Tristen

'Science isn't a quest for truth, just facts" Aren't Facts, TRUTH? Sure I believed in God, but I think all these debates are tiresome. Both parties know they are right and them theatrics! Which debates are you referring too? Why are they Tiresome? Who are the 2 Parties? "I did not get a degree in science to prove or disprove God. It never occurred to me" I didn't either; but there appears to be Roosters in the Hen House...... Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. Michael Ruse; How evolution became a religion; creationists correct? National Post May 13 2000 "Then, sometimes from the same person, you have evolution as secular religion, generally working from an explicitly materialist background and solving all of the world's major problems, from racism to education to conservation. Consider Edward O. Wilson, rightfully regarded as one of the most outstanding professional evolutionary biologists of our time, and the author of major works of straight science. In his On Human Nature, he calmly assures us that evolution is a myth that is now ready to take over Christianity." Michael Ruse: Science, March 7 2003 p. 1524 John Polkinghorne PhD, Professor of Mathematical Physics Cambridge 'People who tell you that 'Science tells you everything you need to know about the world' or 'Science tells you that religion is all wrong' or 'Science tells you there is no God', those people aren't telling you scientific things. They are saying metaphysical things and they have to defend their positions from metaphysical reasons.' John Polkinghorne PhD; Expelled, April 18 2008 William Provine PhD Professor of Biology Cornell 'Creationists will have to speak louder. I continue to support those who would like to have their voices heard in biology classes. I encourage the effort to limit the teaching of evolutionary biology until such time as evolutionists encourage a more inclusive participation of students. The very idea of the American Civil Liberties Union conspiring with evolutionary biologists to limit the free speech of the majority of the high school students in this country is grotesque.' William Provine PhD; Darwinism, Design and Public Education 2003, p. 511 'Scientists committed to philosophical naturalism do not claim to have found the precise answer to every problem, but they characteristically insist that they have the important problems sufficiently well in hand that they can narrow the field of possibilities to a set of naturalistic alternatives. Absent that insistence, they would have to concede that their commitment to naturalism is based upon faith rather than proof. Such a concession could be exploited by promoters of rival sources of knowledge, such as philosophy and religion, who would be quick to point out that faith in naturalism is no more "scientific" (i.e. empirically based) than any other kind of faith.' Phillip Johnson Professor of Law; Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism, October 1990 'The public should view with profound alarm this unnecessary and misguided reintroduction of speculative historical, philosophical and religious ideas into the realms of experimental science. Through the writings of neo-Darwinian biologists, they have subsumed many of the biological experimental discoveries of the 20th century. This is so despite the fact that those discoveries were neither predicted nor heuristically guided by evolutionary theory.' Philip Skell PhD; The Dangers of overselling Evolution, February 23 2009 Hey Enoch, You said “Aren't Facts, TRUTH?” Technically, the answer is no. Facts are observations; i.e. articles or data measurements. If they exist, they are rationally indisputable – but only given the unverifiable faith premise that observations can be trusted (which we generally all adhere to). Truth is a claim about ultimate reality. It is an absolutist concept which places it beyond the scope of science. That is, science only attributes confidence and probability to claims about truth – but can never itself legitimately proclaim a truth (because we don’t know what we don’t know). There is always the possibility that some new discovery could undermine everything we previously thought we knew about an issue. For the longest time, society has been under the misapprehension that science does deal in right/wrong, true/false etc. As such, scientists enjoyed the position of modern day prophets. A news article introduced with “scientists believe ...” had become the modern day equivalent of “thus saith the Lord”. And the scientific community did nothing to correct this false impression; addicted to their ideas being considered ‘gospel’ in broader society. In my opinion, this is why the scientific community became so offended by members of society having the gall to question them over climate change. I mean, how dare these unqualified peasants question our authoritaa – don’t they know that we are scientists – some even climate scientists? (But in reality, the scientific method has always permitted the scrutiny of any scientific claim.) It is unfortunate that the scientific term “fact” is commonly misunderstood and misused to exaggerate scientific confidence in a particular, preferred truth claim (e.g. the claim that “Common Ancestry/evolution is a fact”).

Yeah. I think the issue is, you are assuming naturalism, if even for a moment, to do it. Then, you see how well it all works out, how powerful the predictions are, how well we can control the world thinking like that. For me, at any rate, it's hard not to exist in tension between this implicit 'success' of science, associate that with naturalism, vs the more 'unpredictable' nature of spiritual encounters with God. "Why does it matter if evolution is true or not, why worry about it? Why does it matter if the universe is 14.5 billion years old or 10k yrs old? What does that affect anyway?" As a Christian, I believe that the Bible is God’s highest authoritative communication to humanity. The primary purpose of the Bible is to reveal God to humanity, as well as His plan for our salvation. The Bible provides the fundamental premise of all Christian doctrine, ethics and philosophy including the nature of God and reason that salvation is necessary. Opponents of Christianity have long understood that the most effective attacks against the Christian faith are those which undermine the reliability and authority of the Bible. Some non-Christian faiths have constructed their own scriptures through which they judge the Bible (e.g. Islam), others formulate new “scriptures”; permitting them to reinterpret the Bible (e.g. the Book of Mormon, Gnostic gospels etc.). Others simply change parts of scripture to suit what they believe (e.g. the Jehovah’s Witness Bible). There have been many recorded historical attempts to change the Bible; especially the New Testament (e.g. the Alexandrian manuscripts, Constantine’s attempt to standardise the Bible etc.). Non-religious faiths (i.e. atheism, agnosticism) tend to prefer attacking the reliability of the Bible in other ways. For example, vast lists of alleged Bible contradictions have been formulated in an attempt to undermine the Bible; based on the implied accusation of logical inconsistency. In some cases they simply utilize the logical fallacy known as Appeal to Ridicule by mocking the supernatural claims made in the Bible (e.g. talking animals, “magical sky Daddy” & “zombie Jesus” etc.) – thinking themselves to be ever so clever. But by far the most aggressive and successful attacks against the authority of scripture are those claiming the Bible to be scientifically untenable. Science (as we understand it) requires the assumption of a rationally ordered universe. That is, in order for us to be able to attribute scientific confidence to a claim, we have to assume that the laws which govern our universe are constant through time and space, and that identical experiments will thus yield identical results. Scientific advancement stalled in several ancient cultures because they lacked any justification for assuming a rationally ordered universe. However, science prospered under the Christian paradigm which justifies this fundamental assumption (by invoking a rational Creator). This is why Christianity has been the foremost sponsor of scientific advancement for the best part of the last 2000 years; and why the founding scientists of almost all scientific disciplines were explicitly Christian; and why the oldest science universities (e.g. Oxford) were built by the church. Science was originally conducted to glorify the Biblical God through investigation of His creation. However, roughly 300 years ago, a new paradigm was suggested for science which we now call naturalism. Naturalism is a paradigm whereby only natural explanations can be considered to qualify as truth – and therefore is a faith-based paradigm that unjustifiably prohibits the possibility of any supernatural interaction with the physical universe). This new paradigm has been so thoroughly adopted by the broader scientific community that it has become the only type of science that most people are exposed to. This creates the false impression that naturalistic science is logically superior to science performed from other faith-based perspectives. This secular indoctrination of the naturalistic perspective makes it easy for its proponents to make unjustified, Innuendo-based claims that with their position; “you see how well it all works out, how powerful the predictions are, how well we can control the world thinking like that”; and to simply equate their own position as “science” with its “implicit 'success'” – with the obvious implication that opposing positions are not “science”. They furthermore demonstrate no knowledge of the predictive power and consistency of models formulated around alternative faith perspectives; and again appealing to logical fallacy (Innuendo and Strawman Misrepresentations) proceeding to falsely characterise opposing views as unscientific (i.e. “the more 'unpredictable' nature of spiritual encounters with God”) in contrast against their own preferred, allegedly “scientific” perspective. The defence of Biblical authority is of paramount importance to the success of Christian conversion and life. I have encountered many who outright reject Christianity because they think is it scientifically unsustainable based on what is taught in the Bible. And others who fall away from Christianity because they cannot reconcile their faith in naturalistic science with their faith in the reliability of the Bible. Yet as someone who is formally educated in science, I have never encountered an argument or evidence that would warrant a wholesale rejection of the Biblical model of reality (including the creation account). I have searched, and I have found no objective scientific reason that would necessarily, logically bind anyone to the naturalistic models. In other words, as much as our culture and the secular scientific community would like you to believe that theirs is the only rational argument, their expressed levels of confidence in their own position is neither scientifically, or logically, justified. And there is therefore no legitimate reason for a Christian to believe they are obligated to distrust the account of history presented in the Bible. Any such adherence to secular models is based on faith in the naturalistic paradigm, not any objective consideration of the science itself.

You said “As far as bacteria go, it is true that at some point the specific means by which genetic material is transmitted is changed” If I have understood your statement correctly, for your statement to be true, one has to presuppose the truth of Common Ancestry – which I understand is your position, but somewhat meaningless in a discussion where your opponent disagrees with this premise. “Saying that just because bacteria can evolve doesn't give us any clue to how anything else evolves wasn't the point of my examples anyway” I avoid the use of the terms “evolution” and “evolve” because they can mean so many different things; making them subject to equivocation. For example, evolution can mean Natural Selection or it can mean Common Ancestry. So one person can say “evolution” meaning Natural Selection, and another interprets it to mean Common Ancestry. But Natural Selection is a very different concept to Common Ancestry. So I intentionally refrained from any suggestion that bacteria either can, or cannot “evolve”. “The mechanism of evolution is the same on a small and large scale” I’m not sure what you are claiming here. If you were referring to bacteria, it’s not a matter of small to large scale, it’s a matter of trying to justify the assumption of one mechanism using examples which incorporate a completely different mechanism. “these trees implicitly assume common descent, that is the guiding conceptual principle behind them. It is true, you can imagine away that part, or just decide it is a cute mathematical trick to form these charts, but that doesn't change the fact that they are highly suggestive of common ancestors linking the end products together.” I am happy to concede that phylogenic tree diagrams can be legitimately interpreted as evidence of Common Ancestry. However the phylogenies themselves do not “implicitly assume” or ‘suggest’ anything beyond what is represented in the data itself. That is, these diagrams merely represent some measure of similarity. Anything stated beyond that is interpretative speculation (or in your vernacular; imagination). I have not assumed or claimed phylogenies to be a “cute mathematical trick”. But their formulation is in no way contingent upon Common Ancestry. They are formulated around either morphological similarity or some form of genetic similarity. And that’s all they objectively represent. I am not one to accuse opposing positions of having no supporting evidence (which I consider to be an astonishingly unthoughtful claim regardless of the perspective from which it is made). As such, I have never suggested that Common Ancestry has no supporting evidence. The purpose of this thread is to discuss whether or not there is any practical scientific progress (beyond the study of Common Ancestry itself) which is necessarily reliant upon Common Ancestry being true (i.e. could not exist if Common Ancestry were untrue).

