Splintering our Education System based on FAITH

There are upteen jillion bits of data involved. Prove the above statement or retract it.As has been pointed out to you (and you have admitted in more than one place IIRC) you don't know anything about the data. Since you stand on ignorance how can you possibly think that you can make the above statement?

Best description of ID I've seen. Faith you don't know enough about the ToE to discuss it. You have been presented with hundreds of pieces of evidence, but your only response has been to accuse all scientists(exept for the Id ones) of lying, covering up and falsifing data.It is the Creo's and IDers who start out with a conclusion, then butcher the facts to fit.A closed mind can only be opened with a sledgehammer.Everybody seems to be out of step but you.

It seems that in Faith's world the less you know the more qualified you are.How many times has a YECer came to the forum, professed thier ignorance of science, proceed to prove it and then get very offended because noone would accert thier bare assertion.

As has been pointed out to you (and you have admitted in more than one place IIRC) you don't know anything about the data. Since you stand on ignorance how can you possibly think that you can make the above statement?I've tried to look up data of various kinds hundreds of times and have found only evo theory. That's how I know. Look up fossils, dinosaurs, genome, anything, it is very hard to get simple facts. What you get is the explanation of the data. The facts are drowned in the theory. The biggest case of Begging the Question ever. The facts would do just fine without the theory baggage. That is, the dinosaur type, description, characteristics without the theories of its age and evolutionary relationships. Environment speculations are always interesting though. I figure they describe the pre-Flood world.

Except that it isn't. It isn't a false model. It's an accurate and predictive model, and that's why its so universally accepted among biologists.

Hi. Refuted this already. To repeat - nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.Biology without evolution is just stamp collecting - i.e. a large collection of unrelated facts with no predictive power. That's not science.

That's because the facts, by themselves, are useless. It's only within an explanitory framework that the facts have meaning, that they gain usefulness and allow us to make predictions. Do just fine for what? Filling encyclopedias? That's not science.

Yes, well evolutionism has no doubt served as a goad to scientific work despite its falseness.

That makes a nice statement of faith, and as I just wrote I'm sure the theory has been the impetus for all kinds of useful scientific work, but nevertheless oddly enough the explanatory framework simply does not explain anything and the facts could indeed do without it very well.

Incorrect. Evolution has actually made possible scientific work that would not have been, otherwise.

Do what without it? Nothing. Facts without a framework don't serve any purpose. It's like a child's shell collection all tossed into a box. Sure it's nice to look at but its of no scientific value whatsoever.

Clue to paradigm clash, parallel universes. What creationists want to prove doesn't require the great knowledge of science you all think it should, and a clue to this is the fact that even those creationists who have that knowledge get the same short shrift from you guys. I for one, and I'm sure most creationists who have visited here, have in fact given a great deal more than bare assertions, but you all just can't follow the argument.

quote:

---

oddly enough the explanatory framework simply does not explain anything and the facts could indeed do without it very well.

---

That is a complete falsehood. Evolution was developed to explain three major patterns of evidence:
1) Biogeographical distribution of species
(important to both Drwin and Wllace)2) The patterns observed in taxonomy3) The change in time of life on Earth as shown in the fossil recordNone of these are adequately explained by creationist "theories". (e.g. "God did it that way" is not an adequate explanation - even if the existence of God is taken for granted - since God could easily have done it in a completely different way).

[qs]Clue to paradigm clash, parallel universes. What creationists want to prove doesn't require the great knowledge of science you all think it should, and a clue to this is the fact that even those creationists who have that knowledge get the same short shrift from you guys. I for one, and I'm sure most creationists who have visited here, have in fact given a great deal more than bare assertions, but you all just can't follow the argument.[/s]There's no paradigm clash 'cause you don't have a paradigm.If you require no great knowledge of science, why do you worry about knowledge.Links to AIG and other advocates are not facts.So we can't follow the argument you never presented? mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

quote:

---

That is a complete falsehood. Evolution was developed to explain three major patterns of evidence:

​

1) Biogeographical distribution of species
(important to both Drwin and Wllace)

​

2) The patterns observed in taxonomy

​

3) The change in time of life on Earth as shown in the fossil record

​

None of these are adequately explained by creationist "theories". (e.g. "God did it that way" is not an adequate explanation - even if the existence of God is taken for granted - since God could easily have done it in a completely different way).

---

The Flood is the creationist explanation of the fossil record, not something so empty as "God did it that way." The biogeographical distribution situation and the taxonomy situation are no problem for the creationist understanding that the species were all created by God just as He created mankind, each species AS that species, and let them procreate and spread over the earth and vary according to built-in genetic possibilities to adapt to different niches.Here's a nice website on the biogeographical problem, where much the same argument is made as I was originally trying to make back on the Natural Limitations to Evolution thread. Biogeography and the increasing limitation of the genome