Why do YECs refuse to do real science?

[Breckmin]

Eventually they were forced to the conclusion that the world was very old, that life had been around for many millions of years, and that it had changed over time.

You can still believe that the earth is old and also acknowledge the
evidence for a flood.

Flood catastrophics are not limited to YEC.

Michael

 

[Breckmin]

2: Why is homology always dogmatically treated as evidence for common descent and not for common design, except when it's not (convergent evolution)? Why isn't common design considered, particularly in the light of the unarguable existence of a Creator?

Because they started with a definition of science that was based on
circular reasoning. Hint: Assumption: Natural = Conclusion: Natural

Without knowing what "natural" really is, without knowing whether
processes are actually sustained by the "supernatural." They attempted
to explain everything starting with circular reasoning and then used
10's of thousands of "inductions" to support their lie.

Hint: Deduction corrects the Inductions.

Evolution is not the problem, it is "universal common descent" that
is not observed that is the lie. So also is 150 years of supporting the
lie in all of the different fields of science because of starting with a
circular assumption.

What is "natural?" How do we really know "natural" or materialism
truly exist apart from the supernatural? Does the supernatural sustain
the "natural?" Is the process of crystalization a process designed by
the supernatural that is wrongfully induced to defy entropy???

What is "nature?" And why can science NOT have supernatural
implications if that is where the evidence points????

Circular reasoning? It has to be natural..... Question everything.
It just might lead you out of the deception of thousands of inductions
that were based on "circular reasoning" in the first place and the
definition of science.

For the record, creation is the product of deduction. You can start
with "Information" always needs a source 100% of the time, and
factories (living cells) that manufacture are always the result of
intelligent construction 100% of the time.

The deduction is that we are studying creation, not a natural or
materialistic process that is independent of the supernatural.

Michael

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolution is not the problem, it is "universal common descent" that
is not observed that is the lie.

The evidence for universal common descent is overwhelming. It is found in the many transitionals in the fossil record, it's in the molecules living things, which show the same phylogeny of living things as the fossil record, and in the genes of organisms which also do this. And we know it works, because the same DNA analyses can sort out human descent that can be checked by other means.

So also is 150 years of supporting the lie in all of the different fields of science because of starting with a circular assumption.

Perhaps you don't know what a "circular assumption" is. Certainly the understanding that nature is whatever can be observed, measured, and tested, is not "circular." It's just a definition of something that clearly exists.

 

[shernren]

Is the process of crystalization a process designed by
the supernatural that is wrongfully induced to defy entropy???

No. Crystallization is entirely natural. Even though the entropy of the material itself decreases during crystallization, the process of crystallization is invariably exothermic, meaning that heat is released to the surroundings, increasing the entropy of the surroundings. The surroundings experience an increase in entropy that offsets the decrease of entropy within the crystal itself, and thus the Second Law is still conserved.

Well, isn't that neat? You can pump entropy out of the crystal into the surroundings, it seems. Can't you do that indefinitely? It turns out that as the surroundings heat up, the surroundings' additional entropy decreases. You reach a certain temperature where the surroundings' entropy is just enough to offset the entropy decrease of the crystal. But heat the surroundings up any more, and the total entropy change will become negative, and so crystallization will stop.

And that, in entirely unnecessary jargon, is why ice melts if you leave it outside, but not in the freezer.

For the record, creation is the product of deduction. You can start
with "Information" always needs a source 100% of the time, and
factories (living cells) that manufacture are always the result of
intelligent construction 100% of the time.

The deduction is that we are studying creation, not a natural or
materialistic process that is independent of the supernatural.

Michael

Unbridled deduction will get you into a world of pain. Remember Aristotelian physics? Boy, deduction served us well then.

 

[sfs]

You can still believe that the earth is old and also acknowledge the
evidence for a flood.

Flood catastrophics are not limited to YEC.

Certainly. In fact, the stage I mentioned, when geologists were trying models of multiple floods, involved an old earth. They found that the floods didn't really explain much of the geological record either. Floods have certainly happened, as have other catastrophes, but they have had relatively little effect on the geological record, and no world-wide flood has occurred for at least several hundred million years.

 

[gluadys]

What is "natural?" How do we really know "natural" or materialism
truly exist apart from the supernatural?

Well, we don't, do we. In fact, I would take it as a given, for a Christian, (even scientists) to assume that the natural, material world is contingent on the supernatural.

The error is in equating "natural" with "absence of God/divine activity". That error is made by materialists who wish to assert that "material reality=all reality". Unfortunately it is also made by too many creationists who assume that "natural=excluding God".

 

[Breckmin]

Crystallization is entirely natural.

What is "natural?" How do you know it is independent of supernatural
constuction? How do you even know it isn't "sustained" by a super-
natural process? I am not saying it is. I'm just asking a question about
very basic assumptions on how we know whether "natural" truly exists
or not.

What is "natural?" How do we know it exists? How do we know it
exists apart from being continually sustained by supernatural power???

I am not saying that it is. I am just asking a question abou the first
assumption. The assumption of natural. How do we really know that
anything is truly "natural?"

 

[Breckmin]

The evidence for universal common descent is overwhelming.

All based on the interpretation of evidence and tens of thousands
of inductions. Hint: If you start with the wrong assumption you
will result in the incorrect interpretation of data.

It is found in the many transitionals in the fossil record,

Inductions that miss basic common sense
deductions regarding gradual speciation. No transitional species are
in the fossil record to show the gradual evolution from one species to
another. Species are "distinct" in the fossil record. Observation.
All you have are ridiculous inductions based on location of distinct
species in the fossil record with NO transition to fill in the "gaps."
In fact, it used to be said that there are almost as many transitional
species missing in the fossil record as there are species.

it's in the molecules living things,

Nonsense induction. We never observe endosymbiosis take place. We
never observe the Type III evolve into flagellum, we never observe any
prokaryote evolve into a eukaryotic cell. In fact, the order of the molecular
structure itself (seperate subject) screams creation to the honest person who looks at probabilities.

which show the same phylogeny of living things as the fossil record,

More induction. The same type of induction that creationist use as a
paradigm to teach about the deception of induction, like Haeckal's
"ontogeny recapitulate phylogeny." The deduction of the circle of life
corrects the induction, just as the impossibility of abiogenesis.

and in the genes of organisms which also do this. And we know it works, because the same DNA analyses can sort out human descent that can be checked by other means.

More induction. Commonalities do NOT equal relatedness. We would expect
to find those same commonalities in the genes and in viruses. And the
viruses originated somewhere, "you can't always assume outside source"
(unless you start with universal common descent). Panina and homo
sapiens do NOT share a common ancestor and we can observe obvious
differences with human consciousness and mathematical and artistic
ability. Look how different that slightly over one percent is. If you
start with the wrong assumption, you will conclude common ancestry.

Creationists expect to find those same simularities, not just because
of common design, but because of logical communal compatibility and
necessary metabolisms for a common environment.

Perhaps you don't know what a "circular assumption" is.

How about the assumption that science can only address "natural" origins??? How about assuming science can not have supernatural implications?? How about an assumption that says "natural" requires
that the conclusion can only be "natural?" (origins)

Certainly the understanding that nature is whatever can be observed, measured, and tested, is not "circular."

No. That is an observaton. That observation teaches us about the
nano factories of living cells and the "information" which we observe
in nucleotides and their encoding for polypeptides. The fact that we
know based on our uniform and repeated experience that information
comes from intelligence implies clearly the supernatural. That is where
the circular assumption in science gets confused. The implication is
the RESULT of the observations which are undeniable. Factories do
not form when struck by lightning.

It's just a definition of something that clearly exists.

Like hydrogen fusion to helium in all stars? I'm not saying that isn't what
is going on, I am just asking you to substantiate "measured, tested, observed" when we have contradictory data. I do believe in nucleosynthesis
occuring in stars I am just admitting to all of the induction going on, and that
it might somehow be something else we don't know about. Not likely.

The point here is that it is not falsifiable. The law of biogenesis and
the law of information ARE falsifiable. You can falsify information entropy
by using random processes ad nauseam to try and create information that
is useful or communicates a message.

It has not been falsified. Neither will be it 100 years from now. Information requires intelligence.

Michael

 

[sfs]

What is "natural?" How do you know it is independent of supernatural
constuction? How do you even know it isn't "sustained" by a super-
natural process? I am not saying it is. I'm just asking a question about
very basic assumptions on how we know whether "natural" truly exists
or not.

What is "natural?" How do we know it exists? How do we know it
exists apart from being continually sustained by supernatural power???

We don't. That's why I tend to avoid the terms "natural" and "supernatural". What we know about crystallization is that it is an orderly process (i.e., that it behaves in predictable ways) and one that is consistent with the other behavior of solids, liquids and molecules. We can explain crystals in terms of other observed, orderly phenomena, but we cannot say whether anything else is "behind" the entire web of behavior.

 

[Breckmin]

Unbridled deduction will get you into a world of pain. Remember Aristotelian physics? Boy, deduction served us well then.

Ah, without being able to observe the ether (or even test elements) he
was STILL using induction in some form.

Our observation that information requires an intelligent source (Author)
is quite different.

Michael

 

[Breckmin]

We can explain crystals in terms of other observed, orderly phenomena, but we cannot say whether anything else is "behind" the entire web of behavior.

I would disagree. I would say that the whole process screams design, but
that is still not the point. Why would we assume that all processes must
be natural if <<we cannot say whether anything esle is "behind" the entire
web of behavior??>> If you say, "Because we can NOT "test" what is behind
it," you have still not answered the "assumption" regarding assuming all
things are "natural" and must be explained "naturally."

In otherwords, if there WAS an "implication" that there was something
else "behind" crystalization then why would we deny it? If we do not
start with an assumption to the contrary we would have no reason
to deny those implications.

Michael

 

[gluadys]

Why would we assume that all processes must
be natural if <<we cannot say whether anything esle is "behind" the entire
web of behavior??>>

Why wouldn't we? The question assumes that to say something happens naturally means that God's continuing providence in ordering and upholding nature is excluded.

But science can never say that. As sfs says, science can show that a process like crystallization is orderly and regular. We can predict that in the presence of the necessary conditions crystallization will occur.

And is not just such an orderly, regular process which always occurs as expected under certain conditions exactly what we would expect of an ultimately supernatural creation designed by an intelligent deity?

Yet it is undeniably "entirely natural" in the sense that no obvious miracle occurs and no part of the process is left unexplained in terms of "entirely natural" causes.


Let us stop interpreting "natural" as "godless".

 

[Breckmin]

Why wouldn't we?

Starting with an assumption of natural not know what natural really
is perhaps??? Circular reasoning if we don't know perhaps?

The question assumes that

The question "assumes" NOTHING. The question is just a basic question
about "very" basic assumptions on what is natural. You have still not
said how we know exactly what "natural" truly is. Is "natural" something
created? By "special" creation? Is "natural" sustained by the supernatural
or upheld by the supernatual at the atomic level??? I am NOT saying it
is, I am just asking a "question." No assumptions, but what I "am" doing
is questioning very "basic" assumptions.

to say something happens naturally means that God's continuing providence in ordering and upholding nature is excluded.

Is it? I am just asking questions with no assumptions as a starting point.
Does natural exclude something? What is "natural?" That is the basic
question. How do we know?

But science can never say that.

Can science say it is studying something without "assuming" what exactly
it is that it is studying?

As sfs says, science can show that a process like crystallization is orderly and regular.

What is "regular?" Please be specific.

We can predict that in the presence of the necessary conditions crystallization will occur.

Yes. We "observe" this. But this does not address the question about
studying what is "natural" or REQUIRING natural explanations.

Basic basic question. What if there "are" no truly natural explanations,
but we claim there are because we started with circular assumptions???

And is not just such an orderly, regular process

What is a "regular" process? How do we truly know it is independent
of supernatural suspension??? The question assumes NOTHING. I am
not saying that it IS sustained by the supernatural at the atomic level,
I am just asking a basic question.

which always occurs as expected under certain conditions

Basic question. How do we know whether or not this is the result of
supernatural sustaining order that is just being "consistent?" The question
implies and assumes NOTHING. It is just a basic question on assumptions
and assuming something "natural."

exactly what we would expect of an ultimately supernatural creation designed by an intelligent deity?

How do we know what to expect? Please be specific on your assumptions.

Yet it is undeniably "entirely natural" in the sense that no obvious miracle occurs and no part of the process is left unexplained in terms of "entirely natural" causes.

Please explain "entirely natural." How do we know that so called "miracles"
are NOT involved in the process? Please be specific. What is an "entirely"
natural cause? A cause without a cause? Please explain.

Let us stop interpreting "natural" as "godless".

No assumptions are being made. If these questions are causing you to
conclude something that is the result of your own thinking processes.
I make no assertions on the question of basic assumptions. These
are VERY basic questions regarding "what is truly natural?" and how is
it independent of the "supernatural?" Please be specific.

Michael

 

[Breckmin]

message deleted

 

[sfs]

I would disagree. I would say that the whole process screams design,

Bully for you. Nevertheless, we (meaning "we as scientists", in this case) are still where I said we were: we cannot say whether anything is behind the orderly processes we observe.

but
that is still not the point. Why would we assume that all processes must
be natural if <<we cannot say whether anything esle is "behind" the entire
web of behavior??>>

Since I specifically said that I avoid the terminology of "natural" and "supernatural", I have to ask what the heck you're talking about. I don't assume all processes must be "natural" because I don't know what "natural" means in this context. I do assume all processes are orderly, and can be explained in terms of other orderly processes, until it is demonstrated otherwise, because that is the only way to investigate processes scientifically. Also, that assumption has a long and highly successful track record.

If you say, "Because we can NOT "test" what is behind
it," you have still not answered the "assumption" regarding assuming all
things are "natural" and must be explained "naturally."

What I say is that, if we cannot test whatever it is that you are talking about that might be behind crystals, then we can't test it, and we can't talk about scientifically. What you're saying I really don't understand.

In otherwords, if there WAS an "implication" that there was something
else "behind" crystalization then why would we deny it? If we do not
start with an assumption to the contrary we would have no reason
to deny those implications.

Michael

What have I denied?

 

[Breckmin]

Bully for you.

No clue? Because I clearly see design and I have no agenda to deny it?

Nevertheless, we (meaning "we as scientists", in this case) are still where I said we were: we cannot say whether anything is behind the orderly processes we observe.

Where does the "order" itself come from? Is it from random?
Ever calculate the probability of a single pebble forming from random?
These are just basic questions.

Since I specifically said that I avoid the terminology of "natural" and "supernatural", I have to ask what the heck you're talking about.

So you admit that the definition of science should NOT contain the word
natural?

I don't assume all processes must be "natural" because I don't know what "natural" means in this context.

So can we use it (natural) in a definition if we don't know what it means?
Just a question.

I do assume all processes are orderly, and can be explained in terms of other orderly processes, until it is demonstrated otherwise, because that is the only way to investigate processes scientifically.

How did the "orderly process" first form? Did the "orderly process" come
from unorderly process? Did it form at random? Did it come from another
orderly process? Where did all orderly processes originate?

Also, that assumption has a long and highly successful track record.

What assumption? The assumption that we observe orderly processes
or the assumption that ALL processes are orderly??

What I say is that, if we cannot test whatever it is that you are talking about that might be behind crystals, then we can't test it,

O.k. So "if we cannot test whatever is behind it, then we cannot test it"
Does this mean that we should be completely neutral about it and not
deny it?? I am not saying that you "are" denying it, I am just asking a
basic question on assumptions.

and we can't talk about scientifically. What you're saying I really don't understand.

