Two potential creation scenarios

[agnosticatheist]

Let's assume for the sake of this debate that the following premises are true:

A: The Christian God exists

B: The Christian God created the universe

Now, let's consider two possible creation scenarios.

Scenario 1: God created each species in a separate creation event.

Scenario 1 questions for debate:

1. Why would God create each species in separate creation events and yet make it appear that each species emerged from earlier lifeforms? Wouldn't that make God dishonest?

2. The Bible says that God is trustworthy; can he still be trusted if he made it look like large-scale evolution has taken place when in fact it hasn't?

3. Why would God make it look like large-scale evolution has taken place when in fact it hasn't, knowing full well that this will cause many to doubt God's existence?

Scenario 2: God created the conditions in which carbon-based lifeforms could emerge and evolve on Earth, and eventually lead to the emergence of Homo Sapiens, which God would give a soul to (and perhaps make some other minor changes to), which would result in the creation of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, or Modern Humans.

Scenario B Question for debate:

1. Why would God go to all that trouble when he could simply create each species in separate creation events?

Here's a broader set of questions that apply to both scenarios:

Why would God create lifeforms other than humans? Clearly humans are important because they "house" the human soul. But what about Wolves? Crocodiles? Crows? Gorillas?

What is the role of non-human lifeforms in God's "plan"?

Do they have souls too? Consciousness/awareness is a state that people claim is possible due to the soul.

Well, the more we observe and study the non-human natural world, the more it seems that consciousness/awareness exists on a spectrum, from human-level awareness (or perhaps higher...), down to complete non-consciousness/non-awareness (e.g. bacteria). There isn't some absolute line where life is divided between conscious and non-conscious, except for maybe at the "lower lifeform levels", but definitely not at the "higher lifeform levels". Dogs are conscious, they just aren't conscious to the same degree that humans are.

So, why create lifeforms besides humans and have consciousness exist on a spectrum?

Why would God do this knowing full well that it would cause people to question his existence?

It just seems to be such an interesting coincidence that God created lifeform consciousness on a spectrum.

[KenRU]

2. Archaeology and Geology aren't "science" either because they don't follow the Scientific Method. If you care to refute, then Go Ahead and post any of their "Theories" and will scrutinize.

How about if the dictionary refutes you? (bold is my emphasis)

Archaeology (noun)
1. the scientific study of historic or prehistoric peoples and their cultures by analysis of their artifacts, inscriptions, monuments, and other such remains, especially those that have been excavated.

Geology (noun)
1. the science that deals with the dynamics and physical history of the earth, the rocks of which it is composed, and the physical, chemical, and biological changes that the earth has undergone or is undergoing.

Is the dictionary wrong?

[Enoch2021]

The rest of his post attempts to show failures in it. Taking a statement "this is wrong; here's why: x,y,z" and responding to the first clause alone with simply "'this is wrong' is a baseless assertion" is at best quote mining and at worst straw-manning

Failures in what? The Baseless Assertion Claim that I made was in regard to this statement..."You are recycling your own failed material and quote mining again." See it? It's A Baseless (Bare) Assertion Fallacy because all that was in support was a CLAIM and no Beef.

I'd have preferred not to reply with the exact same statement.
Added emphasis.

The rest of his post attempts to show failures in it. Taking a statement "this is wrong; here's why: x,y,z" and responding to the first clause alone with simply "'this is wrong' is a baseless assertion" is at best quote mining and at worst straw-manning

Please define Straw Man (Fallacy)....?

Intentionally addressing misrepresentations of the opposition's arguments. Compare "The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition." (wikipedia)

Please Define "Quote Mining"....?

Intentionally misrepresenting what someone meant by controlling which parts of the quote are given and how.

Quoting out of context such that the meaning of the quote is misrepresented. Compare: "The practice of quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as "contextomy" and quote mining), is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning." (wikipedia)

Even if this weren't the case; clearly he thinks the same material was tried and didn't work previously (hence 'recycling your own failed material'), presumably he explained why a previous time. The evidence in support of you or him would be your previous posts.

Well who cares what he "Thinks"....unless he provides "SPECIFIC" evidence in SUPPORT....it's status is BASELESS.

Judge: What's The Charge?
Joe Shmoe: Jack robbed the bank!!
Judge: Very Well, present your Case.
Joe Shmoe: I proved this Yesterday @ Home, I have Pictures.
Judge: Go get the Pictures
Joe Shmoe: I lost them
Judge: Case Dismissed, The Charge is Baseless!

Follow?

Danmark made a claim and the rest of his post attempts to provide justification.

I believe the part he's referring to is "There are, of course, circumstances when one cannot isolate the phenomena or when one cannot repeat the measurement over and over again. In such cases the results may depend in part on the history of a situation."
Given that your objection was (seemingly) an issue with controlled experiment/testing predictions of the future from a particular hypothesis; this particular paragraph is detrimental to your point.

