Question Evolution!

I notice that about half of your "questions" are in fact blatant falsehoods disguised as questions, as though I were to ask "Why do you practice cannibalism?"You may think that phrasing rephrasing falsehoods as questions in this way shields you from the moral obloquy of bearing false witness. It does not.A question for you: If the best way you can think of to defend creationism is this kind of dishonest piffle, does that not suggest to you, as it suggests to me, that it is not worth defending? Without courage, without integrity, without honor, without dignity, you people are apparently obliged to stoop this sort of thing as the very best you can do. Well, if that's the best you can do, then the thing is not worth doing.

No, that would be the best place to start if there really was something wrong with evolution. Because there isn't, grotesque and pitiful ignorance is in fact the best vantage point from which to do so.

Fifteen Questions That Anyone Can Answer But Creationists Don't Want To(1) Is there any scientific evidence that fish were created four days after light?
(2) Is there any scientific evidence that birds were created one day after that?
(3) Is there any scientific evidence that the first woman was created out of the rib of the first man?
(4) Is there any scientific evidence that the first man was created "from the dust of the ground".
(5) Is there any scientific evidence that snakes were once able to talk?
(6) Is there any scientific evidence that humans acquired their sense of morality by eating fruit?
(7) Is there any scientific evidence that God brought the animals before the first man to name them?
(8) Is there any scientific evidence that the sons of God descended from heaven to marry human women?
(9) Is there any scientific evidence for the city supposedly built by Cain?
(10) Is there any scientific evidence that both bronze and iron were in use after only ten generations of the human race?
(11) Is there any scientific evidence that a man named Noah built a big ship out of gopher wood?
(12) Is there any scientific evidence that all the Earth's terrestrial fauna dispersed from a single location somewhere in the mountains of Ararat?
(13) Is there any scientific evidence that Noah only took two of each kind of unclean animal on the Ark?
(14) Is there any scientific evidence that everyone in the world spoke the same language until about 2200 B.C?
(15) Is there any scientific evidence that the Book of Genesis isn't just a bunch of fairy-tales made up by people who knew jack shit?Supplementary question: can you remind me why they call it "creation science"?

So it's "just so story telling" like taking footprints to be evidence of feet?Well, if that's what you creationists mean by "just so story telling" then the answer to CMI's question is obvious: this is acceptable to scientists 'cos of being an essential and indispensable part of the scientific method, and because rejecting knowledge acquired in this way is stark raving lunacy.

Oh my word.They're not even trying to be right, are they?

The most I can make of your ideas is that you're trying to say: "You only believe it because all the available evidence supports it".Well, yeah. And obviously that doesn't make evolution special in any way.

No, that's not the distinction between a law and a theory. A law is a theory which describes a simple regularity: "As the tension, so the extension"; "the sun rises in the East"; "F = m₁m₂/r², "I'm only happy when it rai-ins" (Shirley Manson's Law).If you had been paying attention in science class, you'd know that the distinction between law and theory can't be what you think it is, because there are theories which consist of nothing but laws, e.g. Maxwell's theory consists entirely of Maxwell's four laws. I don't see what distinction you're trying to draw between my statement and yours. Yours is longer ...---As to the rest of your post, if you think you can come up with evidence against evolution, start a thread, let us know.

If you could find a theory which was logically inconsistent, then you could use that criterion to dismiss it, yes. But for obvious reasons there aren't many of those around.Apart from that, it's not much use to you. The consistency of a theory obviously can't confirm it, so logic is no use there. So apart from this one special case that doesn't come up very often you have to look at the evidence.

Well since your "reference" appears to be fatuous and dishonest nonsense, perhaps you have a little more work to do round here. It's amazing how much effort you people put in to failing to understand what is, after all, a very simple concept.Wouldn't it be easier just to understand it?Let's start at the beginning. Within a population, some animals are better adapted than others to the task of reproducing their genes. These animals will therefore have a statistical tendency to reproduce their genes with greater frequency than those worse adapted to this task.Do you:(a) Admit this.
(b) Not understand this.
(c) Deny this. (And if so, why?)Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You didn't produce any "reasoning". You gave an example of what you mean by "just so story telling", namely taking the observation of evidence predicted by a theory as evidence for that theory. The rest of us call this "the scientific method", but you are of course free to call it whatever you like.

The answers may be found in this thread. As you discovered by the process known as "daydreaming"? Or how?

Answering them does, however, answer them. You see those things that answer the questions? Those are called "answers", 'cos of them answering things.

But that wasn't the question. The question was, how did it happen? This question has been answered.Next question. Ditto. The question doesn't ask for a detailed dissertation on how we know the answer, it just asked for the answer.Next question.

Then you are asking for something different from the original 15 questions.

Yes they do.If you ask a man: "What's your name?" and he says "John", then he has answered the question. He may not have shown you his birth certificate to prove it, but he has answered the question. The evidence for evolution lies principally in genetics, morphology, embryology, the paleontology, biogeography, and behavioral ecology. I may have missed one or two sciences there, it's getting late. I'm sure you will find these things amply discussed on this forum, or I'm sure you would find them if you could be bothered to look.But the question, mercifully, did not ask us to teach half-a-dozen branches of science to a creationist, it just asked a question to which the answer is in fact the one word "evolution".Now if you want more information, you are free to ask for it, here or on a thread where it's on topic, but don't pretend that the original list of questions hasn't been answered, 'cos it has.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.