"Creation Science" experiments.

In fact I would have far more confidence in a vehicle that evolved biologically than in one designed by a human. I would have to be very foolish not to.But you are also just showing that you have no clue what the Theory of Evolution says.That is also why it is likely that no Creationist has been able to present a "Creation Science" experiment.So here is an experiment for you.In your own words, try to explain why I would have far more confidence in a vehicle that evolved biologically than in one designed by a human.

---

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

I have to wonder if you have ever even read the Bible. It certainly doesn't sound like it. Frankly, there is NOTHING in the Bible that even implies that things were not designed to wear out.BUT...that still has nothing to do with the topic.how about a suggestion of a "Creation Science" experiment?Here is a suggestion, why not tell us the "Creation Science" model for the Vishnu Schist?Or maybe the "Creation Science" model to make sand?Maybe you can present the "Creation Science" model for salt domes and beds?

---

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

I'm not sure that really would show creation or explain anything of value.I keep trying to get just a few of the basics, things that are not really miracles.That is why I keep asking for the "Creation Science" model to make sand, salt beds, mica, schist, even easy stuff like the millions of alternating light and dark layered varves found in the Green River formation.

---

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

And that points towards the actual topic of this thread.Science says "No position or Belief can be held sacred, rather should sufficient evidence be presented to overturn even a very strongly held belief then that belief must be discarded. Further, no position should be included until there is actual evidence in support of it."This thread is asking folk to provide even a simple "Creation Science" experiment.Peer review included other professionals in the same area of general study, for example Biology. But science goes even further. The person proposing the hypothesis must disclose all evidence and procedures publicly, and then the broader scientific community tries to replicate the findings. It is that further step, testing and replication that most often confirms or refutes a position.Intelligent Design is a non-starter until Intelligent Design can create a large body of experiments that explain what is seen better than the current explanations.Granted, that is a very difficult task, but there are no shortcuts.For Intelligent Design to even be considered it must explain things BETTER than the conventional theories.So far, as this thread shows, it seems no one from the Creation/Intelligent Design camp have even one suggested experiment.

---

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

I doubt very much you can point out where Dawkins says there is any valid ID science being done. Second, you are once again misrepresenting what I said, so here is Message 15.

quote:

---

jar writes:

​

Jbr writes:

​

If I'm not mistaken, isn't creation, a form of origins theory?

​

No, it is not a Theory at all. A Theory explains how some observed fact happens. Creation is just magic.

---

Note that there you were asserting that Creationism is a form of origins theory and I was pointing out that "goddidit" explains nothing. There is NO mention or discussion related to ID. ID can be included in science as soon as you present sufficient evidence that there is an Intelligent Designer and place that Designer on the lab table so that we can test both its existence and its intelligence.Once there is as much evidence of the existence of the Intelligent Designer and of just how intelligent the designer is we can begin to test to see if that particular Designer had anything to do with any of the life forms so far discovered.We can then decide if the Designer is liable for any product liability suits based on the failure rate and suffering caused by his failed designs.

---

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

But they claim more then just design, they claim an Intelligent Designer.

---

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

Not only did I accuse you of misrepresenting what I said, I included the exact content of the message where you claimed you got my quote.You said..."If it was as well defined as you think, then there would not be people like me claiming that creation and ID are scientific theories (and yes even Richard Dawkins the atheist admits it), and then people like "Jar" (in post #15) clearly saying they are not. "Nowhere in the article could I find Richard Dawkins saying that ID or Creationism were scientific theories. I can, of course, be wrong but if so, can you point to where Dawkins says they are scientific theories?Second, once again, I did not even mention ID in message 15. If you think I did, then you are saying that ID and Creationism are synonymous which I do believe is true and will so assert.Intelligent Design is just Biblical Creationism in a new packaging. Why not. There are always people that are ignorant of what Science really is, refuse to even learn what Science is, actively avoid learning by creating avoidance schools and home schooling, that understand there is a Gold Mine in telling folk what they want to hear.There are lots of reasons that there is a controversy that have absolutely nothing to do with the definition of Science.But that does not mean I don't have sympathy for you and the challenge you face. I'm pretty sure I have given this to you before but if not, her is a primer on what you need to do if you want ID or Creationism to ever be taken seriously.The thread How can "Creationism" be supported? outlines what you guys need to do and offers you some help and advice. And, as a Christian, I again offer to try to help you move towards your goal.Edited by jar, : fix subtitle

---

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

Even if your hypothesis was correct it is useless and valueless.For your idea of Intelligent Design or the really silly undefined APC to be of any use whatsoever, you must present the model of HOW the agent creates APC.I can say that a car was designed or a radio was designed or a fountain pen was designed, but until I can understand how they were designed, it is just worthless information.BUT...once we understand the model for how, as an example, your imaginary designer designed APC (whatever that is), the designer becomes just a footnote, unimportant except as an historical footnote or in cases of product liability.Until you produce a model that explains living things better than the current models, Creationism and Intelligent Design will remain the joke they are today.

---

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

Then perhaps you can explain what value the designer adds? Some of us are older than five.You understand that at five much of what he does know is useless.As your child grows up he will learn, hopefully, how the things works, and then he will have so useful information.But what is the value added to a car by there being a designer?What is the value of the designer?It works.Now once people understand the processes that resulted in the critter "car", they can duplicate the process, make more cars, make better cars.The designer is only relevant as a historic footnote OR in the case of product liability suits unless you can provide so actual worth or value for your alleged "Intelligent Designer"?

---

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

So far EVERY "Creation Science" experiment has shown that the current explanations are the better answer. Not one has supported "Creationism", the existence of "Design" or a "Designer", or that there ever was a "Biblical Flood".

---

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