The consequences of "Evolution is false"

I know you've been disallowed before on the science threads. One time was shortly after I got here--you and I ended up in the shell game war.but I think that this topic is sufficiently different enough from the other science threads (as this one isn't dealing with evidence per se, but the creo take on scientists). there shouldn't be a problem with you participating in this thread--and besides, I just know how you want to (noone here can resist debate. otherwise, you wouldn't be here, or me, for that matter).

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

And the point of your "self pity" parade is what, exactly?There's no conspiracy by science to remove creationist work from the definition of science. Why? We have a defintion that works, and guides us to what we should be attempting to find out.Look, this definition of science, which "so rudely and conspiratorily" rules out your brand of "creation science" also rules out astrology and phrenology, among others. Now tell me, do you consider astrology to be science? In order to make "creation science" real science, astrology is admitted.Science is rooted in methodological naturalism, which means it searches for physical, observable, natural causes for things. It also, I should add, does not rule out that God or some other supernatural thing could be behind all this--those things just can't be tested. So anytime the supernatural is relied on as the cause of something, there will be suspicion as to whether it actually is science.Just be glad science isn't based in ontological naturalism, which does explicity remove God from the picture. Then you would defintely have no hope of "creation science" ever actually becoming real science.Now let me ask you this--do you not get to define just what christianity is? Does science attempt this? No. we leave that to you theologists. So why should theologists get to define what science is?And can you just quit your whine parade now? it's not building any sympathy for you except in the choir, and it's going to make life for you much harder on this board--"oh look, there goes Buzsaw, the whiner. he thinks the whole science world is out to get him. lol" (for example)

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

quick point, NJ. No zebras have been found in antarctica. To boot, antarctica's been where it's at for quite some time. Antarctica - Wikipediaand how old is the zebra? the zebra, I should remind you, is a modern horse. THe pleistocene era is from Horse - Wikipediawhich means that there should be no, and I remind you, no zebra fossils in antarctica.If we take a look at hrose evolution, the started in america after the K-T extinction. At this time, Antarctica is connected to Australia, and this landmassed is only connected to the south american continent, around the area known as Drake's Passage. This split 41 million years ago, around the same time that antarctica split from australia. Since then, it's been on it's own. And where was the horse, 41 million years ago? It's only a Hyracotherium, or Eohippus. Not even close to a modern horse.If evolutionary history is correct, then no zebra's should be found fossilized in antarctica, much less frozen. And so far, not a single zebra.oh, and one last nitpick--since when were zebras a tropical animal? they've been plains animals for a damn long time, and before that, forest dwellers. not tropical dwellers.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

excuse, but this left me confused. You accept natural selection, a key part of evolution. yet you deny its existence.Is this because you think that abiogenesis and evolution are one thingoris this because you thing that evolution must make things better?As to the first possibility, that's a conflation of the issues, a misrepresentation just so that you can shoot evolution down.As to the second possibility, evolution does not require things to get better. It only requires that which survives--and there are still bacteria, becuase they have found a niche in which they do well in. And once you find this, why change? Again, another misrepresentation of evolution.As to the question concering what it means to be human, I have found that that requires a personal answer, applicable to noone but yourself. This does not mean that we suddenly become incompetent at doing other things. Am I incompetent at writing essays because I have no answer to the question? surely not. Do I not drive as well? again, no. Is my logic, my reasoning affected? no.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

this is the first I've heard of "emperical beliefs". It's a contradiction in terms. why? empirical stuff is evidence. you do not "belief" in something you can back up with evidence. Otherwise, you undermine the very concept of faith and belief.philosophy is nothing more than logic. existentialism is rooted in logic. empiricism is rooted in logic. being rational is being logical.(oh, by the way, philosophy's root is "love of knowledge"*)*don't quote me on that, but . . .

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.