Unfortunately, Faith, you ought to have a problem with all science. Not one branch of science recognises your personal opinion as having any special value. It's not the conclusions that are the real issue - it's the methodology.
Simply calling it "idiotic" to prefer the truth over your falsehood is not much of an argument. And one that any real scientist would find laughable.
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.
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.
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.
quote: Yeah the order of the fossil record appears to be consistent, but that's not testability
Sure it is. If we suddenly started finding formations drastically at odds with it we'd have to think again.
quote: You need something outside the fossil record that validates your interpretation.
I don't think so. But it depends on what you want validating. The fact of the order in the fossil record is best validated by getting replication from different sites, for instance.
quote: The Flood explanation has more testability than that, since layers do form in water
Testability doesn't mean jumping to conclusions based on a superficial analysis and it certainly doesn't mean looking for things that might support a hypothesis. The whole point of testing is to look for falsifications.
quote: I don't "assume" it, I conclude it to be so because any other explanation makes no sense.
By which you mean that you reject other explanations out of hand and insist that the explanation you like has to be the one. Hardly a great argument.
So let's go back to that quartzite boulder.
It makes sense to say that the stratum that the boulder came from was deposited, lithified and metamorphosed to become quartzite. Then it was eroded, so the boulder was separated from the main mass of the rock. And only then was it buried in sand which would become sandstone.
It doesn't make sense to say that a big Flood did all that in the span of a year. And if you allowed even a year for that you would have no time for everything above it.
quote: Obviously it happened a lot faster than you would expect it to happen, that's all.
OK, what makes it obvious ? Can you give any real evidence that it's even possible in the little time you allow ?
quote: I don't have a question how the boulder broke off -- that was due to the friction between the layers when the lower ones were tilted up against the upper layer by the volcanic eruption beneath, during the Flood period, and of course the sandstone in which the boulder is embedded was scraped off mostly from the layer above, still wet of course, and was solidified along with all the other layers in the whole column. That's my theory
So what evidence is there that this alleged volcanic eruption had any effect on the quartzite at all ? And there's no sign of the sandstone being "scraped off" another layer either (it's where it "should" be). And don't forget that the quartzite layer had to already be solid hard rock.
quote: The only question I have had is why that particular layer became quartzite when the layers on both sides of it aren't metamorphosed
I think that the metamorphism may be due to the intrusions of igneous rock, but I can't find an explanation of how the metamorphism occurred so that's speculation.
There's a difference between having opinions and expecting others to accept them as objective facts. Or even citing them as objective facts.
I mean how can you honestly be upset that creationist organisations disagree with an idea that you came up with simply to support an argument that you happen to like ? Aren't THEY entitled to THEIR own opinions to fit into THEIR arguments ?
quote: Golly, ya don't say. Where have I "expected" anything? Seems to me I've merely stated my opinion, take it or leave it
When you state it as if it was an objective fact then I'd say that you are presenting it as something more than a mere opinion. Clearly you expect your assertion to be believed and it certainly isn't because you can support it with evidence or sound reasoning. Certainly the fact that we don't see numerous genetically depleted populations is a major problem for your view and one you can't answer without inventing more ad-hoc opinions.
To give a clear example the whole idea of "genetic depletion" causing a loss of interfertility with the larger population is highly implausible. Ignoring new mutations every member of the daughter species must have been a possible member of the parent species (because all their genes were found in the parent species). The members of the daughter species have no great problems in breeding with each other. So why should they have a problem breeding with the greater population ?
Indeed it seems that the main basis for your opinion is a refusal to admit that your (other) opinions could be wrong.
quote: Ah but I believe it is true so of course I state it as the objective fact I believe it to be. That doesn't mean I expect YOU to accept it.
So you think of it as an objective fact and not just an opinion.
quote: Oh I think it OUGHT to be, because I believe it to be true and the arguments I've encountered don't convince me otherwise. But "expect?" Of course not.
That's playing with words. But why ought it to be believed simply because you have a strong bias in favour of it ?
quote: Oh I believe I have done that as well, on other threads at EvC for instance.
Well, if you think that your bias in favour of an idea is adequate support I can see why you're believe that.
quote: I've many times proposed that you WOULD see this if you were looking for it, looking for it for instance where it would be most likely to be easy to see, in the new "species" formed by "speciation" or at the end of a series of ring species. It doesn't have to be "depletion," merely reduction in genetic diversity. The tests might be a bit cumbersome to perform since they'd involve fairly extensive DNA sampling, but not beyond the realm of possibility.
But, excepting a few rare cases like the cheetah we DON'T see it where genetic variation has been tested. Simply assuming that tests that haven't been done will prove you right is not a valid reason for discounting the tests that have been done.
quote: Um, you seem to be forgetting the context here, the definition of "speciation" as producing a new "species" which is defined by its inability to breed with the greater population. If it doesn't have that problem then presumably it would be regarded as just another variation of the population rather than a new Species.
Why would you thnk that I was forgetting the context? I'm not forgetting the loss of interfertility - I'm pointing you that your preferred explanation for it is highly implausible. If that happens to call your ideas about speciation into question that isn't because I'm forgetting something - it's a problem for your ideas.
quote: The cause of the cheetah's inability to breed with other members of the cat family is their genetic depletion. This is one case that supports my claim.
But it doesn't. There's no evidence connecting the unusual genetic depletion in cheetahs (produce by bottlenecks AFTER cheetahs became a distinct species) and their lack of interfertility with other cats. You would need to take a far more detailed look at the evidence to even be able to make a case for your claim.
So again we come to the question of why you think that people ought to accept your opinion in the absence of adequate supporting evidence or reasoning.
In other words it follows from your assumption that genetic diversity inevitably decreases. However the fact that you need it to be so for your belief to be true is not EVIDENCE in itself. At the least you would need evidence that your assumption is true - and you don't have that.