With TMM on Jason Lisle video, fallacies and more

Creationist Doesn't Understand How Fallacies Work
29thMay 2022 | TMM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wqh3loiEQ0

I

dialogue

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1:04 Jason Lisle : "the faulty appeal to authority"
TMM citing Jason Lisle : "appeal to faulty authority"

1:36 There is in fact such a thing as "correct appeal to authority." You want to know what I ate for supper today? (I was offered chicken burger and fries) - you had better take it from me or from someone who took it from me or from someone who saw me take and eat it. The appeal is in this case correct, because these are things I and such people known better than you in advance of my telling you.

So appeal to eyewitness authority for facts is a correct appeal to authority.

TMM

@Hans-Georg Lundahl The appeal to authority fallacy is fallacious because even eyewitness testimony is fallible, and therefore not proof. That's not to say that all appeals to authority yield incorrect conclusions. Fallacies are fallacious not because their conclusions are false necessarily, but rather because they don't really prove their conclusions to be true. A fallacious appeal can even have a very high probability of truth and still be fallacious if it isn't an absolute proof.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TMM Sorry, but that's not what fallacy means. There is a difference between "certain syllogism" and "probable syllogism" and even "probable syllogism" is not the same thing as fallacy.

If you try to make a certain syllogism, and it involves a form with "undistributed middle" (a middle term not taken in all of its distribution, or extent, in either of the premisses), you fail, and the fallacy is one of incorrect syllogism.

There are fallacies in probable syllogisms too. Which means, for instance, as in this case, there is a correct way of appealing to authority and there is a wrong way.

TMM

@Hans-Georg Lundahl In probabalistic arguments, there aren't just "correct" and "incorrect" appeals, there are appeals of many levels of reliability corresponding to the respective degrees of probability that they are true.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TMM There are in fact appeals that are simply incorrect.

TMM

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Yes, as I said, there aren't "just" correct and incorrect appeals. There are appeals with many levels of reliability in between incorrect ones and deductively valid ones. Appeals to testimony cover the range up to, but not including, deductively valid appeals.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TMM Exactly.

And when "all scientists say" is not about testimony, but to paradigm, it is a fallacious appeal.

II

dialogue

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2:11 If you do not believe matter and energy - along with time - did not exist for an infinite amount of time, even if you do not consider there was a time when they didn't exist, you still admit they had a kind of beginning point : a time at which they existed and before which they didn't exist, even if only because that "before" didn't exist either as a time.

Hence, the false dichotomy is not there.

TMM

It's only not there if you conflate the two different kinds of "beginnings."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TMM The argument stated that you considered a "false dichotomy" actually did not state "a time when matter and energy did not exist" and you have not argued anything excluding a moment when they existed and which had no prior moment when they existed.

The Aristotelian argument "whatever comes into being is brought into being by sth else" does not seem to make exceptions for when there is nothing before that something comes into beginning.

TMM

@Hans-Georg Lundahl The reason I think it's a false dichotomy is because I think there are two distinct ways in which there could be "a moment when they existed and which had no prior moment when they existed." Both the creationist conception of "beginning" which I said is "an event in which matter and energy changed from not existing to existing" and a beginning point that is more analogous to how a yard stick "begins" at its first inch fit that description. I'm rejecting the creationist conception of a beginning, but retaining the other one. I believe Lisle is making a false dichotomy, because he seems to fail to even consider the non-creationist interpretation of the beginning of the universe. He thinks a beginning can only mean a coming-into-existence, rather than mere past-finitude.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TMM I believe this is the most commonsense (both consistent and parcimonious) explanation of a "moment before which X did not exist."

III

3:13 The alternative "the overwhelming preponderance of evidence collected via the scientific method is most consistently and parsimoniously explained by idea X" is a much more contestable statement than "science says" ... the former begs the question "oh, is it really?" while the latter sounds like an appeal to the authority of all the scientists who have analysed the evidence and the idea X and who alone can do such analysis - or even to the authority of a totally reified science that the scientists are merely spokesmen for.

3:42 And how exactly are you supposed to know that idea X is most rigorously supported by the evidence?

Yeah, even you. You "know" it is so because you have singlehandedly gone over all the evidence in the field data one item by one item? Or because you saw the evidence presented in such and such a way, specifically by, well, precisely scientists? So, in a very real, though not as immediate sense, when you say "science says" you mean "scientists say" - and this is even more so with the horde of non-specialists and non-science communicating on a scientific matter who are telling someone also not a scientists "science says" - to both parties, the only sensible meaning is "scientists say."

IV

3:58 Yeah, did Jason Lisle say the correct appeals to authority have to be "deductive" in your sense of the word?

Actually, as knowing a bit about formal logic, I would say the appeal to authority is in some cases with a "probable deduction" (as opposed to a formal deduction) an argument for sth. This probable deduction is itself based on induction from examples of such uses of authority.

I would definitely not say "a reputable" authority is what makes the difference. The difference is whether there is a good likelihood the authority knows what he is taken as authority for. And reputable is per se not the criterium.

V

4:29 "that would be an appeal to the evidence presented by the authority"

Which you access, precisely, through that authority.

VI

4:46 When it comes to credentials, here are those of Ken Ham, superior to those of Bill Nye: "Ham earned a bachelor's degree in applied science (with an emphasis on environmental biology) from the Queensland Institute of Technology and holds a Diploma in Education from the University of Queensland."

VII

5:03 How is a pre-commitment to Creationism a pre-commitment to a "conclusion"?

Especially to a conclusion within the relevant research.

I would definitely conclude Biblical creation from God telling Moses about it (Genesis 2 from existence of Adam to Genesis 50 is transmitted as history, but Genesis 1 (except very few verses) and early verses of Genesis 2 implicitly claim to be prophecy.

And I would conclude Moses was a real prophet, a reliable authority for God giving us prophecy, from the miracles he worked in liberating Israel - which I conclude from history.

But I do not pretend, and Jason Lisle does not pretend that all the details of the six days immediately follow as conclusions from their arguments against old earth, even if there are some.

5:21 "and interpret whatever evidence they find to fit that"

If you have already good evidence for X, further evidence as a priority should be interpreted to fit X. Until you find sth which really doesn't fit.

VIII

5:50 The point is precisely, "forensic science" is not science.

It is a metonomy. It could be more accurately stated as "forensic investigation by means put at disposal by science" ... but such an investigation is very far from looking for the laws of electronic currents, which once obtained will hold not just about the one case, being in the past, but about lots of cases all along the present.

If I find someone's fingerprints and DNA in a robbed house, I am applying a science already there about fingerprints and DNA in order to investigate history, especially in the hope of elucidating a robbery.

There could be other reasons for someone's fingerprints and DNA to be in a robbed house than his being the perpetrator, one, not very common, but certainly possible alternative is, one was kidnapped into the house, the robbery was faked and the fingerprints and DNA were specifically planted on pieces of evidence.

Fortunately, most robbery suspects don't have that kind of personal haters and most robbed houses don't have the resources for such a kidnap even if they were to dislike someone intensely for other reasons than robbery.

IX

6:26 "we infer from the fact that we've never seen the laws of physics be different, that they never have been different"

Ambiguous, in relation to stories about miracles. Does it mean you admit CSL's idea that miracles add to nature by an agency not described to but therefore not contradicting the laws describing natural agencies? Or does it involve a claim miracles have never been observed? The latter is false.

"because other galaxies are millions of light years away"

Known how? I think there is a broken stair case involved behind reaching that claim, somewhere. For instance, does the claim indirectly depend on "earth circling Sun annually" and therefore an aspect of the annually observed movements of alpha Centauri (the one standing out from general background of aberration) involves a triangle with the star in one angle and earth in two different angles, and distance between earth at the times a known one?

Because, if it is in fact Sun that moves, indeed daily around the sky above, but annually around the zodiac also moving daily in the sky, instead we have a triangle with earth in one angle and the star in two other ones, with the distance between the stellar positions not known ... and therefore no "4 lightyears to alpha Centauri."

And, in older astronomy, Andromeda was referred to as a spiral nebula, if you don't admit Heliocentrism as a premiss, and you are not arguing how it follows as a conclusion, can you honestly say that the Andromeda spiral nebula is comparable to stars surrounding us on all sides, with both considered "galaxies"?

X

7:07 "This is not a distinction that is recognised by scientists outside of creationist circles."

Now, this sounds like an appeal to "scientists are saying" ...

"What happened in the past leaves behind observable evidence in the present"

Sometimes, but sometimes evidence from one event has vanished because some other event reshuffled what is left to be observed now, in fact this is more often the case.

For most events in ancient history, we have narratives as only traces, with physical evidence gone. For most events that happened back then, they do not belong to history even, as no one both recorded them and succeeded to get the recording preserved to our time.

"The evidence left behind in the present can either corroborate or disprove scientific hypotheses and theories about what happened in the past"

Or, much more often, be insufficient for either.

And I think historians should study testimony on what appears to be close to dinosaurs, while obviously, the anatomy of a dinosaur, to some extent is the same in the present as in the past. A scientist studying the anatomy of a dimetrodon or a pterosaur may help a historian to ask whether Vikings were heirs to someone (for instance Sigurd / Siegfried) having seen and killed a dimetrodon, and whether Beowulf was killed by a pterosaur.

XI

8:42 "or is a rejection of the Biblical worldview a post-supposition that is inferred from looking at the evidence?"

In psychology (which is not really a science, you cannot have science about the contingent events in past, future, distant places or hidden nooks, including the interior of fellow men), a possible test for this would be, how many of the scientists who claim dinos died out 66 million years ago came out into field palaeontology as convinced young earth creationists and only rejected that because of the evidence?

Were you a YEC prior to being an Evolutionist? With me it was the opposite.

Creationists often do, and make informed rejections, of certain anti-YEC guesses about text background to the Bible (like Genesis Flood being a plagiarism on Atrahasis Flood, rejected since Genesis describes an actually viable floating box with actually feasible storage room for a sufficient amount of animal couples to account for present vertebrate non-fish variety and for the food they need too).

"Science students are trained to challenge their biases."

In fact, not the anti-Creationist ones. More like ones that would in more rational times be considered common sense rather than biasses.

XII

9:31 "He doesn't seem to even consider the possibility that the belief that the universe is billions of years old is something inferred from observation rather than something contrived to fit with a preconceived conclusion."

We know there are observations used to bolster the millions and billions of years. We have our critiques why we state these observations are used in a fallacious way, one more with me than with Jason Lisle, since I reject the Heliocentric premiss behind things being so and so many light years away.

What he is talking about is the wholesale rejection of such critiques that you show. Does it have a motive? We think it does.

K L

You reject heliocentrism?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@K L Yes.

K L

So you're a flat Earther then too? Despite the monumentally overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@K L Against the flat earth the evidence to the contrary is indeed overwhelming.

Magellan made a circumnavigation and it has its parallels to this day, most often in smaller snippets adding up to circumnavigations if taken together, and easily verifiable by telephone as to time zones.

Would you mind telling me when you were going to argue any overwhelming evidence for heliocentrism? Oh, or monumentally overwhelming, if you prefer!

XIII

11:35 If you want to predict star or planet positions, it is certainly very useful for astrologers.

A bit less often to wannabe and actual astronauts.

Neither evolution, nor creationism, are useful in this sense. Statements about the past usually aren't.

XIV

"Yeah, but those other explanations can be tested."

Not always, by everyone. One can imagine police comes to a crime scene, at the edge of where there was rainfall, and the grass is wet. No sprinkler is found, but it is vitally important to know whether the grass became wet because of the rainfall (put this at a certain hour) or because of a sprinkler (would be compatible with a later hour).

If the perpetrator eliminated blood stains with a sprinkler after the rainfall, hoping the rainfall would be taken as cause, it may be because the murder was committed after the rainfall.

And we can set that detective story in 1930's, before surveillance cameras.

Now, there are in fact other ways to test a possible explanation than by asking what one could see that rules it out. Like, does the explanation explain other things, some of which have no other or no reasonable other proposed explanation?

To underline "edge of where there was a rainfall" - the house to the left had and the house to the right hadn't wet grass, and so on for other houses same direction.

13:05 "But one of those hypotheses is testable and falsifiable and the other is not."

How do you falsify the evolutionary hypothesis, if all creationist explanations of datings are rejected at the door, before inspection?

When glaring problems are dismissed with "we haven't found that out just yet, but are still working on it" as you do with:

• abiogenesis
• origin of new functional genes
• origin of conscience and language?

13:54 Precambrian fossil layers are typically marine biota, so rabbits aren't to be expected in them anyway.

If you find a mammal in a layer, you usually do not classify it as very old, or you state the rabbit was put into the layer later. Haldane was (perhaps unconsciously) disingenious.

XV

14:19 You are asking what naturalistic mechanisms God used for a non-naturalistic creation event.

But you do not know the mechanisms for evolution, unlike what you stated.

K L

Yes, we do know the mechanisms for evolution. And you would have to explain what a "non-naturalistic event" is, and how it produced naturalistic effects.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@K L Because nature itself comes from supernature - specifically, from God omnipotent.

It's not a derived mechanism, it's a basic rule.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@K L Oh, as you claimed to know the mechanisms for evolution - no, you do not.

You do know mechanisms for certain types of change and also speciation (reproductie barriers), but that is not sufficient for evolution.

If one function is dependent on many genes, and each gene may be rendered dysfunctional by one locus mutating (if it's the wrong mutation), you do not have a case for new functions arising by mutations. Just one of the mechanisms you absolutely do not know.

K L

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "you do not have a case for new functions arising by mutations"

Can you drink cow's milk?

"Because nature itself comes from supernature - specifically, from God omnipotent"

My eyes rolled so hard they did a complete revolution. You have no basis for either of those claims.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@K L 1) Lactase persistance is not a new function, its just a simplification of the much older function of lactase production. It's in fact a dysfunction on the function that turns off lactase production at a certain age.
2) Exclaiming and claiming / proving are two different logical ventures. You challenged me to an explanation, I gave it, and now you treat the explanation as a claim to prove, rather than the solution to a problem you pretended me unable to solve. So, shall I take this as, you agree the explanation clearly does explain and now you only want proof? Or shall I take it as a deflection from the fact, you can't pinpoint a fault in the explanation as explanation and don't want to admit it?

K L

@Hans-Georg Lundahl " It's in fact a dysfunction on the function that turns off lactase production at a certain age. "

Deactivation would be loss of function. Activation of the gene is gain of function. But there's other examples if you want more. Antarctic fish evolved antifreeze glycoprotein genes, which were completely novel. Iguanas have a third rudimentary eye on the top of their head to detect predators. Bioluminescence has evolved independently dozens of times.

"You challenged me to an explanation, I gave it, and now you treat the explanation as a claim to prove, rather than the solution to a problem you pretended me unable to solve. "

You didn't give an explanation at all. You made a vague unsupported claim. "God did it" is not an explanation, it's a cop out.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@K L "Deactivation would be loss of function."

Programmed deactivation is in itself a function.

And what the one locus mutation did was make this subsidiary function dysfunctional. It did not add any function turning the function of lactase production on, and it did not make the lactase production in the first place.

"Antarctic fish evolved antifreeze glycoprotein genes, which were completely novel."

Doubt this. It could be a shift on an earlier gene producing sth else.

If there are in fact several genes, completely lacking from similar fish not on the antarctic, I'd go for other versions losing those genes, but I find it doubtful.

Or if the genus only exists at the antarctic, i'd suggest they are a separate kind.

Try to prove me wrong? Well, what about trying to cross breed such an antarctic fish with "a cod" or whatever is closest from areas outside the Antarctic. We do cross breed with people who have another lactase functionality than ourselves, that's why we know the turning off of the gene's "turning off" function is within the same kind.

"Iguanas have a third rudimentary eye on the top of their head to detect predators."

All iguanas? Are they a kind or a version of a kind? Rudimentary? How much is tweaked in the genes to have this rudimentary extra eye?

"Bioluminescence has evolved independently dozens of times."

This one is a very blatant appeal to the theory of evolution I'm attacking.

"You didn't give an explanation at all."

Yes I did.

" You made a vague unsupported claim."

Some very simple statements are very simple because there are complexities, and they are left out. That is vagueness. Some very simple statements are very simple for the opposite reason. They are THE starting point for explanation. And the "claim" I gave is, as far as any Theist is concerned, as far as any Christian is concerned, this type of simple. Not the vague type.

I can flesh it out if you like, but I cannot add any more basic part to the "mechanism" - because it is the most basic mechanism of all, creation obeying the creator.

To you, wrongly, reality consists entirely of quanta of space, time, matter and energy and each quantum and all types of interactions between quanta is governed by the inherent powers that are limited and that work out in ways that can be described in what you call natural laws.

To us, these quanta and their powers all exist, but are a subset of reality, not its most basic type of agent. The claim made is, in fact, "God did it" is simpler than "this is how the force of gravitation works".

K L

[this comment seems deleted from the thread]

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Doubt this. It could be a shift on an earlier gene producing sth else."

...which would be called evolution. A gene mutating, performing a new/different function, and being selected by environmental pressure is evolution.
https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=102790

"Or if the genus only exists at the antarctic, i'd suggest they are a separate kind."

There's no such thing as a "kind". If you want to say species, say species. If you want to say family, say family.

"All iguanas? Are they a kind or a version of a kind? "

Again, there's no such thing as a "kind". It has no meaningful definition. Creationists just use it to mean whatever they want.

"This one is a very blatant appeal to the theory of evolution I'm attacking."

Sorry if you don't like me appealing to reality. 🤣

"I can flesh it out if you like"

No you can't. You can babble...about something you can't substantiate in the slightest.

"The claim made is, in fact, "God did it" is simpler than "this is how the force of gravitation works"."

Saying "magic" is typically simpler than how things actually work. However, you're claiming all of reality AND a supernatural unfalsifiable immaterial deity exists. By adding a facile 'explanation' of reality you've actually not made it simpler. You've added an extra layer of complexity (though one that is admittedly as simple as it gets). And of course you cannot present any evidence to support the "god did it" hypothesis anyway.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@K L An earlier gene producing something else is evolution?

OK, I accept that my genes produce a lighter shade of melanine than arguably Adam and Eve had.

I was speaking of new functions.

In mammals, "kind" usually is either "family" or "subfamily" - but these classifications are less basic than whether or not God created them from common first parents. The exception would be human kind, mankind, which spans only a "genus" - or not even all of it - namely "genus Homo" (except habilis, perhaps even rudolfensis).

This does not automatically mean that the same applies to fish.

"Sorry if you don't like me appealing to reality."

I'd prefer you did. You know, to the proven reality to be explained, when proving explanations as factual.

"Saying "magic" is typically simpler than how things actually work."

And saying "wave lengths" is typically simpler than expressing how these affect the retina and how a TV camera works. Basics are typically simpler than applications.

"By adding a facile 'explanation' of reality you've actually not made it simpler."

I do not share your mania of cutting away complexities. I was only mentioning, that the lack of a complexity is because the explanation has reached a point more basic than the complexities.

"And of course you cannot present any evidence to support the "god did it" hypothesis anyway."

Exactly how do you present any evidence for any hypothesis that is explanation but itself not observed?

If a magic trick is explained by my putting one thumb down and the other one (of the hand pretending to finger the thumb) up next to it, it's an explanation I can observe, and in a mirror I can observe it really looks like my pulling off and putting back the thumb of my right hand with the fingers of my left. Here, the explanation is observed

Heliocentrism isn't, evolution from single celled organisms to man isn't observed, you believe lots of stuff that is explanation but not observation.

I would say, an explanation that is not observed is proven in a basic way, which needs a completion: it explains something that is observed.
The completion can take two forms:
a) and all other proposed explanations fail to explain it
b) and there are lots of other explanations it also explains.

And God makes it on both sides.

Here we were dealing with the general claim of there being something other than quanta of time, space, matter and energy, and this part is already born out by consciousness. You have made lots of advances on the "evolution of consciousness" except on the one very crucial point, why it became exactly consciousness, and not something as unconscious as the basics of reality on your view are.

And elsewhere God is and evolution or Big Bang isn't:

• a perfect explanation for why we have language
• for how life arose
• for why the cosmos holds together (and perhaps a few more)
• as well as for historically attested miracles.

K L

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "I was speaking of new functions."

The examples I gave are new functions, lol.

"In mammals, "kind" usually is either "family" or "subfamily" - but these classifications are less basic than whether or not God created them from common first parents. The exception would be human kind, mankind, which spans only a "genus" - or not even all of it - namely "genus Homo" (except habilis, perhaps even rudolfensis)."

Like I said, completely arbitrary. I'm somewhat amazed by your last sentence though. Most creationists don't even think those species existed. So why were Neanderthals part of the human "kind" but Homo Habilis part of the ape (?) kind? What about Australopithecus? What exactly is the demarcation for human "kind"?

"Heliocentrism isn't, evolution from single celled organisms to man isn't observed, you believe lots of stuff that is explanation but not observation."

Heliocentrism is observed literally every day.

And I don't need to directly observe the complete tree of evolution from a single cell to humans to know it's accurate. Evolution is one of the most tested and verified scientific theories in history. It's been directly observed multiple times.

"I would say, an explanation that is not observed is proven in a basic way, which needs a completion: it explains something that is observed."

And I would say this is THE BEST way to believe things that aren't true. Simply making something up and calling it a good-enough explanation is counterproductive if it is not tested for accuracy. This type of thought only inhibits investigation and fact-finding. I would also say (and already have) that your "explanation" is not an explanation at all, because it offers no detail whatsoever. If you claim an immaterial being made the material universe, explain how. Simply saying they did it is not an explanation, it's hand-waving.

"And elsewhere God is and evolution or Big Bang isn't"

Ah yes, your ever-shrinking god of the gaps...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@K L "The examples I gave are new functions, lol."

The freezer liquid is at least not a radically new substance compared to the trypsinogen enzyme, I suppose?

It's like feomelanine in the skin is basically the same thing as eumelanine, but has the "new function" of allowing more sunlight to produce vitamin D.

And obviously bioluminosity is only a "new function" if the organisms did develop from others.

"Most creationists don't even think those species existed."

Oh, really? Or just that they weren't actually species, but normal humans, mostly.

"So why were Neanderthals part of the human "kind""

Human ears, from auditory duct to malleus, incus and stapes, human FOXP2 gene, human hyoid bone with traces of wear and tear identic to modern humans who use it when speaking, clear traces in some skulls that are well preserved of the Broca's area. In other words, definitely could speak.

"but Homo Habilis part of the ape (?) kind? What about Australopithecus?"

Australopithecus had a humanlike auditory duct and malleus, but totally ape like incus and stapes. Somewhat like an ape, unable to hear certain consonants. T, D, S, P, B, F, perhaps even N, M. An ape like hyoid, with hooks, like the hooks by which an ape has air bags hanging. They increase the volume, which is useful in shrieking contests, but destroy the distinctness of individual speech sounds, which is an impossibility for speech. Best preserved skulls have no trace of Broca's area.

Creationists have up to now considered Homo habilis a junk taxon, with men and apes mingled, and some (including me) have heard Homo rudolfensis had traces of Broca's area, and so some (including me) considered Homo rudolfensis, but not the other habilis as human, a closer look on the skull seems to indicate, no, not a real trace of Broca's area, and angles ape and not human.

"Heliocentrism is observed literally every day."

An effect supposedly of heliocentrism is observed literally every day. But it is equally explainable as an effect of geocentrism. Which is feasible with supernatural agents (like God and angels) and which is preferrable over some of the daring explanations and "hope-for-the-bests" when it comes to heliocentrism working physically.

"And I don't need to directly observe the complete tree of evolution from a single cell to humans to know it's accurate."

It is at least a clear example of your believing an explanation not directly observed.

"Evolution is one of the most tested and verified scientific theories in history."

Comparable to Pythagoras' theorem? Or to Earth being round? Or to Mendel's laws of heredity? No.

"It's been directly observed multiple times."

Not with new functions.

"And I would say this is THE BEST way to believe things that aren't true."

Except I said the basic proof needed a completion.

"Simply making something up and calling it a good-enough explanation is counterproductive if it is not tested for accuracy."

And I offered two tests for accuracy, namely, a) other explanations not working, b) same explanation thing, same agent as in this explanation, also being good to explain other things.

"I would also say (and already have) that your "explanation" is not an explanation at all, because it offers no detail whatsoever."

If someone says "light is wavelengths of electromagnetism" that also offers no details.

" If you claim an immaterial being made the material universe, explain how. Simply saying they did it is not an explanation, it's hand-waving."

Explain how wavelengths of 620 to 750 nm are perceived as red? Ultimately, that also offers no details. It doesn't mean it's handwaving, it means the scientist so saying considers wavelengths the ultimate explanation of the light we perceive and the colours we perceive, and an ultime explanation cannot offer much detail, it's what the details of less basic explanations are based on.

"Ah yes, your ever-shrinking god of the gaps..."

Except it's your evolution of the gaps that is evershrinking.

K L

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
"The freezer liquid is at least not a radically new substance compared to the trypsinogen enzyme, I suppose?"

I would say it is. "Radical" isn't a very precise term though.

"And obviously bioluminosity is only a "new function" if the organisms did develop from others."

That doesn't follow at all. All existent organisms developed from others.

"In other words, definitely could speak."

So your definition of a human "kind" is having the ability to speak? That seems quite arbitrary.

"Comparable to Pythagoras' theorem? Or to Earth being round? Or to Mendel's laws of heredity?"

Mathematical theorums and laws aren't scientific theories. You should probably read what you're responding to.

"And I offered two tests for accuracy"

No you didn't. You offered unfalsifiable codswallop. If I say a Magic Donkey could live at the center of the Earth and that he controls all dice throws, that provides nothing to the accuracy of the claim.

"An effect supposedly of heliocentrism is observed literally every day. But it is equally explainable as an effect of geocentrism. Which is feasible with supernatural agents"

If you have to appeal to literal magic to explain things like retrograde motion then you've already lost. And you're ignoring the observations from other solar systems, gravity calculations, and outside observance from deep space satellites like voyager. Why would you even believe something as stupid as geocentrism? Because the bible says so?

"Except it's your evolution of the gaps that is evershrinking."

LOL, quite the opposite actually. Belief in god is waning and Darwinian evolution theory has only ever been strengthened by observation.

Just as a general question, you being a creationist but (seemingly) not a young Earth creationist, what exactly is God's role? You accept that things like Australopithecus existed, so where did it come from? Is God sprinkling new species onto Earth randomly throughout history? Or do I have it wrong, and you are a young Earth creationist? Since your frequent use of "kind" is indicative of belief in the Noah fable.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@K L "I would say it is. "Radical" isn't a very precise term though."

The point is not precise in delimitation, it is still valid. Feomelanine is not radically new to original eumelanine, even so it gives a new boon to absorbing sunlight to get vitamin D. Retinas are a radically new function compared to whatever went before, and involve several new substances, whether each is radically new or not, the cocktail is.

"That doesn't follow at all. All existent organisms developed from others."

That is the point of dispute between us, not a thing you can pretend to use as proof.

"So your definition of a human "kind" is having the ability to speak? That seems quite arbitrary."

It seems you are not very aware of how radically different human speech is from animal vocalisations ... as a linguist (amateur with some undergraduate studies) I am.

"Mathematical theorums and laws aren't scientific theories. You should probably read what you're responding to."

It seems you use "science" as I use "natural science" (naturvetenskap, Naturwissenschaft). In Swedish and German, Mathematics certainly is a "vetenskap"/"Wissenschaft" ... now Mendel's laws definitely are not just science, but specifically natural science.

"No you didn't."

1) Test n° 1 for accuracy : explanendum not being explainable by any other means;
2) Test n° 2 for accuracy : explanendum being one of many explanenda that the explanation explains.

"You offered unfalsifiable codswallop. If I say a Magic Donkey could live at the center of the Earth and that he controls all dice throws, that provides nothing to the accuracy of the claim."

You cite what of my words you compare to that, and probably, you are confusing what I offered as test with what I offered as explanation of my terms which are two different things.

"If you have to appeal to literal magic to explain things like retrograde motion then you've already lost."

Not the least, it means we have another explanendum that God covers, which is a test for accuracy.

"And you're ignoring the observations from other solar systems,"

Who was on another solar system and observed us? Or did you simply mean observations from here but _of_ stars with exoplanets?

"gravity calculations,"

I didn't much mention them, but overall over my coverage of the issue, I have not ignore them. What is the exact problem?

"and outside observance from deep space satellites like voyager."

As far as I know, Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 are NOT taking pictures of us?

"Why would you even believe something as stupid as geocentrism? Because the bible says so?"

Yes, and because our eyes and inner ears say so. Sure, those two observations can be explained away by someone who is set on believing Heliocentrism, but with Geocentrism, we do not need that.

"LOL, quite the opposite actually. Belief in god is waning"

The question was not about sociology, which is actually very explainable in school compulsion (side effect : school shootings, so far no homeschooler did it), but about coverage of issues.

"and Darwinian evolution theory has only ever been strengthened by observation."

As far as micro-evolution is concerned ... do you believe Miacis cognitus is common ancestor to cats and dogs, to feliforms and caniforms? It's an incomplete skull.

"Just as a general question, you being a creationist but (seemingly) not a young Earth creationist,"

I am a Young Earth Creationist. What makes you think I weren't?

"what exactly is God's role?"

When it comes to created kinds, God is the creator, and created them on days 3 for plants, 5 and 6 for animals.

"You accept that things like Australopithecus existed, so where did it come from?"

Created on day 6 like other apes.

"Is God sprinkling new species onto Earth randomly throughout history?"

Not the least.

"Or do I have it wrong, and you are a young Earth creationist? Since your frequent use of "kind" is indicative of belief in the Noah fable."

I am indeed a Young Earth Creationist, as said!

K L

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Retinas are a radically new function compared to whatever went before, and involve several new substances, whether each is radically new or not, the cocktail is."

