Evolution versus Creationism is a 'Red Herring' argument

Molecular phylogenetics, of course. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

So you're saying that creation definitely is not science.

We prefer quality over quantity. Take your time and write up a good post. We'll be here. Huh!? We prefer to have a dialog. Respond to what we say with an actual response to what we say. So what? Evolution is still the best explanation of the data we have. I don't see any reason to discuss Uniformiatianism. Is that really what you wanted this topic to be about? I thought this was supposed to be about the EvC argument being a red herring... Well whoopty-do. EvC... Red herring... Go! Take the time to reply to what we're actually saying and stay on the topic and don't copy and paste stuff.

So you're saying that creation definitely is not science.==============I think that I stated clear enough that science is about the discovery of a set of rules governing a repeating behavior. Creation never made a claim of a repeating process. What ID does is actually a scientifically assisited history study. I said it long time ago that creation/ID is not a science per se.

I can't tell what Hawkins is arguing for.

Try using the [quote] and [/quote] tags to make your posts more readable.

By this definition, astronomy, geology, paleontology, anthropology and any other study of something that happened in the past are not sciences. I'm sure that those scientists working in those fields would be most surprised to hear this.Would it surprise you to learn that your idea is not a new one? Would it surprise you to learn that anti-science religious nuts have been saying this for years? Would it surprise you to learn that your definition has absolutely nothing to do with reality?

It remains a well supported observation. By testing it against the evidence. As it stands, the evidence demonstrates that species share a common ancestor, the Earth is quite old, the Universe even older, and a complete lack of a recent global flood.How else do you think truth is determined? Nowhere does the scientific method require us to repeat past events. We don't have to re-animate a corpse and witness the defendant killing the victim once again in order for forensic science to work.What the scientific method requires is that experiments produce repeatable results. That's it. Therefore, forensic science can repeatedly sequence DNA found at a crime scene to see if it matches the defendant's DNA. Never does science require a repeat of the actual crime, only a repeatable result from the DNA analysis. We repeatedly measure ratios of isotopes in rocks that are not consistent with a young earth. We repeatedly find shared genetic markers between species that can only be explained by shared ancestry. We repeatedly see fossils that have a mixture of traits consistent with a transitional state. We repeatedly see no interruption of sedimentary deposition consistent with a lack of a global flood. Creationism is falsifiable, and it has been falsified.

Am I the only one who has noticed that in an attempt to disregard the evidence for common descent, creationists (especially the young-earth creationists) are now trying to re-define science?Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

They've been doing that for 30 years. There's nothing new to creationism, it's all PRATTs and they know it. It has nothing to do with a scientific dispute, it never has. It's all about public relations and trying to convince the uneducated that they have a point to make.

I think everyone has noticed. It certainly isn't the first time I have seen someone try to do this. It's almost like watching someone try to change the rules of golf half way through a match when it becomes apparent that they are getting their ass handed to them.It is also seen in the opening post. They try to twist and misrepresent uniformitarianism to make evolution not look like science and creatoinism look like science.

1. Originally, I stated in 'A Message...et.al. that Genesis Ch. 1 AND Gen. Ch. 2 accounts of the genesis of life could not both be literally true (being contradictory LITERALLY) and that at least one of them must be allegorical. 2. Well (also stated then), both are allegorical. 3. My mistake was ignorantly placing credence (at the time I documented my theory as a book) on a misleading and incorrect biological text written by an apologetic author. It would have been convincing evidence had the 6 forms of life in the 6-day account been in evolutionary order. BUT they are NOT. My sincere apology to my readers, and thanks to your pointing this out. The 6-day account is allegorical, and is NOT written from the view of chronological creation; but rather is depicting the process of genesis of life from the perspective of A. Recovery (not original creation) from a waste, dark condition. B. Life as generated by light, and the relationship between them. 4. Any school of thought (regardless of nomenclature- 'Creationism', or 'Intelligent Design' that invokes a non-natural (supernatural) mechanism (Divine intervention) as part of its process is thus by definition disqualified from being a scientific school of thought that can be taught as a scientific discipline.

5. My dilemma is thus: A. I am born-again, and can no more deny the reality of this than I can deny my first, physical birth. B. I consequently also know that the Bible is the word of God. C. Christ is a living Person, and not a divisive religion. 6. So how to (poorly) relate the trace evidence of this in the objective realm of knowledge? Limited and futile. 7. Skeptics: "As it was in the days of Noah...so also the coming of the Son of Man...and they knew it not...and it took them all away." 8. We consume 40% more resources annually than the earth can renew, and the population continues to grow. 9. There came a point on the Titanic when everyone realized that trying to fix the plumbing was futile. Belatedly, those who were enthralled with discussing the thermodynamics of icebergs started swimming toward where the lifeboats had been. 10. What else can I say? It has been prophesied, and no one can stop it. Find out why, and take your place in the lifeboat. The reality of the Ark has unlimited room, but the door will not stay open forever. 11. If this preaching offends you & has no place in this forum (it doesn't); please forgive me. keeping my mouth shut does not relieve either my obligation or responsibility to care for those reading. Hear, seek, and receive Him! Not merely me. Written in Love, PaulGL

I. I still see no reasons not to think that: A. Man evolved. B. His evolution from primate to man was distinguished by his obtaining a spirit. C. This was possible only when he became capable of being responsible, which is dependent on obtaining free will, which is dependent on reaching a 'plateau' level of brain-to-body ratio. D. This is genetically determined. E. Such a 'plateau' threshold would require this first human to have a mate with an identical chromosomal makeup- which is possible only if she is cloned from him. F. This is recorded in the unique account of Eve's being built from Adam (not created as he was).
II. I also have not been shown empirical evidence that invalidates the probability that molecules became self-replicating in matrices of clay, also substantiated by the Genesis account of the content of man's physical being described as coming from (Hebrew) "red clay".
III. My challenge is for someone to present cogent evidence disproving these 2 hypotheses; or (failing that) explain why there is such an unmistakable correlation in the Biblical account.

How would "obtaining a spirit" be tested empirically?