How do you define the word Evolution?

I do. I do. But that doesn't distinguish between evolution and phenotypic plasticity or ontogenesis. But that is not the thing to be described in this case. (Though we do have a word for that. It's also called "evolution".) That was a bizarre non sequitur.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You can in fact trust scientists. What you can't do is trust them and believe your halfwitted religious dogma. I see that you've made your choice.

"Useful" science = fields that don't disprove our beliefs. Not useful science = everything else.You have made my case for me. Creationists think they can pick and choose from science, accepting some things and rejecting others for religious reasons. The fields they reject they do their best to undermine. We see that on a daily basis here, and we see it throughout the country in creationist's efforts take over school boards (Dover) and to mandate their beliefs in school text books (see the recent efforts in Texas, for example). (See posts from Faith and Davidjay for additional examples.)There is no way these efforts can be seen to be supporting science--they are clearly anti-science. You have even included the "good science vs. bad science" nonsense in your post, referring to "anything that is useful in applied biology." You clearly mean to exclude evolution, much of geology, genetics and a few related fields that disprove your beliefs as "science which is not useful." Young earth; global flood ca. 4350 years ago. If these beliefs are acted upon they impost a worldview that is completely at odds with the real-world evidence. Given her posts and beliefs, Faith would not be a very effective geologist, for example.

Creationists are logical and rational, rather than believeing in magic mutations. They usually understand that SCIENCE was created, laws were created (SEE THREAD on LAWS WERE CREATED and did not evolve).In other words, the Creator (Jesus) created science, and is the GREAT MATHEMATICIAN, ARCHITECT, BUILDER, and GREAT SCIENTIST.Evolution denies science and gets into their theory of religious evolution as their saving grace and deliverer.

You disprove that claim with every post you make here.

The primary problem that creationists are faced with is that they hold beliefs derived completely from their fallible interpretations from their fallible Man-made theologies, beliefs that are contrary to fact. And they made their entire belief systems completely dependent on those false beliefs, such that if any one of those false beliefs turns out to be false, then according to their faulty theology that would completely disprove their religion and their gods. Such an event is inevitable, since those beliefs are contrary to fact and to reality.Reality disproves those false beliefs, so they must ignore reality. Since science is one of our best tools for discovering and studying reality, they must ignore it as well. But, they also love their computers and their flush toilets, so they cannot reject science completely.So they cherry-pick science keeping the parts of science that gives them the technology they want while selectively rejecting and ignoring the parts they don't like. Anyone familiar with science knows that you cannot do that, that all of science must hang together. But creationists don't think that way. They think theologically, which means that they feel free to accept some parts and ignore others -- that is exactly what they do with their own religion. And they think that they can change reality simply by redefining a few words, something that does not and cannot actually work, but again something that they do with their religion all the time.Those actions are indeed anti-science.

Creationists are illogical and irrational because they deny that mutations happen even when we can observe mutations occurring both in the lab and in the wild.

That's true. However creationists who pick on the second law of thermodynamics as an example are quite easily shown to be deluded by something other than the Bible which itself describes events that require a working second law.

Then I'd like to see HOW it would do so with HBD's scientific work. Failing to convince anyone at EvC is testimony to the prevailing bias and nothing more. Yes it is a pet idea of mine, it forms part of my overall model which I tried to spell out in that post. I believe it makes for a consistent coherent model which is all I had in mind as a comparison since HBD rightly says a framework is needed for what he does. Doesn't really matter if you are convinced of it, or he is, or anybody is (since the ToE is a bunch of garbage anyway), the point is that it does amount to a coherent model that could be applied. Of course I dispute that the ToE has any evidence, it's all speculation and imagination, so your objection is worth ca ca. Oh here come the Pedantic/Semantic Police. Could not care less NN how it is defined. I despise these word games you all substitute for debate about concepts. I've gone back to the post and exchanged "entropy" for the Second Law. Things running down, general deterioration and loss, sun going to burn itself out, and although it is denied by the ToE the fact that DNA is deteriorating and will ultimately do us all in, is part of this. But I put that in a separate entry.

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what you are talking about?And why would events requiring a working second law be a problem in the Bible?, which is what you seem to be implying.

quote:

---

Failing to convince anyone at EvC is testimony to the prevailing bias and nothing more.

---

That would be the "bias" that suggests that if you want to use selective breeding as a model for evolution you should look at those breeders whose methods are closest to evolution in the wild - instead of deliberately excluding them from consideration ?Edited by PaulK, : Correct tag

Breeding is a way of illustrating the essential effects of selection. Other factors unnecessarily complicate the point, introduce elements that only slow down the ultimate effects of selection.

That doesn't change the fact that other breeders better represent evolution in the wild and would be better models if accuracy was your intent.

Accuracy ISN'T my intent; my intent is to present the most salient feature that defines the process of evolution.

in other words you picked a poor example because it supported your opinion. It is hardly "bias" to point that out or disagree.