Summations Only

You want to get into the details but the evidence I'm claiming is the strata and the fossils. That's ENORMOUS evidence for the Flood. In all the evidence we've discussed if we gave it all a weight value, the strata and the fossils should weigh in heavier than all the others combined. Your silly idea that it failed is what fails.

They also didn't really believe the Bible because their theories didn't fit the Bible, but the POINT WAS THAT NOBODY SAID THEY HAD NO RIGHT TO DO SCIENCE BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED THE BIBLE. That's the point, acknowledge it instead of racing on to some other point.

We know you make that claim however this thread is about The Science in Creationism and just maybe, reality.The fact is that after the geologists actually looked at reality all of the geologists concluded that neither of the Biblical floods were even possible,Until you present the model, method, process, procedure that shows how a flood can do that you got diddley squat.And that is the evidence that led ALL of geology to conclude without a shadow of a doubt that neither of the Biblical Flood stories ever happened.Edited by jar, : neith ------> neither

They believed the bible until they looked at the evidence and found out that it was wrong. Because they had seen the evidence for themselves they had to accept it.And it was more like 200 than 100 years ago that these early geologists reached those conclusions.

You live in your own weird world, you make up your own evidence, you make up the failure of the Flood, you make up your own interpretation of the Bible, you try to hold others to your own idiosyncratic opinions as if they had some kind of special authority. I don't know why anybody pays attention to anything you say.

As I keep saying the theories they came up with were UNBIBLICAL, that's why they gave way to the "evidence" that proved their wrong theories wrong. They WEREN'T BIBLICAL.Sheesh.The only reason I mentioned that former scientists believed the Bible or said they did was to show that it's NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH SCIENCE.Sheesh.I've got to get out of here.

It's not that small of a world Faith; it included almost all Christians as well as all Scientists and many other folk so hardly small.Maybe folk pay attention because if they test what I say against logic, reason and reality it stands up.

It doesn't matter if they were biblical or unbiblical--they were wrong!The evidence showed that they were wrong, but bible believers have continued to reject reason, evidence, and what the real world shows. In spite of all the evidence that shows that the earth is very old, bible believers continue to reject that evidence.Fine--but never call what you do science. That's an absolute delusion. It is the exact opposite of science.And saying you are just interpreting the evidence differently is also a delusion. You have to ignore a huge amount of evidence, cherry-pick a little bit of it, and misinterpret pretty much everything else in order to force the bible's version onto the real evidence. Science simply doesn't work that way--you're doing religious apologetics.I think you'd be calmer and happier if you just admitted that.

I don't call interpretations "facts," that is your caricature of how geology is done. I am asking how do you determine that a fact is evidence for your premise? How would I determine if a fact is evidence if my premise? How would anyone do that for any premise they had? I am not asking for a definition. I am asking for you to describe how you decide if something is evidence or not and how you determine if the evidence supports one premise over another. How do you determine that? Is this statement evidence or a premise? And what is the difference between evidence and a premise? I am not denying ANYTHING. I am asking you how you determined that these statements include evidence. How you determined that the "strata" and "dead things" is evidence of your theory.Is "it looks like it" or "any idiot could see it" or "the exact perfect result of the purpose of the flood" a statement of evidence? Or is it a conclusion? or a premise?I know you don't want me telling you how science works, so I am trying to find out, from you, how you are doing science.What it looks like to me is that you have a premise that is given to be true - there was a global flood that killed every living creature. This has already been determined to be true before gathering evidence. Observations that "look like" they fit within the desired framework are then selected and declared as evidence. The conclusion is that the original premise (which has already been accepted as true) has been confirmed.This is soooo anti-science. Yet you claim to be doing science.So, I am trying to lead the discussion in a way that gives you the opportunity to describe how you are actually doing science. I am trying to prompt you with some of the key points that would differentiate science from non-science, in this case how evidence is handled. I am pretty sure that if you could actually address these points that it would go a long way to having what you're doing accepted as science by others at EvC, including myself.HBD

