The lack of empirical evidence for the theory of evolution, according to Faith.

Theoretically, given any evidence, you could devise an infinite number of competing theories to explain it.But the scientific method is a process for determining which of those theories is "best"; and when a given collection of evidence has only one "best" explanation, that evidence supports that theory, and no other, scientifically speaking. And because they're using a theory that is worse, according to that scientific process I referred to, what they're doing isn't science.

Hey, talk about wrong stuff all you like. Just don't expect anyone to take it seriously. The evidence changes over time. Thanks to new technologies and techniques we make observations that we couldn't make before; the evidence expands and the "best" theory required to explain it changes. By new observations. How does that make any sense? That's like saying "I used the truth to refute a lie; therefore the lie became true." Can't equate them? They're the same thing. Not being valid science and not being science are the same condition. Just because I use the scientific tmethod to distingush good theory from bad doesn't make the bad theory any less worse. It only needs to be reexamined when new evidence comes to light. Until then, what's the point? Unless you have a new, superior interpretation that no one has thought of before, which you don't, there's no need to revisit conclusions until the scope of the evidence you used to make them changes.

Usually, yes. And it generally takes a lot of new evidence for us to shift that paradigm. It took decades between the discovery of Mercury's unexplainable orbit and the replacement of Newtonian mechanics that followedBut obviously it happened. So paradigms aren't bulletproof. Your way is too chaotic, you'd have paradigms overturning every time you opened the latest issue of Nature. It'd be impossible to accomplish scientific research, in any meaningful way, under those conditions. Yes. This is a known situation in science. It's been working great for years. So? Never has, in centuries of scientific progress. If there is, I don't see it. No, I'm following the scientific methodology, which, among other things, prefers the best theory to inferior ones. If you prefer the inferior theory to the better one, then you're no longer following the scientific methodology, and therefore, you're no longer doing science. Sure, once or twice. What could possibly be the purpose of doing it over and over and over again, every time some crank on the internet tells you to?

If that's true, then why does the worldwide Flood theory convince so few Christian geologists?

How does that make any sense?

Which makes perfect sense. That's a highly reasonable way to prioritize. We give greater priority to theories with a history of explanitory power than to theories that do not have the same level of experience and work behind them. The alternative would mean the paralysis and destruction of accomplishment in science. I would prefer if you could provide an actual example from a peer-reviewed journal, not somebody's commentary on a tertiary, non-reviewed, popular science magazine. I mean, what is that? Commentary on a tertiary source, relayed second-hand? Could you get any farther from a primary source than this? Well, now, which is it? Can they be explained by evolution, or do they not make sense under evolution? It can't be both ways. By definition, if it can be explained by evolution, then it makes sense under evolution. That's how long it took to formulate an alternative that wasn't contradicted by evidence and could explain all the cases where Newtonian mechanics worked as well as the cases where it did not. We don't replace theories until we have an alternative to replace them with, because how else would we accomplish work in science? The swtich from Newtonian to relativistic mechanics was probably the fastest paradigm switch in scientific history; it happened nearly as soon as Einstein came up with the theory, and as soon as his model had some experimental verification.The only wait was waiting for someone to develop the better model. You can't shift paradigms until you have a paradigm to switch to. Yes. The reason this is not fallacious is because there is no alternative. There is no such thing as the "either-or fallacy". You're probably thinking of the "fallacy of false dictotomy", but this is a true dicotomy, so its not fallacious. All they have to do is surpass the theory they intend to replace. Once they explain all that the previous, inferior theory explains, and additional evidence that the previous theory could not explain, then they will repace that earlier theory.

Well done.

You're quite right; I didn't draw as clear a distinction between accepting a theory and the theory itself as I might have liked.I mean, lets say this. Pretend that its the 50's, and I'm advancing my new theory of Continental Drift, and opposing all the Continental Non-drifters, and the reason that I support this view is because it came to me in a vision.Now, my theory might very well turn out to be correct, but isn't my acceptance of it, on nothing more than the basis of a really bad reaction to some mushrooms, fairly unscientific? And would anyone really be blamed for telling me that my Continental Drift theory simply wasn't scientific, either?

Well......why didn't they? Why is it that all - I do mean 100% - of the information and research cited by creationists and ID'ists for their position had to be uncovered by evolutionists?I mean, that's pretty much the biggest indication that creationism and ID, if there's even a difference, aren't science at all, but just ideology and poor argumentation that would simply fade away if they didn't have evolution to both kick around and do their homework for them.

How about not? In my book, when you make assertions that you know aren't true, that's lying. Either we're to presume that creationists like the Idea Center are unable to read text put in front of them, or else they're putting forth assertions that they know are wrong.That would either make them idiots or liars. It's up to you, I guess, which one we're supposed to consider them.Junk DNA being junk wasn't an evolutionary concusion; in fact, it's the opposite of an evolutionary conclusion. There's no evolutionary reason that an organism should have non-functional DNA sequences given that there's a non-zero metabolic cost for the constant replication of these sequences. They shouldn't exist. And as it turns out, they don't. They have functions. Evolution wins again.Personally I think PS gives them too much credit; he assumes that the Idea Center actually bothered to find out the truth before spouting their falsehoods. I doubt they did any more work than opening a magazine. So while PS feels that they're liars, I disagree. My view is the alternative; they're idiots.Yeah, I know you're going to have a big hissy-fit about it. Well, that's tough. That's what comes of advocating a position so obviously and thouroughly wrong.

Out of curiosity, is there anyone for whom this isn't true? Is there anybody that was convinced by creationism's own "scientific" or evidentiary merits, rather than being forced into creationism as a point of dogma stemming from a conversion to or upbringing in faith?

This is exactly the point - your analysis is completely off the mark. Of course the ID people didn't come up with the junk DNA concept - they didn't come up with anything at all. Molecular biologists said "this DNA has no function we can detect, at present" and the ID people said "we'll take your word for it." And then the molcular biologists came back and said "we've detected functions of this DNA we weren't aware of previously" and the ID people said "we'll take your word for it."Of course the ID people didn't come up with "junk DNA", they never come up with anything. They're not capable of their own scientific progress. And to offer this as some kind of evidence of ID "science" overturning an "evolutionist" assumption is idiotic - this is evolutionist scientists overturning an assumption that was really, when you think about it, incoherent with evolution, and the ID "scientists" trying to ride on the coattails of the people who did the real work.If the ID guys are so much smarter, then why did they go along with the junk DNA model in the first place? Why did they do exactly what you say and they say they wouldn't have done?

Well, perhaps the theory isn't, but rejecting the better theory in favor of it certainly would be. Well, hell, I'm interested in it.I just don't agree with it. I don't accept it, and neither does the scientific community. That's a great example of molecular biological research, but I don't see where they used ID. Looks to me like whatever they accomplished, they accomplished according to the mainstream, evolutionist procedures and models already present in biology. Then what the heck is the point, to be frank about it? If the best ID can ever hope to do is "re-interpret" evolutionary research, then Occam's Razor cuts them away. That principle of parsimony means we prefer evolution to ID because it has less "sprinkles", if you will - less entities that cannot be identified or tested. Unless ID brings something to the table and explains something evolution can't, there's no merit to it, and preferring it to evolution isn't scientific.

I don't see how that answers his question.