The evolution of the eye is only mysterious to creationists. Feel free to learn this stuff. It's not hidden knowledge. But I expect you'd rather not learn it, the same way you'd rather deflect to vitamin D production instead of addressing the example I gave.

"That is the point of dispute between us, not a thing you can pretend to use as proof."

That's the thing. It's already been proven. You just don't like it because it conflicts with your religious beliefs.

"It seems you are not very aware of how radically different human speech is from animal vocalisations"

It seems you are not very aware of the definition of arbitrary. Human vocalizations don't act a defining feature that identifies our genus. But whatever. I just wanted to know what you thought distinguished human "kind". And being some kind of self-styled linguist, you think it's speech (little wonder). So I got my answer.

"Mendel's laws"

Mendel's laws aren't scientific theories. A scientific theory has a specific definition. That's why I used it. You then tried to mix in things like mathematics which aren't in the same category. It's apples and oranges.

"1) Test n° 1 for accuracy : explanendum not being explainable by any other means;
2) Test n° 2 for accuracy : explanendum being one of many explanenda that the explanation explains."

Where did you get this nonsense? The first 'test' is just a black swan fallacy. The second is also fallacious. A proposed explanation for something specific is not more valid for that specific thing because it could explain other things.

"Not the least, it means we have another explanendum that God covers, which is a test for accuracy."

Except "God did it" fails your first test in every case. Retrograde motion is more satisfactorily explained by our perspective from Earth as it revolves around the sun than it is from God making the planets do little loop-de-loos in their orbit.

"Who was on another solar system and observed us? Or did you simply mean observations from here but of stars with exoplanets?"

Don't be obtuse. You know I mean observations of other solar systems that all show less massive planets revolving around more massive stars.

"I didn't much mention them, but overall over my coverage of the issue, I have not ignore them. What is the exact problem?"

The exact problem is that the Sun is much more massive than the Earth.

"As far as I know, Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 are NOT taking pictures of us?"

Voyager 1 very famously took a picture of the solar system and Earth. It's the "pale blue dot" photograph.

"Yes, and because our eyes and inner ears say so."

Flat Earthers say the same thing, including literal interpretation in the Bible.

"As far as micro-evolution is concerned "

I love how creationists admit that evolution is valid for making small changes, but don't think that small changes can build to major ones over time. "Micro-evolution" is just evolution.

"do you believe Miacis cognitus is common ancestor to cats and dogs, to feliforms and caniforms? It's an incomplete skull."

Miacis Cognitus is only one species of Miacid. There are numerous fossils from Miacids.

"Created on day 6 like other apes."

For starters, humans are apes. And Australopithecus lived too long ago to be congruent with a young Earth. The species of Humans you seemingly agree with existing, like Homo Habilis and even Homo Erectus, also lived too long ago to fit with a young Earth. That's why I thought you must be an old Earth creationist. Really no science at all backs up a young Earth. Indeed the fields geology, biology, astronomy, chemistry, and physics have debunked the notion more times than is worth mentioning. Young Earth is as wrongheaded as geocentrism. Both have been completely demolished by empirical evidence, and believing them is just foolish.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@K L "The evolution of the eye is only mysterious to creationists. Feel free to learn this stuff. It's not hidden knowledge. But I expect you'd rather not learn it, the same way you'd rather deflect to vitamin D production instead of addressing the example I gave."

I actually did. It was an evolutionist on quora some perhaps up to ten years ago, who posted a fact sheet about blind chiclids. You are probably referring to "evolution of the eye" with things added to retina, but I am, from that, inferring the evolution of the retina is impossible.

"That's the thing. It's already been proven. You just don't like it because it conflicts with your religious beliefs."

That statement is equally in dispute between us.

"It seems you are not very aware of the definition of arbitrary. Human vocalizations don't act a defining feature that identifies our genus. But whatever. I just wanted to know what you thought distinguished human "kind". And being some kind of self-styled linguist, you think it's speech (little wonder). So I got my answer."

It seems you don't want to argue about it with someone claiming to have more insight into linguistics than you. Selfstyled is overdoing my degree of amateurism. I am not a professor, doctor or even master in linguistics, but I did spend 4 1/2 out of 5 years of studies with exams on lang and lit subjects. This means among other things I had a Latin professor able to quote Chomsky.

"Mendel's laws aren't scientific theories. A scientific theory has a specific definition. That's why I used it. You then tried to mix in things like mathematics which aren't in the same category. It's apples and oranges."

Mendel's laws may be very mathematical in expression, nevertheless, they are in science. And if they are "laws" rather than a "theory" that is part of my point. Mendel's laws are in fact far more certain than theories like "Evolution" or "Heliocentrism" or "Big Bang"

"Where did you get this nonsense? The first 'test' is just a black swan fallacy. The second is also fallacious. A proposed explanation for something specific is not more valid for that specific thing because it could explain other things."

You could say the exact same thing about any explanation that is not observed but proven from the observations it explains. When you pretend to prove Evolution (big sense) from the number of facts it can be used to explain, you are doing the second thing. As to the first, logic says that "if P then R" and "if not P then not R" between them make R a proof for P. Note, there are occasions when the enumeration of alternatives is not just the sample of explanations already proposed, but an analysis of the possible explanations.

"Except "God did it" fails your first test in every case."

This gets interesting. You admit there is such a thing as "every case" ... in other words, the "God did it" is not just a cop-out for this case. How many cases does God need to be a possible explanation for until you admit it is not just a cop-out to admit He exists?

"Retrograde motion is more satisfactorily explained by our perspective from Earth as it revolves around the sun than it is from God making the planets do little loop-de-loos in their orbit."

Or allowing angels to do so ... would you mind explaining why it is more satisfactorily explained your way, without appealing to your atheist prejudice?

"Don't be obtuse. You know I mean observations of other solar systems that all show less massive planets revolving around more massive stars."

I wasn't that obtuse, just a grammar Nazi. Now, there is in fact no way to measure the mass out between Kepler-1649 (a star) and Kepler-1649c (an earth sized planet, supposing the distance is correct). Here is supplementary info : "Kepler-1649 is a type-M red dwarf star estimated to be roughly ¼ the radius of our Sun" - why estimated? Why not observed? Are observations perhaps even compatible with the star being smaller than the planet? And "Kepler-1649c takes only 19.5 Earth days to orbit its host star Kepler-1649," seems very odd if sizes are so comparable to Earth and Sun as purported. One explanation could be, the one you presumably give, Kepler-1649 is so much more massive in comparison to its size and overall ... another is, if they are one light day up, both are very much smaller and the distance the planet is covering around the star is also very much smaller.

"The exact problem is that the Sun is much more massive than the Earth."

For the mechanism "orbital movements are combinations of inertia working sideways and graviation working inwards" that would be a point. Little problem : you have never measured the mass of the Sun. For the mechanism "Earth is held in place by God's will, and Sun is moved by an angel carrying out God's will" it is however (and you termed it the exact problem) irrelevant if even true. Would you mind telling me why it is a problem without appealing to atheism or atheistic prejudice?

"Voyager 1 very famously took a picture of the solar system and Earth. It's the "pale blue dot" photograph."

Back in the nineties.

"Flat Earthers say the same thing, including literal interpretation in the Bible."

1) Flat Earth on eyes. There are visual reasons to disagree with them, like checking time zones and distances between these (most distant at equator).
2) Flat Earth on inner ears - haven't heard of any point they had.
3) Flat Earth on Bible - I have scoured if not each verse, at least all types of verses I have heard of, none add up.

"I love how creationists admit that evolution is valid for making small changes, but don't think that small changes can build to major ones over time. "Micro-evolution" is just evolution."

I do not think you can add up to a retina.

"Miacis Cognitus is only one species of Miacid. There are numerous fossils from Miacids."

I looked them up. "Miacidae as traditionally conceived is not a monophyletic group; it is a paraphyletic array of stem taxa. Traditionally, Miacidae and Viverravidae had been classified in a superfamily, Miacoidea. Today, Carnivora and Miacoidea are grouped together in the crown-clade Carnivoramorpha, and the Miacoidea are regarded as basal carnivoramorphs. Some species of the genus Miacis are closely related to the order Carnivora, but only the species Miacis cognitus is a true carnivoran, as it is classified in the Caniformia." And this only true carnivoran is, as said, one incomplete skull.

"For starters, humans are apes."

Except, apes don't speak.

"And Australopithecus lived too long ago to be congruent with a young Earth."

Have you bothered looking up how those you disagree with argue? I haven't lived under a rock, the Evolution paradigm is dominant, I've had to, besides I like the intellectual exercise. Creationism 101 : the main problem with Evolutionist analyses of fossils being their dating.

"The species of Humans you seemingly agree with existing, like Homo Habilis and even Homo Erectus, also lived too long ago to fit with a young Earth."

While I do agree Homo erectus existed, as ultra-nephelim or transgenic or handicapped versions of Denisovans, I don't agree Homo habilis is a human. I used to consider Rudolfensis as human, others as non-human, close to Australopithecus. As "too long ago" see previous.

"That's why I thought you must be an old Earth creationist."

You really have no eagerness to study the opponents' positions!

"Really no science at all backs up a young Earth."

History does. Genesis 5 and 11.

"Indeed the fields geology, biology, astronomy, chemistry, and physics have debunked the notion more times than is worth mentioning."

Way safer than actually mentioning, right?

"Young Earth is as wrongheaded as geocentrism."

There is a connexion. With geocentrism, we have no triangulation for the distance of "close stars" and therefore no "cosmic distance ladder" leading up to "millions of light years"

"Both have been completely demolished by empirical evidence, and believing them is just foolish."

It's at least wise (in the sense of cunning, "sarrow" as Tolkien would have liked to revive "searo") of you to stick to general rhetoric rather than making actual points!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@K L I saw I had missed an important word in your comment:

"Except "God did it" fails your first test in every case."

Heliocentrism wasn't an example of test 1, but human language, abiogenesis and new cell types are examples of your kind of explanations really not being there in any shape worth studying. Vague affirmations, and without any thing like the excuse "it's so basic it has no details."