In the interest of clarifying my position, I would like to spell out more thoroughly why I think bacterial observations fail to qualify as evidence of Common Ancestry. The ‘skin’ or outside of a cell is called a membrane. Inside the membrane (i.e. inside the cell) is referred to as the cytoplasm. The cells of eukaryotic organisms (all fungi, plants and animals) contain other structures in the cytoplasm (called organelles). One of those organelles is called a nucleus which is comprised of another membrane containing and protecting the DNA of the organism. The cells of prokaryotic organisms (namely; bacteria) have no nucleus, and therefore no membrane protecting their DNA. The DNA of bacteria exists unconstrained in the cytoplasm of the bacterial cell. This means that any ‘foreign’ DNA entering the bacterial cell can be readily integrated into the genome of the bacteria. So bacteria do not just inherit genes, but also accumulate them from other sources including; other bacteria, the environment and viruses. This non-inherited accumulation of genes is called horizontal gene transfer. Common Ancestry is an inheritance model because it assumes that similar genes present in different species can be traced back, through inheritance, to an ancestor that both species have in common. Gene flow in all eukaryotic organisms occurs through inheritance – so can theoretically be traced back through a series of common ancestors. However since bacteria (prokaryotic cells) commonly engage in horizontal gene transfer, you cannot assume that any genes they have in common were inherited from a shared ancestor. Therefore, observed genetic changes in bacteria cannot logically speak to the plausibility of the Common Ancestry of all life on earth. That is because bacteria achieve most of their genetic change in a different manner (horizontally) than that proposed by Common Ancestry (vertically; through inheritance). Now - This claim in no way speaks to the possibility of bacterial evolution – but to whether or not bacterial observations logically qualify as evidence of Common Ancestry. I argue that the answer is no – because there is no way to plausibly track the historical flow of bacterial genes. To view it from another angle: The ability of bacteria to share discrete segments of genetic material laterally with other bacteria is an ability not possessed by eukaryotic organisms (i.e. fungi, plants and animals). Whilst some may be inclined to label those genetic changes as “evolution”, the specific mechanisms of change cannot be legitimately extrapolated beyond bacteria; and therefore cannot be applied to the Common Ancestry of all life. Ultimately, Common Ancestry is a claim about all life on Earth (including eukaryotes). It is therefore not legitimate to simply note observations of bacterial genetic change – then label those changes as “evolution” - then simply pretend that we can apply those observations to all life on Earth. Remebering that my initial proposal is that "There is no practical technology or discovery which is necessarily dependent upon the truth of Common Ancestry." So for the reasons discussed in my above argument, discoveries resulting from genetic manipulations of bacteria are in no way reliant upon Common Ancestry being true. They simply take advantage of traits unique to bacteria which make their genetic manipulations easier.

I was not personally offended by the comments of MrsRational. I am secure in my beliefs and position and am happy to have it scrutinized by anyone who disagrees with me. I feel that I am able to defend myself in light of any emotive arguments and am dissappointed that MrsRational is no longer able to participate in this discussion.

Oh for Pete's sake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria_and_creationism http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf For a person with a BSc you sure aren't up to date on the current research. Where did you get your degree? Bob Jones University? I'm not going to play these games with you. Answer why you think prokaryotes cannot evolve despite the current research stating otherwise or I am not going to engage you anymore. You said “Oh for Pete's sake.” Then you provided links to information about nylon digesting bacteria. I have studied these bacteria, as well as other evolutionary claims including the supposed evolution of citrate digesting bacteria (I am happy to discuss whether or not these qualify as evidence of Common Ancestry if you wish). I’m not sure why you included them in the context of our discussion. “For a person with a BSc you sure aren't up to date on the current research. Where did you get your degree? Bob Jones University?” Again, you simply present logical fallacies; Innuendo, Ad-hominem and Unsupported Assertion. Pointless – and technically irrational (ironic; given your username). “I'm not going to play these games with you.” I’m not playing games. I present rational argument and you respond with logical fallacy. Stop trying to one-up the conversation and present a rational position – and we’ll get along just fine. “Answer why you think prokaryotes cannot evolve despite the current research stating otherwise or I am not going to engage you anymore” I’m not sure how I can make this point any clearer – I NEVER CLAIMED THAT “prokaryotes cannot evolve”; PERIOD – NOT EVEN ONCE (capitals used for emphasis – not intimidation). Why is this so difficult for you to get your head around? I never made this claim – so you continuing to attribute it to me is becoming ridiculous. If you think I did make this claim, then please quote me so I can clarify what I meant. So I am not going to provide justification for a position that I don’t hold and did not propose. Whether or not you continue to “engage” is your own decision.

No, you're wrong. Asexual means non-sexual reproduction. Since bacteria do not mate they are asexual, they receive their genetic material from a single "parent" (I use this term for convenience, not in the true biological definition of a parent). Horizontal gene transfer is when an organism transfers it's genetic material to another that is not an offspring. Vertical gene transfer is from parent to child. Anyone who is willing to slog through Tristen's post will notice a lot of technical jargon and large words. This is generally a tactic some people use to try and dazzle the reader and make it hard to figure out what is actually being said. You would think that on a public forum one would try and make their comments as reader friendly as possible. The reason some people do not is partly for the reason above and also because they don't really understand what they are posting. In academic circles this is called s Pseudo-Intellectual, a person who tries to impress with tons of large technical sounding language that doesn't actually say very much. The way to call this sort of behaviour out is to ask them a specific question like I did. Since they don't actually have much knowledge of the subject in which they speak they either don't answer or try to drown you in more jargon and endless repetition of the same points. Luckily I have a masters degree in biology and a very high I.Q. to go with it, so I'll translate for anyone who cares: In a nutshell: Aside from actually confirming what I already said and not realizing it, he mentions how cells pass their immunity on to others via a process called "conjunction". This basically means cells touching each other. A nucleus is sort of a chamber that contains things like dna. Not all cells have a nucleus however so they contain their genetic material in the same membrane (the "shell") with everything else. Since bacteria are one of these non-nucleus cells they can pass their genes to one other merely by physical contact. After this he is making a circular argument that changes can only be passed from parent to offspring, and we know this because changes can only be passed from parent to offspring. No supporting data is provided of course. . So Tristen I ask you once again, why do you think a nucleus and sexual reproduction are required for evolution to occur? And please post in plain speak so everyone on the forum can understand what is being said. It's the polite thing after all. Well I’m glad you “have a masters degree in biology and a very high I.Q. to go with it”. I only have a meagre BSc. Here is what my textbooks teach; Microbiology: An Introduction - Eleventh Edition (Tortura, Funke & Case) page 232. “Vertical gene transfer occurs when a gene is passed from an organism to its offspring. Plants and animals transmit their genes by vertical transmission. Bacteria can pass their genes not only to their offspring, but also laterally, to other microbes of the same generation. This is known as horizontal gene transfer.” Molecular Biology: Principles and Practice, 2012 (Cox, Doudna, O’Donnell) page 11. “Gene flow between species can take place in a process called horizontal gene transfer. … FIGURE 1-11 Horizontal Gene Transfer. Genetic material is transferred between organisms, especially bacteria, by several mechanisms. DNA may be taken up from the environment by transformation, transferred by viruses through transduction, or passed purposefully from one bacterium to another by conjugation.” - From the Glossary of the same text (G-11) “horizontal gene transfer: Process by which an organism receives genetic information from another organism from which it is not a descendant.” So to whose authority should I defer – the person on the internet with a self-professed “masters degree in biology and a very high I.Q”, or course-specific textbooks accumulated during my Science degree? “Anyone who is willing to slog through Tristen's post will notice a lot of technical jargon and large words. This is generally a tactic some people use to try and dazzle the reader and make it hard to figure out what is actually being said” And a tactic I’ve noticed with some opponents of my position is the tendency to present logically fallacious innuendo regarding my level of knowledge, strategic motivations and etiquette – rather than providing any rational account of their own position. What you call “technical jargon”, I call correct terminology. And in the majority of cases, I have provided basic definitions of the terminology I used. Rather than patronise people, I assume that someone interested enough in the discussion has the capacity to investigate definitions for themselves if they don’t understand something – that’s what most of us with normal IQs do when we don’t understand something. “The way to call this sort of behaviour out is to ask them a specific question like I did” The problem with your question is that it was founded upon a combination of 2 logical fallacies: Begging the Question and Strawman misrepresentation. - Begging the Question: because you required a response to a claim that I didn’t actually make. Strawman: because you proceeded to debunk my argument based on your own misrepresentation of my position. I didn’t answer your question because your question was premised on a false representation of my position. So I simply stated that your premise was wrong. “Aside from actually confirming what I already said and not realizing it, he mentions how cells pass their immunity on to others via a process called "conjunction"” Well aside from your Unsupported Assertion and Empty Innuendo (both logical fallacies) regarding my “confirming” your position, you have demonstrated an awareness of the process of conjugation. Therefore you are aware that gene flow in bacteria can occur apart from inheritance. Therefore, they cannot be considered a reliable example supporting any genetic inheritance model. “After this he is making a circular argument that changes can only be passed from parent to offspring, and we know this because changes can only be passed from parent to offspring. No supporting data is provided of course.” I don’t feel any obligation to provide “supporting data” for claims I haven’t made. Perhaps your translation skills could use some polishing. “So Tristen I ask you once again, why do you think a nucleus and sexual reproduction are required for evolution to occur? And please post in plain speak …” OK – Let me be clear. I don’t “think a nucleus and sexual reproduction are required for evolution to occur”. I never made such a claim. I hope this is plain enough “so everyone on the forum can understand what is being said.”

