In a recent comment, Robert Byers said:
Yes lines of reasoning as opposed to scientific evidence is a criticism I strongly make!!
I’m not quite sure what is going on in Robert’s way of thinking. I am not sure what he means by “scientific evidence”. Here I want to explore what Robert appears to be arguing.
Let’s take crossword puzzle solving as an illustration. The puzzle has a grid where one can enter words. And then there are the clues. There is a list of “Across” clues and a list of “Down” clues.
Without those clues, I would not be able to proceed at all. However, when looking at an individual clue, I can at best guess. The clue is often cryptic and ambiguous, so my guess might be wrong. There is no way that I can use logic to decide a particular word.
Usually, I look at both “Across” clues and “Down” clues. I try to find words that seem to answer the clues, and yet work for both across and down.
According to Robert, what I am doing is simply following a line of reasoning. I agree that there is no logic to it. So I guess Robert wants us to give up, and just ask the author of the crossword puzzle. Or perhaps don’t even try crossword puzzles.
For myself, I happen to think (following my line of reasoning), that if the Across answers and Down answers match up well, that there are no conflicts, that everything fits, then it is very likely that I have the correct solution or something very close to the correct solution.
When it comes to evolution, we have the clues from morphology (the form of organisms), the clues from behavior (how the organisms act/react), the clues from geology (the fossils), the clues from DNA. And, most important of all, we see from observing live, that there is descent with modification, that new organisms are similar but a bit different from their parents. The match up is very persuasive. The match up here is a lot stronger than the match up that we see in crossword puzzle solving.
If we find the match up to be persuasive in crossword solving, why is it not even more persuasive for evolution?
Robert Byers is a YEC. He believes the earth is younger than about 10,000 years.
Since there is no scientific evidence to support such a belief, he must have used a “line of reasoning” to arrive at it., and to reject all countervailing evidence.
Why is his “line of reasoning” valid? If he believes a thing in favour of which there is no evidence, and rejects all evidence against that thing, what does that say of his ability to reason, or to be logical?
And lest we forget… this is a man who repeatedly insists that a species could evolve or adapt itself into a marsupial version of itself within a single generation.
This is not a man who knows much about biology.
It’s that consilience thing again.
If 2 Down could be either ROSES or HOSES, and 2 Across could be either NICE or RICE, we know that:
ROSES and NICE – wrong
HOSES and NICE – wrong
HOSES and RICE – wrong
ROSES and RICE – right
We know that ROSES and RICE is almost certainly correct because they are consilient – they can both be simultaneously correct.
Which is not true of many claims made by ID proponents.
If creationists accepted consillience as a valid argument, they would simply have to capitulate.
Now make that puzzle multidimensional.
This is always fun. What creationists try to do is poke individual unconnected holes in what they call “evolution” – which includes astronomy, cosmology, geology, physics, etc. So the game is to grant one particular “hole” and consider the implications. What WOULD we observe if, say, mountains grew thousands of times faster in the past, or light traveled thousands of times faster, or radioactive decay happened thousands of times faster, etc.? For each of these, and hundreds more, the ramifications would be so catastrophic as to render our entire universe impossible in every respect.
The general line of analysis requires consiliance; that for A to be true, either B – Z must ALSO be true, or else the universe must be profoundly whimsical and inconsistent. Unsurprisingly, creationists avoid going down these paths.
Yeah, either genuine consilience of age, or their god is a devious conman manufacturing everything with the appearance of age, radioactive elements depleted in right ratios, fossils in place in the correct strata, light in transit from distant stars … but we don’t usually hear goddists defending the morality of their god tricking them about the age of the Earth.
Actually I can understand why they don’t want to admit a trickster god. What I don’t understand is why they are so determined to commit the sin of idolatry, idolizing a parchment copy over the direct handiwork of their lord. I mean, our whole universe is a direct creation of their god, according to them. Since god made it look old and therefore obviously intends us to conclude that it IS old, why in heaven’s name would they persist in the sin of bibliolatry instead of accepting the old-Earth belief their god wants them to have?
The YECcers are never going to be forgiven by their god for claiming that its ancient handiwork is all lies – while proudly believing that bible text (no matter how inspired) reigns supreme. Shame on you, young-earth christians! Shame, shame.
If there’s a discrepancy, the old bible could have been mistaken, but god’s physical creation surely cannot be mistaken!
The obvious physical evidence of age is why christian geologists from the 1600s accepted god’s “message in the rocks” about Earth’s long time-span while remaining faithful christians. I guess they’re just better christians than the proud and sinful YECcers of modern day.
Did you know there is an Affiliation of Christian Geologists? Looks like they’ve got an active faceborg page,
Here’s their official statement:
Your crossword case is lines of reasoning and IS logic. Nothing wrong with your conclusions and methodology in figuring out words.