"Detrimental"...How so? The only "Objection" I had was to his charge of there being only 4 Steps. And I thought I explained why.

Your objection to evolution being scientific.

Furthermore, if you take issue with a particular step that is in your 7, but not in the website's 4, it doesn't support your argument.

What in the World? I'm not making a comparison between their Step 4 and my Step 7.

I'm saying that any of your 7 steps (not step 7 specifically), that aren't corroborated in their 4 steps, aren't supported by the source (and similarly, arguments you have that rely on any unsupported steps, are also unsupported by the source. Not, of course, to imply that the source is a 'big deal' as far as sources go. Any of them, for that matter.

They just consolidated My: Step 1, Step 3, and Step 4.... into 4 Steps. As I clearly explained, the rest are logistical in nature and not the focus of the link. Are you suggesting Scientists don't "Report Their Results"?

It would be far more prudent to provide their steps directly than your interpretation. If you believe some of your steps are implied, you can argue about that when the relevant opposing claims come in. Doing it now only serves to (literally) obfuscate the original source, and leads to two different versions that are either (in this context) unnecessary or unsupported.

Moreover, The link and the "Quote" I posted was to Highlight what is an Actual Hypothesis and a Scientific Theory......NOT the Specific Steps in the Scientific Method.

The scientific method has four steps [4 steps]

The Scientific Method... [7 steps]

Leaving out information to alter the context and implications of the quote can be reasonably conceived as quote mining. Quoting "The scientific method requires X unless Y" and leaving out the exceptional circumstance when it is most relevant, is an example.

Ahhh Sir, I didn't leave out anything in the "Quote". The "Quote" I posted wasn't referencing "The Steps of The Scientific Method", ya see....

I don't see how "the steps" are relevant to this point.

"The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_l ... ndixe.html

You see where the Quote Stops and the link? That means "End Quote". Then I wrote....

I'm aware; your reference was your support for the steps as well as the source for the quote. The same source also clearly indicates

There are, of course, circumstances when one cannot isolate the phenomena or when one cannot repeat the measurement over and over again. In such cases the results may depend in part on the history of a situation. This often occurs in social interactions between people. For example, when a lawyer makes arguments in front of a jury in court, she or he cannot try other approaches by repeating the trial over and over again in front of the same jury. In a new trial, the jury composition will be different. Even the same jury hearing a new set of arguments cannot be expected to forget what they heard before.

(which is clearly relevant to the situation)

The Scientific Method...

[7 steps]

This is from ME...not the link.

I wasn't talking about the steps.

This wouldn't be a straw man, and some support for 'you can't even get to the first step ... ' would be nice.

Well possibly, it may be closer to a Red Herring. Yes, well the First Step of the Scientific Method is "Observe a Phenomenon" so unless you have a "TIME" Machine...your outta luck.

The source clearly doesn't agree with you, from the relevant quote (that was argued about).

There are, of course, circumstances when one cannot isolate the phenomena or when one cannot repeat the measurement over and over again. In such cases the results may depend in part on the history of a situation.

Regardless, you can observe evolution in the present, you can observe evolution since antiquity, and you can observe evolution for the past billion years or more. Your claim is like saying that you can't observe bacteria, you can only observe a microscope. Fossils, atmosphere composition and current life on Earth all provide data that have been observed.

Disagreeing with your interpretation of a quote is not ipse dixit. Danmark quotes an article based on a lecture Mayr gave, in which evolutionary biology is described as a "historical science".

It is an Ipse Dixit and a Baseless Assertion (Fallacy) because that's NOT what Professor Mayr said. Please post the Quote in your next response and show me where anything in that quote ='s even remotely says or implies: "Obviously, we do not get a "do over" with another 4.5 billion year experiment."

The fact that we cannot do a 4.5 billion year isolated and controlled experiment should be immediately clear anyway,

Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes.

(Mayr indicating that we can't practically perform this kind of experiment when it comes to evolution over billions of years. Also see "in contrast with physics and chemistry" in the original quote)

This isn't begging the question - you don't need to presuppose that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old in order to claim that a 4.5 billion year controlled test would be impractical.

Oh Brother. I said the "4.5 Billion Years" was Begging The Question. And is the BASIS of his STATEMENT. Anything downstream from it is conjecture.

A repeatable, concurrently observed experiment of the modern theory of evolutionary biology (and the evolution of all life) of Earth would be incomplete if it finished before that much time had elapsed.
(More could be added about how some supposed changes, like single to diverse multi celled life, are said to have taken billions of years)

The follow up and example doesn't seem to support you.....

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry ... theory.htm

How so....? Go ahead and post this in your next response and will scrutinize it together.

It's an example of historical science in which the results left behind are observed as opposed to observing the event in real time.

