Evolution is Not Science

My view on the scientificity of the ToE by Common descent is that it is science, just as the YEC view is science. Though they both fall under their own frameworks of interperetation, the Old earther falls under uniformitarianism, and the Young earther falls under catastrophism. Both are scientific, and both attempt an explination for todays diversity in life and geologic stata and composition through a process of one sort or another. Following these concepts we must percieve that there is now no absolute or truth to either one to any degree higher than the other accept by interperetation.------------------

"Not at all. The fact that we can't observe long-term evolution doesn't mean that we can't falsify it."
--Though, you do realize just how much it does infact take to discount Evolution? This is an implication that shows how it is quite flexible, the time scale for the universe for instance has doubled and tripled (negatively) over the years, though this would be called refinement."If the earth is very young, that would go a long way toward falsifying it, because evolution requires a long time scale."
--Not exactly brachinus, because say that we do find that something could have been layed down in 6000 years, this does not falsify a long time scale, you just no longer have that specific evidence to back it up."And if the fossil record contradicted the predictions made by evolutionary theory, that would also be a falsification."
--If someone were to find what most skeptics thing would have been found if the Flood created the fossil record, I would have to give the whole model a complete make-over.------------------

"I don't suppose that could be because it is a robust theory."
--I used the word 'flexible', and being as it is, it is capable of being bent or flexed."I don't understand. I thought you said that ToE was unfalsifiable."
--I made no statment encompassing any Evolutionary theory. I was asserting that, if we were to find what most skeptics would assume to find with a global flood deposition (random burrial and completely scattered remnants), then I would have to give the model's fundamentals a make-over, it would have to be drastically changed.-------------------

"It does not prejudice the investigation by ruling out, from the start, hypotheses that may very well provide the best explanation for the observed evidence."
--Is this not opinionated? What your looking for is an explination, whether it is the 'best' or not, is your own opinion, though it must explain all evidence and be without contrediction.------------------

"I find it interesting that evolutionary thought has such a huge salad bowl of explanations for everything."
--Evolution is extreamly flexible, I once heard that the explination for the cambrian explosion is that the whole worlds stata was erroded so it seemed as if it were all of a soden appearing.------------------

"Myth: Our universe is the result of the explosive expansion of the "Cosmic Egg" billions of years ago.
Reality: Explosions do not result in increased organization of matter. Has an explosion ever created ordered complexity?"
--Though I still completely deny the origin of the universe out of the Big bang. I still must say that the big bang does not imply an 'explosion', most would describe it as a ' blooming' or something of that nature. Now obviously this 'blooming' requires extream precision on factors such as gravity and expansion rate, in this the excuse of anthropic principle is born. A common missconception within some creationist groups, though in my humble opinion, I see the excuse and explination erroneous.------------------

--If I might give cobra some support here. "What I don't see is why creationists think the Cambrian explosion supports their view."
--It is a supportive observation that is consistant with the Creationist explination."Sure, there are most of the modern phyla, but where are the modern forms? Where are the lobsters? Crabs? Oysters? And why are pretty much all of the modern phyla in marine form?"
--Speciation, for instance, your lobsters may be significant relatives to crawdad's or other species of crustateans."Doesn't that tend to support the evolutionary view that life arose underwater before it moved to land?"
--Whatever it may be, your explination is not in its lonesome (it is definantly not the only explination).------------------

"Yep, the biggest problem with the Noachian flood (other than the fact that it did not occur) is the sorting of the fossils. Actually that is in error, the biggest problem (again, ditto) is where did the water come from and go, but that is a different debate."
--Oh G whiz, well your new here so I won't get skeptical about the skeptics. The water is in the oceans silly. And it came from polar glacier masses. Just had to comment on that one, you didn't really think you would just 'get away with' that assertion did you? ------------------

"JM: More importantly, the creationists are in a pickle if they claim that it IS evidence of sudden creation. Remember, they assign fossils to the flood, so this can't be evidence of both sudden creation and sudden death!"
--Thats right!------------------

"OK, so where are the Cambrian crawdads?"
--Speciation, they may not have existed at the time of the formation of the geo-column.------------------

"even if the glaciers all melted in their entirety,there wouldn't be enough water to cover the entire world...several highlands would still be jutting out"
--Must I repeat myself ludvan, plate tectonics, plate tectonics. You have not told me how this is not possible.------------------

"No,you are correct TC...i dont believe its impossible or even unlikely. It could have happened....show me that it DID...(evidence)"
--Its in post #28 and #29 in 'Evolution in the Anarctic' there sir.------------------

