Summations Only

You can DO things without them making sense. A cat can start a fire by knocking over a heater but does fire make sense to the cat? Fire only makes sense in the light of chemistry and physics.

Nobody denies that there "could" be another explanation. But the plain fact is that there ISN'T another explanation. Biology makes sense in the light of the only explanation we have.

You're not being scientific. You can't be scientific all by yourself. It's a collective endeavour.If all creationists could get together and provide an alternative explanation for what is observed in biology, that could conceivably be called science. Your individual wild guesses can not.

Of course there's always a beginning. What followed AFTER Hutton et al. was what made it science - the testing and confirmation.There is nothing following after your mad speculations. You propose no testing. Nobody is trying to test creationism. THAT is why it is not science.

Correction: creationism CAN'T produce its own science because there's nothing scientific about it. Creationism can't make sense of biology because it ignores reality. it's based entirely on myth.If creationism could produce its own science, it might be taken seriously by science; it might be possible to teach it in schools. But as it is, all creationism can say is that science is wrong, which isn't much of a basis for education.

Creationism doesn't EXPLAIN anything. It only asserts that God created; it doesn't explain HOW. Religionists even agree that Gods ways and means are unknowable by mere mortals.

"Ultimate power" and "ultimate wisdom" don't explain anything. You still have forty pages of unanswered posts.

Exactly. So why do you even bring up pseudo-scientific arguments against evolution?

Shouldn't YOU be the one looking for evidence of creation? What would YOU consider to be evidence of creation?Or are you just anti-evolution/anti-science?

What about ugly women then? What about parasitic worms? Irreducible complexity is not scientific.

Discredited by creationists? That's kinda like saying the FBI was discredited by Dillinger.

You can't predict what evolution coulda/woulda/shoulda done. It isn't an "advancement". It's a change.

So you have no real arguments against TalkOrigins. You're reduced to telling yourself that they must be wrong because they're atheists. Isn't that kind of like a reverse Appeal to Authority?

Then why mention atheists at all? Why not just argue against evolution from a scientific point of view?Practically every Christian who knows anything about evolution accepts it. Why don't you try to figure out why YOU'RE wrong?

Not inherently retarded, maybe, but you are definitely being held back by your religious views. Belial is creationism. Creationism is bad science and worse theology.Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote.