Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong.

A goal of science, vis-a-vis these definitions, is to promote better communication and understanding through carefully defining the terms used.Creationists are more often attacking science, though they may pretend otherwise. It is not in their best interests to further better communication and understanding in science--or for that matter to further science in any way. Science contradicts their beliefs, so science is the enemy.Obfuscation, misrepresentation, and outright falsehoods are some of the tactics used on creationist websites in order to support their beliefs and to reassure their flocks that science is all wrong, and that scientists are nothing but a bunch of atheists anyway so you can't trust a thing they say.The bottom line: scientists do science, and so they get to define the terms they use.Creationists who try to confuse the issues by obfuscation and misrepresentation, or outright falsehoods, expose themselves as absolutely dishonest by those actions. But then, if they had empirical evidence they wouldn't have to resort to those tactics, would they?

They cannot accept it based on religious belief, not empirical evidence. There is a lot of evidence--although nobody was there to see it. But nothing, and no amount of evidence, will be sufficient for creationists because they do not rely on evidence. They rely on belief. (You really should end all your posts with "Amen" or "Hallelujah," as what you are presenting us is nothing more than catechism and witnessing. You make no effort to present a rebuttal based on empirical evidence.) No, that paragraph summarizes the results of a lot of scientific investigations. It is a conclusion, not an assumption. Being a scientific conclusion it is subject to revision if new evidence is found, but that is vastly different from an assumption.And what evidence do you present that that paragraph is incorrect? Calling it an "assumption" does not show that it is incorrect. Where's your evidence? If you can't present empirical evidence your opinion is of no value.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I think your objections can be boiled down to a simple fact: your religious beliefs do not reflect reality.So when scientists describe reality, and provide explanations for how various parts of it work (using theories), you think you are being attacked.Perhaps if your beliefs were in accord with reality you would fare better, eh?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

There is a place for that, but I detest posts that take up three or four screens of text, addressing each and every point in great detail; and in fact I rarely read beyond the first couple of paragraphs of such posts.Sometimes shorter is better.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

If this is your criterion for whether something happened or not, you are living in a dream world.Just try to think of all the things for which there are no first hand accounts and which can not be reproduced.You have been caught out by your religious beliefs and forced into defending a ridiculous position. And, no doubt, you'll defend that absurdity to the end of the internet.That's pretty sad. As Heinlein noted:

Belief gets in the way of learning.

​

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

As opposed to what other kind of natural history?Hint: there is no other kind of natural history. There is dogma and scripture and revelation and the like, but those do not qualify as natural history, nor do the interpretations based on such religious beliefs qualify as natural history.The closest antonym for natural history would be religious apologetics.

You're looking for the philosophy department.Try down the hall.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Why is it that only creationists seem to have problems with these definitions?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

False.Scientists carefully define the words they use to avoid confusion.We are under no obligation to spoon feed the populace who might choose to use the wrong definitions through ignorance, nor the creationists who use the wrong definitions in a deliberate attempt to sow confusion and "controversy."You don't like the way we use words, get your own words and define them any way you want. But leave our definitions alone--you aren't half qualified.Edited by Coyote, : Speeling

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You seem so proud of those horses. If they are really yours, then I would agree. If they are just a photo you found somewhere, then not.Now what would happen if you turned all of those horses out into the wild and gave them, say, 1,000 years to do their horsie thing? If you looked in 1,000 years I would suspect you would have a single horse species running around doing their horsie thing. The divergent sizes would have been eliminated for the artificial constructs that they are.And where would that leave your point that they are two different species?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.