Summations Only

Piling up facts is not science -- science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.

​

Robert A. Heinlein

Creationists can't accept the results of science when they conflict with their religious beliefs, so some creationists endlessly pick at the edges of science in an attempt to overturn or discredit the results. That seems to be what's going on in this thread.But to discredit a scientific theory requires evidence...

I see what you did there. The Heinlein quote includes, "... a valid theory organises (facts) into a far greater usefulness." You, on the other hand, are trying to slip in a new definition for "useful" being just practical or applied science. That's pretty dishonest.The value of a theory is in helping us organize and understand facts. For example, the various theories of electromagnetism let us understand what's going on, and from there engineers and inventors can figure out some practical applications. Nobody is asking creationists to be the judges of science. They are completely unqualified.For religious reasons creationists choose to reject whole fields of science, and in many cases they do their best to discredit those sciences. Your posts alone show this.Why should we pay any attention to such anti-science nitpicking?

And we are to take advice and criticisms from creationists? What a joke!You want a closed mind just talk to a creationist who believes the bible is word for word TRVTH. They will twist, manipulate, ignore, or deny any evidence that shows their beliefs are wrong.And then they have the gall to lecture scientists about being open minded.

Hmmmm. Looking up the definition for cult on the interwebs shows the following:

quote:

---

--a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.
--a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.
--a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing.

---

And with that your claim fails in all respects.Those who study evolution do not venerate Darwin. It is religions who tend to venerate particular figures.Half of my graduate school study was in evolution related fields, including fossil man, human races, human osteology, etc. I doubt if Darwin was mentioned more than once or twice--I certainly don't remember any such mentions.It is anti-science creationists who are obsessed with Darwin! Because creationists match the definition of a cult much more closely than does any branch of science, they think that if they can disparage, belittle, and deprecate Darwin that it harms Darwin's theory 150 years later. (That's just another thing creationists are wrong about.)So lets call your branch of creationism what it is: an anti-Darwin cult.

Your posts are no longer even entertaining.You have become a caricature of yourself.

Before you offer a lot of advice, perhaps you should go back and learn to spell, write coherent sentences, and maybe even take some debating courses -- as you seem to have severe handicaps in all three of those areas.Oh, my BA is in English, and I have written a number of non-fiction books. (You lose again, eh?)

Wrong again!Understanding Evolution - Your one-stop source for information on evolution(Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time?)

You realize that link you posted is from the Discovery Institute, right?That is the organization that is responsible for the Wedge Document. Here is a link that describes that document:What is the “Wedge Document”? | The Sensuous Curmudgeonand here is the full Wedge Document:The Wedge Document | National Center for Science EducationHere are some quotes from the document:

quote:

---

Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

​

To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

​

To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
  —Wedge Document

---

In other words, they are advocating that science as we know it be destroyed and replaced by science in the furtherance of a particular religious belief.I can see why you might post a link from that organization, but I wouldn't trust them if they said the sun rises in the east--I'd want to see it for myself.

On the contrary--creationists absolutely need "Darwinism."It gives them something to bitch and moan about...

When you spend your whole career studying bones you can do things like that.Sure, it amazes the rubes who don't know anything about bones, but that's just a fringe benefit!

You need to look up definitions of terms used in science. Your ignorance of those terms is blatant. And it does not advance your argument when we can see such obvious mistakes.

Two hundred-year-old cases is the best you can do?Creationist Arguments: Nebraska Man
Creationist Arguments: Piltdown Man

They have to deny, misrepresent, or ignore many other fields as well, particularly dating sciences, geology, paleontology, genetics, etc.

Intelligent design came into being as a way to circumvent the US Supreme Court's decision against teaching creationism or creation "science" in schools.Its a sordid story of creationists lying, and playing hide the religion.From RationalWiki:

The term "cdesign proponentsists" came into being following the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in Pennsylvania over the legitimacy of teaching intelligent design as science.

​

A crucial piece of the defense (pro-intelligent design) was a book called Of Pandas and People which was marketed as a science textbook for middle and high school children. During the trial, previous copies of the book were subpoenaed for review. It was demonstrated that, whenever previous versions of the book had the terms "creationist" or "creationism" or some similar form, it had been replaced in almost all cases with the terms "design proponents" and "intelligent design" in later editions.

​

cdesign proponentsists - RationalWiki

How dishonest can you get? But that dishonesty pulled the covers off the attempt to smuggle religion into schools in the guise of intelligent design. And it showed that intelligent design was pure creationism with the serial numbers filed off in the hope of fooling people.

But you take lots of microevolutions (visualize small steps) and give it a lot of time (which evolution has but YECs don't), and looking back you can see macroevolution (visualize walking from SF to NY).This is real-world biology, as opposed to YEC belief.