Summations Only

Evolutionists are RIGHT that creationism is not science according to the way they define it nowadays. (purposefully defining it so there can be no hint of anything theist) But I would argue that it is not logically consequential, which deflates the evo-balloon. Think about it - the tactic is that evolutionists argue that creation MUST score through the, "science" hoop in order to have any validity, they do this with the apriori knowledge that nobody would ever let Creation count as science. So it's a goal they know there can be no goal scored through. "Hey guy, please kick your football through this goal hoop, and by the way, it's 1,000 foot tall." Unfortunately creationists are naive and do not see the tactic.To remove the focus from, "science" is what one must do.I also agree evolution is the best, most scientific explanation of the creation/design of animals, it's just that what I have said is the logical equivalent of this statement:"I agree that paint congealing on a canvas randomly exposed to differing temperatures and forces, is the best naturalistic explanation of the Mona Lisa."Sure - of course I can agree with that, after all, the "best" scientific explanation of something which isn't best explained scientifically is going to be an explanation that although is scientific, is nevertheless TENUOUS.The best culinary explanation for why you divorced your wife is because you did not like her cooking. But is that the reason you divorced your wife? Probability would tend to go against that, just like probability would tend to go against code creating itself naturally, when 100% of code has a cause that is intelligent design.So the relevant questions are;1. Does something have to be scientific in order to be a sound or strong argument?
Answer: no.
2. If something is a scientific explanation, is that sufficient? Answer: No.
3. If there is a scientific explanation for something, must that be accepted as the correct explanation? Answer: no.The whole thing is a semantic-game, that has creationists jumping through hoops to score a goal the evolutionist knows can't be scored through. The answer isn't to try and fit a square shape in a round slot, the answer is to say that there are other goals we can score through which are just as valid.For example, "truth" is something that matters more to people than what, "science" provides as an explanation, most of the time. If your relative was in prison and they were innocent, but an objective and scientific investigation led to a conclusion that their guilt seemed to fit the facts better, would you accept the science or the truth?People are in prison as we speak, who are innocent, and science cannot prove their innocence. The truth can and does matter more than what a bunch of self-righteous evolutionist prigs SAY matters.No - it doesn't matter if Darwin had an absurd explanation of the eyeball, because we can see that all of the thousands of parts in an eyeball, are contructed to give sight.DISCLAIMER: I am not saying that creationism has no science on it's side, a branch of creationism is intelligent design and nobody would dispute that an eyeball is designed to see, any more than a car is designed to drive, not without committing special-pleading fallacy! (for my opinion on the, "appearance" of design argument, (which is actually a WORD evolutionists use, rather than an argument. LOL.) please read my blog entry on it:Creation and evolution viewsEdited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.