It's official: ID really is creationism

[Jorge]

Jorge, I'm sorry I forgot, but what is the age-old definition of science?

I have tried but fools such as yourself continue resisting what is OBVIOUS to even a Middle-School teenager. Briefly ...

AGAIN: there is operational/observational science and then there is historical science. Mathematics and logic play a role in both but in the former we have greater objectivity, repeatability of observations, testability and is fairly free of metaphysical influence. Sodium and Chlorine, for example, are observed the same way to produce the same substance, NaCl (common table salt). This holds true whether you are an Atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Theistic Evolutionist, ... whatever. THAT science - operational/observational science - is the science that gives us technology and so on. This is why an Atheist, even though his metaphysical foundation is totally wrong, is nonetheless able to yield some good scientific results (in this sense of "science").

Then there's the "science" that comes into play, for example, when an excavation unearths fossilized dinosaur bones. How to explain this observation? Under one metaphysical worldview (Evolution and gigayears), we have explanation A. Under a different metaphysical worldview (Biblical Creationism) we have explanation B. Under yet another metaphysical worldview (Hinduism) we have explanation C.

Hey, it's the SAME fossilized dinosaur bones so why three different explanations?

I haven't the time to give you full schooling here so that will have to suffice. Not that you care to learn anything anyway.

Jorge

[Jorge]

True, signaling requires EM radiation or sound waves or chemical or nuclear reactions as carriers. The encoding of the message whether by human language, nucleotide sequences, or spectral properties are all manipulations of the carriers.

Now unless "intelligence" is anthropomorphic intelligence, I can see no way of detecting it. Ergo, any other type of intelligence detection is untestable.

K54

Not true - not even close.

You will have to wait until later or until my work is finished ...

Jorge

[rogue06]

I have tried but fools such as yourself continue resisting what is OBVIOUS to even a Middle-School teenager. Briefly ...

AGAIN: there is operational/observational science and then there is historical science...

Let's stop right here.

"Operational science" is actually is a term coined by Ken Ham and his cronies over at AnswersinGenesis (AiG) and used in their opposition to the Big Bang (kind of ironic considering how many atheists opposed it considering its religious implications), abiogenesis and evolutionary theory and is not considered a valid scientific term. What historical science can, and has, been compared to is "experimental science" which is a different kettle of fish as the term is used quite differently by philosophers of science than how evolution deniers utilize "operational science."

Philosophers of science consider both historical and experimental science as entirely valid and that various scientific disciplines and fields can employ both approaches. Moreover, they do not assert that one approach is more valid or empirically verifiable than the other which is the opposite of what YECs try to imply.

From the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA - a Christian organization of scientists with the stated purpose of "investigat[ing] any area relating Christian faith and science" and makes a point of "not tak[ing] a position when there is honest disagreement between Christians on an issue"):

Source: Young-Earth Creation Science: Is the science of young-earth creationism strong or weak? Is the earth young or old?" by Craig Rusbult

Attack the Reliability of Historical Sciences

"Even though we cannot directly observe events in the ancient history of nature, can we by a logical analysis of historical evidence reach reliable conclusions about what happened in the past, on the earth and in other parts of the universe? Most young-earth creationists say NO. They challenge the credibility of all historical sciences that claim the evidence indicates an old earth and universe. They ask 'Were you there? Did you see it?', and imply that 'no' means 'then you can't know much about it.' Their skepticism about historical science is similar to the postmodernism of radical relativists who challenge the reliability of all science by claiming that scientific evidence is always inadequate, so the conclusions of scientists must be determined by their nonscientific beliefs. But despite this postmodern skeptical relativism, when we ask "is historical science reliable?" it's easy to answer "yes" and here is why. Although historical data is limited, since we cannot do controlled lab experiments, historical science is empirical (based on observations) with plenty of observations available, and scientists have developed methods to reduce the practical impact of data limitations. Occasionally there are rational reasons for caution, but in most areas (and for all important questions about age) most scholars who carefully examine the methods of historical science will confidently agree that "

Source

© Copyright Original Source

And from another source:

Source: "Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method" by Carol E. Cleland

"Insofar as historical hypotheses cannot be tested in controlled laboratory settings, historical research is sometimes said to be inferior to experimental research. Using examples from diverse historical disciplines, this paper demonstrates that such claims are misguided. First, the reputed superiority of experimental research is based upon accounts of scientific methodology (Baconian inductivism or falsificationism) that are deeply flawed, both logically and as accounts of the actual practices of scientists. Second, although there are fundamental differences in methodology between experimental scientists and historical scientists, they are keyed to a pervasive feature of nature, a time asymmetry of causation. As a consequence, the claim that historical science is methodologically inferior to experimental science cannot be sustained."

Source

© Copyright Original Source

As an aside I should note that trying to determine how particular historical events occurred (historical science) is the basis of forensic sciences -- something I don't think YECs ever complain about when it is used to convict someone of a crime.

Furthermore, when scientists do make a distinction between historical science and research that is aimed at identifying laws (experimental science) they aren't declaring that there exists a neat clean line between them or saying, as noted above, that one is more reliable than the other.

Source: "Philosophy of Biology 2nd ed" by Elliott Sober

1.4 Historical Particulars and General Laws

Some sciences try to discover general laws; others aim to uncover particular sequences of historical events. It isn't that the "hard" sciences only do the former and the "soft" sciences strive solely for the latter. Each broad discipline contains subareas that differ in how they emphasize one task or the other.

...

Laws take the form of if/then statements. Isaac Newton's universal law of gravitation says that the gravitational attraction between any two objects is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The law does not say that the universe contains two, four, or any number of objects. It just says what would be true if the universe contained objects with mass.

In contrast, astronomers typically will be interested in obtaining information about a unique object. Focusing on a distant star, they might attempt to infer its temperature, density, and size. Statements that provide information of this sort are not if/then in form. Such statements describe historical particulars and do not state laws.

This division between nomothetic ("nomos" is Greek for law) and historical sciences does not mean that each science is exclusively one or the other. The particle physicist might find that the collisions of interest often occur on the surface of the sun; if so, a detailed study of that particular object might help to infer the general law. Symmetrically, the astronomer interested in obtaining an accurate description of the star might use various laws to help make the inference.

Although the particle physicist and the astronomer may attend to both general laws and historical particulars, we can separate their two enterprises by distinguishing means from ends. The astronomer's problem is a historical one because the goal is to infer the properties of a particular object; the astronomer uses laws only as a means. Particle physics, on the other hand, is a nomothetic discipline because the goal is to infer general laws; descriptions of particular objects are only relevant as a means.

The same division exists within evolutionary biology. When a systematist infers that human beings are more closely related to chimps than they are to gorillas, this phylogenetic proposition describes a family tree that connects three species. The proposition is logically of the same type as the proposition that says that Alice is more closely related to Berry than she is to Carl ... Reconstructing genealogical relationships is the goal of a historical science.

© Copyright Original Source

Sober continues by noting that some evolutionary biologists are utilizing the sort of mathematical modeling that isn't historical in this sense, but in fact instead seeks after the type of general "if-then" statements which include scientific laws. IOW, evolutionary theory is really both a "nomothetic" science as well as being an historical science.

Critics of historical science either don't realize or ignore the fact that it still makes predictions that can be tested. This means that in a way all science is historical science. As theoretical physicist and cosmologist Lawrence M. Krauss explains

Source: WHY THE ONE APPEALING PART OF CREATIONISM IS WRONG

We make observations about past events, based on everything from data gathered in the laboratory yesterday to remnants of phenomena, like meteor impacts or stellar explosions, which may have happened billions of years ago. We then use them to make predictions about the future, about experiments or observations that have not yet taken place. To quibble about how long ago the original data was generated is to miss the point.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

IOW, all science is historical science, it is just that some events occurred very recently, and some occurred very long ago.

Krauss cites several examples to support his contention one of which involves plate tectonics and continental drift. He notes that the latter is measurable and points out that "given the measurements and the current shape of continents, one can speculate that, in the distant past, at periods determined by measurements made using modern physics and chemistry, which allow us to model the dynamics of the crust and the mantle of Earth, the currently existing continents were fused together, apparently several times, in a supercontinent."

Of course such a theory will lead to predictions that can be checked such as if this is correct we should be able to find identical geological structures at the edges of the current continents that were once fused and notes that this is the case.

And if someone still insists on criticizing historical science consider the observation made by KBertsche in a post concerning the Ham/Nye debate earlier this year:

In fact, some areas of "observational" science (e.g. particle physics) are much more indirect and "iffy" than some areas of "historical" science.