And an explanation of what is meant by tested (same source ofc):
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_06
Or more concisely, the website's right margin references evolutionary theory (without any tone of sarcasm in 'theory' or any mention of it being a quote).

Now, for our original quote's author, we have an aforementioned source that doesn't address the matter, and two other sources that explicitly support the idea that evolution is a theory. For testing, the author alludes once to the big bang theory:

I really don't care what it "says". Provide Scientific Evidence of evolution or the big bang.....?

Then why did you bother quoting it? I'm mostly just objecting to your counter arguments. I wouldn't need to believe in or support evolution or the big bang to do so. (though I do)

Observation -> the author can, at best, observe results (i.e. expansion of the Universe... or analogously, fossils/diversity/etc)
Testing -> the author can, at best, test results that are already there to be found - like checking the relationship between a trait and the species' survival and reproduction rates.

It is clear that the author's quote doesn't support you.

It's quite clear that the author doesn't know what "Science" or the Scientific Method Is. Ya Ready....

You're objecting to the sources of your own quotes.

"These quotes show what the scientific method is"
>those quotes, in context, disagree with you
"The authors of these quotes don't know what the scientific method is"

Please show the INDEPENDENT VARIABLE of each and every TEST you wheel out here and let's get to scrutinizing!
MATH is not a "TEST".....MATH is IMMATERIAL and Abstract. @ Best Mathematics "Describes" it "Explains" exactly ZERO.

I don't recall reading any of this in any of the quotes you gave, do you take them back?

Regardless, independent and dependant examples are for controlled experiments.
But if you're interested, try the sources for this section of this Wikipedia article, I'm sure you'll find scientific papers. (If not, google 'experimental evolution')

Not all science is controlled and experimental. Tests can still be performed and hypotheses checked in the absence of controlled experimentation.

Either a misunderstanding of what is meant by 'test', or (alternatively) quote mining. I'm more inclined to the former.

Of course you left out "Your" definition of a TEST/Experiment, eh?
Start here: (Dependent Variable, Independent Variable, Control Variable)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_study

You don't always need parameters to be under your control.

And the Endless "Quote Mining" Last Port in the Storm.

Then maybe you should rescind every reference and every source you've just given.

Care to elaborate why....? Or just leave this "Opinion" hanging here?

Because of every time you've disagreed with the quotes?
This was a response to a statement you made that flat out contradicts the spirit of the quotes you gave to support you. This "opinion" is supported by what was said earlier in the post. Now it's supported by things in this post too, for instance:

It's quite clear that the author doesn't know what "Science" or the Scientific Method Is.

(see earlier)

Natural selection very obviously conveys particular concepts, and isn't a tautology beyond any other definition. Are you arguing that it might be too vaguely defined?

I'm arguing that it's a mere "concept" it's Inanimate. If you disagree then post the Chemical Structure and where it resides....?

What is this supposed to mean? You haven't explained what you meant at all, and you've given a follow up (presumably rhetorical) question with absurd implications - namely that everything that doesn't have a chemical structure and a location is a tautology, 'a mere concept' and inanimate. (What is actually meant by those is itself unclear)

If having the url was all that mattered, why bother quoting at all?
Clearly which content you quote is important, even if you give the full source.
I assume that the claim he's making is that if you were compared against the full source, that there would be obvious quote mining. Without the full source, nobody could (easily) tell anyway.

Have you ever heard of a "Works CITED" page or Bibliography? I do give the SOURCE, each and every time. It's a common practice from 5th Grade through and Including the Supreme Court. It's Quite COMMON in Scientific Literature.

I just don't post "LINKS". On most "Science" forums just posting a "link" is a Banning Offense...it speaks to Intellectual Laziness @ BEST. If I post something, it's in SUPPORT of a Topic or CLAIM I'm making and I can SPEAK to it.

I'll restate what I said in more detail.
"If having the url was all that mattered, why bother quoting at all?"
You were saying that you weren't 'leaving stuff out' because you gave the url.

I provided the URL the last time and you said that I conspicuously left stuff out lol. Did you mean left stuff out of the url?

Obviously giving the url is better than not giving the url, but the point of this question is that what you quote is still important. You can still quote mine and misrepresent someone even if you give a link to the full source.

"Clearly which content you quote is important, even if you give the full source." (see above)

You've misrepresented at least one quote in this post. A quote that explicitly calls evolution science and claims it 'introduced historicity' (which I'd call dubious - other fields like archaeology and some forms of geology can be based on historical data) is used to attempt to show why evolution isn't science.

1. I haven't in the least and you haven't shown where I Have.

"Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. LAWS AND EXPERIMENTS ARE INAPPROPRIATE TECHNIQUES FOR THE EXPLICATION OF SUCH EVENTS AND PROCESSES. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain."

