quote:Originally posted by schrafinator: The unchanging belief in a particular interpretation of the Protestant Christian Bible is at the core of Scientific Creationism.
"There was a Flood, now we just have to find evidence for it."
"Kinds were created specially and suddenly, now we have to find evidence for this."
"The Earth is a few thousand years old, now we have to find evidence for it".
NEVER will these assumptions about what is "supposed" to be found ever change,
Dear Schrafinator, You are quite correct here, as in question to HM Morris in a snail mail letter I suppose I 'supposed' this "supposed" and yet Dr. Morris' response stays with me. He had said in so many words that biology and math must remain seperated in any conversation on evo/crea illusion discussions. But one thing that IS "Supposed" to be found in evolution thinking (say RA FISHER if a name is needed) is a supremecy of natural selection but while reading the detail between Fisher and Wright it is right apparent for the same dispute of pure vs applied math between Borel and Lebesque (only confined to one country rather than across the Pond) that on ordiantions of the same evidence ( thus also the same for creation or evolution) the collection can be suppposed that the set does not. But then the logic of the math would also have to be quite seperate that not even in Boole's Laws of Thought is this maintained. The internet medium may permit the nats to be so teased in or out till the "debate" progresses. It is certainly possible in this directum to adhere to HM Morris of the Defender's Study Bibile where Internal Designs In The Bible are discussed to be adhered to but unless the seperation maintained engage the acutal evolutionary content the debate will be like a mock trial and I would have quickly lost interest long ago. There is something here.
quote: because then the paricular interpretation of the Bible would be wrong.
By contrast, Science changes constantly as new information
While it is true that Science in general does change as fast as time exists if such a thought could be really expressed but in fact evolutionary theory remains hidden behind a simple point drawn by Fisher in response to Wright that Croizat made 1000pages in many languages a big joke out of and the debate must resolve the extension of this point some time. Evolutionists simply have more narrative than good usable theory. The Journal of Theoretical Biology is full of models that have never been tried out.
quote: is found, and science does not assume it knows what will be found.
I am not assuming but writing about something I have read that you could too if one want, to. But lead us not into ____.
I would like people to use Cantor's math but that would be assuming too much even from Wright's "back variable" yet the infinity need not remain convergent for secular purposes only.
There have been some good points and ... well, some people have missed the boat. But we're all here to discuss and expand our minds, right? So try this one on folks .... I dare anyone to prove that creation is wrong. Try it. Use all the science you want. I love to study, I love science, and I also love God. But you know what, I have yet to hear or read of any proof for evolution which refutes creation. They are NOT mutually exclusive. In fact (some people are going to dislike me for this) they are complimentary. Even the ORDER in which life developed is the same in both theories! Is it so difficult to think God may have used evolution as the means of creation? When so many scientific factors had to come together against such unreasonable odds to form life, is it really that difficult to postulate some higher power was at work? You've asked us to prove we are right. It's your turn. Hit me hard folks, and prove to me that creation is wrong.
"The light of the Mind is knowledge, the Light of the Soul is God. Let us hold both dear to our Hearts."
Just a quick note to remind you of the little red arrow reply to button at the bottom of each individual post. If you reply to a particular post with this little red arrow it leaves a trail thru the thread of replies to and from various posters. Also, for those who have elected to have email notification of replies, this option depends on the use of this button. The post reply button at the bottom of the entire page leaves a generic post without reply notification. Please use this button only if your post is to the thread in general and no one post in particular.
So try this one on folks .... I dare anyone to prove that creation is wrong. Try it. Use all the science you want. I love to study, I love science, and I also love God. But you know what, I have yet to hear or read of any proof for evolution which refutes creation.
When I first read this I was surprised that you would even ask such a thing. I mean, come on DrkBeloved...simpy peruse this webpage and you'll see creationism disproven over and over again. That is, it has been disproven over and over again if you abide by the scientific method. And you do claim to love science. But now I see what your game plan may be. Before we can address this issue we will need to read your version of creationism. You see, DrkBeloved, it seems that we can't get a consistant creation "theory". If you happen to be a "global flood" creationist then this will be easy, cuz it's already been done hundreds of times. Go to the Geology and Great Flood threads and do some reading. If you're a "God started it with the big bang and evolution took off from there" creationist, then (as Crashfrog as already stated) it will be impossible to "prove" your creationism idea wrong. So,DrkBeloved, the ball is back in your court. Please, give us your idea of how you think creationism operates.
Later you said this:
When so many scientific factors had to come together against such unreasonable odds to form life, is it really that difficult to postulate some higher power was at work?
Please explain what you mean by "unreasonable odds"? I hope you're not gonna claim that nonsense about how the probablility of even a protein "evolving" is so small that it could not have happened (without your higher power). Is that what you think?
quote:I dare anyone to prove that creation is wrong. Try it.
Right after you prove that there are no invisible, intangible gremlins living in your rectum, singing their happy songs about the life-giving feces trees.
Heck, while you're at it, prove that the universe was not created when Roger Ebert (who is actually a six-billion year old being) had too many beans for dinner, and farted the universe into existence. Or that life didn't form when Al Roker traveled back in time and ejaculated into the primordial ooze.
Come on, man. Hit me hard.
Prove I'm wrong.
"It isn't faith that makes good science, it's curiosity." -Professor Barnhard, The Day the Earth Stood Still