Well, I mentioned them originally because they include Crick and Watson, who discovered the structure of DNA, your own example of what constitutes true science. Let's look at some of the others. As there are 72 of them, I think for now we might confine ourselves to the ones who got their prizes in Physiology or Medicine.So, there's Axelrod, who discovered how the nervous system uses epinephrine and norepinephrine; Baltimore, Dulbecco, and Temin, who got their prizes for work on how tumour viruses interact with the genes of the host cell; Bloch, who got his prize for his work on the mechanism and regulation of the cholesterol and fatty acid metabolism; Brown and Goldstein, who also worked on cholestrol metabolism; Cormack, who invented the CAT scan; Cournand, who invented heart catheterization; Crick and Watson, whom I have already mentioned; Guillemin, who studied peptide hormone production in the brain; Holley, Khorana, and Nirenberg, who figured out the role of DNA in protein synthesis; Hubel, who got his prize for studying the processing of visual data in the nervous system; Kornberg and Ochoa, who discovered how DNA and RNA are synthesized; Luria, who studied the replication mechanisms and genetic structure of viruses; McClintock, who discovered "jumping genes"; Nathans and Smith, who got their prize for discovering restriction enzymes; Palade, who elucidated the structures of the cell and discovered the ribosomes of the endoplasmic reticulum; Robbins and Weller, who by learning to grow the polio virus in culture paved the way for the development of a vaccine; Snell, who discovered the genetic factors underlying the acceptance or rejection of transplants; Sperry, who pioneered the study of the lateralization of brain function; and Yalow, who invented the radioimmunoassay technique.These men and women fought disease, Faith, they unraveled the mysteries of genetics and the secrets of the cell. Yet to you they are dolts who are mentally unfit to tell a good biological hypothesis for a bad one. Meanwhile you, who understand the true nature of science better than all of them together --- you have done nothing. You have not even done the thing that you feel sets you apart from and above them: you have not in fact developed a criterion which successfully and consistently condemns as bad science those scientific facts that you hate, while sparing those that you like. You merely devoutly wish that you could do that. Your scientific superiority is not to be manifested by the smallest, slightest, least measure of actual success, but rather in the fact that you possess a prejudice which (unsurprisingly) you yourself approve of, and an ambition which you are utterly unable to fulfill.Well, there are other conclusions one might draw from all this, conclusions less flattering to your self-esteem but more in line with common sense. We might think that these 72 Nobel laureates are in fact better at science than you, and better equipped to know good science from bad. We might think that creationism is bad science, and such bad science that it can scarcely cohabit in the same skull as scientific ability. We might think that this is why, from its unequaled position as both scientific consensus and religious orthodoxy, creationism descended to become a laughing-stock and the province not of successful scientists but of cranks, charlatans, and convicted fraudsters, of the Hams, Gishes, and Hovinds of the world.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Faith, the stuff you and other modern creationists come out with isn't Biblical. There's nothing in the Bible at all about fossils or sedimentary rocks, nor about how the flood caused "accelerated radioactive decay", or how light sprinted most of the way from the distant stars and then slowed down when we started measuring it, or how entire families of animals were produced from just two ancestors in four thousand years by a feat of superdupermegaevolution such as no-one has ever actually witnessed. Your nonsense about genetics is not in the Bible, Faith, nor are your blunders about geology. This is all down to you.However, although your blunders are not Biblical, neither are they novel. AS I HAVE POINTED OUT TO YOU, FAITH. Could you please try to learn something from these conversations? Radiometric dating aside, there is hardly a single modern creationist mistake about geology that can't be found in Johann Scheuchzer or John Woodward. The tendencies in creationist thought which you criticize as "unbiblical" are revisions that creationists made subsequently as they tried to rescue as much as possible of their doctrine from the rising tide of scientific fact (the modern creationist expedient of ignoring the facts and making shit up having not occurred to them). But creationists started off as close to your views, as ignorant of the facts, and as removed from reality, as any modern-day YEC could wish for.

Well, again one could note that his "silly idea" is remarkably current among geologists and paleontologists.And small wonder. Your ideas cannot account for the sedimentary record, nor for the fossil record. And while you may be oblivious to the first of these failures, you have yourself admitted the second. How can the fossils record possibly be, as you claim, evidence for the Flood, when by your own admission you can't figure out how the Flood could have accounted for the fossil record?A man points at a jar of strawberry jam. "Look!" he says, "here is evidence for the Loch Ness Monster!" So we ask him: "How in the world could a lake monster have produced a jar of strawberry jam?" "I have no idea", he confesses candidly. Then why in the world does he think it is evidence?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No this is not what I'm proposing presently. I'm proposing only that both our processes are an investigation about the physical world. Yours is nothing more than an examination of the processes, like mine. Hence science in both cases. That is unless we use your convoluted definition of the word.From both of our processes, two things can be concluded. In my case, intricate order, in yours change over time. Now we arrive at these the same way, by observation.Neither process by themselves have a conclusion. But because they are a study of physical properties, they would naturally and logically at some point have a conclusion, because the process started somewhere. Only a tyro would assume a conclusion to our processes, is not necessaryAsking me to compare my process with yours is nonsensical. Because it doesn't matter whether your process is valid or not, for there to be observable intricate order. Actually your process confiris in more detail orderNow pay close attention Modulous. Design is my conclusion, not the process. All you need to do to demonstrate that my process is not valid, is to somehow dismiss, get rid of the obvious order in natural things. Actually visible order is axiomatic, so I'm not sure how you would do that.Asing for a comparison for my process to yours would make no sense, because you admit your process IMPLIES nothing, except natural causes.So if the study of evolution is not for the purposes of disproving design what is the purpose of its process. If it can't disprove clear order in natural things, and the conclusion of your PROCESS is only NATURAL CAUSES, is pointless and illogical to ask for a comparison, correct.So to answer your attempt at an argument above, the method my entity employed are of the same evidential type of yours that imply nothing in the form of only natural causesCan you show me the methods any better than my process, of how evolution came to the conclusion of Solely Natural Causes, given the fact that you weren't thereRemembering that saying you don't believe in Solely Natural Causes is not the same as demonstrating it's NOT a logical conclusion of your process, which it clearly is.Again asking me to compare our processes makes no sense, since neither of us can prove our conclusions. I only need to show the validity of my process called visible observable orderSince the theory of evolution is constantly changing and there are disputes amount evolutionist about its processes, again a comparison makes no senseWhat would I be comparing my process to, something that you guys Might Change tomorrow? You see my process needs no revisions or updates constantlyDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Well, that was gibberish.Do you have any evidence for design in nature?If so, please show us the evidence.Thank you.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yeap
The same type you do for the conclusion of ONLY natural causes
But because you can't see the difference between processes and conclusions, or should we say your to dishonest to, you never will