Summations Only

And it is also always Christians (all of the major denominations) supporting the position that Creationism is NOT science and should not be taught in science classes in public schools.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

You're right, I was being sloppy. MOSTLY just a rearrangement of the parts of a gene. Mutations also destroy and rearrange larger chunks of DNA than genes.

Poor deluded Christians.But I too don't want creationism taught in the public schools, just not for the same reasons.

Can you think of anything else?

It is very likely that there are many deluded Christians, that has never been in doubt. But the topic is The Science in Creationism and the position of the majority of major Christian denominations is that there is no science in Creationism.That is simply more evidence that there is no science in Creationism when not even Christians can be convinced Creationism is even pseudoscience.This thread also supports the fact that there is no science in Creationism and explains why Creationism has been abandoned by all Science for over 100 years and can never be considered science or scientific.Creationism like Flood Geology and Young Earth are simply dead and totally false belief systems.The reason no one has ever presented any evidence of any science in Creationism is simple; there is no science in Creationism.

Creationist sites typically don't permit this type of debate. If you go against the local dogma you are banned rather quickly.

Well I wasn't wanting to say anything. I wanted you to demonstrate why your or my process is more or less than an investigation.. whether it it is involved or complicated. How in reality, not in your head, but by reality, it's not science by simple investigationThis is don't think you attempted here, or at least I seen no attempt in your attempt at humor And I pointed out that Falsifiability is a humanly contrived principle that does not apply in all cases and I demonstrated this by showing there would never be a a way to falsify, that things actually exist. Hence Falsifiability is not an absolute standardOr I'm wrong and things might not exist because it can't be falsifiedInvestigation is empirical testing. No difference Oh I think that's no problem at all. Astrology makes no attempt to explain how and why things exists.It does not use the observable properties in nature to deduce design or a design argument.And most importantly its arguments are not set against the only two possible explanation of things, ie it always existed or something that always existed created it. You know, another one of those axioms that don't really exists according to you fellasSo no Astrology doesn't even get close to the argument from design or creationismDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Well I wasn't admitting that, quite the opposite. I was intimating we were both doing science, but hat you have no evidence for the conclusion of Solely Natural Causes. But once again, thanks for admitting thatDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

So this is is an absolute truth correct?Secondly I think we can do more than one thing. If you can't give me the cause and affect and chain of causality, from the brain to awareness or consciousness, then would you like to admit it exists by deductionSince it actually does exist correct? Well I'm sureit is, if we are going to make up words, to supplant simple deduction. I rather think reality would decide whether or not something existsEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Sure. Of course observations of those rare events are evidence. Direct evidence.

Definitely they are direct evidence of extremely rare mistakes that do something beneficial or at least not deleterious, that is true.

Well no your wrong again, here's why. Notice the very Suttle slight differences in a females features in her face, that give the reality of feminine features versus masculine. Those, so very slight differences not only cause a feminine affect, the also create beauty. Not always, but they are noticable when the standard is exemplified. It's real not imaginedNow thone differences I don't imagine and they are not a human construct, but they do give us a standard, to distinguish it from those features in a women that are less attractive.Sure there's a scale so to speak, but there are standards that distinguish it, that are not a perception or construct When something serves a purpose, then the intricate design of that purpose, serves as a very good evidence to believe it was designed.In other words the search or investigation or science to the conclusion of design in that instance, is a valid approach. It doesn't need to be complicated or involved to be accurate, valid or science. It simply isPurpose like design doesn't need your approval to be reality. Other things that exist by observation and deduction are facts, truth, emotions, and awareness and consciousness.Since evolution can explain natural processess, then perhaps you could show the cause and affect,the chain of causality from the brain to the reality of consciousness.Or am I just imagining consciousness, is it just a human constructEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Why do you keep drooling out this halfwitted nonsense? Have you hit your head on something?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

At least Modulous has the integrity, to admit he has no evidence for the necessary conclusion of evolution. Your comments speak for themself about you.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Why do you keep drooling out this halfwitted nonsense? Have you hit your head on something?