Yet if you claim your crossword is the conclusion of scientific biological investigation then I will call the newspapers for a retraction.
You make a list of evidences that you think are biological evidences (clues) yet they are not I say.
they are just points of facts. The conclusions from these facts are not biological scientific investigative conclusions.
Even if your grand conclusion was right they still would not be bio sci evidence.!
A line of reasoning is the opposite of the unique methodology called science.
Science is about a high standard of investigation that can demand confidence in its conclusions.
A line of reasoning is a simple , perhaps true, method for coming to a conclusion.
One might say its not allowing falsifying or other options before the final conclusion is settled.
A line of reasoning means a conclusion is drawn from raw presumptions without knowing they are true. Just presumed.
Yes I say evolution has done this largely. So its not a scientific biological theory explaining biology.
Which of your evidences do you say are not just lines of reasoning but scientifically concluded evidences for evolution??
YEC starts with the bible as a witness. Why not? Witness in good standing.
Then we back up its conclusions on origins with the evidence of nature.
Largely we take on our opponents evidence since they claim to use the evidence of nature.
We say IS THAT SO there is this evidence. So we fight and pretty good.
When I read your comment (the full thing, not just the part I quoted), I can only conclude that I have no idea at all as to what you take “scientific evidence” to mean.
If I follow your argument, it seems to me that I should say that Galileo was only following a line of reasoning and not basing his conclusions on scientific evidence. And I would have to say the same about Newton and about Einstein.
But perhaps I am not correctly following your argument. Can you explain what you mean by “line of reasoning” and what you mean by “line of evidence”.
From my perspective, evolution is based on scientific evidence, and most of that evidence is biological.
Consilience is not operative to a creationist since we take on every point that you use to cross examine your conclusion.
Each line of reasoning is being discredited in its claims to being scientific evidence. This before we say its a false conclusion from this line of reasoning.
Methodology is (or should be) the issue in creationist criticisms of evolutionary biology. A biological theory must be based on biological scientific evidence. First things first.
OK Byers, take one line of reasoning and discredit it. Show why scientists who accept the validity of that ‘line of reasoning’ have got it wrong, without simply resorting to a “well, this YEC for one don’t buy it” approach, or a link to someone else’s argument.
Consillience is alway operative.
If you are investgating a crime, and you have videotape, fingerprints, DNA, all pointing to a suspect, but the suspect’s best friend says he was playing poker at the time of the crime, how do you proceed?
Try reading the first few chapters of Origin a report back on whether Darwin used biological evidence.
On a side-note, Susan Haack uses the process of filling in a cross-word puzzle as a metaphor for scientific reasoning — I’ll provide a citation if there’s any interest.
If it says in a book that the suspect’s best friend says he was playing poker, Byers believes the book.
Well, that’s why, Robert, creationists come to absurd conclusions. Consilience is important when making an inference.
If it were not the case, most medical diagnoses would be wildly inaccurate. If a child presented with a fever, a cough, and a rash, you’d dismiss as unlikely: rare causes of fever; rare causes of cough; rare causes of rash.
And miss the cause most likely to cause all three together: measles.
It is odd, is it not, that Byers, who is a great advocate of “scientific evidence”, has never, despite repeated requests, given an example of the scientific evidence that convinces him that the earth is young.
Newton emphasized he was better then other men in his conclusions as they just had hypothesis. He had math evidence to back up his hypothesis. The others could of been right but they didn’t have evidence. Just hypothesis using data points.
Scientific evidence is practical facts. Real things that are clearly true and accepted by all because they must accept them.
How a plane can and does fly must be seen as observance of facts and the principals behind these facts are the origin of using these facts to let men fly.
Lines of reasoning are when facts stop, Then new facts are asserted because of the old facts continuing in their principals would teach there is further/new facts though no actual observation of these facts.
Science is a methodology to eliminate this careless way of coming to conclusions.
The method demands careful investigation before any conclusions are drawn . Before any facts are concluded to be true unless evidence is shown they are true.
lines of reasoning say facts are true because its reasonable from past facts being true.
your fossils show facts of a life frozen in a moment in time.
Another fossil above or below it but segregated by the deposition of the fossils thereof show facts of a life in a moment of time.
Yet they do not show any descent or relationship of coming/leading from each other. ( Its the same looking creature for this point)
Even if true it would still not be a fact they are in descent.
All that is shown is biological data points.
Only a line of reasoning connects them as in descent. However reasonable.
Yet since its just a line of reason ONE just needs another line of reasoning to end the claim its a fact of descent.
So its unrelated to biological scientific investigation.
no biology going on.
Just connecting segregated biological data points.
Its just lines of reasoning and not science. Its not worthy to be a scientific fact.
Indeed it would be impossible but thats too bad. Science is a high standard of investigation.
not just presuming things.
Consilience only works if the different points are accepted as true. We don’t accept each point. We see no consilience.
Evolutionists must prove each point. Thats the contention.
Its not scientists as no science is going on in origin subjects.
Thats my point.
The big one is the use of fossils to draw conclusions about descent and process of that descent.
They persuade themselves they see biological evidence for evolution.
They think its scientific evidence.
Yet all it is IS biological data points and then using geological assumptions of deposition and time and differences in morphology of forms or traits .
They are not scientific evidences based on biological investigation of any descent of this fossil to that.
Even if they were it still wouldn’t be that.
They are only and can only be investigated as frozen images in time.
It is other assumptions that forces convictions that they are seeing descent represented by the fossils.
Without the geology being true there is no evidence from biology there is descent in the fossils.
So its just lines of reasoning and not scientific investigation.
Yet these are accepted facts of the kids condition.
In evolution none of the points used for consilience are accepted by creationists.
We take them all on and insist they are all wrong.
We target one and evolutionists say look at the others. We target one of them and they point back to the original one we targeted and the others save the new target.
In fact I would say all the claims for evolution are lines of reasoning and so a consilience of a great flaw in investigation is behind this great error called evolution.
Why do you think the geology is not “true”? What evidence do you have for this stance?
You won’t see anything with your eyes tight shut like that.
Why? Do we get a toaster if we convince you? Nothing will convince the determinedly unconvinceable. I couldn’t even prove that I had parents to your satisfaction, if you decided I sprang from the earth. Me, here now, just a data point.
You haven’t really addressed the point. You simply repeat, ad nauseam, ‘it’s just a line of reasoning’. That does not tell anyone why it is incorrect to infer descent from fossil stratigraphy. Particularly when that ‘line of reasoning’ is backed up by genetic phylogenies among extant organisms.
‘Witness statements under oath’ cannot extend back to Creation – there was no-one else there.
There are many ways the data could present itself which would render descent an inadequate hypothesis. A bunch of organisms mixed up with no discernible pattern arising from – oooh, let’s say, a global Flood, for example. But that is not what we find. We find a succession with which the assumption of descent is fully consistent.
The Bible is not a witness statement. It wasn’t written by one person and the people who wrote it were NOT witnesses to the stories.
Says it all.
Many think it is a witness and it claims to be a witness and it claims the witness is God. The people writing it just took notes.
So still no reason, no evidence, no thoughts on the subject of why you believe modern geology is wrong?
Just a childish belief in an omnipotent god that couldn’t be bothered to leave a permanent and unequivocal signature on its creation.
Well,that’s OK – just so long as you don’t expect to influence anyone who has actually bothered to research the facts. For sure, you haven’t.
Yet I’m striving to make a case that one does not find succession!
There is no biological evidence of succession.!!
All there is IS biological data points in segregated deposits over/under other deposits wherein are found the fossils.
Without the geology conclusions there is NO biological conclusions for succession.
IF the deposits were laid at the same time, save separated by days, there would be no claim for evolution between the fossils in the segregated deposits!
NOt enough time for evolution.
THEREFORE I insist the conclusions for succession and so descent are entirely conclusions of geological presumptions and nothing of biological investigation.
You are just persuading yourself of descent as a biological conclusion when theres no biology going on here. NONE.
Its just observation of biological data points and then connections are made unrelated to biological evidence.
Even if the fossils did show a true evolutionary succession I could say this.
The fossils only show what they show. They don’t show succession or evolution.
Its a flaw of logic to think they do.
Its a error to say its scientific biological investigation that shows there is descent being shown by fossils.
Even if they did represent this asa a reality.
So its only a line of reasoning devoid of scientific investigation.
Thats my reasoning and its a straight line of logic.
Whether the geology is true or not is unrelated to this thread or my point about the difference between scientific investigation and ordinary reasoning without careful investigation.
First things first.
By many independent lines of evidence, the strata were clearly not laid down within days of each other.
But even if they were, you offer no hypothesis as to how such events mere hours apart should lay down these ‘data points’ – presumably all alive a few days earlier – in a way that ensures that apparent relationship decreases with increasing stratigraphic distance, and with not a single anomaly – no mammals below point X, no birds below point Y, no fish below point Z, a pattern repeated right down to species level. The strata do not conclusively prove succession, but they are entirely consistent with it. They are not consistent with your version, even slightly.
Are professional paleontologists who make this study their life’s work ALL just plain stupid?
Yes – you demonstrate clearly the pointlessness of discussion with Creationists. Even if I shepherded the succession past your house, depositing their offspring on your doorstep for examination, you would still prefer your foolish 6-days story, supported by not one scrap of evidence.
Why Robert, why? Do you enjoy making grown men weep in frustration? Do you think God will punish you less severely if your faith in literal Genesis survives ALL tests? 😕
“The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking.” – Albert Einstein
Science IS reasoning supported by evidence.
If there were a logical flaw you should be able to say which logical fallacy. WHICH LOGICAL FALLACY? You cannot say because not only do you not understand logic well enough, there is no error of logic.
“Many think it is a witness” – Irrelevant. Many people think George Washington had wooden teeth. They are wrong.
Many people think the Koran was inspired by God. They can’t also be right.
“It claims to be a witness” – So what? I can right now claim to have witnessed the death of Ghengis Khan. Do you believe me BECAUSE I claim to be a witness?
Lots of people claim their books are holy.
The bible was not written by witnesses to the events described in the stories.
Newton’s law of gravity was never a practical fact. It resulted from a line of reasoning. It was not accepted by all. In fact, Newton received some criticism for relying on occult forces (action at a distance). And note that Einstein’s General Relativity disagrees with Newton.
Nevertheless, Newton’s science was revolutionary, and very important.
Science doesn’t work the way that you think it should.
Of course it’s related!
The ages of various strata in the geological column have been established by several lines of careful scientific investigation. As a self-proclaimed YEC, you disagree with the results of those investigations.
But you can’t say why. You don’t know why. You are totally ignorant of those methods and how they work. You can’t point to a single fact about geology and give a reason why you think it’s wrong.
All you can do is burble on about “lines of reasoning” being incorrect. But again, you can’t say why.
Who should we beleve, Byers? The published data from hundreds upon hundreds of geological studies all over the world? – or you.
Give us a break, Grow up, grow a pair, and learn to argue by some means other than bald assertion.
The bible was written by God and the witness of this is the human writers. They deny being the source of the bible. They are a witness to their own integrity on this.
The bible is presented as a witness of God to origins.
Therefore its a witness of God.
You can say its a fraud but you can’t dismiss it from the court asa a witness for one side.
A witness in good standing is the word of God.
Your not understanding my case here.
Its about methodology and not, for the moment, what is true.
I’m saying its just lines of reasoning and not biological scientific investigation that sees, for example, succession of descent by fossils of types of creatures.
Even if the fossils did show sucession iT still would not be biological scientific evidence.
Only a coincidence of biological data points that were layered in segregated deposition events.
Your being convinced by non scientific evidence.
Tghis is about science and not accuracy in interpretation.
A video by a space alien would be excellent evidence for evolution if it showed it as it happened.
Yet it would not be evidence from biological scientific investigation.
Newton said his ideas were not mere hypothesis but based on facts from investigation. he literally said this. It was practical facts.
Einstein said Newtons stuff was just a special case in the new theory. It wasn’t wrong.
Science at best can say its a higher standard of investigation that can DEMAND a higher confidence in its conclusions. its a methodology with rules or the prestige of science can’t be invoked. Its just ordinary investigation .
The theory of biological evolution mUST be based on biology to be within the rules of science.
DRawing connections between data points has nothing to do with biological investigation and so can’t claim (evolution0 to be a theory of science. Its just a open hypothesis. True or not.
I say I am God. God is a witness in good standing. Which means I (God) wouldn’t lie to you. Therefore I must be God.
I am a witness to my own integrity on this.
You can say this is a fraud but you can’t dismiss it from the court.
As God, my word is reliable.
In the same way a three year old’s refusal to eat his greens is about politics.
I insist. Its a flaw of logic to say a biological fact is established by biological investigation when there is only geological investigation using biological data points.
The connections between creatures , descent, is not proven by biology.
Yet they are saying it is.
Somebody’s wrong here!
Perhaps, instead of repeating your original claim over and over, you could read our responses and move the dialog forward.
It all comes down to a creationist, in this case me, striving to show that scxientific methodology is not going on where conclusions in one subject are drawn based on accepted conclusions in another. Then its presented that the former subject IS the origin of the conclusions in fact drawn from the latter subjects accepted assumptions.
A logical flaw is going on and no science is going on the the subject in focus.
Fossils, genetics, morphology, biogeography have nothing to do with the scientific investigation of biological processes.
Evolutionism has blundered in its methodology.
I think in time this will be realized.
Don’t make evolution wrong but its a beginning of figuring out why its wrong.
Wow! Just – wow! Incredible insight.
I think repeatedly posting the same thing without regard to what others have posted (“wanking”) should be moved to Guano.
If someone has a more genteel name for it, then all well and good. Anyhow, it should be mentioned in the guidelines imo.