"no tc...those post illustrate a model of what COULD have occured...show me evidence that it DID IN FACT OCCUR."
--What 'could have happend' is the most your ever going to get from an inference on the past ludvan, it is what Evolution is entirely based on, along with gradualistic geologic time, its a 'could have happend' explination. Now whether this explination can explain all evidence, and is plausable, is something that is worthy of discussion. If you can challenge whether it can explain such phenomena or its plausability, have at it.------------------

"I am well aware of all that TC,as you well know. What i am asking,and i would really like a clear answer,is why i SHOULD find YOUR explanation MORE plausible than the explanations given by geologists who spend their life working on the subject and who,in 99.9% of the case,arrive at an explanation VERY DIFFERENT from yours. Please tell me what piece of geological evidence the geologists are missing or have simply missinterpreted and how can i verify that they did..."
--Open up any Geology text-book and go to the index and find 'Uniformitarianism' or 'Gradualism' and read what it has to say about it, you will soon find that all of mainstream geology is dependent on its validity, and is an underlying assumption. So, let us consider catastrophism, and my hypothesis.
--A hypothesis must have expectations and thus, evidence. So we look at the evidence. The evidence is actually very basic, in order for my hypothesis to be right, there must be gradual sea-floor spreading and subduction occuring though many magnitudes slower than today. There must be magnetic variation on a large scale from a frantic outer-core. The outer core from such an increase in heat from radioisotopic desintegration and no where for such energy to yet be released through hot-spots, rifts or troughs, would greatly increase the activity of massive eddy currents and convection processes which control characteristics and properties of the magnetosphere and polarity. There must be old mountain zones appearing as belts crossing southern continents if these are joined together in a certain way. Continents must be able to relatively fit together like a puzzle and sea-floor spreading diversion must complement it. Even known scientific concepts such as increasing heat must result in lower viscosities to complement and result in more rapid mantle convection. The reason that continents are not being eroded away from underneath but being built upon (with the exception of upwelling magma and hot-spots) must be explained, which is explained by decreased temperature and a 'burn out' of radionucleic energy and leakage of asthenospheric and core heat by volcanic eruptions and lava flows, sea floor spreading, hydrothermal vents, etc. Continental masses must be less dense than oceanic basalt.
--All of this data is complemented and well explained by my hypothesis, is there anything I may be missing?------------------

"TC, very imaginative. Borrowing from some sound scientific evidences and fitting them into a unique interpretation of earth's history. However, your scenario seems to have a couple of problems."
--I wouldn't doubt it, it is an idea that was formed into a hypothesis by what I have found, read, and studied, I see it fit for such critique and open for the realm of discussion to work out to glossy coating and get rid of the lumps."Firstly, given that you are trying to compress all of this tectonic activity into about 10,000 years (or is it only 4,500 years?) why are the plates now moving at a much slower pace than required by your scenario to move from Pangea to their present positions?"
--Yes, relatively 4,500 years. The decrease in heat would heighten viscosity, mantle convection being the main force in driving such tectonic movement, when viscosity is highered speed decreases."You did mean that sea-floor spreading and subduction occurred many [orders of] magnitude FASTER than today, didn't you?"
--Yes."Secondly, assuming that life continues unabated whilst the plates are speeding around, how do they survive the copious heat output from igneous material pouring out to create the oceanic floors?"
--I would doubt that there would have been such a thread heat-wise with land animals, though for much of the lower and median latitudes, such heat would have been relatively intense. Though in most places on the planet, such an event would have been erased by plate subduction (in my best guess for right now)."Thirdly, how do you completely alter the laws of physics to give billion year old readings for radiometric dating of rocks which can be at most 10,000 years old."
--I'm working on the radioisotope discrepancy, though the main power source for such heat would have been radioisotopic decay from a large amount of Uranium (235 or 238*), which would decintegrate into Pb-206, a stable isotope of lead."Fourthly, how can the oceans now have so much salt in them if vast quantities have been removed as the molten rocks are quenched?"
--Emphesise, or do you mean that by the 'quenching' of molten basalt by the presents of water. I do not exactly see the problem, (water would have been evaporating, most proficiently among subduction and plate boundary zones such as the mediteranean sea in which evaporates are abundant)."And which radioisotopes were responsible for providing the thermal energy to drive your scenario? Should we be able to find evidence of this in the current ratios of isotopes?"
--I believe the initial isotope would have been Uranium. And yes there very well may be such evidence, I have been looking for isotope ratios of different species of Uranium and Lead in the outer core (if possible) the asthenosphere, lithosphere, and crust distribution."You're not going to use Humphreys' story to support your large scale magnetic variation are you? I think we've demonstrated that Humphreys' material on this is not reliable."
--No, I do not see very many parallels between my hypothesis and Humphrey's theory.------------------