I am asking "what are we testing?" Are we testing a "natural process?"
What is "natural?" Are we testing an "orderly process?" Where did this
"process" come from?

What have I denied?

I don't know you. I haven't said you have denied anything. That is
between you and your Creator until you make the denial.

Michael

Question everything. It just might lead you out of invalid assumptions
based on induction and circular reasoning and into valid assumptions
based on deduction and correct interpretation starting with valid
assumptions.

 

[shernren]

Quite by definition, assumptions are never based on anything.

 

[gluadys]

The question "assumes" NOTHING.

I think it does. Look at it again.

Why would we assume that all processes must
be natural if <<we cannot say whether anything esle is "behind" the entire web of behavior??>>

You suggest that if "we cannot say whether anything else is behind" the entire web of behaviour, we should not assume that all processes must be "natural". You seem to be setting up an opposition between "natural" and "anything else behind" a process. Does this not imply that to say a process is natural is to affirm that there is nothing else behind it?


And look at how you end your response:

These
are VERY basic questions regarding "what is truly natural?" and how is
it independent of the "supernatural?"

Again, you suggest that "what is truly natural" is "independent of the supernatural".


But how can we possibly affirm that anything is "independent of the supernatural"? If we believe that nature is God's creation, then nothing is independent of the supernatural. All "natural" processes have "something else behind" them.

So it is a category error to define "natural" as that which has nothing behind it, as that which is independent of the supernatural.

What is "regular?" Please be specific.

That which occurs consistently under given circumstances e.g. that water at sea level (1 atmosphere of pressure) will boil at 100C. That a chicken will hatch from an egg laid by a chicken and an alligator from an egg laid by an alligator (and not vice versa).

Basic basic question. What if there "are" no truly natural explanations,
but we claim there are because we started with circular assumptions???

Historically people tended to assume that there are no truly natural explanations. Some South Sea Island tribes assumed that children were a gift of the gods whose origin was quite unrelated to sexual intercourse. Some Amazonian tribes are recorded who assumed that no illness or death was "natural" but always the outcome of some sort of curse. "Natural" disasters such as earthquakes or famines or plagues were assumed to occur as an expression of the anger of a deity. Lightning and comets were thought to be the direct actions of a deity.

So we really ought not to begin with the notion that "we started with circular assumptions". Each of these phenomena was brought into the realm of "nature" against the prior assumption of direct supernatural intervention. Do we have a single historical example of something once thought of as "natural" that we now attribute to immediate divine action?

So we have come to the point where we look first for "natural" rather than "supernatural" explanations. Given the success of this procedure, it seems a logical one to continue with.

But this still does not define "natural". It does not say that "natural" means "independent of the supernatural" or that "nothing stands behind it".

Basic question. How do we know whether or not this is the result of
supernatural sustaining order that is just being "consistent?"

We don't. Nor is there any scientific means of finding out.

How do we know what to expect? Please be specific on your assumptions.

We don't know exactly what to expect. We can only use logic applied to the testimony of our ancestors in the faith. My assumptions are that the deity in question is the one acknowledged by Christians and whose characteristics are revealed in the person of Christ and testified to by the prophets and apostles in their writings.

Please explain "entirely natural." How do we know that so called "miracles"
are NOT involved in the process?

We don't. What I said is that there is "no obvious miracle". But how many "miracles" might lie hidden beneath the surface of a "natural" process cannot be determined.

Please be specific. What is an "entirely"
natural cause? A cause without a cause? Please explain.

One reason I put the expression in quotes myself is that I question it. But as I said above "If we believe that nature is God's creation, then nothing is independent of the supernatural. All "natural" processes have "something else behind" them. " Even "entirely natural" causes.

 

[sfs]

No clue? Because I clearly see design and I have no agenda to deny it?

No clue about what? Your responses are not always very clear.

Bully for you that you clearly see design. Other people clearly see lack of design. People of each variety have all sorts of agendas. Until someone proposes a realistic scientific test for the alleged design or lack of design, the entire discussion remains outside of science.

Where does the "order" itself come from?

Ultimately? No one knows. Theists say it comes from God, and where God's order comes from they can't say. Atheists either say they don't know or that it just exists.

Is it from random?

Possibly. Possibly not.

Ever calculate the probability of a single pebble forming from random?

Uh, no. Why would I want to? Single pebbles form by weathering of larger stones, which form from magma or sediment, all of which are orderly processes, right? Or do you think pebbles are all created ex nihilo?

So you admit that the definition of science should NOT contain the word
natural?

I didn't make such a normative "admission". I said I prefer to avoid the word "natural", since I'm not sure what people mean by it, especially in this kind of discussion. Usually it just means something like "physical".

So can we use it (natural) in a definition if we don't know what it means?

If you define it first, yes.

How did the "orderly process" first form? Did the "orderly process" come
from unorderly process? Did it form at random? Did it come from another
orderly process? Where did all orderly processes originate?

These are questions that science is unlikely to be able to answer, at least in an ultimate way.

What assumption? The assumption that we observe orderly processes
or the assumption that ALL processes are orderly??

The working assumption of science is that all processes are orderly.

O.k. So "if we cannot test whatever is behind it, then we cannot test it"
Does this mean that we should be completely neutral about it and not
deny it??

No, it just means we should try to avoid saying stupid things about it. Specifically, it means we should avoid making any scientific claims about underlying reality, if any. We can say whatever we like, but it won't be part of science.

I am asking "what are we testing?"

An observable, physical event. (I assume we're still talking about a crystal forming.)

Are we testing a "natural process?"

If by "natural process" you mean a process that displays orderly behavior and whose outcome we can predict, than yes, we are almost certainly testing a natural process.

Question everything. It just might lead you out of invalid assumptions
based on induction and circular reasoning and into valid assumptions
based on deduction and correct interpretation starting with valid
assumptions.

Assumptions cannot be based on deduction. Rather, deduction has to be based on assumptions. Testing assumptions is fine, but you have to have some standard by which to test them (some assumed standard, I might add). What do you propose to use?

 

[mark kennedy]

No clue? Because I clearly see design and I have no agenda to deny it?

He knows that, he just doesn't care. His credibility is tied to defending naturalistic assumptions.

Where does the "order" itself come from? Is it from random?
Ever calculate the probability of a single pebble forming from random?
These are just basic questions.

They are answered with naturalistic assumptions, nothing more.

So you admit that the definition of science should NOT contain the word
natural?

Your wasting your time, they don't have an answer for that.

So can we use it (natural) in a definition if we don't know what it means?
Just a question.

It's all natural, that's the discipline.

How did the "orderly process" first form? Did the "orderly process" come
from unorderly process? Did it form at random? Did it come from another
orderly process? Where did all orderly processes originate?

It originated from the mind of God and he knows that.

What assumption? The assumption that we observe orderly processes
or the assumption that ALL processes are orderly??

The assumption is that God had nothing to do with any of it except in the most abstract way. You are dealing with an assumption, not a conclusion and certainly not a definition.

O.k. So "if we cannot test whatever is behind it, then we cannot test it"
Does this mean that we should be completely neutral about it and not
deny it?? I am not saying that you "are" denying it, I am just asking a
basic question on assumptions.

It's considered a self evident fact, they never question their underlying assumptions.

I am asking "what are we testing?" Are we testing a "natural process?"
What is "natural?" Are we testing an "orderly process?" Where did this
"process" come from?

Design.

I don't know you. I haven't said you have denied anything. That is
between you and your Creator until you make the denial.

He is a Christian and a highly credible scientist, I can tell you that. He is just trapped in this Darwinian metaphysical naturalism and there is no way out academically.

Michael

Question everything. It just might lead you out of invalid assumptions
based on induction and circular reasoning and into valid assumptions
based on deduction and correct interpretation starting with valid
assumptions.

Naturalistic assumptions is all there is to them, they are not allowed anything else. Sorry to butt in but I wanted you to know what you were dealing with here.