(emphasis yours, without the same bbcode tagging)

You use this quote to attempt to show that evolution isn't scientific, in spite of the quote and the author's meaning.

2. Archaeology and Geology aren't "science" either because they don't follow the Scientific Method. If you care to refute, then Go Ahead and post any of their "Theories" and will scrutinize.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology ('an Earth science') - 67 references
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeological_science - 4 references

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Geology_theories
(not all of these are actual scientific theories unfortunately)

(for reference, I said the idea that evolution "introduced historicity to science" was dubious, the implication being that both of these fields have put historicity into science (and, not implied but also the case, put science into historicity))

If you're going to doubt that geology is science, we may as well stop using the word science completely and just address what the actual issue is.

The rest of his post attempts to show failures in it. Taking a statement "this is wrong; here's why: x,y,z" and responding to the first clause alone with simply "'this is wrong' is a baseless assertion" is at best quote mining and at worst straw-manning
Failures in what? The Baseless Assertion Claim that I made was in regard to this statement..."You are recycling your own failed material and quote mining again." See it? It's A Baseless (Bare) Assertion Fallacy because all that was in support was a CLAIM and no Beef.


I'd have preferred not to reply with the exact same statement.

I also.

Danmark made a claim and the rest of his post attempts to provide justification.

Ahh sir, he said..."You are recycling your own failed material and quote mining again."
To SUPPORT THAT...wouldn't he have to show where it has FAILED before? "Recycled" is the KEY term.

Your objection to evolution being scientific.

Yes, I already provided a Step By Step Illustration in SUPPORT of that very fact...on this very thread: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 930#705930

I'm saying that any of your 7 steps (not step 7 specifically), that aren't corroborated in their 4 steps, aren't supported by the source (and similarly, arguments you have that rely on any unsupported steps, are also unsupported by the source. Not, of course, to imply that the source is a 'big deal' as far as sources go. Any of them, for that matter.

For the SECOND TIME (lol): The Scientific Method I posted was not apart of the source and was below the "END QUOTE" of the Source I was using to express another idea; ergo... any comparisons between The Scientific Method Seperate from the Source and the Scientific Method presented by the Source...is quite irrelevant. (And as noted...isn't different from what "I" posted in principle).

It would be far more prudent to provide their steps directly than your interpretation. If you believe some of your steps are implied, you can argue about that when the relevant opposing claims come in. Doing it now only serves to (literally) obfuscate the original source, and leads to two different versions that are either (in this context) unnecessary or unsupported.

Absolutely Stupefying. I didn't Interpret THEIR Scientific Method!! Are you familiar with providing a SOURCE for a Point (which was to emphasize a Valid Hypothesis and Scientific Theory, PLAINLY identified in the "Quote")...then moving on to a similar yet different subject?
Maybe this will help. Lets say the Link I posted, after they discussed a Valid Hypothesis and Scientific Theory (which was MY point in posting the "Quote"), went on to discuss the mating habits of ground squirrels. Will you charge me with not providing an accurate description/characterization of the squirrels in relation to the what I CITED?

I don't see how "the steps" are relevant to this point.

I'm Sorry, If I would've seen this before I started I wouldn't have even replied.

Goodbye.

regards

[Enoch2021]

2. Archaeology and Geology aren't "science" either because they don't follow the Scientific Method. If you care to refute, then Go Ahead and post any of their "Theories" and will scrutinize.

How about if the dictionary refutes you? (bold is my emphasis)

Archaeology (noun)
1. the scientific study of historic or prehistoric peoples and their cultures by analysis of their artifacts, inscriptions, monuments, and other such remains, especially those that have been excavated.

Geology (noun)
1. the science that deals with the dynamics and physical history of the earth, the rocks of which it is composed, and the physical, chemical, and biological changes that the earth has undergone or is undergoing.

Is the dictionary wrong?

Yes, they are. And they "Refute" nothing.....they just "Say".

They're Equivocating (Fallacy) the term "Science". Allow me to explain...

Science:--- "knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation". {Emphasis Mine}
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

(Caveat: do you see the contradiction? "Knowledge" is Immaterial. So they're attempting to acquire IMMATERIAL (Knowledge) via MATERIAL (Physical and Natural World) to explain away IMMATERIAL as Plausible. KaBooM! Logically, it's tantamount to cutting off your legs to prevent Athlete's Foot, but I digress:

A hypothesis an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of PHENOMENA OBSERVED in the natural world. {Emphasis Mine}
http://www.britannic...ific-hypothesis

It's an "If This" (Independent Variable)... "Then That" (Dependent Variable) type of scenario or "Not That" (Null's).

How in the WORLD can they have a Valid TESTABLE Scientific Hypothesis of an UnObserved Past Non-Repeating Event without a Time Machine, Pray Tell? What's their Independent Variable(s) without a Time Machine.....Their Imagination?