Finally, I find it incredibly ironic that for all the carping that evolution deniers do about historical science, Casey Luskin, the vocal Intelligent Design proponent, seeks to legitimatize ID by proclaiming that "Intelligent Design Is a Historical Science, Just Like Darwinian Evolution."

[HMS_Beagle]

Not only have you scaled the highest peaks of ignorance, but you willingly and staunchly refuse to come down from those peaks.

Jorge

I see the board's blustering buffoon has fallen back on his stock excuse no. 2.

1) You're drunk / high on drugs
2) You're too stupid / ignorant / dishonest to understand
3) Explaining is a waste of time / someone is paying you to waste my time.
4) This assertion is true because I said so
5) This assertion is even truer because I said so twice
6) I already provided evidence (in huge detail) but I won't repeat it or link to it.

It's what he always does when his ignorance and stupidity are highlighted. He has no answer for the valid criticism of his IDiot butchering of the concept of 'information' but his big fat ego demands that he reply with a pointless insult.

[Omega Red]

I have tried but fools such as yourself continue resisting what is OBVIOUS to even a Middle-School teenager. Briefly ...

AGAIN: there is operational/observational science and then there is historical science. Mathematics and logic play a role in both but in the former we have greater objectivity, repeatability of observations, testability and is fairly free of metaphysical influence. Sodium and Chlorine, for example, are observed the same way to produce the same substance, NaCl (common table salt). This holds true whether you are an Atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Theistic Evolutionist, ... whatever. THAT science - operational/observational science - is the science that gives us technology and so on. This is why an Atheist, even though his metaphysical foundation is totally wrong, is nonetheless able to yield some good scientific results (in this sense of "science").

Then there's the "science" that comes into play, for example, when an excavation unearths fossilized dinosaur bones. How to explain this observation? Under one metaphysical worldview (Evolution and gigayears), we have explanation A. Under a different metaphysical worldview (Biblical Creationism) we have explanation B. Under yet another metaphysical worldview (Hinduism) we have explanation C.

Hey, it's the SAME fossilized dinosaur bones so why three different explanations?

I haven't the time to give you full schooling here so that will have to suffice. Not that you care to learn anything anyway.

Jorge

For those that might be interested this bolded bit is not true. It only holds under certain conditions and it is possible to make other stoichiometric ratios of sodium chloride such as cubic and orthorhombic NaCl3 and two-dimensional metallic tetragonal Na3Cl. For the full article click here. So experimental science continues to make interesting discoveries, from which we know more about the universe and can infer its past. Introducing metaphysics has happened (and will continue to do so) in the interpretation of data, but not always and is often done so at the expense of ignoring data, which is why three different explanations may be possible. But it does not mean that the three are of equal weighting. Run fossilized dinosaur bones through the YEC worldview and you have to ignore vast amounts of data, far greater than under the mainstream science worldview, then suddenly consilience of the data disappears, so many questions are left begging, etc, etc, till you are left with (blind) faith that YEC must be true for non-scientific reasons. Run this in reverse and suddenly you see AiG's (and others) guiding principles where analysis of the data cannot lead to any other conclusion. This has been pointed out numerous times.

[klaus54]

As do most people, you are totally confused with the carrier of information versus the information itself. In a book that I co-authored (Without Excuse, 2011) we go into this in detail. At present I am working on a follow-up to that book.

...(sniping snipped) ...



...
Only doing my 'job' ...

Jorge

In molecular genetics, the nucleotide sequence is the information, and chemical bonding is the carrier.

Do you think an intelligent agent is manipulating this process?

Try harder to bloviate less and cogently explain more.

K54

[klaus54]

I have tried but fools such as yourself continue resisting what is OBVIOUS to even a Middle-School teenager. Briefly ...

AGAIN: there is operational/observational science and then there is historical science. Mathematics and logic play a role in both but in the former we have greater objectivity, repeatability of observations, testability and is fairly free of metaphysical influence. Sodium and Chlorine, for example, are observed the same way to produce the same substance, NaCl (common table salt). This holds true whether you are an Atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Theistic Evolutionist, ... whatever. THAT science - operational/observational science - is the science that gives us technology and so on. This is why an Atheist, even though his metaphysical foundation is totally wrong, is nonetheless able to yield some good scientific results (in this sense of "science").

Then there's the "science" that comes into play, for example, when an excavation unearths fossilized dinosaur bones. How to explain this observation? Under one metaphysical worldview (Evolution and gigayears), we have explanation A. Under a different metaphysical worldview (Biblical Creationism) we have explanation B. Under yet another metaphysical worldview (Hinduism) we have explanation C.

Hey, it's the SAME fossilized dinosaur bones so why three different explanations?

I haven't the time to give you full schooling here so that will have to suffice. Not that you care to learn anything anyway.

Jorge

Jorge,

Unless the laws of physics have changed over the course of time, then there is no distinction between the ginned up terms "Operational" vis-a-vis "Historical" science. Science is science. Scientific Method is Scientific Method.

Tell a forensics expert of your distinction. If your distinction is true, then no criminal could be convicted on non-eye witness evidence.

Try harder.

K54

What is obvious to a middle-school student may not be to an adult with science training -- why do think that is?

This smacks of the "obvious even to a child" My-First-Bible Genesis creation story interpretation. It's not so obvious upon careful examination. But that's in another thread you're scooting from.

[klaus54]

Not true - not even close.

You will have to wait until later or until my work is finished ...

Jorge

I'm not only close, I'm right on. Oh, I'm certain you can cook up some nonsense that will wow middle-school teenagers. The rub is it will it impress mathematicians and professional scientists?

Surely the probability your magnum opus will contribute anything to Scientific Method is the limit of the harmonic sequence (not series, LOL!).

K54

[Ucchedavāda]

AGAIN: there is operational/observational science and then there is historical science.

According to whom is this distinction made?
I believe that I've heard you mention it before, but I do not recall having ever encountered this term in either scientific or philosophical books or papers. On PubMed, for example, the mere 3 hits found when searching for "operational science*" all relate to the names of governmental programs with which the authors of otherwise unrelated papers are associated.

[Truthseeker]

limit of the harmonic sequence (not series, LOL!).

I felt queer after reading this. I looked up "harmonic sequence" in Wikipedia and got redirected to "harmonic progression" and "harmonic series." Afterwards I felt a little more in tune with Nature (kidding-that was dramatized).

eta: to clarify, when talking about the limit of the harmonic series, "series" is the correct term.

[klaus54]

I felt queer after reading this. I looked up "harmonic sequence" in Wikipedia and got redirected to "harmonic progression" and "harmonic series." Afterwards I felt a little more in tune with Nature (kidding-that was dramatized).

eta: to clarify, when talking about the limit of the harmonic series, "series" is the correct term.

The harmonic sequence is {1/n}, n=1,2,3,... This has a limit of zero as n approaches "infinity".

The harmonic series is the sum of the harmonic sequence, 1/1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + ... + 1/n + ... This is unbounded.

'Twas an arcane attempt at humor at Jorge's expense. Namely, the value of his work-in-progress magnum opus will be zero.

K54

[Jorge]

Let's stop right here.

"Operational science" is actually is a term coined by Ken Ham and his cronies over at AnswersinGenesis (AiG) and used in their opposition to the Big Bang (kind of ironic considering how many atheists opposed it considering its religious implications), abiogenesis and evolutionary theory and is not considered a valid scientific term. What historical science can, and has, been compared to is "experimental science" which is a different kettle of fish as the term is used quite differently by philosophers of science than how evolution deniers utilize "operational science."

Philosophers of science consider both historical and experimental science as entirely valid and that various scientific disciplines and fields can employ both approaches. Moreover, they do not assert that one approach is more valid or empirically verifiable than the other which is the opposite of what YECs try to imply.

From the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA - a Christian organization of scientists with the stated purpose of "investigat[ing] any area relating Christian faith and science" and makes a point of "not tak[ing] a position when there is honest disagreement between Christians on an issue"):

Source: Young-Earth Creation Science: Is the science of young-earth creationism strong or weak? Is the earth young or old?" by Craig Rusbult

Attack the Reliability of Historical Sciences

"Even though we cannot directly observe events in the ancient history of nature, can we by a logical analysis of historical evidence reach reliable conclusions about what happened in the past, on the earth and in other parts of the universe? Most young-earth creationists say NO. They challenge the credibility of all historical sciences that claim the evidence indicates an old earth and universe. They ask 'Were you there? Did you see it?', and imply that 'no' means 'then you can't know much about it.' Their skepticism about historical science is similar to the postmodernism of radical relativists who challenge the reliability of all science by claiming that scientific evidence is always inadequate, so the conclusions of scientists must be determined by their nonscientific beliefs. But despite this postmodern skeptical relativism, when we ask "is historical science reliable?" it's easy to answer "yes" and here is why. Although historical data is limited, since we cannot do controlled lab experiments, historical science is empirical (based on observations) with plenty of observations available, and scientists have developed methods to reduce the practical impact of data limitations. Occasionally there are rational reasons for caution, but in most areas (and for all important questions about age) most scholars who carefully examine the methods of historical science will confidently agree that "

