quote:Originally posted by redstang281: I think this is the most common misunderstanding by evolutionists.
The belief of creation is not provable, it's a faith. The idea is that all science fits with the Biblical account of creation without compromising the clear teachings of the Bible.
Pedantic (again) but ... 'Belief of Creation' exists no one doubts that. Ultimately knowledge of whether or not God created all that is will either be gained when we die, or we will disappear without trace and so no longer care .. that I agree with.
All science fitting with the Biblical account of creation is another matter. If the biblical account of creation is your hypothesis, then it is testable (to a degree).
I think it's a bit of a cop out, though, to say it's faith so I don't have to prove it.
Why do you have faith in the biblical account of creation ?
Why is that account any more/less believable than evolution in terms of the origin of species ?
quote: Originally posted by redstang281: Now if we apply your laws to the theory of evolution we will find that evolution is not a science either.
Non of the evolution theorys could stand up to any of these. (keep in mind microevolution is testible and is part of creation)
It should have: 1) testable hypotheses
The basic (abridged) hypothesis behind evolutionary theory is that the diversity of life on Earth developed over time via redistribution of allelle frequencies in individual populations in response to changes in the environment. Genetic mutations played a part in this process.
This hypothesis leads to predictions about what would be expected to be seen in the world at large.
These predictions can be compared with observations to be validated.
If these predications are contradicted, then that part of the theory to which they related is falsified.
quote: Originally posted by redstang281: 2) confirming evidence
The majority of confirming evidence, whilst compelling for 'us' is dismissed as rubbish by most creationists.
It leads into discussions over the age of the earth, gets sidetracked into probabalistic debates over the likelyhood of abiogenesis, and suggestions that a consistent ordering of fossils within rock strata could have occurred due to a global flood.
quote: Originally posted by redstang281: 3) potential falsifications
quote: Originally posted by redstang281: Here's some important quotes:
2. 'In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it.'
H.S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK), 'A physicist looks at evolution'. Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, 1980, p.138
If observations are bent to fit evolutionary theory, these are picked up by peer review. I do NOT believe that an observation can be bent into anything. If an evolutionary concept can explain observations is that bending ?
Check out creationist refutations of evidence FOR evolution if you would like to see some fascinating tricks of hypothesis.
quote: Originally posted by redstang281: 3. 'The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.' (L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's The Origin of Species, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p.xi.
In what way is evolution the backbone of biology ?
It is one facet of enquiry into the biological world. It does NOT inform studies of physiology, genetics, eco-systems, biochemistry, etc. Quite the reverse in fact.
Failure to prove evolution has little to do with evidence, and much to do with politics, power, and religion.
quote: Originally posted by redstang281: 4. 'One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.' (Hubert P. Yockey [Army Pulse Radiation Facility, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, USA], 'A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory'. Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol.67, 1977, p.396
Faith is about beleiving in something without any evidence. If we as evolutionists were not concerned with evidence, why would quote so much of it, and attempt to explain it ?
Even the quote you provide says 'Has not yet been written', not that it is in any sense impossible.
quote:Originally posted by TrueCreation: "I believe what TrueCreation is asking is, do you want a flood model theory, a biological theory, a young-earth theory, etc. The concept of Creation science is too large to create an all-encompassing theory." --Exactly, this is what I am wondering, thanx cobra.
"I meant scientific theory. What you proposed was a scenario that you claimed could be. However, it was rather quickly dispatched by gene. You need to provide a scientific theory that has not been falsified, has testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsifications." --You mean my two theories on impact craters? That is still under way, I do think my culdra theory is quite lacking, but my other one, as I stated before I posted them, I would more readilly cling to.
What is being asked for is a Theory of Creation Science.
If that decomposes into a number of theories (i.e. CS is a FIELD) then give us the component theories.
Perhaps I could give you a start.
Provide evidence for::
A young earth (I have opened a How Old is the Earth? thread for this).
The mechanism by which a flood could create a consistent global burrial record (including why some remains are fossilised and others aren't)
That (for me) would be a start.
I would like to see a theory/premise/assertion followed by the logical outcome if that assertion were true, followed by the empirical evidence that shows that the assertion holds.