"You make a set of observations, then hypothesize an explanation which accounts for all of the observations."
http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/scimeth.htm


A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {Emphasis Mine}
http://chemistry.abo...a/lawtheory.htm

A Scientific Theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {Emphasis Mine}
http://www.fromquark...-theory-or-law/

A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. {Emphasis Mine}
http://teacher.nsrl..../appendixe.html

Ergo, to Refute: Please provide any Postulate or "Alleged" Theory from Archaeology or Geology That is CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS....?

With each of your examples, Please provide the Independent Variable(s).

regards

[KenRU]

2. Archaeology and Geology aren't "science" either because they don't follow the Scientific Method. If you care to refute, then Go Ahead and post any of their "Theories" and will scrutinize.

How about if the dictionary refutes you? (bold is my emphasis)

Archaeology (noun)
1. the scientific study of historic or prehistoric peoples and their cultures by analysis of their artifacts, inscriptions, monuments, and other such remains, especially those that have been excavated.

Geology (noun)
1. the science that deals with the dynamics and physical history of the earth, the rocks of which it is composed, and the physical, chemical, and biological changes that the earth has undergone or is undergoing.

Is the dictionary wrong?

Yes, they are.

I see. You should probably tell someone at Dictionary.com about their error… just saying.

And they "Refute" nothing.....they just "Say".

Well then, if they just say, and it doesn’t matter what, then you shouldn’t quote one back at me … oh wait .. here it comes.

Science:--- "knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation". {Emphasis Mine}
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

Your definition actually proves they ARE sciences: (geology, archaeology)

"knowledge about or study of the natural world (dynamics and physical history of the earth or, study of historic or prehistoric peoples and their cultures) based on facts learned through experiments and observation (analysis of their artifacts, inscriptions, monuments, and other such remains, especially those that have been excavated or, physical, chemical, and biological changes that the earth has undergone or is undergoing)"

The definition you provided shows these are indeed sciences. But, as you say, the dictionary just says, and means nothing.

You’ll note that for geology, it even uses future tense “undergoing�. So observed is part of the definition.

The definition you provided, clearly shows that geology and archaeology are sciences.

The rest is just jumping through hoops in order to reach a predetermined conclusion.

By definition (whether you like it or not) these are sciences.

[Enoch2021]

2. Archaeology and Geology aren't "science" either because they don't follow the Scientific Method. If you care to refute, then Go Ahead and post any of their "Theories" and will scrutinize.

How about if the dictionary refutes you? (bold is my emphasis)

Archaeology (noun)
1. the scientific study of historic or prehistoric peoples and their cultures by analysis of their artifacts, inscriptions, monuments, and other such remains, especially those that have been excavated.

Geology (noun)
1. the science that deals with the dynamics and physical history of the earth, the rocks of which it is composed, and the physical, chemical, and biological changes that the earth has undergone or is undergoing.

Is the dictionary wrong?

Yes, they are.

I see. You should probably tell someone at Dictionary.com about their error… just saying.

And they "Refute" nothing.....they just "Say".

Well then, if they just say, and it doesn’t matter what, then you shouldn’t quote one back at me … oh wait .. here it comes.

Science:--- "knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation". {Emphasis Mine}
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

Your definition actually proves they ARE sciences: (geology, archaeology)

"knowledge about or study of the natural world (dynamics and physical history of the earth or, study of historic or prehistoric peoples and their cultures) based on facts learned through experiments and observation (analysis of their artifacts, inscriptions, monuments, and other such remains, especially those that have been excavated or, physical, chemical, and biological changes that the earth has undergone or is undergoing)"

The definition you provided shows these are indeed sciences. But, as you say, the dictionary just says, and means nothing.

You’ll note that for geology, it even uses future tense “undergoing�. So observed is part of the definition.

The definition you provided, clearly shows that geology and archaeology are sciences.

The rest is just jumping through hoops in order to reach a predetermined conclusion.

By definition (whether you like it or not) these are sciences.

I say again: Ergo, to Refute: Please provide any Postulate or "Alleged" Theory from Archaeology or Geology That is CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS....?

With each of your examples, Please provide the Independent Variable(s).

If not....your position is woefully "Untenable".

regards

[Jashwell]

Failures in what? The Baseless Assertion Claim that I made was in regard to this statement..."You are recycling your own failed material and quote mining again." See it? It's A Baseless (Bare) Assertion Fallacy because all that was in support was a CLAIM and no Beef.

I'd have preferred not to reply with the exact same statement. [...]

I also.

The rest of his post attempts to show failures in it. Taking a statement "this is wrong; here's why: x,y,z" and responding to the first clause alone with simply "'this is wrong' is a baseless assertion" is at best quote mining and at worst straw-manning

Danmark made a claim and the rest of his post attempts to provide justification.

