you've come up with an explanation for the fossil record over the weekend. No? You were also talking about evolution. Your claim, so far as I understood it, was that people with expertise in the shape of DNA would know the difference between that, as being proper science, and evolution, which (as you think) isn't. But they think it is. I was constrained by the fact that I was answering your post, in which you lurch from one bad idea to another without consistency or system. Evolution is bad because science has tests! No, wait, evolution is bad because the answer is complicated! No, wait, evolution is bad because creationists deny it! No, wait, evolution is bad because ... you don't know, but "somebody who knows exactly what went into identifying the DNA molecule" would be able to tell me.Well, Faith, if you can produce a connected sequence of thoughts, then my reply to them will also be connected. My aim was actually to clarify things. If you are still confused, I suggest that you re-read the post until you understand it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I will give you fellas one thing you are masters of evasion. Modulous all you are doing is describing the process you can observe. Your process has nothing to do with your conclusion. Do you deny in the above statement that you cannot, give us direct evidence of how it all started. No one has denied you have a very involved science process.All u are doing is explaining HOW it works. Since you cannot give me real evidence of its source or how it started, you must be failing at your own standards, or your requiring something of me not required of you.IT'S REALLY THAT SIMPLE. Well this statement makes no sense. How could I show you how I tested my theory, without testing properties in the natural world OK no problem my investigation. I can look in a very detailed manner at a particular item in nature, an eye a brain, break it down, notice it's intricate parts functioning in harmony, so as to notice if a particular part were not there, it would not complete it's function or purpose.This process is so orderly is supercedes anything man has invented to this point.Now that's my process and the actual process is much more involved by creation scientists. But I really don't need the elaborate process do i, to see such a detailed order.The only way our PROCESS differS is in dgree.Now I and others CONCLUDED, Do yousee that MODULOUS, my conclusion, design from this processLIKE ME MODULOUS DO YOU HAVE ANY DIRECT EVIDENCE FOR THE NATURAL LOGICAL CONCLUSION OF EVOLUTION??????????If you do not I'll assume our process and conclusion are determined the same wayGetting tired of asking for your direct evidence of evolutions natural conclusions, that things are a result of Solely Natural CausesDawn Bertot
IEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Now Faith I want you to pay close attention to this completely IDIOTIC statement above. You see how they set up stupid standards and call it scienceEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

What makes the above statement stupid? Well since natural processes are real they had a start or got started somehow, and's not a product of the imagination, it would in REALITY have had a beginningSo your scientifically advanced process MUUUUUUUUUUUUUUST HAVE A NATURAL LOGICAL conclusion of how natural processes started. There is no way to avoid this conclusion, except by making up stupid scienceOnly an idiot would assume it needs no conclusion or that this conclusion doesn't matter.Imaging you don't need a conclusion to a scientific investigation is lying, deception and nearly unethicalWhere is your direct evidence pleaseDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Since it seems that I have made the mistake of underestimating Dawn "liar for Spock" Bertot's error I will correct my statement:The "conclusion" Dawn Bertot refers to is more accurately stated:
"at present, it appears that known natural causes are adequate to explain the development of life on Earth from its origins to today". Naturally "how it all started" is outside the scope of evolutionary theory, and thus evolution offers no conclusion on that matter whatsoever.

quote:

---

Well since natural processes are real they had a start or got started somehow, and's not a product of the imagination, it would in REALITY have had a beginning

---

Not only would any answer be beyond the scope of evolutionary theory, the question itself is flawed. There is no reason to assume a beginning to natural processes in general - we just don't know. And we don't need to know. Again, it is for those who propose a role for supernatural causation to bring evidence. Speculating in ares where humanity is currently ignorant is not evidence.

To summarize: you like to tell yourself that the order found in organisms is the product of design rather than evolution.But do you have any evidence for this?If so, show me the evidence.

You are not. But you still try. Without surcease. I don't have to do anything, this is your thesis for you to defend. And all you've done is describe things that you can see. Show me how its done, then. Placental mammals. Marsupial mammals. Explain the convergent body shapes but non-convergent genetic patterns using the design hypothesis. If you even have one. No. Great, but we're here to discuss your science process. My science process is just a benchmark we're using to judge how your science process matches up. Do you enjoy repeating yourself? Do you enjoy hearing me repeat myself?Can you stop evading my request that you describe the tests for your theory by trying to focus on me and my thesis? I want to talk about yours. Fine by me. I have not demanded evidence of where God comes from or how God started in this thread. So what you are saying is that you don't have evidence for your theory that God designed life. Go about it how you will. But you are proposing an entity, 'God', explains the phenomena 'the design of life'. You need evidence for your entity, and the methods the entity employed or you don't have a theory. Indirect, direct, I don't give a hoot.If you don't have a theory, you aren't doing science. IT'S REALLY THAT SIMPLE As can I. Good. Not sure 'orderly' is the right word, but sure it is definitely beyond our capabilities, I'll give you that. OK. So you don't have a theory. You just have something we've known for thousands of years?Well we know that already.We've been focussed on trying to explain this. That's the science bit. If this bit hasn't been done by you or anyone else in your position, for the last few thousand years. Then I don't anticipate its going to happen and the concept of 'Science in Creationism' is defeated before we get out of the gate. Well no. You haven't explained the design. You haven't provisioned any method for how the design went from the designer to its realization. You haven't given any evidence for any of the entities you propose are involved.So its not differing by degree, it's differing in approach and scope.So far, you are still at the Astrology level (actually, that's not true, astrology has better theory than you've presented) of reasoning. Astrology does not differ from astronomy by degree, it differs in its approach. The approach is the key. Yes, I have agreed that there is design. But this is still general level philosophy. Science is a method for investigating philosophy. You need to do that bit to claim science. You haven't. There is no Science in Creationism. QED. Yes. Maybe they are. But our method for investigating questions raised by our conclusion, and explaining the whys and hows and whats and whens differs. You don't have one. I use science. Then stop because I'm also getting tired of pointing out that
a) I am not claiming things are the result of Solely Natural Causes
b) This thread is about your thesis, not mine. Let's see what evidence you have. I don't care if it is direct or indirect. I don't care if the causes are natural or supernatural.Apparently your evidence is that things are designed. But that observation doesn't give evidence for what is generally regarded as Special Creation. So again I say, if that's all you have, you don't have science.Merely observing and drawing conclusions is not science. Otherwise you are still saying Astrology is science.