I think in general, it would be considered unprofessional for a lecturer to mock the possible beliefs of their students. During my science degree (3.5 years) I can only recall 3 occasions where this standard was "stretched". 1. A Biological Systems lecturer made a Strawman argument against creationists concluding with the statement; "this is why the creationists are wrong - yet again". 2. A Botany Professor of mine once stated in a lecture regarding creationism, "you can believe this way if that's your inclination - but don't try to become a biologist". 3. In a tutorial discussion over the ethics of contraversial issues including cloning and stem cell research, a molecular genetics course convenor said to the class that religious people should keep their views out of science. There was a lot more religious mocking from the students - especially directed against creationists. I once suggested the logical possibility of supernatural sources of knowledge - eliciting the response; "you are doing a science degree for godsake".

For the uninitiated, this person is trying to claim that bacterial organisms cannot evolve because they lack a nucleus. He is also trying to claim that because bacteria reproduces asexually (horizontal gene transfer) that they cannot evolve. Both of these are of course, total nonsense and it is precisely because bacteria reproduces this way that they acquire resistance to antibacterial medication so quickly. Bacteria reproduce via a process called binary fission wherein the cell divides itself creating a genetically identical copy. When one cell becomes resistant, every "clone" thereafter is also immune. Those that are not immune are killed by said medication and the resistant strain is free to propagate unchecked. This is why it is so important to follow your doctors advice in regards to using antibacterial meds. If your infection becomes immune to too many treatments it creates a sort of "super bacteria" that is nearly impossible to treat. After that you either die, or your system destroys itself in the process of fighting the infection. I am unclear as to why a nucleus or sexual reproduction are required for natural selection or evolution. Perhaps you'd like to give us all a breakdown as to the reasons? You said “For the uninitiated, this person is trying to claim that bacterial organisms cannot evolve because they lack a nucleus” Nope – that’s not even close to what I’m suggesting. “He is also trying to claim that because bacteria reproduces asexually (horizontal gene transfer) that they cannot evolve” Wrong again. Asexual reproduction is vertical gene transfer (i.e. from parent cell to daughter cell). Horizontal (or lateral) gene transfer refers to mechanisms such as conjugation, transformation and transduction – where genes are acquired from sources other than the parent cell. “Bacteria reproduce via a process called binary fission wherein the cell divides itself creating a genetically identical copy. When one cell becomes resistant, every "clone" thereafter is also immune” You moved from the specifics of a description of binary fission to a vague description of the most important event in our discussion; “When one cell becomes resistant”. How does this occur? The preponderance of evidence is that bacteria acquire antimicrobial resistance through horizontal gene transfer. That is, bacteria with resistance genes can share these genes with other bacteria (not restricted to the same species of bacteria); maybe through conjugation – directly copying the genes (on a plasmid vector) into a receiving bacteria using specialized pilli structures; or through transformation – the capacity of a bacteria to pick up genetic material directly from the environment; and more rarely through transduction – viral-mediated transfer of genes from one bacteria to another. Common Ancestry is a model of the history of life based on inheritance. For example, the reason we share many genes with our siblings is because we inherited them from our parents. We share less (but still many) genes with our cousins because we inherited them through our grandparents. Common Ancestry extrapolates that concept to assume that we share genes with similar species because we inherited them through an ancestor species – and so-on, all the way back to a last universal common ancestor (LUCA). So any support for this model has to be based on observations of exclusive biological inheritance. The capacity of bacteria to pass genes sideways renders them to be an illegitimate evidence for any inheritance-based model – not because they can’t inherit genes, but because the most prolific mechanism of genetic change is horizontal gene transfer. That is, because they can and do pass genes sideways, gene acquisition cannot be assumed to be inherited. Therefore the genetic change in bacteria does not provide support for a model based on inheritance; as it cannot be traced through inheritance.

I disagree that the examples are "solid". They do not demonstrate the necessity of Common Ancestry for any discovery. I have provided specific arguments demonstrating why they fail to do so. And that's my point - no scientific discovery is necessarily, logically reliant upon Common Ancestry being true. Every discovery made by science could have been made independently of these secular assumptions. The assumption that all life on earh is related through a series of common Ancestors was not a necessary, logical prerequisit of any scientific discovery. What that means is - I can take my medicine without logically compromising my position. And I can confidently, rationally put to rest any specious claim that my position ignores evidence or is anti-science. I am happy for people to "judge for themselves". Rational people will consider both arguments and either agree with my proposal, or attempt to provide a rational rebuttal of my position. Others who are less rational will simply see what they want to see (in accordance with their own confirmation biases) and continue to stumble blindly through life; comfortable in their ignorance. Alright, but I don't see how you are going to *generate* phylogenetic trees without assuming common ancestry. That is how they are conceptually extended at all. I can certainly see how you could use them without that presumption, after they are already formed. As to your last statements, I have to admit I haven't discerned any positive arguments aside from appeals to enhanced consistency from accepting YEC and declaring that such and such line of reasoning, body of evidence and so forth could be interpreted differently but without presenting a thorough model which has better explanatory powers. Your comments about viruses seemed diversionary from the upshot of the presentation I linked you to. Nothing you said about them seemed to relate to what the presentation was actually about. Considering phylogenetic mapping has been successfully used to help deal with them, it would seem that they are actually successfully modeled by evolution. In my view there isn't much to be said to that. It is entirely possible I am missing your point. You said “I don't see how you are going to *generate* phylogenetic trees without assuming common ancestry” Phylogenic trees are formulated using combinations of morphological and molecular analysis (some methods rely on one or the other but most rely on a combination of the two). So they are formulated around some measure(s) of similarity. Any supposed evolutionary associations are post-hoc speculations based on the assumption that similarities are inherited through close relatives; and therefore represent evidence of Common Ancestry. So even phylogenic trees themselves can exist independently of Common Ancestry; merely representing similarities based on the chosen measure(s). However, it is commonly claimed that practical biological discoveries (i.e. beyond the supposed usefulness of knowledge pertaining to the putative concept of Common Ancestry itself), such as medicines, could not exist apart from the practical application of Common Ancestry. And that implication is extended to suggest that a creationist’s use of medicines (and other technological advances) represent some form of logical inconsistency. My argument is that there is no such advancement in science that is necessarily reliant upon Common Ancestry being true. All current technology and medicine could exist regardless of whether or not Common Ancestry is true. Common Ancestry only necessarily contributes to assumptions about evolutionary associations; i.e. the study of Common Ancestry itself. “Your comments about viruses seemed diversionary from the upshot of the presentation I linked you to” Perhaps. The link was a presentation about the general usefulness of phylogenies – so was essentially irrelevant to the issue of whether or not any scientific advancement is necessarily reliant upon Common Ancestry. “Considering phylogenetic mapping has been successfully used to help deal with them, it would seem that they are actually successfully modeled by evolution.” Viruses are non-living particles. Their mechanisms of genetic change and reproduction do not mirror those found in living cells. They are therefore insufficient to qualify as evidence for the claim that all life on Earth is related through a series of common ancestors. Viral mechanisms of genetic change and reproduction cannot be legitimately applied to living cells (either prokaryotic or eukaryotic) and therefore fail as evidence of Common Ancestry. Even so, the phylogenies themselves only traced strains of the same virus – not the evolution of one virus into another. So in another sense, this example fails to qualify as support for Common Ancestry.

I disagree that the examples are "solid". They do not demonstrate the necessity of Common Ancestry for any discovery. I have provided specific arguments demonstrating why they fail to do so. And that's my point - no scientific discovery is necessarily, logically reliant upon Common Ancestry being true. Every discovery made by science could have been made independently of these secular assumptions. The assumption that all life on earh is related through a series of common Ancestors was not a necessary, logical prerequisit of any scientific discovery. What that means is - I can take my medicine without logically compromising my position. And I can confidently, rationally put to rest any specious claim that my position ignores evidence or is anti-science. I am happy for people to "judge for themselves". Rational people will consider both arguments and either agree with my proposal, or attempt to provide a rational rebuttal of my position. Others who are less rational will simply see what they want to see (in accordance with their own confirmation biases) and continue to stumble blindly through life; comfortable in their ignorance.

Example 1: “Disease Phylogeny” is used to produce an epidemiological study of the disease – nothing whatsoever to do with Common Ancestry. It has nothing to do with the relatedness of species. Example 2: “Beating Flu with Evolutionary Biology”. Flu is a virus. Viruses are not living organisms because they cannot function without the cell machinery provided by their host. Furthermore, they do not directly inherit their genetic material - so they cannot be legitimately applied to any biological inheritance model. As a virus, influenza is an extremely simple molecular structure with only 8 genes (2 of which code for extra membranous proteins – i.e. outer structures that determine how well the virus can adhere to a host cell). Influenza is an RNA virus – meaning that there is no genetic ‘proofreading’ to correct for mutations – thereby allowing for those surface proteins to undergo unmitigated changes to their adhesion proteins (i.e. genetic drift). Living organisms utilise DNA which incorporate proofreading mechanisms to protect against such large scale mutation. But these types of mutations only corrupt existing genetic information. They do not change the flu into a living organism, or even another kind of virus – so they do not support the Common Ancestry model over the creationist model. As I mentioned in the opening post, creationists have no problem with the existence of mutations. Influenza is also subject to genetic re-assortment; i.e. inside the host cell, the completed viral coating can pick up any nucleotides in the cell (e.g. from the host cell or even another kind of virus invading the same cell). Yet another form of genetic movement that disqualifies it as a supporting evidence for inheritance models. Example 3: “phylogenies are being used in a survey to search for medically valuable compounds in the venoms of these animals”. The first obvious problem here is equivocation. My question asked if Common Ancestry is necessary for any medical discovery – not if constructed phylogenies can help researchers order their investigation in a systematic way. Phylogenics just puts things in an order that is presumed to reflect evolutionary relationships. But there is no such compound that could not have been discovered had the researchers studied the chemicals in a different order. The presence or absence of Common Ancestry does not directly impact the research into these compounds. I think I covered everything in the link. Let me know if I missed anything. The information related more to phylogenics than Common Ancestry.

I recently made a claim in another topic; "There is no practical technology or discovery which is necessarily dependent upon the truth of Common Ancestry." [The topic was locked before I had a chance to respond. I think this specific topic is worthy of discussion so I decided to post my response here. I considered the arguments in the initial post to be somewhat typical, so I included them for context (i.e. not to personally attack the poster - so I sincerely hope no offense is taken, as none is intended). And if anyone knows how to let the poster know about this topic, I would be greatful if you could - as a right of reply is deserved. In response to my original statement (quoted above), the poster replied; “There is not a word in the English language strong enough to properly express how wrong you are” It is a pity then that you could not find any words to express a single specific example of my supposed copious error. Unsupported Assertions and Innuendo are common strategies used to support the secular models, but they are logical fallacies; rendering such strategies to be technically irrational. “I've personally performed experiments evolving bacteria in a lab, and charted their progress for pharmaceutical companies” I also have “personally performed experiments evolving bacteria in a lab” specifically dealing with bacterial genetics. Anyone who researches bacteria should be aware that they are prokaryotic cells which engage in lateral gene transfer. It is this trait which makes them so useful in experiments pertaining to genetic manipulations. And it is this trait which logically disqualifies them from being used to support genetic-inheritance-based models such as Common Ancestry. “I've also assisted in medical research that relies heavily on the theory of evolution” Until you provide an argument I can examine, your claim here simply represents another Unsupported Assertion. It doesn’t actually contribute anything to the discussion. In order to properly respond, I would also have to know how you are defining “evolution”. Do you mean the General Theory of Evolution (that all life on earth is related through a series of common ancestors), or do you mean the suite of concepts that tend to find themselves under the general umbrella of "evolution" (i.e. Natural Selection, genetic mutations, speciation etc., as well as Common Ancestry), or do you just mean any heritable change in a population? Of all these options I, as a creationists, reserve my right under the scientific method, to scrutinize the claim that Common Ancestry is the only valid interpretation of the evidence. That is, I only dispute evolution when it is defined to mean the Common Ancestry of all life on earth (including its associated time frames). And this is why my claim was specific to Common Ancestry. I encourage the use of specific terminology rather than the vague term “evolution” – because “evolution” is so equivocal that it muddies the debate. For example, people providing evidence of Natural Selection as evidence of evolution – not realising they have contributed nothing to the debate (since I have no issue with Natural Selection, and since the concept of environmental selection existed in the scientific literature before Darwin incorporated it into his hypothesis – so contrary to what is implied, there is no secular 'ownership' of Natural Selection). If evolution equals Natural Selection, then I, as a Biblical creationist, am also an evolutionist - so you see how such use of terminology could contribute to a confusing debate. “Next time you get a bacterial infection just tell your doctor you don't need to follow the directions on your prescription bottle, because evolution has nothing to do with medicine.” This statement doesn’t really make sense. There is no argument linking the premise to the conclusion. Why would the belief that “evolution [or more correctly, Common Ancestry] has nothing to do with medicine” produce the conclusion that I “don't need to follow the directions on your prescription bottle”? I would consider the opposite to be true. Since the science is not reliant upon secular assumptions, I can trust that the medical advice stems from objective scientific investigation.

Tristen.... Let me save you and Alpha some time. You're not speaking the same language. You are speaking to "Scientific Evidence"; hence the "Scientific Method" and he is not. You might as well hammer that out....it's the Rate Limiting Step....and save some time, or not. Predictions??....Punctuated Equilibrium and Convergent Evolution are both POST-dictions. For it to be PRE- that means before. They're clearly nothing more than Ad Hoc Observations to save the hypothesis. "{evolution} It's used to design medication." Really??..... Marc Kirschner PhD Chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School. Member of the National Academy of Sciences "In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." Dr. Marc Kirschner: The Boston Globe, October 23, 2005 Philip Skell PhD (Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry Penn State University, Member of the National Academy of Sciences) 'Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.' Philip Skell PhD; Why Do We Invoke Darwin, August 29, 2005 More Ad Hoc Observations In short, this is evolution in a nutshell and 99% of all you'll ever see: All you have is an assumption "evolution did it" with Ad Hoc OBSERVATIONS! The Whole Theory is a classic TEXTBOOK: Affirming the Consequent Logical Fallacy.... If P then Q. Q. Therefore P. The logical fallacy is that P doesn't necessarily follow from Q. 1. IF Evolution is true: Then Insert any "Darwinian Grab-Bag" Ad Hoc Observations (Fossils/Homology/Genetic Variation et al) 2. We observe (Ad Hoc Observation) 3. Therefore, Evolution is true. is = to.... 1) If I had just eaten a whole pizza, I would feel very full; 2) I feel very full; 3.) Therefore: I have just eaten a whole pizza. Couldn't I have eaten Baby Short-Back Ribs?? Hey Enoch, You said “Let me save you and Alpha some time. You're not speaking the same language. You are speaking to "Scientific Evidence"; hence the "Scientific Method" and he is not.” It’s my opinion that Alpha has succumbed to the popular impression of science presented by the secular scientific community, rather than had the opportunity to consider the issue from a truly objective scientific standpoint. I likewise had the same impression that secular models were beyond question – until my conversion to Christianity forced me to re-evaluate my secular education. That experience taught me to question all arguments (even Biblical ones) and think for myself, rather than just accepting what was popular or comfortable. Alpha (again – IMO) seems to be in a place where he has only ever considered the innuendo-based impression of the secular models (As an example - the Unsupported Innuendo that evolution theory is “powerfully predictive”). The almost ubiquitous acceptance of these secular models as the only valid perspective has resulted in Alpha feeling obliged to make the Bible conform to the secular models; and thereby an expressed distrust of the clear teaching of scripture. It is concerning to me that someone would even try to live as a Christian without trusting the scriptures. My life would be in turmoil and my mind in a constant state of conflict if I attempted to do the same – it flusters me to even think about trying to reconcile the two conditions. So I am happy to engage in discussion, and perhaps provide a perspective which Alpha (and others like Alpha) hadn’t previously considered. And demonstrate that a thoughtful Christian has rational permission to fully trust in the scriptures; without being scientifically or logically compromised. “"{evolution} It's used to design medication." Really??.....” Yeah – this is little more than another example; employing the logically fallacious strategy of reliance upon Unsupported Innuendo. It’s commonly espoused that evolution forms the foundation of all biology. However, when investigated, the reality is that only evolution theory itself is dependent upon knowledge of evolution theory. There is no practical technology or discovery which is necessarily dependent upon the truth of Common Ancestry.

I'm not trying to insult you, and if I come across like that at all I apologize. I suppose I just don't really get what it is you're getting at in a substantive way. You seem to be saying "if you are clever enough, you can interpret the same body of facts in multiple ways". I still don't know how to respond to that. If I have a theory which predicts what we will see out to 12 decimal places, it certainly seems to be onto something.You could, no doubt, come up with an alternative story, but when I predict the 13th decimal point why should I take you seriously? Evolution is falsifiable. Were you to find a mammals in the precambrian, there would be a serious problem. It is used to make predictions, as it has been used to predict morophological structures, and degree of relationship to other animals, of animals thought to be at a certain strata at specific locations, and they are found. It's used to design medication. While it's interesting that you use convergent evolution of features to count against the larger theory as a means of demonstrating how it is unfalsifiable, it is still strongly supportive evidence if you look at the specifics (e.g.. the wings in bats vs the wings in birds). Yes, it's true, I assume the photons that we detect have a source from a natural object that produced them. It's true. Why shouldn't I make that assumption? I suppose the larger question is, how does this relate to the OP? You don't think there is any reason I should see the evidence as supporting 'old' universe, evolution etc., rather than YEC? I didn't really start this thread to get into the specifics of what these evidences are, I intentionally kept that vague. You said “I'm not trying to insult you, and if I come across like that at all I apologize” No apology necessary. I have not been insulted. Perhaps I have come across as insulted in my attempt to be concise [yes – contrary to appearances, I have actually attempted to keep it short]. I do find the use of logical fallacies (such as innuendo) to be somewhat frustrating – because they represent a departure from rational discussion. But nothing I’ll lose sleep over. “I suppose I just don't really get what it is you're getting at in a substantive way” OK – Facts require interpretations. Evidence is defined as a fact which has been interpreted to support a particular position (i.e. as “evidence” of that position). ALL facts are interpreted within the framework of the interpreter. That means – every fact which has been interpreted to support Common Ancestry and Standard Cosmology has been interpreted from a particular faith perspective (i.e. presupposed, yet unverified assumptions about reality); namely naturalism, but also subsequent paradigms such as uniformitarianism (which proposes we assume processes we observe today have continued unchanged into the unobserved past) and even Common Ancestry itself. NOW – creationists do this also. But you have only criticised creationists for interpreting evidence from a starting premise. “You seem to be saying "if you are clever enough, you can interpret the same body of facts in multiple ways"” Not “if you are clever enough” – that is innuendo that you have added to imply that a stretch of the imagination is required. But facts can absolutely be interpreted multiple ways. That is why the scientific method requires experimentation – to separate out the incorrect interpretations from the list of possibilities. “I still don't know how to respond to that” It’s a testable claim. If you have any facts that you believe can only be interpreted to fit your preferred secular models, then I would be happy to consider them. “If I have a theory which predicts what we will see out to 12 decimal places, it certainly seems to be onto something.You could, no doubt, come up with an alternative story, but when I predict the 13th decimal point why should I take you seriously” Why resort to false analogy? By this analogy you assume that creationism must submit to the role of second responder. You think the evidence belongs to evolution, and that creationism has to ‘wait its turn’ to respond to the evolutionist interpretation. Creationism is not a response to evolution. It is a separate model in its own right. “Evolution is falsifiable. Were you to find a mammals in the precambrian, there would be a serious problem” Would this “serious problem” constitute a wholesale rejection of Common Ancestry by the scientific community (which would be the appropriate outcome of true falsification) or would it just be labelled a “serious problem”. Surely the scientific community could simply claim that they hadn’t yet figured out how the fossil arrived at this stratum of rock, or that the samples used to ‘date’ the rock had been contaminated, or some such. And to be fair, it is logically possible that some future discovery could explain how the mammal arrived in this layer - in the context of the secular model. But it’s this very possibility which permits us to set aside the actual evidence and allows us to preserve our preferred paradigm. Therefore the theory is unfalsifiable. No weight of evidence could ever justify an unmitigated rejection of Common Ancestry. “It is used to make predictions …” Big bold claims of predictions without evidential support are meaningless. More-so when the theory a) predicts the full spectrum of reality and b) has a demonstrated history of being malleable enough to conform to any contrary evidence. Adjusting theories to suite the evidence is a legitimate part of the scientific process. But equating ‘adjusting a theory to suit the evidence’ with ‘predicting the evidence’ is logically specious. “While it's interesting that you use convergent evolution of features to count against the larger theory as a means of demonstrating how it is unfalsifiable, it is still strongly supportive evidence if you look at the specifics (e.g.. the wings in bats vs the wings in birds).” And it may very well be true. Unfalsifiable has never meant untrue. Unfalsifiable only speaks to our capacity to attribute scientific confidence to a claim. Of course you can find “strongly supportive evidence” – the theory encompasses every possible observation. Nothing we find could possibly contradict the prediction. Everything we find is therefore necessarily consistent with the prediction. In reality, evolution theory originally taught that similar traits only spoke to inheritance – the theory was later adjusted to include convergence to account for genetic analysis demonstrating otherwise. “I assume the photons that we detect have a source from a natural object that produced them. It's true. Why shouldn't I make that assumption” You are assuming the entire history of the photon based on limited data. You are making assumptions regarding the velocity and path of the light. You are making assumptions about the interpretation of certain properties of light (e.g. what redshift means over vast distances and time). You are making assumptions about the shape of the universe (which would theoretically impact the path of the light). You are making assumptions about what lies in the vast distances between the originating star and the Earth and how that might affect the properties of the light (such as all that dark matter and dark energy and associated gravity). You are assuming that God did not create and “stretch out the heavens” in accordance with the Biblical account. You are assuming no time dilation has occurred with the expansion of the universe (whether Biblical or Inflation). You are making quite a lot of assumptions. And I have no problem with that, so long as you recognise that they are merely assumptions stemming from scientific observations – not scientific observations themselves. My response was to your claim that we are observing the past when we look at the night sky. That claim is incorrect. “You don't think there is any reason I should see the evidence as supporting 'old' universe, evolution etc., rather than YEC” No – the opposite is true. I fully understand how someone brought up in a secular society would prefer the secular interpretations of the evidence (I myself had never heard of creationism until I was a young adult). But if you look at the issue objectively (i.e. set aside all that you have been taught to be “proven” and consider the issue from a perspective untainted by personal bias), I believe you will find that the creationist model is equally valid and as logically justifiable as the secular models. The reason for your post was to discuss reconciling secular models to the Biblical account. What I am suggesting is that you are neither scientifically, or logically, obligated to maintain allegiance to the secular models. So the solution is easy – trust the Biblical account as written. “I didn't really start this thread to get into the specifics of what these evidences are, I intentionally kept that vague.” I understand. But if you make vague claims about “the evidence”, the only way to demonstrate my position is to require an account of that evidence; to delve into the specifics (unless you are prepared to take my word for it ). Let me put it this way. If you start finding rabbit-like mammals in the precambrian, I would abandon the theory of evolution. If phylogenetic trees start predicting relationships that don't match up with the fossil record in a serious way, I would abandon evolution. There are plenty of potential routes of falsification as far as I'm concerned. It's true, I assume photons work a certain way across the universe, namely, the way they work here. Over space and time. The uniformity of nature is not an assumption I'll likely challenge unless observations somehow derail it. As far as the last bit, I merely wanted to explain how I think about this, and why I believe that way I do. That required some statement about how the facts appear to my mind. You said “Let me put it this way. If you start finding rabbit-like mammals in the precambrian, I would abandon the theory of evolution” Excellent! So if I understand your standard correctly, in general terms, if I were to demonstrate to you an example of a species found in rock layers that are radically inconsistent with the evolutionary account of history (i.e. say, at least 500 million years out of place), you would reject Common Ancestry? [i assume you understand that I wouldn’t be so bold as to ask such a question unless I could provide such an example] “If phylogenetic trees start predicting relationships that don't match up with the fossil record in a serious way, I would abandon evolution. There are plenty of potential routes of falsification as far as I'm concerned.” This one is a bit tricky in the sense that when a fossil is found ‘out of place’ (i.e. inconsistent with evolutionary predictions), the evolution story is changed to accommodate the new evidence (e.g. by a range expansion or other measure). So any example would necessarily be post-hoc. That is, it would have to be along the lines of; “Evolution theory previously predicted A. New evidence contradicted A. Therefore, in light of the new evidence, evolution theory now predicts B”. Scientific journals are saturated with such examples. Nevertheless, it’s your party, so I am happy to provide some examples if that is all it will take for you to reconsider your confidence in Common Ancestry. I noticed that you added the caveat, “in a serious way” to your standard. Seems to me like an emergency, subjective back-door to your standard. You would have to quantify what “in a serious way” means before I could determine which examples are appropriate. I think your proposal of this standard demonstrates the distinction between reality and public impression. Anyone involved in biology knows that phylogenic trees are constantly being rearranged to accommodate new evidence. In many cases, disputes arise between scientists stemming from differing molecular methods yielding different phylogenic associations. Yet outside of the scientific community, the impression is given that every organism fits nicely and neatly onto Darwin’s tree of life (with maybe the occasional puzzle here and there). I have noticed a particular affinity for the word “elegant”; used to describe to describe the overwhelming consistency of the whole evolution story, and how it so seamlessly and effortlessly fits the evidence. But that impression does not represent the scientific reality. “I assume photons work a certain way across the universe, namely, the way they work here. Over space and time. The uniformity of nature is not an assumption I'll likely challenge unless observations somehow derail it.” None of the assumptions I listed pertained to the “uniformity of nature” (though this itself is an assumption). The list I provided in the previous message demonstrated a very broad range of assumptions; well beyond the “uniformity of nature”. When considering the history of the photon, your confidence in a particular version of its history indicates to me that you have not considered the magnitude of your assumptions when compared to the observational limitations. I think it is telling that these magnitudes of extrapolation are only ever accepted by science when they pertain to ideas that contradict the Biblical account of reality (radiometric dating is another example of small (100 or so years of) observations being extrapolated to billions of years of unobserved history). “I merely wanted to explain how I think about this, and why I believe that way I do. That required some statement about how the facts appear to my mind” I assumed by you posting that you were interested in a discussion. You seem to be under the impression that you have to ‘manipulate’ or reject parts of the Bible which to not comply with the popular secular models of reality. I simply provided an argument demonstrating that there is no objective scientific or logical obligation for you to do so.

I'm not trying to insult you, and if I come across like that at all I apologize. I suppose I just don't really get what it is you're getting at in a substantive way. You seem to be saying "if you are clever enough, you can interpret the same body of facts in multiple ways". I still don't know how to respond to that. If I have a theory which predicts what we will see out to 12 decimal places, it certainly seems to be onto something.You could, no doubt, come up with an alternative story, but when I predict the 13th decimal point why should I take you seriously? Evolution is falsifiable. Were you to find a mammals in the precambrian, there would be a serious problem. It is used to make predictions, as it has been used to predict morophological structures, and degree of relationship to other animals, of animals thought to be at a certain strata at specific locations, and they are found. It's used to design medication. While it's interesting that you use convergent evolution of features to count against the larger theory as a means of demonstrating how it is unfalsifiable, it is still strongly supportive evidence if you look at the specifics (e.g.. the wings in bats vs the wings in birds). Yes, it's true, I assume the photons that we detect have a source from a natural object that produced them. It's true. Why shouldn't I make that assumption? I suppose the larger question is, how does this relate to the OP? You don't think there is any reason I should see the evidence as supporting 'old' universe, evolution etc., rather than YEC? I didn't really start this thread to get into the specifics of what these evidences are, I intentionally kept that vague. You said “I'm not trying to insult you, and if I come across like that at all I apologize” No apology necessary. I have not been insulted. Perhaps I have come across as insulted in my attempt to be concise [yes – contrary to appearances, I have actually attempted to keep it short]. I do find the use of logical fallacies (such as innuendo) to be somewhat frustrating – because they represent a departure from rational discussion. But nothing I’ll lose sleep over. “I suppose I just don't really get what it is you're getting at in a substantive way” OK – Facts require interpretations. Evidence is defined as a fact which has been interpreted to support a particular position (i.e. as “evidence” of that position). ALL facts are interpreted within the framework of the interpreter. That means – every fact which has been interpreted to support Common Ancestry and Standard Cosmology has been interpreted from a particular faith perspective (i.e. presupposed, yet unverified assumptions about reality); namely naturalism, but also subsequent paradigms such as uniformitarianism (which proposes we assume processes we observe today have continued unchanged into the unobserved past) and even Common Ancestry itself. NOW – creationists do this also. But you have only criticised creationists for interpreting evidence from a starting premise. “You seem to be saying "if you are clever enough, you can interpret the same body of facts in multiple ways"” Not “if you are clever enough” – that is innuendo that you have added to imply that a stretch of the imagination is required. But facts can absolutely be interpreted multiple ways. That is why the scientific method requires experimentation – to separate out the incorrect interpretations from the list of possibilities. “I still don't know how to respond to that” It’s a testable claim. If you have any facts that you believe can only be interpreted to fit your preferred secular models, then I would be happy to consider them. “If I have a theory which predicts what we will see out to 12 decimal places, it certainly seems to be onto something.You could, no doubt, come up with an alternative story, but when I predict the 13th decimal point why should I take you seriously” Why resort to false analogy? By this analogy you assume that creationism must submit to the role of second responder. You think the evidence belongs to evolution, and that creationism has to ‘wait its turn’ to respond to the evolutionist interpretation. Creationism is not a response to evolution. It is a separate model in its own right. “Evolution is falsifiable. Were you to find a mammals in the precambrian, there would be a serious problem” Would this “serious problem” constitute a wholesale rejection of Common Ancestry by the scientific community (which would be the appropriate outcome of true falsification) or would it just be labelled a “serious problem”. Surely the scientific community could simply claim that they hadn’t yet figured out how the fossil arrived at this stratum of rock, or that the samples used to ‘date’ the rock had been contaminated, or some such. And to be fair, it is logically possible that some future discovery could explain how the mammal arrived in this layer - in the context of the secular model. But it’s this very possibility which permits us to set aside the actual evidence and allows us to preserve our preferred paradigm. Therefore the theory is unfalsifiable. No weight of evidence could ever justify an unmitigated rejection of Common Ancestry. “It is used to make predictions …” Big bold claims of predictions without evidential support are meaningless. More-so when the theory a) predicts the full spectrum of reality and b) has a demonstrated history of being malleable enough to conform to any contrary evidence. Adjusting theories to suite the evidence is a legitimate part of the scientific process. But equating ‘adjusting a theory to suit the evidence’ with ‘predicting the evidence’ is logically specious. “While it's interesting that you use convergent evolution of features to count against the larger theory as a means of demonstrating how it is unfalsifiable, it is still strongly supportive evidence if you look at the specifics (e.g.. the wings in bats vs the wings in birds).” And it may very well be true. Unfalsifiable has never meant untrue. Unfalsifiable only speaks to our capacity to attribute scientific confidence to a claim. Of course you can find “strongly supportive evidence” – the theory encompasses every possible observation. Nothing we find could possibly contradict the prediction. Everything we find is therefore necessarily consistent with the prediction. In reality, evolution theory originally taught that similar traits only spoke to inheritance – the theory was later adjusted to include convergence to account for genetic analysis demonstrating otherwise. “I assume the photons that we detect have a source from a natural object that produced them. It's true. Why shouldn't I make that assumption” You are assuming the entire history of the photon based on limited data. You are making assumptions regarding the velocity and path of the light. You are making assumptions about the interpretation of certain properties of light (e.g. what redshift means over vast distances and time). You are making assumptions about the shape of the universe (which would theoretically impact the path of the light). You are making assumptions about what lies in the vast distances between the originating star and the Earth and how that might affect the properties of the light (such as all that dark matter and dark energy and associated gravity). You are assuming that God did not create and “stretch out the heavens” in accordance with the Biblical account. You are assuming no time dilation has occurred with the expansion of the universe (whether Biblical or Inflation). You are making quite a lot of assumptions. And I have no problem with that, so long as you recognise that they are merely assumptions stemming from scientific observations – not scientific observations themselves. My response was to your claim that we are observing the past when we look at the night sky. That claim is incorrect. “You don't think there is any reason I should see the evidence as supporting 'old' universe, evolution etc., rather than YEC” No – the opposite is true. I fully understand how someone brought up in a secular society would prefer the secular interpretations of the evidence (I myself had never heard of creationism until I was a young adult). But if you look at the issue objectively (i.e. set aside all that you have been taught to be “proven” and consider the issue from a perspective untainted by personal bias), I believe you will find that the creationist model is equally valid and as logically justifiable as the secular models. The reason for your post was to discuss reconciling secular models to the Biblical account. What I am suggesting is that you are neither scientifically, or logically, obligated to maintain allegiance to the secular models. So the solution is easy – trust the Biblical account as written. “I didn't really start this thread to get into the specifics of what these evidences are, I intentionally kept that vague.” I understand. But if you make vague claims about “the evidence”, the only way to demonstrate my position is to require an account of that evidence; to delve into the specifics (unless you are prepared to take my word for it ).

Right, so I could pick my favorite 'paradigm', creatively 'interpret' all the evidence to fit the paradigm, and see how long I am employed. If you are clever enough, yeah I agree, you can interpret it how you want. But, some facts force themselves on you, and some models allow for you to have such incredible predictive power it becomes altogether compelling to think there is something to it. I suppose I'm having trouble responding to your post because I'm not seeing much specifically to respond to here. Your message seems to be, 'you interpret evidence based on the paradigm you currently accept'. But if that were always and only the case, I don't see how discoveries, particularly of the mold-breaking type, are ever made. It will always be 'speculative' to look at events in the past, but in this case, it's even always inference. Sometimes we are actually observing events as they are actually unfolding in the past. That is one of the amazing and humbling things about looking carefully into the night sky. You said “Right, so I could pick my favorite 'paradigm', creatively 'interpret' all the evidence to fit the paradigm, and see how long I am employed.” Again with the innuendo? My point is that all scientific investigation follows the pattern you mock. Presupposition is a necessary part of the scientific process because interpretation is conducted by humans who all have a personally preferred faith perspective of reality. The influence of the naturalistic faith premise isn’t as obvious to you because it is the default paradigm of secular science (and the only one most of us were exposed to growing up). It therefore isn’t stated because everyone is assumed to be “on the same page”. But the origin of the naturalistic framework by the scientific community can be traced back to the late 1700s (perhaps to geologist James Hutton). It’s subsequent, practically ubiquitous adoption by the modern scientific community does not logically necessitate the invalidation of other faith perspectives. The existence of the naturalistic faith paradigm is demonstrated by the fact that I can approach the evidence from a different paradigm and come to a different conclusion. That would not be logically possible if the facts spoke for themselves. Both paradigms are unverifiable and both have a limiting influence over science. Naturalism only permits natural explanations to be accepted as truth. They will sometimes patronise religious people by allowing some nebulous ‘God is behind the scenes, pulling the strings’ concept, but the main motivation of this paradigm is to limit explanations to those which render the concept of God unnecessary. “some facts force themselves on you” Here is where you would need to be more specific. I am happy to consider any fact which you think only renders itself to a single interpretation (i.e. consistent with only one model whilst being logically impossible to interpret from an alternative perspective). “some models allow for you to have such incredible predictive power it becomes altogether compelling to think there is something to it” Which models would those be? The Standard Cosmology model has demonstrated inconsistency with the facts since its inception; which is why it has had to be constantly revised to incorporate unobserved concepts such as Inflation, Dark Matter, Dark Energy etc. – all formulated because new evidence did not fit the existing model. How predictive is evolution theory? * According to evolutionary theory, similar or identical morphological traits in separate species are considered to have been inherited through a common ancestor. However, if the trait does not exist in any putative common ancestor, then evolutionary theory postulates that the traits must have evolved independently; through convergent evolution (where distantly 'related' species arrive at a similar or identical ecological solution). That is, evolutionary theory predicts that we will observe identical traits in separate species due to a) inheritance through a common ancestor or b) through independent convergent evolution. No possible observation could contradict this prediction. * Evolution theory predicts change (i.e. evolution) and non-change (i.e. evolutionary stasis). That is, evolution theory predicts the entire scope of possible observations. * In the event of putative change (evolution), evolution theory predicts both positive, adaptive change (forward evolution) and revertant, backwards change (degenerative evolution). So I agree that evolution theory is powerfully predictive – but only because it predicts every possible outcome (i.e. is logically unfalsifiable). Now I don’t think that makes it necessarily untrue, but it does render any boasting about its predictive capacity to be meaningless. “I suppose I'm having trouble responding to your post because I'm not seeing much specifically to respond to here” Since the creationist position is that all of the evidence interpreted to be consistent with secular models can alternatively be interpreted to be consistent with the creationist model, there is little point to me providing specific unsolicited examples – because I am fully aware that someone approaching the evidence from a naturalistic perspective can provide a naturalistic interpretation of the same evidence. The only way to test the creationist claim is for someone promoting the secular models to provide a specific fact which they believe can only be interpreted to be consistent with their preferred model. My position is that if evidence can be interpreted to be consistent with multiple models, then all of those models represent scientifically valid hypotheses. You seem to be of the opinion that, even though the evidence can be interpreted to be consistent with multiple models, only one should be considered scientifically valid and worthy of consideration. Why – because it’s the one you grew up with and are most comfortable with (i.e. confirmation bias), or because it’s the most popular among scientists (Appeal to Authority and Consensus fallacies), or is there some other reason? “Your message seems to be, 'you interpret evidence based on the paradigm you currently accept'” I would re-word it as ‘everyone approaches the interpretation process from the perspective of their own preferred faith paradigm”. The current default among most scientists is the naturalistic faith paradigm (which is currently so ubiquitous as to give the false impression of being the only valid perspective – to the point where it is commonly assumed beyond the need for acknowledgement). “if that were always and only the case, I don't see how discoveries, particularly of the mold-breaking type, are ever made” Paradigms are only frameworks. The limitations of each are not as stringent as your comment implies. Naturalism only permits natural explanations as possibilities. Biblical-Theism permits natural and supernatural explanations. So which is really more restrictive? “Sometimes we are actually observing events as they are actually unfolding in the past. That is one of the amazing and humbling things about looking carefully into the night sky.” This is a romanticised untruth. When you look in the night sky, all you observe are photons of light as they enter your eye. The history of those photons is then speculated by extrapolating current observations over billions of years in the past and super-massive distances – none of which was directly observed.

