Why I am creationist

Science does not rely solely on direct observation. Events can be - and often have been - inferred from other evidence.So long as the evidence is observable and the observations can be repeated direct observation is not a requirement.And obviously when reconstructing a particular event we can't repeat the event - but the evidence identifying a nebula as the remains of a supernova is no less scientific just because we cannot rerun the supernova.

sure, but an observation still has to be interpreted before you can discern what it implies.

We've heard this over and over.Several times people saying it have been asked to give examples of a solid alternative interpretation of the same evidence. If you wish to do so it would make an excellent new topic.Do you want someone to start one or would you like to?

And science typically proceeds by inference to the best explanation.Evolution is still the best explanation for biogeography, for the nested hierarchy of traits that taxonomy is based on and for the extinct life forms we find in the fossil record.

quote:

---

We've heard this over and over.

---

That's why I think you are stubborn

quote:

---

And science typically proceeds by inference to the best explanation.

---

That isn't really proper though. WE, not science, proceed by inference to the best explanation. And, some of us think the best explanation is that some creator made all this, some of us think that we just happened. We have different "best explanations." It is all opinion.

quote:

---

Evolution is still the best explanation for biogeography, for the nested hierarchy of traits that taxonomy is based on and for the extinct life forms we find in the fossil record.

---

That is a subjective opinion, not a scientific one. And, consequently, that is the thing to debate, what is the best explanation, not whether or not Christians can practice science.

And, once again, there is no example.Are you prepared to walk through a different interpretation and show why it is at least as capable of explaining the evidence as the consensus scientific view? If not I remain stubborn.

I am pretty sure Creationists have walked through it on this site before. And I'll also wager that they are relegated to un-scientists with unscientifically viable explanations. But, just the same, if you are really, truly interested in why I think the whole of scientific data in general suggests a creator, I am willing to post an abbreviated statement here.

Because Macro-evolution is simply the accumulation of micro-evolution. It is only the figment of Creationist minds.Macro-evolution happens all the time, has happened since the beginning and will continue to happen. In fact, it is very likely that over the next couple mellenia we will see a new species of human evolve.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Since this is on why I am a creationist that might be interestiingedited to make clearer and to change from admin mode.This message has been edited by jar, 12-17-2004 03:07 PM

---

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:

Change in Moderation? (General discussion of moderation procedures)
or
Thread Reopen Requests
or
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
or
Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum

quote:

---

Because Macro-evolution is simply the accumulation of micro-evolution. It is only the figment of Creationist minds.

---

I suppose it would be fitting for me to be clear about what I think science does not suggest: Goo to You evolution.See, we are debating something purely historical here. We are debating whether humans evolved from crap. Whether or not species evolve isn't even the issue. The issue is whether something happened a certain way in the past. You maintain that it does. Your scientific experiments don't really suggest crap to man evolution. Our current observations do suggest speciation and survival of the fittest though, so I'll give you that.

OK, but I really feel like I am wasting my time explaining anything outside of the published scientific papers realm around here.

Well, starting to head that way.If anyone wants to argue the goo to you bit perhaps it could be taken to the appropriate thread.It seems to me maestro that the recent thread here would be a good place for you to post your refutation of the evidences given: Windsor castle

Well, you don't seem to have done much explaining of any sort yet.When you do make your case you might need to support particular claims of fact. For some things in the areas of science you'd probably have to refer to the literature. Why don't you try and see how far you can get?

I doubt it as long as you understand the difference in point of view and subject. For example, I am a Creationist who fully supports Evolution and the TOE. No one has challenged my beliefs here except some who believe in Biblical Creationism.If you present something as science, then it will be judged and treated as any other scientific hypothesis. If you present a statement of your beliefs, some make ask you why you hold such beliefs but I doubt they would argue them.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion