Summations Only

OK so you were making an irrelevant pedantic point. Sigh.So apparently you don't have an easy refutation after all? All your arguments are on the order of the Riemann Hypothesis? Not a single argument you could float in simple English?

Along with all of those other scientific items being discussed, I wonder how much understanding there is of the Kobayashi Maru scenario...Hmmmm.

Not really odd. If a flood that wiped out most of mankind happened, I'd expect someone to talk about it, and those stories could survive long enough to get written down. The fact that someone said that God did it, doesn't prove that God did it, it certainly doesn't prove that God created life.Not in science. Observation:
Life is designed.
Question, How?
A) It was designed through a process of chance variations in a population shaped by a selection process
B) God designed it by ... But that's not an argument for your explanation for the diversity of life. The only theory I see is 'God did it' but we can't confirm God's existence using the tools of science so that isn't a scientific theory from the outset. Unless you say we can? Or unless you can show evidence for the link between the divine and the mundane to show that there a plausible mechanism for this God to do its thing. It was just a word to differentiate from the normal use of the word. Since evolution got its name first and all since creationists hadn't claimed any evolution until long after they stopped fighting the static creation battles. Well whether or not it could be considered 'normal' would depend on the numbers. But OK, the word just means 'rapid evolution' which you regard as having been the normal state of affairs for...how long? The implication, if it is there, was not meant. If you have a preferred wording to the theory than my short tongue in cheek summary I'm happy to use it. What someone else thinks is the explanation is not relevant to a discussion about 'The Science of Creation'. The only way evolution is relevant is if we agree evolution is a scientific answer and we can use it to provide us with a benchmark to see how Creation Science matches up. I agree. A distinction that does not alter the point I was making which is you - you know the evolutionary mechanisms. We don't know the deistic ones. Then you are not arguing for 'The Science in Creationism', am I correct?You seem to be arguing 'The Science for Flood Geology and why evolution is wrong' What you are doing is taking stories from a book and trying to find ways to match things in the world up to it. This confirmatory approach isn't science, even if you end up with the right answer. It's so prone to confirmation bias as to be a useless method that arrives at the answer you were looking for because you went looking for that particular answer. And I've been very open about accepting all submissions. The false conclusions of natural history are swept away in this discussion by the waters of the flood. Let's talk about Creation Science. The Science of Creation. Not 'The Science that Creationists like to use to prove evolution is nonsense or that they believe can be used to tie to some event in the Bible'

quote:

---

In a previous thread it was loosely argued that several factors such as Falsifiability, Parsimony and other factors cause Creationism to fail as science and fail to qualify for any serious scientific investigation

​

It was further intimated that Creationism cannot stand up to empirical testing and that it could not be considered scientific in the way the term Science is currently defined

​

And lastly it was directly stated in that same thread that Creationism could not stand the test of debate and that it has failed as a testable theory

---

That's the challenge. You haven't met it and you won't meet it by telling me how wrong evolution is. OK, but first do we agree that fossils of a certain species are only found in certain regions? That a pattern exists based around what part of the world they are found in. Certain mammal fossils only turn up in India, others only in America etc. Well my point is that you don't.But if you want Creation Science to be a thing, you need to do the mechanism thing. The chain of causes and events, how the causes lead to the events. All that jazz. The mutations and selection part of the affair, from the evolution perspective. There you go, you felt compelled to provide a mechanism for geographic variety. You chose evolution, I can hardly argue that one can I? If you aren't making observations, or reporting observations and if you aren't generating a theory. You don't have a Creation Science.

Umm, not irrelevant since it proves that your statement that just about anything can be reduced to a simple English statement is categorically incorrect in the science, engineering, and mathematics disciplines. Right, because the test of an idea's validity is whether it can be easily refuted in terms someone with only high school level understanding of the subject can comprehend. Such intellectual dishonesty.Why do you think it's intellectually honest to propose ideas in fields you know next to nothing about? Why don't you, instead, actually take the time and effort to learn the field? I can supply a list of introductory links that'd be a good start; MIT's OCW is great for starters.

Duplicate post. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

Terrible quoting there Faith. That actual quote from Wikipedia says:

quote:

---

The following represent genes that should probably not be used for reference purposes: GUSB,[4] RPLP0,[4] and TFRC.[4] GAPDH, HSP90, and β-actin. Although they were once considered as "housekeeping genes," recent data suggests that they are not as reliable as once thought...