Ahh sir, he said..."You are recycling your own failed material and quote mining again."
To SUPPORT THAT...wouldn't he have to show where it has FAILED before? "Recycled" is the KEY term.

Even if this weren't the case; clearly he thinks the same material was tried and didn't work previously (hence 'recycling your own failed material'), presumably he explained why a previous time. The evidence in support of you or him would be your previous posts.

Your objection to evolution being scientific.

Yes, I already provided a Step By Step Illustration in SUPPORT of that very fact...on this very thread: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 930#705930

That wasn't a request for you to advertise a previous post; that was clarifying why the quote (from the source you quoted) was troublesome for you - because the article clearly makes room for evolution being scientific.
Removing embedded quotes can remove context.

I'm saying that any of your 7 steps (not step 7 specifically), that aren't corroborated in their 4 steps, aren't supported by the source (and similarly, arguments you have that rely on any unsupported steps, are also unsupported by the source. Not, of course, to imply that the source is a 'big deal' as far as sources go. Any of them, for that matter.

For the SECOND TIME (lol): The Scientific Method I posted was not apart of the source and was below the "END QUOTE" of the Source I was using to express another idea; ergo... any comparisons between The Scientific Method Seperate from the Source and the Scientific Method presented by the Source...is quite irrelevant. (And as noted...isn't different from what "I" posted in principle).

Aren't different in principle, except for the parts of the article that disagree with you, and for the parts that are lacking. If you weren't using that source as evidence to support your steps, why are you doing it now (while complaining that you weren't doing it before)?

It would be far more prudent to provide their steps directly than your interpretation. If you believe some of your steps are implied, you can argue about that when the relevant opposing claims come in. Doing it now only serves to (literally) obfuscate the original source, and leads to two different versions that are either (in this context) unnecessary or unsupported.

Absolutely Stupefying. I didn't Interpret THEIR Scientific Method!! Are you familiar with providing a SOURCE for a Point (which was to emphasize a Valid Hypothesis and Scientific Theory, PLAINLY identified in the "Quote")...then moving on to a similar yet different subject?
Maybe this will help. Lets say the Link I posted, after they discussed a Valid Hypothesis and Scientific Theory (which was MY point in posting the "Quote"), went on to discuss the mating habits of ground squirrels. Will you charge me with not providing an accurate description/characterization of the squirrels in relation to the what I CITED?

I don't see how "the steps" are relevant to this point.

I'm Sorry, If I would've seen this before I started I wouldn't have even replied.

Goodbye.

regards

The objection that was to do with the quote had nothing to do with 'the steps' and I don't doubt you know that. The extra quote from the same article flat out provides a space for evolution, whilst you're trying to use your quote from the article to imply there isn't such a space.

[Jashwell]

I say again: Ergo, to Refute: Please provide any Postulate or "Alleged" Theory from Archaeology or Geology That is CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS....?

With each of your examples, Please provide the Independent Variable(s).

If not....your position is woefully "Untenable".

regards

'Untenable' how?
This issue has been addressed before. No matter how many times you "say it again", you do not need an independent variable to test and you do not need an independent variable based test to be a science.

Please show the INDEPENDENT VARIABLE of each and every TEST you wheel out here and let's get to scrutinizing!
MATH is not a "TEST".....MATH is IMMATERIAL and Abstract. @ Best Mathematics "Describes" it "Explains" exactly ZERO.

I don't recall reading any of this in any of the quotes you gave, do you take them back?

Regardless, independent and dependant examples are for controlled experiments.
But if you're interested, try the sources for this section of this Wikipedia article, I'm sure you'll find scientific papers. (If not, google 'experimental evolution')

Not all science is controlled and experimental. Tests can still be performed and hypotheses checked in the absence of controlled experimentation.

Of course you left out "Your" definition of a TEST/Experiment, eh?
Start here: (Dependent Variable, Independent Variable, Control Variable)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_study
You don't always need parameters to be under your control.

If you're going to doubt that geology is science, we may as well stop using the word science completely and just address what the actual issue is.

(i.e. why you believe independent variable experiments are necessary (and not just better) to be called a science)

[KenRU]

2. Archaeology and Geology aren't "science" either because they don't follow the Scientific Method. If you care to refute, then Go Ahead and post any of their "Theories" and will scrutinize.

How about if the dictionary refutes you? (bold is my emphasis)

Archaeology (noun)
1. the scientific study of historic or prehistoric peoples and their cultures by analysis of their artifacts, inscriptions, monuments, and other such remains, especially those that have been excavated.

Geology (noun)
1. the science that deals with the dynamics and physical history of the earth, the rocks of which it is composed, and the physical, chemical, and biological changes that the earth has undergone or is undergoing.

Is the dictionary wrong?

Yes, they are.

