Well that makes no sense and is typical of someone clinging to a Method that is extreme in nature.
Until you can show it, my point remains. I'm not saying nothing you are doing is related to science. Just the creation parts.
What is 'extreme' about the scientific method and why is that bad? How is my 'nonsense' something that is typical of a holder of this belief? Are you going to acknowledge you degraded yourself by resorting to questioning my integrity, that I have answered your questions and that you have not answered many of mine, and that as a sign of good faith, will you answer my challenges and questions?
And the conclusion of evolution is disputed right from the outset.
Knowing about evolution gets one nowhere.
It gets me to dispute Minor Premise number 2, which gets me exactly as far as I intended it to.
I don't need to go any further, my position and evidence don't need to be specialised, anymore than the conclusion of "evolution".
Evolution is a specialised field of biology. It's grown to basically encompass all areas of biology, but its a type of biology.
You've just biology. Millennia old biology. The same biology that evolution has. So you can't call it creation science.
I don't need to be anymore sciency for design to be a observable demonstratable fact.
No, you don't. I've already accepted many many times in this thread. It's not creation science, though.
Now if you could show in comparison with your process and conclusion
Hey look, life is complicated.
There's some sort of natural order, like it's designed.
There must be a designer
I wonder about that.
Hey Darwin, what do you think?
quote:
Under domestication we see much variability. This seems to be mainly due to the reproductive system being eminently susceptible to changes in the conditions of life so that this system, when not rendered impotent, fails to reproduce offspring exactly like the parent-form. Variability is governed by many complex laws, -- by correlation of growth, by use and disuse, and by the direct action of the physical conditions of life. There is much difficulty in ascertaining how much modification our domestic productions have undergone; but we may safely infer that the amount has been large, and that modifications can be inherited for long periods.
Good point Darwin, we can observe that life changes and that biological changes can be quite significant in certain circumstances.
quote:
Man does not actually produce variability; he only unintentionally exposes organic beings to new conditions of life, and then nature acts on the organisation, and causes variability. But man can and does select the variations given to him by nature, and thus accumulate them in any desired manner. He thus adapts animals and plants for his own benefit or pleasure.
Ah, yes, in a way our domesticated animals ARE adapted to suit OUR needs. An excellent observation.
quote:
There is no obvious reason why the principles which have acted so efficiently under domestication should not have acted under nature. In the preservation of favoured individuals and races, during the constantly-recurrent Struggle for Existence, we see the most powerful and ever-acting means of selection. The struggle for existence inevitably follows from the high geometrical ratio of increase which is common to all organic beings. This high rate of increase is proved by calculation, by the effects of a succession of peculiar seasons, and by the results of naturalisation, as explained in the third chapter. More individuals are born than can possibly survive. A grain in the balance will determine which individual shall live and which shall die, -- which variety or species shall increase in number, and which shall decrease, or finally become extinct. As the individuals of the same species come in all respects into the closest competition with each other, the struggle will generally be most severe between them; it will be almost equally severe between the varieties of the same species, and next in severity between the species of the same genus. But the struggle will often be very severe between beings most remote in the scale of nature. The slightest advantage in one being, at any age or during any season, over those with which it comes into competition, or better adaptation in however slight a degree to the surrounding physical conditions, will turn the balance.
Good point. Although we humans are doing the selecting, nature does provide a rather harsh selection regime of her own. All excellent observations Mr. Darwin, and your reasoning is jolly good too.
quote:
With animals having separated sexes there will in most cases be a struggle between the males for possession of the females. The most vigorous individuals, or those which have most successfully struggled with their conditions of life, will generally leave most progeny. But success will often depend on having special weapons or means of defence, or on the charms of the males; and the slightest advantage will lead to victory.
Right. Survival isn't the end - reproduction is the end, and any advantage there is very powerful.
quote:
As geology plainly proclaims that each land has undergone great physical changes, we might have expected that organic beings would have varied under nature, in the same way as they generally have varied under the changed conditions of domestication. And if there be any variability under nature, it would be an unaccountable fact if natural selection had not come into play. It has often been asserted, but the assertion is quite incapable of proof, that the amount of variation under nature is a strictly limited quantity. Man, though acting on external characters alone and often capriciously, can produce within a short period a great result by adding up mere individual differences in his domestic productions; and every one admits that there are at least individual differences in species under nature. But, besides such differences, all naturalists have admitted the existence of varieties, which they think sufficiently distinct to be worthy of record in systematic works.
Quite right, sir. Even we creationists have recently been toying with the idea of multiple great catastrophes as a singular one doesn't make sense of what we see. Whatever the case, conditions have changed, which can change selection pressures leading to new varieties being expressed. We can't argue there's a lot of diversity, and that biologists group them together into families.
quote:
If then we have under nature variability and a powerful agent always ready to act and select, why should we doubt that variations in any way useful to beings, under their excessively complex relations of life, would be preserved, accumulated, and inherited? Why, if man can by patience select variations most useful to himself, should nature fail in selecting variations useful, under changing conditions of life, to her living products? What limit can be put to this power, acting during long ages and rigidly scrutinising the whole constitution, structure, and habits of each creature, favouring the good and rejecting the bad? I can see no limit to this power, in slowly and beautifully adapting each form to the most complex relations of life. The theory of natural selection, even if we looked no further than this, seems to me to be in itself probable.
A fascinating theoretical basis. Natural selection acting on naturally occurring varieties might be responsible for the diversity of life as well as explain its design, providing us with an answer as to how did we get to be designed, where did this design come from? Good work. Is there more?
quote:
On the view that species are only strongly marked and permanent varieties, and that each species first existed as a variety, we can see why it is that no line of demarcation can be drawn between species, commonly supposed to have been produced by special acts of creation, and varieties which are acknowledged to have been produced by secondary laws. On this same view we can understand how it is that in each region where many species of a genus have been produced, and where they now flourish, these same species should present many varieties; for where the manufactory of species has been active, we might expect, as a general rule, to find it still in action; and this is the case if varieties be incipient species. Moreover, the species of the large genera, which afford the greater number of varieties or incipient species, retain to a certain degree the character of varieties; for they differ from each other by a less amount of difference than do the species of smaller genera. The closely allied species also of the larger genera apparently have restricted ranges, and they are clustered in little groups round other species -- in which respects they resemble varieties. These are strange relations on the view of each species having been independently created, but are intelligible if all species first existed as varieties.
Ah yes, your theory does explain some of the specific evidence of the groupings and their geographical ranges.
quote:
As each species tends by its geometrical ratio of reproduction to increase inordinately in number; and as the modified descendants of each species will be enabled to increase by so much the more as they become more diversified in habits and structure, so as to be enabled to seize on many and widely different places in the economy of nature, there will be a constant tendency in natural selection to preserve the most divergent offspring of any one species. Hence during a long-continued course of modification, the slight differences, characteristic of varieties of the same species, tend to be augmented into the greater differences characteristic of species of the same genus. New and improved varieties will inevitably supplant and exterminate the older, less improved and intermediate varieties; and thus species are rendered to a large extent defined and distinct objects. Dominant species belonging to the larger groups tend to give birth to new and dominant forms; so that each large group tends to become still larger, and at the same time more divergent in character. But as all groups cannot thus succeed in increasing in size, for the world would not hold them, the more dominant groups beat the less dominant. This tendency in the large groups to go on increasing in size and diverging in character, together with the almost inevitable contingency of much extinction, explains the arrangement of all the forms of life, in groups subordinate to groups, all within a few great classes, which we now see everywhere around us, and which has prevailed throughout all time. This grand fact of the grouping of all organic beings seems to me utterly inexplicable on the theory of creation.
Holy cow. Darwin just dropped the mic. Nested hierarchies are utterly inexplicable with creation, but not only are they explainable with evolution - they are necessary!
quote:
Many other facts are, as it seems to me, explicable on this theory. How strange it is that a bird, under the form of woodpecker, should have been created to prey on insects on the ground; that upland geese, which never or rarely swim, should have been created with webbed feet; that a thrush should have been created to dive and feed on sub-aquatic insects; and that a petrel should have been created with habits and structure fitting it for the life of an auk or grebe! and so on in endless other cases. But on the view of each species constantly trying to increase in number, with natural selection always ready to adapt the slowly varying descendants of each to any unoccupied or ill-occupied place in nature, these facts cease to be strange, or perhaps might even have been anticipated.
Wow.
quote:
As natural selection acts by competition, it adapts the inhabitants of each country only in relation to the degree of perfection of their associates; so that we need feel no surprise at the inhabitants of any one country, although on the ordinary view supposed to have been specially created and adapted for that country, being beaten and supplanted by the naturalised productions from another land. Nor ought we to marvel if all the contrivances in nature be not, as far as we can judge, absolutely perfect; and if some of them be abhorrent to our ideas of fitness. We need not marvel at the sting of the bee causing the bee's own death; at drones being produced in such vast numbers for one single act, and being then slaughtered by their sterile sisters; at the astonishing waste of pollen by our fir-trees; at the instinctive hatred of the queen bee for her own fertile daughters; at ichneumonidae feeding within the live bodies of caterpillars; and at other such cases. The wonder indeed is, on the theory of natural selection, that more cases of the want of absolute perfection have not been observed.
Yep, the design is pretty terrible as far as being pleasant or fun happy times. Probably not a nice designer. And evolution ain't a nice designer. The consequences of invasive species explained, fascinating. The theory just keeps explaining disparate phenomena. It's almost as if it's right.
Dawn. That's the bit you are missing. It's quite significant. This is simple science - no maths. Just basic evidence and reasoning. Brings you up to about 150 years ago, the dawn of science. You should start with something like this, it's not rocket science - but it's easier if you have a decent theory.
Jargon and verbiage are not helping you
I haven't criticized your mode of speech. You have incessantly done so with me. You are being an unpleasant person to someone who would like to have a philosophical discussion with you. Why?
If you don't understand something, let me know and I'll try to reword it.
Of course it's adequate data to establish a valid proposition and conclusion
But not the conclusion that all creation science is science.
Of course I've tied it to design, hence the very probable conclusion of a designer
Design, yes.
Designer, yes.
Creator, no.
Making stuff up Modulous won't help you, there is no such thing as pre-creation science. Its IS science or it is not.
We're calling the design argument science. It's biology.
It is science.
It is not creation science.
Try again.
Since it is it is as valid as any conclusions drawn by evolution
Creation science's conclusions, whatever they may be (you haven't revealed any but the definitive one) are not as valid as they are not science.
I don't need complicated science to demonstrate axiomatic truths.
No. But 'A creator specially created humans as they are' is not an axiomatic truth, wouldn't you agree?
Well I think you missed the point. You have no possible way to make the Science in creation Go Away.
I don't need a way to make it go away as you haven't shown it to me yet.
Claiming its not sciency enough doesn't work.
I have claimed you have not provided any science related to Creation. I can't say it isn't sciencey enough. What I have seen others produce certainly fails to meet the standards of science. And that is relevant because that is what you are claiming Creation Science does: meets the strict and high standards of science. So yes, when you produce something a claim that it is not 'sciency' enough is a valid objection.
When I said your task was impossible, it still is.
I don't have a task. Your task is to show 'The Science in Creationism'. Am I to understand that 'it looks designed therefore a designer' is the entirety of what you claim to be 'The Science in Creationism'? That's it, right? There's nothing else? At all. If you answer nothing else, please answer this one. Not answering this one ends this discussion immediately as I know you are not reading or respecting me as a fellow debater, "Part of debating is Answering direct questions.", remember?
I'm pretty sure you'd have mentioned any creation science by now, if it existed and you knew of it.
I'm sorry you don't like it's conclusions or the very valid processes
I have no problems with the conclusions or valid processes, I'm just pointing out that 'Creator' is not one of those conclusions that follows from your processes. We haven't got close to 'The Science in Creationism'.
I've seen nothing yet that eliminates the deduction of design and the logical process of how it's established
I've not disputed it. Remember? Why are you still establishing arguments with me that we're not having and never have?
™ Version 4.2
(1)