I am not impressed by creationist attempts, no. If you are going into it with the sole goal of 'reinterpreting' evidence to make it work with Creationism, you can do that. The reason you can is because God is omnipotent, and ultimately, God could make the evidence appear however He wanted to. But, you have to first assume that is what is going on. I think this becomes necessary at some point as the way you need to interpret evidence to fit it into a 10k universe is stretched at best. I think the distant starlight problem thread is a good example of this. I didn't say anything about metaphors, or what a good, solid reading of Genesis would be in my case. Jesus used Genesis to illustrate His teachings. I don't think we can blithely assume He was using it as straightforward history, in the way we do when talking about history in history classes. The integrity of the Bible is unnecessary to being a believer. I didn't have a belief in the integrity of the Bible when I came to pray to God for salvation. My belief in the Bible as a theological authority developed later. The Death we need saving from is spiritual death, separation from God, and that could happen with or without physical death occurring. You said “I am not impressed by creationist attempts, no.” Your being “impressed” is irrelevant to whether or not our arguments are rationally justifiable – especially as you have demonstrated bias in your perspective. “If you are going into it with the sole goal of 'reinterpreting' evidence to make it work with Creationism, you can do that.” Yes I can – meaning that the available evidence is consistent with the creationist model (based on the Biblical account of history), and that the model is therefore scientifically valid (or at least as valid as the secular models which employ the logically identical methodology). If facts spoke for themselves, scientists would always agree on the conclusions. Scientific consensus is rare because in reality, facts don’t speak for themselves – they have to be interpreted. No interpretation occurs in a vacuum. Interpretation is a subjective process – highly dependent upon the faith presupposition of the interpreter (as all humans have a preferred faith version of reality). You prefer the secular models which were formulated within the logical framework of the naturalistic faith paradigm. I prefer the creationist model which is formulated within the logical framework of the Biblical-theistic faith paradigm. You have allowed yourself to be convinced that science conducted from one unverifiable faith perspective is more valid than science conducted in the other. I understand that position. I was brought up in a secular household and didn’t even know that such a thing as creationists existed until after I converted to Christianity and was forced to consider the inconsistencies between my secular education and the clear teaching of scripture. I understand what it’s like to think that only the ignorant religious crazies would deny what I considered scientists to have “proven”. But on subsequent investigation, I discovered that the confidence commonly attributed to secular models is vastly exaggerated; beyond what is scientifically justified (or even scientifically possible). The worlds confidence in secular models is therefore based as much on faith as the creationist model. I found that there is no logical or scientific reason to obligate myself to the secular models. Most people do obligate themselves to the secular models because they are the only models most people have ever had the opportunity to consider. But the preference is based on faith rather than science. The point is – because science requires scientists to interpret the evidence, and because scientists are humans with preferred faith presuppositions, all science is necessarily conducted within the framework of one faith perspective or another. And therefore all evidence is interpreted to be consistent with the preferred paradigm of the interpreter. That is, all scientists have to “first assume” something about “what is going on”. All interpretation requires context. “I think this becomes necessary at some point as the way you need to interpret evidence to fit it into a 10k universe is stretched at best." Now all you need to do is support that claim with rational argument. Otherwise it's just innuendo. "I think the distant starlight problem thread is a good example of this.” I previously provided an answer to this question in which I demonstrated the highly speculative nature of all models dealing with the unobserved past (including the secular Standard Cosmology model). But that’s not the impression given by the secular scientific community. Nevertheless, the scientific method explicitly permits us to think for ourselves. “There's nothing special about the evidence. It's the standard stuff you could find in any somewhat thorough book about evolution. Combine that with astronomy, some stuff about geology, cover radiometric dating etc.” There is a lot of unjustified innuendo (i.e. logically fallacious arguments) in this statement. Given that the creationist claim is that all of the evidence can be, both individually and collectively, interpreted to be consistent with Biblical creationism, the claim is meaningless until you can demonstrate that a particular fact can only/exclusively be interpreted to support secular models over the creationist model. Throughout my degree I studied many biology textbooks, all of which went to (often unnecessary) lengths to emphasise the secular models. I have no issue with the evidence, or even that it can be interpreted to be consistent with secular models. I consider all (secular and creationist models) to be scientifically valid. The secular community unsurprisingly, overwhelmingly and exclusively prefers the secular models. But that preference is not based on any demonstrated logical or scientific superiority. “I didn't say anything about metaphors” The default implication of your position is that the Genesis text should not be regarded as historical. If you don’t take a passage to be historical, then you are taking it in some sense symbolically. The same arguments apply whether metaphor, analogy or lyrical prose. “Jesus used Genesis to illustrate His teachings. I don't think we can blithely assume He was using it as straightforward history, in the way we do when talking about history in history classes.” Why not? Besides a predetermined adherence to secular science, how do you justify departing from the obvious message contained in the text itself? Jesus used Genesis as the historical antecedent for His message (e.g. for marriage). If it’s not based on historical reality, then the message itself becomes meaningless (i.e. if based on something considered not to have happened). “The integrity of the Bible is unnecessary to being a believer.” The Divine Inspiration of Scripture is a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith. I agree that it is not necessary for salvation; however as the source of the gospel itself, trust in the Bible speaks to the logical consistency of an individual’s faith confession. “My belief in the Bible as a theological authority developed later.” Which is the reason you posted this topic: – because you perceive that there are inconsistencies between your scientific education, and the most obvious rendering of Genesis. Rather than question the basis of secular science, you have preferred to perform mental gymnastics in an attempt to make the Bible conform to the secular scientific paradigm. My position is that you have done so unnecessarily. The Bible is eminently more trustworthy than any human pursuit.

You said “I think evolution is true because it seems true based on the evidence.” The creationist position is that all of the very same evidence interpreted to support the naturalistic models of reality (i.e. Common Ancestry and Standard Cosmology) can alternatively be interpreted to be consistent with the Biblical model of reality (including the creation account). Therefore, the distinction between the two positions has nothing to do with the existence or amount of evidence, but rather how one's faith presupposition influences the interpretation of the evidence; and which interpretations are preferred. So there is no legitimate, objective, scientific reason for any Christian to set aside their confidence in the reliability of the Biblical account. The implication of your statement is that creationism is not supported by evidence – which demonstrates that you have not fairly considered the creationist position. “The more I have looked into the case, the stronger it seems” This perspective is based more in presupposition, than in an objective consideration of the science involved. Just last year I completes a Bachelor of Science; Majoring in Biology. Even though almost all of my course material was taught from an evolutionary perspective, no evidence was provided that couldn’t otherwise be interpreted to be consistent with the creationist model. Historically, what we would call modern-science was originally conducted from the Biblical-theistic perspective. Then around the late 1700s, a new framework for science began to be promoted – now called naturalism (the faith paradigm which only considers natural explanations to qualify as truth). Since that time, the naturalistic perspective has become so ubiquitous in science that it is the only scientific perspective that most people ever encounter (i.e. in school, university, science documentaries etc.). This gives the logically false impression that naturalism is the only valid scientific perspective – which subsequently causes some Christians to falsely believe that they are rationally obligated to submit the authority of scripture to secular/naturalistic models. “I do not think that God would create things so as to deceive us” But there is no deception. All of the existing evidence can be interpreted to be consistent with the creationist/Biblical model of reality. It is only your perceived obligation to naturalistic science which would cause you to believe otherwise. “All of this is to say, I have not found an intrinsic contradiction between accepting the physical story behind the Big Bang and evolution, and accepting the resurrection of Jesus and the truth of the gospel. It is possible to hold to the former and have faith in the former simultaneously.” The Bible promotes (to a degree) freedom of mind and will and exhorts Christians to test all things. So I agree that Christians don’t have to agree on everything. Nevertheless, I think you have failed to consider some serious logical inconsistencies between the secular scientific models and Biblical Christianity. * Firstly, a metaphor is supposed to relate to something similar; an antecedent. If creation is a metaphor, it is definitely not a metaphor for evolution. There should also be some grammatical indicator pointing the reader to a metaphorical interpretation. No such indicator exists in the texts. * Evolution at its core is not so difficult to understand. The concept of humans descending from animals is common in many native cultures. Metaphor is unnecessary. * A common sense rule of interpretation is that the texts should be interpreted according to the grammatical style in which they are written (That is, the grammatical context). The account of origins in Genesis is written as historical account. * Using the above measures, if creation is not true, then the ultimate author (Who we believe to be God) either didn't know what He was talking about, or He is lying. If any part of scripture is unreliable, then the scripture in its entirety must be considered unreliable. The integrity of the Bible has either been preserved by God or not. If we get to decide which verses are relevant and which verses we can reject, then we make ourselves judges over God's word. Christians are often accused of cherry picking scriptures - if we interpret Genesis as metaphor, then that is exactly what we are doing. * The concepts of evolution and long ages do not exist in the text. It has to be read into the text from external sources. These theories, whilst popular, are scientifically unverified (and essentially unfalsifiable). They are therefore faith conclusions. Human science is fallible and must be constantly updated and revised. There is no objective scientific reason for a Christian to doubt the reliability of the Genesis account. * Jesus interpreted Genesis as history. Both Old Testament and New Testament authors interpreted the Genesis account as history. If we accept the secular version of history, we again imply that Jesus and the other authors of scripture are ignorant. And again we call into question the divine inspiration and integrity of the whole Bible. * The Genesis account is necessary to explain how death and suffering could originate in the creation of a "good God". God created the world corruption free. It was through our sin that corruption entered the universe. Long age theories put death and corruption before humanity. How can a loving God create such a cruel concept as evolution which thrives on suffering? * Death before sin undermines the entire reason for the gospel of Christ - to save humanity from the consequences of our sin. If death and suffering existed before humanity, then it would be unjust of God to hold us accountable for the impact of sin on the Earth. If we are not accountable then why do we need a Saviour? The creation account is the foundation of all Christian doctrine and philosophy. I respect your right to disagree, but I am unconvinced that you have given the issue its due consideration.

