A better approach would be to state your theory in a way that yields a testable hypothosis. You are correct in pointing out that saying "God did it" is precisely that same as saying "Life Evolved" Neither statement yields a testable proposition, since we cannot get God to do it again, nor can we wait the age of the universe for life to evolve.
What we can do is this: propose a test that distinguishes between two ideas, based on things we can test today. Creation claims that life arose by design. This would imply the presence of information and that information can be lost by a system, but a system gaining information is done only by a designer. Does this yield a testable hypothesis? It does: "In the absences of design, systems will become more disordered over time."
Do I need to continue? An examination of a junkyard will reveal the disorder that time brings to an ordered system in the absence of an ordering intelligence.
I've read plenty of geology, both 'creationist' and sources you would find acceptable (because they attempt to support evolution). I've read enough to appreciate that there is a difference between a fact (This layer is 1.2 meters thick.) and interpretation (This layer represents 2.4 millions years of history.) The very pretty diagram of the geologic column presented in textbooks is just that, a diagram. I should head off your next post by saying that I have also studied the assumptions behind radioisotope dating and find them suspect as well. Again there is a huge difference between a fact and an interpretation. I am not sure why insisting on knowing the assumptions that apply to an interpretation is such an evil thing.
My purpose in mentioning the layers deposited at Mt. Saint Helens was to point out an event available to us that could change how we think of geology. Mt. Saint Helens gives us a laboratory where we can examine some assumptions about geology with a fresh data-set. After collecting some evidence, it seems only fair to go where the facts lead, rather than attempting to pour them into an othodoxy such as evolution.
A better plan is to state a theory in a way that can be tested, Develop an experiment that minimizes confounding variables, and state the results in a statistically meaningful manner. Interpretation may be called for in designing a follow-on experiment, but such interpretation should be done very cautiously, lest one introduce confounding assumptions that negate the value of the experiment.
It looks like you Wikipedia'd the article on catastrophism. These three fellows were not 'Creationist Geologists' They were Naturalists if they were anything. The naturalist philosophy, by definition, rules out the supernatural.
Facts are sadly lacking here.
The stratigraphy so beloved of the geologists does not imply any significant length of time, at least not if we take the fact that the pyroclastic flows generated during the Mt. Saint Helens eruptions generated the same sort of stratigraphy that is associated with millions of years by the uniformitarian.
I am glad you are not here to teach the history of science, as you may have forgotten (or never knew) that Newton (Sir Issac, not John) wrote an extensive commentary on the entire bible, much longer than the Principia. The history of science is the history of scientists, and many very bright folks were both Christian and Scientist, there being no particular friction between the practice of the two.
Darwin's falsification criteria was the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
"Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? Although geological research has undoubtedly revealed the former existence of many links, bringing numerous forms of life much closer together, it does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required on the theory" -Darwin.
According to Darwin the geologic record should be filled with transitional forms, but it is not. His explanation is that the geologic record is imperfect, so we end up with evolution taking place 'off stage'. Contrary to Darwin's theory we can identify distinct species from the fossil record, and there is little in the way of transition to speak of. Philosophically it matters little, since one can either assign a new fossil to an old designation or create a new one by the whim of the observer. Even if one found a birdfish or a lizzardfrog, it could just as easily be assigned to a new designation as puffed as a transitional form.
Evolution has randomicity at it's core, and so makes no prediction except chaos.
ID postulates design as the core premise, and so makes predictions about the world: there is order to be found. I prefer the idea that science works, that it works to find the design of things in the interest of making the world a better place.
Why would an evolutionist work to cure a disease? isn't it better to allow the disease to kill off the weaker individuals to create a better species?
Why should creation as a theory of origin be treated any different than evolution as a theory of origin? Both theories make claims about the world, and so should be provable based on their ability to predict the world we see. Why the emotion? Just apply scientific reasoning to the problem and see what you get. Please not that this is NOT the same thing as "believe every interpretation of data that is presented in a scientific journal". I say stick to the facts, and let either theory beware. In this forum anyone who questions evolution or AGW, even if that questioning is the result of careful thought and consideration is called an idiot. -- That is not science, that is polemic.
---------
Tut was not using his head anyway.
In debate, this is what is called an 'ad hominum' argument, in other words it does not attack the subject, but the attack is against the person making the argument. That normally is only used if there is no logic that can be used to support one's position.
The Bible does not claim to be a book of science, it claims to be a history (at least the part of Genesis you are concerned about). It makes claims about the ancient world. Some of these can be proven or falsified. Some cannot. It is possible to verify or falsify the record, and the attempt to falsify the Bible was the original driver for middle-eastern archaeology as German rationalists attempted to disprove the new testament by proving that the places mentioned did not exist. This particular phase of investigation is little reported, because biblical archeology has become it's own field, and old rationalists were mostly unable to disprove the bible.
Why is there a problem with proposing a theory contradicting Evolution? Evolution as a theory should make predictions about the world the can be proved or disproved. ID as a theory should make predictions about the world the can be proved or disproved.
What prediction does random evolution provide?
Here is a flaw for you: Darwin assumed that cells were simple, and that there were no substantive differences between cells that made up simple bacteria and cells that make up a man. Had that assumption been correct, then the theory of evolution would have been much stronger. Darwin was limited to the optics available in his day, so he had no idea of the complexity that even the simplest cell embodied.
Further, I believe it is only proper to respect a scientist and to hold his theory to the proofs and criteria that the scientist himself proposes. Darwin proposed a criteria for falsification of the theory of evolution that has now been met. Why do we not give him the respect he is due and use his falsification criteria?
Is it pseudo-scientific techno-babble if it comes from Darwin himself?
Again, I ask that you stick to facts. Please state the facts. 'Creationist geologists' is not a specific fact. Could you please state the experiment that was conducted? If you can, please state the assumptions used in interpreting the data sets, the experiment initial conditions, the supporting evidence and the experimenter's conclusions. ( I would be willing to check this myself from original sources if you wish.)
My point here is that science serves the debater, but it cannot end the debate.
Yes they do. That is the whole point of ID. The 'junk science' you refer to includes many, many arguments from many fields, but unless you are willing to investigate the arguments ID presents you are reduced to speaking what you do not know. If you are an expert in evolution you should stick to evolution, not put things in the mouths of the ID proponent that they would not say.
It seems like the Earth being 6k years old is a theory that could be tested, just as live arising by evolutionary process is a theory that can be tested.
What is not science is to reject a view based on your dislike of it.
Why not present evidence? Facts. Not interpretations of findings, but actual facts? Please do not say 'scientists say.' Such a statement is simply replacing Moses in Genesis as an authority with the editors at 'Scientific American'.
Slashdot Mirror
A better approach would be to state your theory in a way that yields a testable hypothosis. You are correct in pointing out that saying "God did it" is precisely that same as saying "Life Evolved" Neither statement yields a testable proposition, since we cannot get God to do it again, nor can we wait the age of the universe for life to evolve.
What we can do is this: propose a test that distinguishes between two ideas, based on things we can test today. Creation claims that life arose by design. This would imply the presence of information and that information can be lost by a system, but a system gaining information is done only by a designer. Does this yield a testable hypothesis? It does: "In the absences of design, systems will become more disordered over time."
Do I need to continue? An examination of a junkyard will reveal the disorder that time brings to an ordered system in the absence of an ordering intelligence.
I've read plenty of geology, both 'creationist' and sources you would find acceptable (because they attempt to support evolution). I've read enough to appreciate that there is a difference between a fact (This layer is 1.2 meters thick.) and interpretation (This layer represents 2.4 millions years of history.) The very pretty diagram of the geologic column presented in textbooks is just that, a diagram. I should head off your next post by saying that I have also studied the assumptions behind radioisotope dating and find them suspect as well. Again there is a huge difference between a fact and an interpretation. I am not sure why insisting on knowing the assumptions that apply to an interpretation is such an evil thing.
My purpose in mentioning the layers deposited at Mt. Saint Helens was to point out an event available to us that could change how we think of geology. Mt. Saint Helens gives us a laboratory where we can examine some assumptions about geology with a fresh data-set. After collecting some evidence, it seems only fair to go where the facts lead, rather than attempting to pour them into an othodoxy such as evolution.
A better plan is to state a theory in a way that can be tested, Develop an experiment that minimizes confounding variables, and state the results in a statistically meaningful manner. Interpretation may be called for in designing a follow-on experiment, but such interpretation should be done very cautiously, lest one introduce confounding assumptions that negate the value of the experiment.
It looks like you Wikipedia'd the article on catastrophism. These three fellows were not 'Creationist Geologists' They were Naturalists if they were anything. The naturalist philosophy, by definition, rules out the supernatural.
Facts are sadly lacking here.
The stratigraphy so beloved of the geologists does not imply any significant length of time, at least not if we take the fact that the pyroclastic flows generated during the Mt. Saint Helens eruptions generated the same sort of stratigraphy that is associated with millions of years by the uniformitarian.
I am glad you are not here to teach the history of science, as you may have forgotten (or never knew) that Newton (Sir Issac, not John) wrote an extensive commentary on the entire bible, much longer than the Principia. The history of science is the history of scientists, and many very bright folks were both Christian and Scientist, there being no particular friction between the practice of the two.
Love to.
Darwin's falsification criteria was the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
"Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? Although geological research has undoubtedly revealed the former existence of many links, bringing numerous forms of life much closer together, it does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required on the theory" -Darwin.
According to Darwin the geologic record should be filled with transitional forms, but it is not. His explanation is that the geologic record is imperfect, so we end up with evolution taking place 'off stage'. Contrary to Darwin's theory we can identify distinct species from the fossil record, and there is little in the way of transition to speak of. Philosophically it matters little, since one can either assign a new fossil to an old designation or create a new one by the whim of the observer. Even if one found a birdfish or a lizzardfrog, it could just as easily be assigned to a new designation as puffed as a transitional form.
Evolution has randomicity at it's core, and so makes no prediction except chaos.
ID postulates design as the core premise, and so makes predictions about the world: there is order to be found. I prefer the idea that science works, that it works to find the design of things in the interest of making the world a better place.
Why would an evolutionist work to cure a disease? isn't it better to allow the disease to kill off the weaker individuals to create a better species?
Why should creation as a theory of origin be treated any different than evolution as a theory of origin? Both theories make claims about the world, and so should be provable based on their ability to predict the world we see. Why the emotion? Just apply scientific reasoning to the problem and see what you get. Please not that this is NOT the same thing as "believe every interpretation of data that is presented in a scientific journal". I say stick to the facts, and let either theory beware. In this forum anyone who questions evolution or AGW, even if that questioning is the result of careful thought and consideration is called an idiot. -- That is not science, that is polemic. --------- Tut was not using his head anyway.
In debate, this is what is called an 'ad hominum' argument, in other words it does not attack the subject, but the attack is against the person making the argument. That normally is only used if there is no logic that can be used to support one's position. The Bible does not claim to be a book of science, it claims to be a history (at least the part of Genesis you are concerned about). It makes claims about the ancient world. Some of these can be proven or falsified. Some cannot. It is possible to verify or falsify the record, and the attempt to falsify the Bible was the original driver for middle-eastern archaeology as German rationalists attempted to disprove the new testament by proving that the places mentioned did not exist. This particular phase of investigation is little reported, because biblical archeology has become it's own field, and old rationalists were mostly unable to disprove the bible. Why is there a problem with proposing a theory contradicting Evolution? Evolution as a theory should make predictions about the world the can be proved or disproved. ID as a theory should make predictions about the world the can be proved or disproved. What prediction does random evolution provide?
Here is a flaw for you: Darwin assumed that cells were simple, and that there were no substantive differences between cells that made up simple bacteria and cells that make up a man. Had that assumption been correct, then the theory of evolution would have been much stronger. Darwin was limited to the optics available in his day, so he had no idea of the complexity that even the simplest cell embodied. Further, I believe it is only proper to respect a scientist and to hold his theory to the proofs and criteria that the scientist himself proposes. Darwin proposed a criteria for falsification of the theory of evolution that has now been met. Why do we not give him the respect he is due and use his falsification criteria? Is it pseudo-scientific techno-babble if it comes from Darwin himself?
Again, I ask that you stick to facts. Please state the facts. 'Creationist geologists' is not a specific fact. Could you please state the experiment that was conducted? If you can, please state the assumptions used in interpreting the data sets, the experiment initial conditions, the supporting evidence and the experimenter's conclusions. ( I would be willing to check this myself from original sources if you wish.) My point here is that science serves the debater, but it cannot end the debate.
Yes they do. That is the whole point of ID. The 'junk science' you refer to includes many, many arguments from many fields, but unless you are willing to investigate the arguments ID presents you are reduced to speaking what you do not know. If you are an expert in evolution you should stick to evolution, not put things in the mouths of the ID proponent that they would not say.
It seems like the Earth being 6k years old is a theory that could be tested, just as live arising by evolutionary process is a theory that can be tested. What is not science is to reject a view based on your dislike of it. Why not present evidence? Facts. Not interpretations of findings, but actual facts? Please do not say 'scientists say.' Such a statement is simply replacing Moses in Genesis as an authority with the editors at 'Scientific American'.
If you have not listened to many anti-evolution or anti-climate change arguments, how can you state that they are full of serious flaws?