quote:
i would disagree. no one has ever believed that the earth was flat. at best, that was an old sailor's tale or bedtime story to scare little children. read Hapgood's 'Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings'.
This is simply false. Although the sphericity of the Earth was discovered much earlier than many people think there were certainly ancient cultures that believed in a flat Earth (such as the Egyptians) and even in relatively modern times there were some who still believed it.
quote:
again i would disagree as science did not invent those things. they came about from viewing older , similar versions that were the product of the God-given intelligence men possess. science had nothing to do with it.
Modern technology depends on science. Without science we would not have modern computers.
quote:
which means that its credibility to discover and proclaim the truth is shot and demonstrates that it never knows what the truth is and tellspeople it needs to be ignored.
This proclaims the infallibility of the closed mind. It explains a lot. Unfortunately refusing to accept that you are wrong does not make you right. The open mindedness of science is one of the reasons that it deserves to be given credibility, since it allows for the removal of error. And to the extent that creationists reject this open-mindedness they are being unscientific - an important point to remember.
quote:
First, the act:
Now the creation act is a one time affair but then so is the origination of the process of evolution and its initial interaction with the original life form. the origin of life and the origin of the process cannot be repeated thus like creation, secularists ONLY study the supposed results of this process, and this takes millions of years, so they say.
whereas the results of creation can be studied by anyone at anytime. so thi gives creation the advantage for qualification over the process of evolution.
Here you are incorrect. The actual processes of evolution are studied in the laboratory and the field. The processes of creation are unobserved. The only "products of creation" that we may observe are human creations and even there we may use processes resembling evolution to good effect.
Thus the advantage is to evolution.
quote:
Second, original condition: for creation we know the orginal conditions for say reproduction. a man, woman, a bed or couch. plus we know that the air, the universe, the oceans, the geography were all about the same as they are now (give or take a flood , pollution etc.) we do not need to guess at what conditions were present for reproduction the creation way.
And yet the theory of evolution says nothing different about human reproduction so creationism has no advantage there. (In fact many Young Earth Creationists propose some allegedly significant differences in environment prior to the Flood - and without any physical evidence to support such a claim, so creationism is actually at a disadvantage by your own criterion).
Presumably you are referring to the very different conditions on the primordial Earth. However, what we know of these conditions IS based on physical evidence. If your point is that creationists simply close their minds to this evidence and its implications then it is another disadvantage to creationism.
quote:
there is no ancient record, no ancient civilization, nothing fom the ancient world that reveals the evolutionary original conditions. which means that even if the scientists think they got it right, they would never know if they did or not, for the theory of evolution, it is all a guess and no confirmation.
another advantage for creation.
In other words you claim that creationism is more scientific than evolution because it treats ancient myths as unquestionable fact, while rejecting all the evidence to the contrary. Another disadvantage to creationism (and in itself sufficient to disqualify it).
quote:
Third, replication: now as i said, evolutionists and creationists can only test the results of each. For creationists, that is not difficult and as i have used this example many times before, one just has to visit the nurseries for the life forms inhabiting the planet today and one will see replication in process. We also see the sun and moon rise and fall each day, the stars at night and so it goes.
each stage of the creation act we can see take place and we do not even need a test tube to observe it.
BUT with the theory and process of evolution, there is no replication of its supposed work because no one can replicate the original conditions to transform a specimen to change like the examples given in the fossil record.
In other words you CALL ordinary reproductive biology "creation". Unfortunately you are wrong. The "creation" you need to examine is divine creation without parents. This is completely unobserved.
On the other hand evolutionary processes can be observed in the laboratory and the field. Advantage to evolution
quote:
these men and women are also jumping the gun. they are taking existing animals and applying foreign substances to see what will take place, but they forget that the process, did not such thing nor had capibilities to perform such acts thus all these experiments are producing false results which are then credited to the theory.
If this were true it would apply to all experiments. Practically all experiments rely on setting up artificial conditions. Thus this is simply another attack on science.
Thus, even using your own examples evolution is science and creationism is not only utterly disqualified, it is revealed as being opposed to science, attacking both experimentation and the (conservative) open-mindedness that science requires.
™ Version 4.2