I see. You should probably tell someone at Dictionary.com about their error… just saying.

And they "Refute" nothing.....they just "Say".

Well then, if they just say, and it doesn’t matter what, then you shouldn’t quote one back at me … oh wait .. here it comes.

Science:--- "knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation". {Emphasis Mine}
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

Your definition actually proves they ARE sciences: (geology, archaeology)

"knowledge about or study of the natural world (dynamics and physical history of the earth or, study of historic or prehistoric peoples and their cultures) based on facts learned through experiments and observation (analysis of their artifacts, inscriptions, monuments, and other such remains, especially those that have been excavated or, physical, chemical, and biological changes that the earth has undergone or is undergoing)"

The definition you provided shows these are indeed sciences. But, as you say, the dictionary just says, and means nothing.

You’ll note that for geology, it even uses future tense “undergoing�. So observed is part of the definition.

The definition you provided, clearly shows that geology and archaeology are sciences.

The rest is just jumping through hoops in order to reach a predetermined conclusion.

By definition (whether you like it or not) these are sciences.

I say again: Ergo, to Refute: Please provide any Postulate or "Alleged" Theory from Archaeology or Geology That is CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS....?

With each of your examples, Please provide the Independent Variable(s).

If not....your position is woefully "Untenable".

regards

I’ll say it again: by definition, they are. I have no reason to go beyond the definition provided in the dictionary. So, why would I need to provide a postulate or theory? As illustrated above, I have all of the information I need.

By definition provided in the same dictionary that defines all of the words in the sentences you and I are typing and reading, they are sciences.

Why, suddenly, is the dictionary not sufficient?

[Enoch2021]

2. Archaeology and Geology aren't "science" either because they don't follow the Scientific Method. If you care to refute, then Go Ahead and post any of their "Theories" and will scrutinize.

How about if the dictionary refutes you? (bold is my emphasis)

Archaeology (noun)
1. the scientific study of historic or prehistoric peoples and their cultures by analysis of their artifacts, inscriptions, monuments, and other such remains, especially those that have been excavated.

Geology (noun)
1. the science that deals with the dynamics and physical history of the earth, the rocks of which it is composed, and the physical, chemical, and biological changes that the earth has undergone or is undergoing.

Is the dictionary wrong?

Yes, they are.

I see. You should probably tell someone at Dictionary.com about their error… just saying.

And they "Refute" nothing.....they just "Say".

Well then, if they just say, and it doesn’t matter what, then you shouldn’t quote one back at me … oh wait .. here it comes.

Science:--- "knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation". {Emphasis Mine}
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

Your definition actually proves they ARE sciences: (geology, archaeology)

"knowledge about or study of the natural world (dynamics and physical history of the earth or, study of historic or prehistoric peoples and their cultures) based on facts learned through experiments and observation (analysis of their artifacts, inscriptions, monuments, and other such remains, especially those that have been excavated or, physical, chemical, and biological changes that the earth has undergone or is undergoing)"

The definition you provided shows these are indeed sciences. But, as you say, the dictionary just says, and means nothing.

You’ll note that for geology, it even uses future tense “undergoing�. So observed is part of the definition.

The definition you provided, clearly shows that geology and archaeology are sciences.

The rest is just jumping through hoops in order to reach a predetermined conclusion.

By definition (whether you like it or not) these are sciences.

I say again: Ergo, to Refute: Please provide any Postulate or "Alleged" Theory from Archaeology or Geology That is CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS....?

With each of your examples, Please provide the Independent Variable(s).

If not....your position is woefully "Untenable".

regards

I’ll say it again: by definition, they are. I have no reason to go beyond the definition provided in the dictionary. So, why would I need to provide a postulate or theory? As illustrated above, I have all of the information I need.

By definition provided in the same dictionary that defines all of the words in the sentences you and I are typing and reading, they are sciences.

Why, suddenly, is the dictionary not sufficient?

I’ll say it again: by definition, they are. I have no reason to go beyond the definition provided in the dictionary. So, why would I need to provide a postulate or theory? As illustrated above, I have all of the information I need.

You and they can "Say" it all you want; that and $2.99 will get me a cup of Coffee.

There is a difference between a Baseless "Bare" Assertion Fallacy and A Supported Claim, correct? It's called Evidence and Illustration.

To be "something" it has to exhibit characteristics/traits of that something. Bananas grow on trees: they are green and yellow, contain complex/simple Carbs chalk full of K+ and B6, and when you freeze them it destroys B6. That's what makes Bananas, "Bananas" and differentiates them from Strawberries. It's how we differentiate between Tumble Weeds and Texas Toast. It's the same with "Science"...
"Science" exhibits characteristics/traits of it's Method, The "Scientific Method"...without it , it's not "Science". Science without TESTING/Experiment is like Water without Hydrogen....it's painfully Non-Sequitur.