I don’t think any informed person seriously suggests that the Bible become our sole source of scientific knowledge. Prior to the late 1700s, most scientific research was conducted within the Biblical-theistic faith framework. Around that time, some scientists (i.e. James Hutton and contemporaries) proposed and alternate faith framework – now called naturalism (the concept that only natural explanations can qualify as truth). Since then, naturalism has become the default faith perspective from which most scientific endeavours are conducted. As a Christian (and creationists), I merely propose that the Biblical account of reality continues to provide a logically valid framework from within which legitimate science can be conducted. Opinions and speculations regarding where we would be as a species depend largely upon which faith perspective we choose to prefer.

I agree that vague, equivocal language is a major problem for the creation/evolution debate. Does “evolution” mean the General Theory of Evolution (that all life on earth is related through a series of common ancestors), or the suite of concepts that often find themselves under the 'umbrella' of evolution (such as natural selection, speciation, genetic mutations, common ancestry etc.), or does it simply any heritable change in a population? Of all these, I as a creationist, only dispute the claim that Common Ancestry (along with its associated time frames) is the only scientifically valid interpretation of the available evidence. So, for example, when someone presents evidence of natural selection as evidence of evolution, they contribute nothing to the debate – because I have no problem with the concept of natural selection. I propose the use of more specific (and therefore more accurate) language. If you mean Natural Selection, then say “Natural Selection”. When you mean Common Ancestry, say “Common Ancestry”.

Enjoyed reading this....did you come up with this? Just a cursory look....busy this morning, so I'll give it some attention later. "The claim that unfalsifiable means unscientific is debatable." No it actually isn't debatable @ ALL..... 'Scientific Evidence: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence That means it has to satisfy these 4 Tenets: Observable Measurable/Testable Repeatable Falsifiable Hi Enoch, Yes, I wrote this based on my knowledge of the issue studied as a creationist for several decades (so some of the concepts are obviously not mine). Regarding whether scientific means falsifiable. Science only works when it is founded upon and justified by logic. All scientific ideas and definitions are therefore subject to logical scrutiny. In the 1930s, eminent science philosopher, Sir Karl Popper, proposed that to qualify as scientific, a claim must be falsifiable. This proposition is based on the idea that scientific confidence can only be legitimately attributed through a claim surviving direct observational scrutiny. One of the problems with this standard is that claims about the past are not subject to direct observational scrutiny. Therefore by this standard, all claims regarding the past are rendered unscientific; including Standard Cosmology (incorporating Big Bang theory), Common Ancestry and creationism. Scientists work around this limitation by employing indirect investigation methods; namely by formulating models of the putative effects of their hypothesis, then testing the currently available evidence against the model (i.e. not the hypothesis itself). Consistency between the evidence and the model only legitimately increases confidence in the strength of the model – it does not logically contribute to confidence in the hypothesis itself. Any attempt to attribute scientific confidence to any past claim is to commit the logical fallacy known as Affirming the Consequent (because multiple causes can be responsible for identical outcomes – so it is impossible to determine the specific unobserved cause by observing the outcome alone). So the claim that unfalsifiable means unscientific is indeed debatable (since a large portion of what is currently labelled science involves investigating unfalsifiable hypotheses). My only personal requisite is that terminology be used consistently. If unfalsifiable means unscientific, then all claims regarding the unobserved past are unscientific (including the secular models). And so long as there is no attempt to equate either unfalsifiable or unscientific with “untrue”, then logical consistency can be maintained.

Whilst secular cosmologists like to romanticise our observations of the universe as “looking back in time”, the scientific reality is that we only actually, directly observe are photons of light as they are captured or viewed from Earth on their journey through space. The history of the universe is thereby modelled based on assumptions (logical extrapolations) about the unobserved history of those photons. All models of the universe (including the secular Standard Cosmology model) are therefore necessarily formulated around layers of hypotheticals. For example; the original Big Bang theory was a mathematical reversal of our observations of an expanding universe. But the original mathematical model didn’t fit subsequent observations of uniform cosmic background radiation. So the model was changed to include Inflation; a proposal that the initial Big Bang was contained to a small area followed by a massively rapid expansion, and subsequent slowing down, of the universe (without any proposed cause for either expansion or slowing or any direct observation of the event – but fits the math and is therefore now part of the model). Then it was discovered that around 83% of the matter in the universe needed to hold galaxies together by gravity was missing. So a scientifically unobserved substance called Dark Matter was proposed. And even though Dark Matter has never been scientifically observed (a necessary condition of legitimate scientific confidence), proponents of this model constantly tell the community that “we know it’s there”. Due to the gravitational effect of all this matter, scientists expected that the expansion of the universe would be slowing down. However observations indicate that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. We now call the scientifically unobserved energy driving this acceleration Dark Energy. Now this model may be completely correct, or completely false (or perhaps some of each). We cannot go back in time to make the necessary observations required to verify any aspect of this model. And that makes it unfalsifiable. No current observation could necessitate the complete rejection of the model. Any seemingly contrary observation could be rendered impotent by the claim that “we haven’t figured out how this evidence fits our model yet”. And if we are fair, there does exist a logical possibility that some future discovery or idea may reconcile the evidence to the model. But it is this very possibility that allows us to set aside seemingly contrary observations/facts and renders the model unfalsifiable. This applies equally to both secular and creationist models of reality. The claim that unfalsifiable means unscientific is debatable. However, neither unfalsifiable nor unscientific mean “logically impossible” or “necessarily untrue”. Any accusation of unscientific or unfalsifiable only speaks logically to our capacity to test a claim - but not in any sense to the possible truth of a claim. The foundational source of the creationist model is the Bible. The current favoured model of creationists combines the Biblical claim that “God stretched out the heavens” with the implications on time of Einstein’s relativity. Simply; as space was “stretched”, so was time (called time dilation) such that the space stretched away from the Earth is actually older than space on/around Earth. That is, as stretched space results in more space, stretched time results in more time. Regarding the alleged creationist models presented in the article. Models 1 & 2: As a creationist for over 2 decades, I don’t ever recall hearing either of these arguments. To present these as typical creationist models therefore employs logically fallacious Strawman reasoning. As presented, model 1 itself is an example of the logical fallacy called Unsupported Assertion. No effort is made by the author to provide the supporting arguments for the claim – so the article immediately demonstrates a lack of rational objectivity. The rebuttal of both models heavily incorporates Innuendo and Unsupported Assertion (both logical fallacies). Unsupported counter-claims do not constitute a rational rebuttal of any position. Models 3 & 4: Creationists once considered the Cdk issue to be a possibility. However this argument is now broadly rejected by creationists because it raises more problems than it solves. Note the Innuendo in the statement “the velocity of light was infinite or at least millions of times faster than it is now, then slowed down and conveniently stabilized at the current value” – Yet replace “light” with “space”, and you have the secular concept of Inflation (which has been readily incorporated into the secular model). Model 5: This is a valid attempt by a Physicist to model creationism. Dr. Humphreys freely admits that the model is imperfect. The secular model also contains many imperfections; none of which have warranted a wholesale rejection of secular cosmology. The main rebuttal used by the author is that the some concepts utilised by Dr. Humphreys lack direct observational support. Have they considered that the same is true for the Big Bang itself, as well as Inflation, Dark Matter and Dark Energy (i.e. the entire secular model)? All cosmology models are highly speculative and therefore subject to legitimate scrutiny and criticism. Model 6: Oddly, the author himself points out that this model does not represent the informed creationist position and that the problems with this model are essentially theological – not scientific. Even though I don’t subscribe to this model, I think this model is logically viable in the sense that God could have created a mature universe without any deception involved. The inconsistencies stem from our interpretations of the observations – not from what the Bible claims. God creating mature people is not a deception about their lack of infant history; even though contemporary observations of adults would indicate a childhood. God creating mature (fruiting) flora does not represent a deception about the history of the plants. Another model that would reconcile these potential problems would involve God winding the physical universe forward independently of time - In the same way that winding a clock forward represents a physical change, but doesn’t actually alter time. The author then concludes with Innuendo; “Even though creationists claim they have the truth, they contradict each other as well as science” – seemingly unaware that both the Christian belief and the scientific method explicitly permit consideration and debate of all ideas. Our claim to “have the truth” is a faith claim about the Bible – not a scientific claim about models formulated around it. So this statement represents yet another Strawman fallacy. Model 9: (not really a model - but a claim demonstrating a logical weakness in the presentation of scientific confidence beyond what has been scientifically observed). Every claim regarding the history of the photon prior to its observation is assumed; how far and fast it has travelled, what lies between the vast amount of space between its origin and the Earth, assumptions regarding how the properties of light are impacted over such large amounts of distance and time, and how those properties should be interpreted. We extrapolate several hundreds of years of observations to billions of years of history. Any hypothesis beyond observation therefore necessarily employs assumption. Assumptions are common in science. They only become problematic when they are ignored; resulting in exagerated levels scientific confidence. Assumptions may be rationally justifiable - but until claims are verified through observation they remain assumptions. Models 7, 8 & 10 do not represent the informed creationist position. The author of the presented rebuttal demonstrates that they have not given fair or objective consideration to the actual creationist position - and therefore should not be considered a reliable source of information.