---

So, the quote doesn't say that housekeeping genes in general are unreliable, it says GUSB, RPLPO, TFRC, GAPDH, HSP90 and B-actin are unreliable.This line of discussion got started in Message 271 when you said Your idea of genetics is that morphology matches DNA, that is why phylogenies using molecular data match up to phylogenies made from morphological data. That is your idea of how genetics works. And you think this is evidence of design.That is what I was responding to with my incomprehensible, "completely unrelated to anything you ever said" statement. But it was directly related to something you said. Here is the long version of one of those points.Cytochrome C (cytC) is an enzyme that is part of the electron transport chain. The electron transport chain pumps protons into the inner membrane space setting up a proton gradient which then activates the ATP synthase which generates ATP. cytC transfers an electron to Complex IV which uses the electron to attach 2 protons to a singlet oxygen to produce water. This is the major energy producing system in the cell. All Eukaryotes use this same system, which is why we call it highly conserved. cytC is known as a "housekeeping" gene because it operates in the background at pretty consistent levels and has no effect on morphology - ie. there is no morphological effect of this gene, it only functions in its role in the electron transport chain. Perhaps you look at the complexity and the obvious design in the electron transport chain and think "that is definitely evidence of design." Here's the thing, there is NO reason why every Eukaryotic organism couldn't have the exact same cytC enzyme. But they don't. In fact cytC is one of the genes they are considering to use as a "barcode." A barcode would allow species identification by sequencing the gene and comparing the sequence to a database. Pretty much every species has its own unique barcode sequence. Why would a designer use a different cytC gene in every species instead of using just 1 cytC gene for all eukaryotic organisms?And what's more, we can compare these sequences and arrange them according to their differences / similarities. Remember this gene has no effect on morphology so there is no reason for morphology to match DNA. The unexpected or special thing is that phylogenies built using cytC data largely match phylogenies made from morphological data. Why would a designer do this? How does your idea that morphology should match DNA explain this?HBD

That very blobby blob looks to me SO like something the Flood woulda drug in. Sort of like the Flood was nearing its height, running out of sediment for layers, sand and whatever would be the layer above it, just plopped down blobs of it here and there. Big blob of sand, wet, just plopped down where you see it. A lot of the Jurassic Navajo sandstone formations are just lone formations scattered across the landscape at this altitude. The Wave looks like it was swirled in water.The sandstone in the other picture that is in layers and capped by the remains of another layer is kind of a rarity. Oh and the contact with that upper layer looks....flat and straight, which is the usual case when sandstone is layered, which is why I suspected these blobs and other separate formations were never strata like that. The deposition of sediments on top of them would level them off. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm sorry, all that is just incomprehensible to me, frustrating though I know it is to you to hear this. So you are saying the DNA has nothing to do with the physical form, the morphology, of the creature? It doesn't have anything to do with size and shape and general design of the body? And there is no reason to expect that there should be the correspondences there actually are that form the nested hierarchy or something like that?

You ARE aware that every culture on earth has a flood story, right?There were eight people on the ark. The stories were passed on orally to the following generations. Finally Moses wrote down those that came to him through Abraham and his descendants. The Biblical accounts are far more than "God did it," and quite compelling in my opinion.

Yes, but you think that about all rocks everywhere.Can you in fact tell us what a non-Flood rock would look like, in your version of geology?You know the old joke? A man goes to see a psychiatrist, who administers the Rorschach test. He shows him one picture, asks what it reminds him of: "A man and a woman having sex". Another picture: "Two women having sex". Third picture: "A woman having sex with a donkey". And so it goes through the whole test. "Well, Mr. Smith", says the psychiatrist finally, "I'm sorry to tell you that you're obsessed with sex". "Me obsessed with sex?" the patient exclaims angrily. "You're the one with the collection of dirty pictures!"Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Let's have a look at the Entrada Sandstone, another terrestrial deposit which overlies the Navajo sandstone.Do these look like flood deposits to you?

They look like they were originally Flood deposits that were subsequently eroded into their current shapes over the last few thousand years. Originally wet. Lot of swirly twisting shapes in these separate formations, what I'd expect of water. Perhaps receding water.Lower in the geo column sandstone would have been a layer among layers. When you get as high as these formations it's like the column stopped forming as consistently as it did before and sediments were no longer deposited in complete layers.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Your one example certainly didn't prove that. I see. So you can't refute my argument and now content yourself with impugning my character. I've done a LOT of reading in geology and evolutionary theory online already, lots and lots. I have books on both subjects, both creationist and noncreationist. I've selected the information that contributes to the arguments I want to make and set aside information that isn't relevant to them.My choice.Since you have nothing to say about the subject and your readings of my character leave a lot to be desired I think this conversation is over.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not exactly, not like something blobby the cat drug in, which was my point as much as that the Flood did it. The lower deposits are mostly neat layers by comparison. But yes of course, the Flood was worldwide so I would expect most rocks to be a product of it one way or another. Except igneous rocks that formed from volcanoes since then I guess. Only exception that comes to mind.

Looking for excuses to say that you are right - and often failing to understand what you are saying - is no way to convince others. Nor is declaring your opinions to be unquestionable truths. Nor is sneering at anyone who tells a truth you don't like.If you can't produce good arguments - and no, declaring bed arguments to be good is not sufficient - you are not going to convince anyone. And the arrogance and the nastiness and the hypocrisy just makes it worse.