Source

© Copyright Original Source

And from another source:

Source: "Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method" by Carol E. Cleland

"Insofar as historical hypotheses cannot be tested in controlled laboratory settings, historical research is sometimes said to be inferior to experimental research. Using examples from diverse historical disciplines, this paper demonstrates that such claims are misguided. First, the reputed superiority of experimental research is based upon accounts of scientific methodology (Baconian inductivism or falsificationism) that are deeply flawed, both logically and as accounts of the actual practices of scientists. Second, although there are fundamental differences in methodology between experimental scientists and historical scientists, they are keyed to a pervasive feature of nature, a time asymmetry of causation. As a consequence, the claim that historical science is methodologically inferior to experimental science cannot be sustained."

Source

© Copyright Original Source

As an aside I should note that trying to determine how particular historical events occurred (historical science) is the basis of forensic sciences -- something I don't think YECs ever complain about when it is used to convict someone of a crime.

Furthermore, when scientists do make a distinction between historical science and research that is aimed at identifying laws (experimental science) they aren't declaring that there exists a neat clean line between them or saying, as noted above, that one is more reliable than the other.

Source: "Philosophy of Biology 2nd ed" by Elliott Sober

1.4 Historical Particulars and General Laws

Some sciences try to discover general laws; others aim to uncover particular sequences of historical events. It isn't that the "hard" sciences only do the former and the "soft" sciences strive solely for the latter. Each broad discipline contains subareas that differ in how they emphasize one task or the other.

...

Laws take the form of if/then statements. Isaac Newton's universal law of gravitation says that the gravitational attraction between any two objects is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The law does not say that the universe contains two, four, or any number of objects. It just says what would be true if the universe contained objects with mass.

In contrast, astronomers typically will be interested in obtaining information about a unique object. Focusing on a distant star, they might attempt to infer its temperature, density, and size. Statements that provide information of this sort are not if/then in form. Such statements describe historical particulars and do not state laws.

This division between nomothetic ("nomos" is Greek for law) and historical sciences does not mean that each science is exclusively one or the other. The particle physicist might find that the collisions of interest often occur on the surface of the sun; if so, a detailed study of that particular object might help to infer the general law. Symmetrically, the astronomer interested in obtaining an accurate description of the star might use various laws to help make the inference.

Although the particle physicist and the astronomer may attend to both general laws and historical particulars, we can separate their two enterprises by distinguishing means from ends. The astronomer's problem is a historical one because the goal is to infer the properties of a particular object; the astronomer uses laws only as a means. Particle physics, on the other hand, is a nomothetic discipline because the goal is to infer general laws; descriptions of particular objects are only relevant as a means.

The same division exists within evolutionary biology. When a systematist infers that human beings are more closely related to chimps than they are to gorillas, this phylogenetic proposition describes a family tree that connects three species. The proposition is logically of the same type as the proposition that says that Alice is more closely related to Berry than she is to Carl ... Reconstructing genealogical relationships is the goal of a historical science.

© Copyright Original Source

Sober continues by noting that some evolutionary biologists are utilizing the sort of mathematical modeling that isn't historical in this sense, but in fact instead seeks after the type of general "if-then" statements which include scientific laws. IOW, evolutionary theory is really both a "nomothetic" science as well as being an historical science.

Critics of historical science either don't realize or ignore the fact that it still makes predictions that can be tested. This means that in a way all science is historical science. As theoretical physicist and cosmologist Lawrence M. Krauss explains

Source: WHY THE ONE APPEALING PART OF CREATIONISM IS WRONG

We make observations about past events, based on everything from data gathered in the laboratory yesterday to remnants of phenomena, like meteor impacts or stellar explosions, which may have happened billions of years ago. We then use them to make predictions about the future, about experiments or observations that have not yet taken place. To quibble about how long ago the original data was generated is to miss the point.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

IOW, all science is historical science, it is just that some events occurred very recently, and some occurred very long ago.

Krauss cites several examples to support his contention one of which involves plate tectonics and continental drift. He notes that the latter is measurable and points out that "given the measurements and the current shape of continents, one can speculate that, in the distant past, at periods determined by measurements made using modern physics and chemistry, which allow us to model the dynamics of the crust and the mantle of Earth, the currently existing continents were fused together, apparently several times, in a supercontinent."

Of course such a theory will lead to predictions that can be checked such as if this is correct we should be able to find identical geological structures at the edges of the current continents that were once fused and notes that this is the case.

And if someone still insists on criticizing historical science consider the observation made by KBertsche in a post concerning the Ham/Nye debate earlier this year:

Finally, I find it incredibly ironic that for all the carping that evolution deniers do about historical science, Casey Luskin, the vocal Intelligent Design proponent, seeks to legitimatize ID by proclaiming that "Intelligent Design Is a Historical Science, Just Like Darwinian Evolution."

What you do above, R06, is what is known in debates as Elephant Hurling. The tactic is to bury your opponent in so much stuff that the poor guy hasn't a chance to respond to it all and so a "victory" is declared by default.

It won't work with me.

The entire matter is very simple and does not need 5,000 words. My post explained it and gave a clear, concise example. You immediately went into the vilification mode by bringing in Ken Ham and so on. I stopped reading after that. Have you no shame?

BTW, I do not mean to invalidate historical science. I only wish to emphasize the fact that Evolutionists like yourself conflate the two and in this way smuggle ideology into true science. Anyway, 'nuff said ... you willingly refuse to 'get it'.

Jorge

[Jorge]

The harmonic sequence is {1/n}, n=1,2,3,... This has a limit of zero as n approaches "infinity".

The harmonic series is the sum of the harmonic sequence, 1/1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + ... + 1/n + ... This is unbounded.

'Twas an arcane attempt at humor at Jorge's expense. Namely, the value of his work-in-progress magnum opus will be zero.

K54

Just in case that I forget, I kindly ask that you help to remind
me to IGNORE your posts henceforth. Thanks in advance.

Jorge

[Jorge]

I see the board's blustering buffoon has fallen back on his stock excuse no. 2.



It's what he always does when his ignorance and stupidity are highlighted. He has no answer for the valid criticism of his IDiot butchering of the concept of 'information' but his big fat ego demands that he reply with a pointless insult.

It bears repeating :
Not only have you scaled the highest peaks of ignorance, but you willingly and staunchly refuse to come down from those peaks.

I will also add that it does not matter what you choose to call yourself -- Tiggy, HMS_Beagle, Numbskull ... whatever -- you remain a laboratory specimen useful only as compost.

Jorge

[Jorge]

For those that might be interested this bolded bit is not true. It only holds under certain conditions and it is possible to make other stoichiometric ratios of sodium chloride such as cubic and orthorhombic NaCl3 and two-dimensional metallic tetragonal Na3Cl. For the full article click here. So experimental science continues to make interesting discoveries, from which we know more about the universe and can infer its past. Introducing metaphysics has happened (and will continue to do so) in the interpretation of data, but not always and is often done so at the expense of ignoring data, which is why three different explanations may be possible. But it does not mean that the three are of equal weighting. Run fossilized dinosaur bones through the YEC worldview and you have to ignore vast amounts of data, far greater than under the mainstream science worldview, then suddenly consilience of the data disappears, so many questions are left begging, etc, etc, till you are left with (blind) faith that YEC must be true for non-scientific reasons. Run this in reverse and suddenly you see AiG's (and others) guiding principles where analysis of the data cannot lead to any other conclusion. This has been pointed out numerous times.

OF COURSE you have to try to trash my straightforward NaCl example (which remains standing in spite of your best efforts - I do grasp what you are saying, JIC).

As for your statement that "all explanations do not have equal weighting" -- as expected you miss the point. That point was that the data are the SAME but may be interpreted DIFFERENTLY. The weighting that is placed on, say, the Materialistic/Evolutionary explanation versus the Biblical Creationism explanation will depend, of course, on the individual's metaphysical stance. You follow it up with, "YEC must ignore vast amounts of data" - a very tiresome falsehood that you people constantly parrot (probably because it sounds so 'devastating').

It would really - I mean REALLY - help a lot if you would just humble yourself and admit, "Jorge, I just don't understand this". That would be a great first step. Instead, you continue to blindly and violently criticize and oppose my message. The word "hopeless" comes to my mind.

Jorge