Creation science II

Yeah, sort of, but …Ya gottta actually come up with the interpretation. And demonstrate how it actualy fits all the evidence as well or better than the maintream interpretation. Which you have steadfastly refused to even try to do for over 300 posts.Understandable, 'cause you can't do it Nobody can. "Creation science" is founded fundamentally on ignoring almost all the evidence and shoehorning the remainder into an obviously mythical/allegorical (but powerful and important) piece of ancient literature.

You've offered a few sketchy claims about different interpretations of a few facts, but far from sufficient detail and not a single attempt at why or how the explanation addresses all the data as well or better than the mainstream explanation.Ya see, it's all an interconnected web. One thing leads to another. I know you want to look at individual facts in isolation 'cause the big picture is death for your claims, but that ain't science. Do you interpret the geological column as showing that the Earth is young? Then you need an explanation for why the many wildly different and independent methods of dating the Earth and rocks agree that the Earth is old and exactly how old it is.¹ And if you want to claim that those dating methods are wrong, you need an explanation for why they agree essentially all of the time, and why the most fundamental principles of physics and chemistry (which predict unambiguously that the dates are correct) don't apply in this case. And if the most fundamental principles of physics and chemistry don't apply in this case, the why do they apply so well to all the other cases we have investigated?And then you need to explain, in detail, how the geological column came to be in such a short time. Not "da fludde did it". In detail. That gets you into paleosols and aeolian deposits and metamorphosis and pretty soon back into basic and physics and chemnistry.It just goes on and on and on and on ... everything connects to everything ... if the Earth is young, your computer cannot possibly work.The best and brightest of the YEC "scientists" have labored hard, and brought forth ..."It's a miracle!" (paraphrased).Of course, when the only explanation if a miracle, that ain't science.----------------------¹Examples of a few² problematic dates, sepecially those obtained by "creation scientists" by outright and acknowledged fraus, don't count. Examples on request.²In the context of hundreds of thousands if not millions of concordant dates, a few hundred or a few thousand is "few".

What others are trying to tell you is that isn't good enough for science. In science we use operational definitions. Briefly, an operational definition allows anyone to determine objectively whether something fits in a particular category or not.So an operational definition of "type" would be a sequence of explicit steps, possibly including data gathering (but you must specify exactly what data). Anyone could then take two arbitrarily chosen organisms and determine if they are the same type or not by following those steps. They wouldn't have to ask you, they wouldn't have to go look anything else up, all they need (aside from a reasonable familiarity with general scientific procedures) would be in the operational definition."Cats are all cats" is not a relevant definition.The beginning of an operational definition of "cat" might go like this:

quote:

---

Felids are purely carnivorous animals, subsisting almost entirely on other vertebrates. Aside from the Lion, they are solitary. They are generally secretive animals, are often nocturnal, and live in relatively inaccessible habitats. Around three-quarters of cat species live in forested terrain, and they are generally agile climbers. However, felids may be found in almost any environment, with some species being native to mountainous terrain or deserts.

​

Wild felids are native to every continent except Australia and Antarctica.

​

Physical appearance

​

The various species of felid vary greatly in size. One of the smallest is the Black-footed Cat at between 35-40 cm in length, while the largest is the Siberian Tiger. Compared with many other mammals, they have relatively short faces, and good binocular vision.

​

The fur of felids takes many different forms, being much thicker in those species that live in cold environments, such as the Snow Leopard. The colour of felids is also highly variable - although brown to golden fur is common in most species - often marked with distinctive spots, stripes, or rosettes. Many felid species also have a "tear stripe," a black stripe running from the corner of each eye down the side of the muzzle.

​

The tongue of felids is covered with horny papillae, which help to rasp meat from their prey. Almost all felids have fully retractable claws (one exception is the Cheetah). Cats have five toes on their forefeet and four on their hindfeet, reflecting their reliance on gripping and holding down their prey with their claws.

​

Senses

​

Felids have relatively large eyes, situated to provide binocular vision. Their night vision is especially good, due to the presence of a tapetum lucidum, which reflects light back inside the eyeball, and gives felid eyes their distinctive shine.

​

The ears of felids are also large, and especially sensitive to high-frequency sounds in the smaller cats. Felids also have a highly developed sense of smell, although not to the degree seen in canids; this is further supplemented by the presence of a vomeronasal organ in the roof of the mouth, allowing the animal to "taste" the air. The use of this organ is associated with the Flehmen response, in which the upper lip is curled upwards.

​

Felids possess highly sensitive vibrissa (whiskers) set deep within the skin, and provide the cat with sensory information about the slightest air movement around it. For this reason, whiskers are very helpful to nocturnal hunters. Most felids are able to land on their feet after a fall, an ability which relies on vision and the sense of balance acting together.

​

Dentition

​

With a few exceptions such as the lynx, felids have the dental formula:

​

3.1.3.1
3.1.2.1

​

The canine teeth are large, reaching exceptional size in the extinct saber-tooth species. The upper third premolar and lower molar are adapted as carnassial teeth, suited to tearing and cutting flesh.

​

The jaws of felids can only move vertically. This prevents them from being able to chew, but makes it easier for their powerful masseter jaw muscles to hold struggling prey.

---

But this could be greatly improved. But it's a start. For example, if we find an animal with a jaw that can move vertically and horizontally, we can tell immediately it's not a cat (see the last paragraph of the definition).The higgledy-piggledy vague and undefined way you've seen creationists talk doesn't cut the mustard in real science.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.