So show where Geology and Archaeology are Bananas and not Strawberries....?

By the mere fact that I would even have to question it, speaks volumes. Bananas are Bananas inherently...they don't have to "work" @ it.

And by the mere FACT that you can't show even ONE INSTANCE of Illustration Supporting the Claim...then we MUST CONCLUDE that they are Masquerading under the guise of something which They Are NOT, Fallaciously (Equivocation).

regards

[KenRU]

2. Archaeology and Geology aren't "science" either because they don't follow the Scientific Method. If you care to refute, then Go Ahead and post any of their "Theories" and will scrutinize.

How about if the dictionary refutes you? (bold is my emphasis)

Archaeology (noun)
1. the scientific study of historic or prehistoric peoples and their cultures by analysis of their artifacts, inscriptions, monuments, and other such remains, especially those that have been excavated.

Geology (noun)
1. the science that deals with the dynamics and physical history of the earth, the rocks of which it is composed, and the physical, chemical, and biological changes that the earth has undergone or is undergoing.

Is the dictionary wrong?

Yes, they are.

I see. You should probably tell someone at Dictionary.com about their error… just saying.

And they "Refute" nothing.....they just "Say".

Well then, if they just say, and it doesn’t matter what, then you shouldn’t quote one back at me … oh wait .. here it comes.

Science:--- "knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation". {Emphasis Mine}
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

Your definition actually proves they ARE sciences: (geology, archaeology)

"knowledge about or study of the natural world (dynamics and physical history of the earth or, study of historic or prehistoric peoples and their cultures) based on facts learned through experiments and observation (analysis of their artifacts, inscriptions, monuments, and other such remains, especially those that have been excavated or, physical, chemical, and biological changes that the earth has undergone or is undergoing)"

The definition you provided shows these are indeed sciences. But, as you say, the dictionary just says, and means nothing.

You’ll note that for geology, it even uses future tense “undergoing�. So observed is part of the definition.

The definition you provided, clearly shows that geology and archaeology are sciences.

The rest is just jumping through hoops in order to reach a predetermined conclusion.

By definition (whether you like it or not) these are sciences.

I say again: Ergo, to Refute: Please provide any Postulate or "Alleged" Theory from Archaeology or Geology That is CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS....?

With each of your examples, Please provide the Independent Variable(s).

If not....your position is woefully "Untenable".

regards

I’ll say it again: by definition, they are. I have no reason to go beyond the definition provided in the dictionary. So, why would I need to provide a postulate or theory? As illustrated above, I have all of the information I need.

By definition provided in the same dictionary that defines all of the words in the sentences you and I are typing and reading, they are sciences.

Why, suddenly, is the dictionary not sufficient?

I’ll say it again: by definition, they are. I have no reason to go beyond the definition provided in the dictionary. So, why would I need to provide a postulate or theory? As illustrated above, I have all of the information I need.

You and they can "Say" it all you want; that and $2.99 will get me a cup of Coffee.

There is a difference between a Baseless "Bare" Assertion Fallacy and A Supported Claim, correct? It's called Evidence and Illustration.

And this has what to do with the definition of the word science?

To be "something" it has to exhibit characteristics/traits of that something. Bananas grow on trees: they are green and yellow, contain complex/simple Carbs chalk full of K+ and B6, and when you freeze them it destroys B6. That's what makes Bananas, "Bananas" and differentiates them from Strawberries. It's how we differentiate between Tumble Weeds and Texas Toast. It's the same with "Science"...
"Science" exhibits characteristics/traits of it's Method, The "Scientific Method"...without it , it's not "Science". Science without TESTING/Experiment is like Water without Hydrogen....it's painfully Non-Sequitur.

Perhaps it would behoove you to say that you “do not consider those disciplines science, despite the definitions found in the dictionary�?

I have no desire discuss what you believe “science exhibits� just so you can quibble over what you consider evidence, testable, or reproducible. We have a dictionary that defines what archaeology is, it defines what geology is, and it defines the word science.

They all seem to agree, but you don’t. Perhaps it would be best if you addressed why that is, instead of saying you’re right, and the books you rely on to understand me right now, are wrong?

So show where Geology and Archaeology are Bananas and not Strawberries....?

See dictionary.com.

By the mere fact that I would even have to question it, speaks volumes.

The mere fact that you contend the dictionary is wrong, speaks even louder volumes.

And by the mere FACT that you can't show even ONE INSTANCE of Illustration Supporting the Claim...then we MUST CONCLUDE that they are Masquerading under the guise of something which They Are NOT, Fallaciously (Equivocation).

The dictionary (that you must rely on as well) is guilty of this? Remember, Enoch, I am not asserting anything. I am merely pointing out that you have been arguing with a dictionary.

I’m forced to wonder why.