ICR Sues Texas

Non sequitur. Even if there was a creation theory, which there isn't, and even if it was the only logical alternative to evolution, which it isn't, that still wouldn't "make" creationism scientific. In order to be scientific, creationism would still have to follow the rules and procedures of science, which it doesn't.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

Please try to use scientific terms correctly:Evolution is a demonstrable fact. That change occurs from generation to generation is not seriously disputed by anyone but a few cranks.The Theory of Evolution is the current best explanation how existing species developed. The theory explains all of the myriad facts that have been observed, and has successfully made predictions.Religious belief does not need scientific facts or theories; it relies on scripture, dogma, faith, etc. And, as such, it cannot be used to contradict scientific facts or theories.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

xEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Now you are starting to get the point, its not a matter of whether you believe there is EVIDENCE of design, its a matter of whether it should be taught as a fact or whether it could be demonstrated as a fact. Its your measuring rod.Evolution (in its entirity)is not a demonstratable fact, nor should it be taught as science. Science should only include the immediate and the observable, evolution in its entirity is NEITHER, therfore not scientificBy denouncing my position you have crumbled your ownIts that simple,its really that simple. Remember those wordsDawn Bertot

Why cannot any IDer show any scientific evidence for design? Also, I see that you agree that ID is just creationism in a lighter, friendlier package.I posted this link earlier on another thread but it seems to be appropriate here too.
Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories
I think you need to understand what a Theory is before you start throwing the word around.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Thats the point evolution is neither a fact nor an alternative to anything scince it demonstrates only a possibilty, that answers nothing about the origin of anythingDawn Bertot

Bullshit.Sorry but that is simply crap and false.There is overwhelming evidence of Evolution. Absolute nonsense.That has NOTHING to do with science. Evolution can be observed. We have tens of millions of fossils that show living critters have changed over time. Evolution is a fact. As I pointed out above, even if there was evidence of design it is not worth teaching. Design and a designer, even ifg they were true tell us nothing of value. It would still be necessary for there to be a Theory of Design that explained how the designer did things.Until there is a Theory of Design that explains what is seen better than the Theory of Evolution explains what is seen there is simply nothing to be taught or included in a curriculum.And guess what. For there to be a Theory of Design it will have to get to teh same physical level involving chemistry that the Theory of Evolution already covers.Design cannot be taught as either fact or Theory but only as fantasy.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

It amazes me that in the almost 3 years since you started posting here that you still do not understand the very basics about the Theory of Evolution. The TOE is not about and says nothing about origins. Can you just learn the basics of what it is about before you make wild ass claims against it?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Of course evolution is a fact, as demonstrated countless times. You have no excuse for not understanding that. My point was that creationism is not a viable alternative to that fact because creationism can not be demonstrated. Not even a miracle can turn creationism into science.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

Thats the problem, the first two although connected are passed off as fact. One is demonstrable the other is not.Most of religious belief is supporrted by data, but that has nothing to do with what we are discussingDawn Bertot

Trust me I do,my points go much deeper than those simplitic terms, divisions and nonsense. Pleae pay close attentionDawn Bertot

The first is a fact, the second is a theory. Theories explain facts.Theories are disproved by facts that contradict them, and by facts they cannot explain.Religion provides neither, as it is not based on data, as you claim, but on belief and faith.These are the exact opposite of science, and in fact are both anti-science and anti-rational. Yet, you want to use religious belief as scientific evidence. Sorry, that doesn't work.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You really seem to be confused as to what a Scientific Theory is.
In case you decline to read the link I posted above I will quote it here.

quote:

---

Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.

​

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

​

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works, what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

​

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process.

​

A simple analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

​

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

​

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

​

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

​

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

​

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that theories do not become laws. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science. Here is an oversimplified example of the development of a scientific theory:

---

Scientific Theory, Law, and Hypothesis Explained | Wilstar.comIt is not a guess. It is an explanation of facts.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Now without getting emotional, try and stay logical and watch where the argument goes. I know you honestly believe youthink you can show me the entire process of evolution, simply putyou cannot. The fossil record while it shows change does not prove
macro evolution.For myself design in things is as strong as your belief orobservtion in the natural world. There is overwhelmingevidence of design Sure there is, that it is a very real probabilty as to how life began, considering it has there ear marks of a designer.While neither can be proved absolutley, both hold equal validityDawn Bertot

Why don't you go for that Nobel prize and show us this theory of design. Is there any way to go through the denseness so you will learn that the TOE has nothing to do with how life began?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts