Questions Creationists Never Answer-still waiting!

"The point is, in science, we do not "believe" in things that do not have evidence to support them. We say "I don't know"."Ideally. However, I am not confident that all scientists actually use this approach.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
"The point is, in science, we do not "believe" in things that do not have evidence to support them. We say "I don't know"."

​

Ideally. However, I am not confident that all scientists actually use this approach.

---

Cobra, produce a scientific paper (that meets the scientific method), that uses belief as its main pretext.Or concede the point.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-01-2002]

Another addition to the list would be "define new information".------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RetroCrono:
[b]

quote:

---

I'm not just talking about reading books, discussing, etc. I mean, do your own real research.

---

Um, what? I am not a Biologist. Are you actually trying to say that I should be doing original research out in the field or something, otherwise my views are not valid? Give me a break. If that was the case then you should reject nearly all of the stuff Creation "scientists" put out there, because they certainly aren't doing much original research, even though they are supposed to be professionals.

quote:

---

You seem to accuse me of not writing my own flood model. Why don't you try work some things out for yourself if they are giving you that much trouble.

---

No, I am not expecting you, personally, to write your own flood model. I am expecting you to be able to provide that which you argue for. I can, for example, go to a well-referenced scientific site and find a stated scientific theory concerning, let's say, common descent. I can, IOW, find out what the current consensus of the scientific community is about a given scientific idea.All I am asking for is for you to do the same thing with the flood "model" or theory, if there is one. How can you discuss the validity of a theory if you can't say, precisely, what it is?

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Of course it's a fair question if Creationists are going to use the term, which they have for years, to state something factual about nature. The fact that they don't have a clear definition even now means that they have, for many years, simply asserted that "kinds" exist, having nothing but "because the Bible says so" to support the assertion.

---

quote:

---

Yes creationist are throwing the word around to much. But the problem is there is no need to accuse the Bible for mens understanding, or lack of. You have the kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species used to decide upon classifying life. Which I'm sure you know. Most evolutionist make the rash decision that kind means species even though it is last upon deciding what a form of life is to be grouped into.

---

No, evolutionists are not rash. It is Creationists that explain "kind" to mean "species" at times (but not all the time)."Kind" has no meaning as a scientific term.

quote:

---

No man was around at the time God did all this creating, so this must be the closest thing to the word of God you can get. What does God mean by kind? Who's to say what He classifies as a kind is the same as us? I'd be surprised if it even became known within my life.

---

If you are saying that it is impossible to know what "kind" really means because man cannot know what God meant, then why attempt to use the word in a scientific context? Also, how is consensus ever going to be reached if the basis for all of it is revelation rather than evidence? One person's "word of God" is another person's heresy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
As far as my research has shown me, according to Baraminology, chimpanzees and humans are never considered the same "kind", and in fact are not considered to be related at all, despite sharing 99% of the exact same genes. There is never any other reason given for this assertion other than something from the Bible. However, all cats, are all the same "kind", and therefore considered very closely-related. This means that my fluffy little house cats are considered to be very closely-related to a Bengal tiger, but a Chimp and a human are not related in the least, even though genetic evidence puts humans and chimps much closer and domestic cats and tigers farther apart.

---

quote:

---

Wow, talk about giving of misinformation. 99%? Did you make that up? The correct number is 97%, even then by simply doing it a different way (mean or mode, take your pick?, you can just as easily get 96.4%.

---

OK, let's use your number; 97%

quote:

---

And if you stop comparing the similarities and look at the differences. How could anyone think they are related? The amount of genes that a human and a chimpanzee have is quite incredible. 3% = 3.6% is a lot of genes. Compare the chromosomes between the two and there not even in the ball park. Lets not resort to making up stuff now.

---

Um, RC, 97% is a LOT of similarity between species, even though you are trying to convince yourself otherwise. You don't even sound too convinced after trying to convince yourself.You should also know that even the pseudogenes are largely identical in Chimps and humans.Besides, the point is that Baraminology states that humans and chimps are not related AT ALL. If this were true, we should see 0% similarity in genes, right? (except that all life forms on the planet share some genes, but it seems that Creationists don't like to talk about genetics much.)If chimps and humans are so very different, after all, why are primates so valuable for medical research which pertains to humans? Why do we test human drugs and procedures on any primates at all if they are not really related to us? Why do results of primate tests tend to be so reliable when applied to humans if we aren't very similar creatures?

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
So, I still don't know how to tell one "kind" from another.

---

quote:

---

Neither do I. Just like I don't know of this evidence for evolution is except what is done purely on a philosophical nature.

---

Cute, but unrelated points. I asked a specific question about specific terminology.Evidence for evolution can be seen here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.htmlI have more if you want them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Non-responsive hand-waving.

---

quote:

---

Whatever you say oh wise one. What am I to do if I don't know much about that subject? Get accused?

---

No, just say that you don't know the answer. Or you could take a page from your own advice to me and "do your own research".

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Are you saying that ONLY flowering plants float, and not non-flowering plants??

---

quote:

---

No, I said leaves and flowers float. Wasn't that made pretty clear?

---

Saying "leaves and flowers float" doesn't address the problem of the clear line between non-flowering plants and flowering plants in the geologic record. Why aren't flowering plants mixed in with non-flowering in the deepest layers, if a flood happened?

quote:

---

Great. Your whole scenario is based upon an assumtion that you are correctly interpreting a ancient holy book of which no original copies exist. I could say that "fountains of the deep" mean waters, not volcanoes. Show me how my interpretation is wrong.

---

quote:

---

Who's to say you are wrong? We must be both right. Since it did say all. Lava and water it was.

---

So, you are free to interpret the bible any way you want to? OK, I say that the "fountains of the deep" were actual fountains, like those you see in front of big office buildings. Show me that my interpretation is wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
What are the predictions that your flood "model" (since you don't have a scientific theory of the Flood) makes about how we should find nature, if all happend as you interpret the bible to mean. What you have done is simply hand wave and say "all kinds of stuff could have happened". This is not an explanation.

---

quote:

---

I was just showing to you that this ancient book that you are so quick to accuse doesn't make any actual assertions as to what exactly happened so don't be so quick to say it contradicts any given evidence.

---

I agree that the Bible doesn't necessarily make any assertions, depending upon who is interpreting it. However, some PEOPLE (namely, those at the ICR, AIG, and CRS) DO very much make assertions based upon their interpretation of the Bible.

quote:

---

What's this, my flood model? Give me a break. I'm trying to get through school so I can go onto univerity and who knows what the future may hold. Perhaps I might right a possible flood model. For now I'm just getting my education so I can be in a position to decide what to believe.

---

Look, YOU are the one who says that this flood model exists, and that I misunderstand it. Well, help me to understand. Show me this flood model that you say exists and that I don't understand.I don't think you should have to write it, but I do think that you should have to find it and provide it, since you claim it exists.If you can't provide it, then you have been talking out of your arse.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-01-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-01-2002]

Just saw this little mathematical gem in Retros post....

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:
3% = 3.6%

---

ROTFLMAO.........

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 02-01-2002]

"LOL....wow,you just dont admit it when you are wrong do you? when they say the heart,they actually mean the brain?"
--Like I said before, it has absolutely nothing to do with any bodily organ."Boy,you really have a knack for the twist my friend."
--Its the simplest human understanding, you twist it the way you want it to be literally so it would seem to be eroneous, it is not this way."You are of course very much wrong about this because the soul according to your Bible IS a spiritual thing,not a corporeal or chemical one."
--Number one, In the beginning of the conversation I didn't say it was the soul, I said it wsa your personality or your character. Also, what part of scripture depicts the soul being a spiritual entity."And i was watching a show about the history of biology last months...did you know that until about 400 years ago,everyone was convinced that the brain was actually a secondary organ designed to purify the blood."
--Something like that."Initially,they had come to that conclusion because of the spongious appearance of the brain and because of peculiar situations where decapitated bodies,like those of chicken for instance,kept moving for a while after decapitation. They did not believe that the loss of the brain caused the death. They were all convinced that death in decapitations was strictly due to the massive emoraging that innevitably followed. So in the days of Jesus and before,no one associated any cognitive functions to the brain. They all believe that the heart was the sole center of life inside any living organism. This is mainly the reason why most of them believed that neither plants nor insects were living organism per say because they had no identifiable heart. So as you can clearly see,the people who wrote the Bible thoughts that the physical heart was the seat of the soul and the blood vehiculed the emotions in the body."
--Interesting, though they didn't know that lightning had a path, or that the earth was a sphere, or that there were springs of water in mile deep water either, it can be just as easily fought for my argument as you think yours will be, though yours would be much more attractive towards the skeptic.------------------

"This is an Argument from Ignorance."
--No this is an argument from opinion."Just because you don't know of something at this time, doesn't mean we will never know."
--Sure, though I could just as easilly apply this logic towards any part of my theory, and it would be perfectly feasable."Also, just because humans can't figure something out does not then mean that "Godidit".
--Like I have emphesized continuously, I don't claim that just because we can't figure it out that 'Goddidit'. I said that this is what my pre-conseived faith tells me, and I believe it, this has nothing to do with science."It could be that we lack the brain power to understand how it"
--Interesting, this applies to the supernatural as well, you seem as if you would not like this comment if I used it though."This is, again, the God of the Gaps argument."
--This has no relevance to a God of the Gaps. You missunderstand what I have said."Why don't you explain, here, what you think is flawed, SPECIFICALLY, about the Big Bang Theory or the Abiogenesis Theory."
--Big Bang - Initial conditions and problem of singularity conflicting with physics and imaginitive contemplations.
--Abiogenesis - The Odds and Fine tuning."I am willing to bet a shiny new nickel that you don't have much of a grasp on what the theories claim, nor the evidence supporting them."
--Maybe not as much as you, but I know what the problems are, if you want to discuss this in another forum, great."So why claim that you know anything at all? Why not say "I don't know?"
--Basically what I said. We can't figure it out yet with our knowledge, thus, my speculation is that it requires emense 'finely tuned environments'"Also, what happens to your faith if/when we do figure it out?"
--If My speculation is true, nothing really. I will simply again state that it takes intelligence to create life."I could see how someone who doesn't know anything about the Big Bang Theory or the Abiogenesis theory would think that."
--I could say the same thing towards yourself, and it would mean nothing."It is much easier to decide that the Bible is right ahead of time than to do any study of science."
--Again I don't say that the bible is inerant, pre-conseively. But with our known understanding on the way things work, it sure is correct.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-01-2002]

IMHO,there is no such thing as "the supernatural"...everything is science...its just not always science we know as of yet...but eventually we will. supernatural is the name the ignorant give to their ignorance.

['QUOTE]"Also, just because humans can't figure something out does not then mean that "Godidit".[/QUOTE]

quote:

---

--Like I have emphesized continuously, I don't claim that just because we can't figure it out that 'Goddidit'. I said that this is what my pre-conseived faith tells me, and I believe it, this has nothing to do with science.

---

You do not separate your religious faith and your science. You haven't approached any subject in a scientific way thus far. You think you have, to be sure, but you have not.If you do not see that, after so many people here (including several professional scientists) have tried to explain how science is done to you, I fear that you are choosing to not learn.

quote:

---

"It could be that we lack the brain power to understand how it"

---

quote:

---

--Interesting, this applies to the supernatural as well, you seem as if you would not like this comment if I used it though.

---

It might apply to the supernatural, but as science ignorses the supernatural, it is a moot point.My original point remains; People may not have the brain power to understand a lot of things, but this in no way constitutes positive evidence for Godidit. This is the basis of your argument for why science's logic is flawed and why yours is better, and it is the God of the Gaps argument.

quote:

---

--This has no relevance to a God of the Gaps. You missunderstand what I have said.

---

You have said, over and over, that the reason why God "had" to have been the cause of this or that is because we either do not know how something happened, or you cannot even imagine humans ever figuring out how this or that happened.This is the God of the Gaps argument, pure and simple. I understand it all too well.

quote:

---

"Why don't you explain, here, what you think is flawed, SPECIFICALLY, about the Big Bang Theory or the Abiogenesis Theory."

---

quote:

---

--Big Bang - Initial conditions and problem of singularity conflicting with physics and imaginitive contemplations.

---

This is not specific at all In fact, it is a general hand-wave.Present some equations or some specific physical properties and consequences which you think are flaws in the theory.

quote:

---

--Abiogenesis - The Odds and Fine tuning.

---

More vague hand-waving. SPECIFICS are what I asked for. Which odds, exactly? What do you mean, exactly, by "fine-tuning"? Fine tuning of what, exactly?

quote:

---

"I am willing to bet a shiny new nickel that you don't have much of a grasp on what the theories claim, nor the evidence supporting them."

---

quote:

---

--Maybe not as much as you, but I know what the problems are, if you want to discuss this in another forum, great.

---

You haven't listed any problems, only vague assertions.My point is not to discuss the Big Bang or Abiogenesis, althoug we can do that. My point is to show you that you hold very strong opinions about subjects that you know LITTLE TO NOTHING about. Why do you think you have any business holding forth about how the Big Bang is such a flawed theory when it is clear that you cannot even identify SPECIFIC problems with the physics or the math? This is a very arrogant attitude.

quote:

---

"So why claim that you know anything at all? Why not say "I don't know?"

---

quote:

---

--Basically what I said. We can't figure it out yet with our knowledge, thus, my speculation is that it requires emense 'finely tuned environments'

---

Speculation is all you have got. That means that you don't know, and because you don't want to just "not know", you decide that you actually DO know...Godidit!

quote:

---

"Also, what happens to your faith if/when we do figure it out?"

---

quote:

---

--If My speculation is true, nothing really. I will simply again state that it takes intelligence to create life.

---

So, you will renounce YEC, the Flood, etc. and retreat to ID?Well, then you retreat to non-science, because ID is not science, but philosphy. It provides no theory, makes no predictions, and is not supported by positive evidence.

quote:

---

"It is much easier to decide that the Bible is right ahead of time than to do any study of science."

---

[QUOTE]--Again I don't say that the bible is inerant, pre-conseively. But with our known understanding on the way things work, it sure is correct.
[/B][/QUOTE]If you mean that with YOUR OWN understanding of how things work in nature the Bible is correct, then that is one thing.However, who do you mean when you say "we" in the above sentence? I know you cannot mean AIG, the ICR or the CRS, because you have already told me that these groups, even though they are the most prominent Creation "science" organizations, do not actually represent current Creation "science" study or thought.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
IMHO,there is no such thing as "the supernatural"...everything is science...its just not always science we know as of yet...but eventually we will. supernatural is the name the ignorant give to their ignorance.

---

!!!!APPLAUSE!!!!I have tried to say the same, at Percy's Yahoo club.
You have said it so well, and so concisely.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

"I think you're misusing the word "erroneous".Abiogenesis is POSSIBLE. How is that erroneous?"
--My reasoning that it is erroneous is towards my own opinion of what we have in science today. I don't find it that it is eroneous because it isn't possible, I find it erroneous that it is, but as I have stated times before, I speculate that when they do make life, you will find how much intelligence is needed to do so, not a natural process observed in the laboratory such as C-Decay."So, you're ditching the POSSIBLE, for something never observed (the supernatural), with the implication that God exists, & is able to do IMPOSSIBLE things."
--I am not in no way 'ditching the possible', I am ditching that it happend, ofcourse technically, practically anything is possible, but as I have stated, its just how far into imagination and fantasy you will strive towards for your answr. I see it as nothing short of illogical when compairing the odds of it actually happening in any time frame. I believe the supernatural because that is my 'belief' my 'faith' as well as the origins if you blindly believe such is your 'faith' to claim it as possible is not a 'faith' because you just admit feasability. As for God being able to do 'impossible' things, this technically is not true if you look at the biblical God in his nature as an 'infinite' God, there is no such thing as an impossiblility, lest you contredict your grammer. If God created time and space, he is outside of his creation, and there is further no impossibility."That is to say, the observed laws of physics & chemistry allow abiogenesis, but the supernatural will have to change those laws, hence the impossible."
--This would be true if the Supernatural God was not an infinite God, and not creating time, space, matter, and the laws that govern its process."How likely is this compared to abiogenesis?"
--Likely to the degree of your faith, abiogenesis or supernaturally created origins cannot be answered towards an 'it happend this way', it can only be answered to the degree of 'it might or could have happend this way'."Why jump ship from the natural to the supernatural?"
--There really is no jump involved, its my belief as to how it happend, simple as that.--Also, being composed of matter, with all the elements existing, you can create self-sustaining life, but as I will continuously state, its 'fine tuning' that is the problem, thus intelligence - I reflect upon God for this action.------------------

"IMHO,there is no such thing as "the supernatural"...everything is science...its just not always science we know as of yet...but eventually we will. supernatural is the name the ignorant give to their ignorance."
--Your definition is flawed because science is the dealing with the workings of the universe, that is, the physical realm of dimentions of time and space as in contrast with the working processes of matter making up the governing rules of the universe. The supernatural is in no way a 'name the ignorant give to their ignorance', it is the belief that there is comething out of anything we can postulate on, our universe, our space-time dementions.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"IMHO,there is no such thing as "the supernatural"...everything is science...its just not always science we know as of yet...but eventually we will. supernatural is the name the ignorant give to their ignorance."
--Your definition is flawed because science is the dealing with the workings of the universe, that is, the physical realm of dimentions of time and space as in contrast with the working processes of matter making up the governing rules of the universe. The supernatural is in no way a 'name the ignorant give to their ignorance', it is the belief that there is comething out of anything we can postulate on, our universe, our space-time dementions.

​

---

I agree with you that there quite a few things we dont understand AS OF YET...but those things are not "THE Supernatural"...they are merely NATURAL laws we are not aware of at the moment but give it time and i promise you that everything you attribute to the supernatural today will find an explanation in science eventually science eventually...effectively,there is no limit to science's ability to explain away the universe and everything it contains...its all a matter of time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Lets assume an arbitrary value of 1,000 to the starting c14 amount. Now half that 10 times. The figure you're looking at is 0.98 ! Less than 0.1% of the amount you started with. This is one reason why they don't go beyond 50,000 years for c14 dating."
--Then why does it still exist in rocks many times older than 50,000 years, and in measurable quantities?

​

"Also, let's assume in the two samples, they are contaminated with 1 unit of c14. In the 1,000 scenario, it has become 1,001 units, ie an error of 0.1%. In the 0.98 scenario, the value is now 1.98, over 100% error. This is another reason why they don't go over 50,000 years. The potential for introduced errors compoud as the sample gets older."
--What is the mechenism for C14 contamination to a non-living organism?

​

---

Contamination, water contains dissolved CO2, which forms carbonic acid, H2CO3. This is contamination that is difficult to avoid, but also, if the sample isn't treated correctly, grease, oil, mere atmospheric exposure.AS regards measurable quantities, just how much C14 is in these fossils?Also, as far as I'm aware, fossils should NEVER be radiocarbon dated at all. The idea behind this method is that organic carbon ingestion stops upon death, & the clock starts ticking. Fossils should contain no organically derived carbon, it has been replaced by minerals. So, any carbon present is by definition of non organic origin & so C14 dating cannot be used for fossils.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

"You do not separate your religious faith and your science. You haven't approached any subject in a scientific way thus far. You think you have, to be sure, but you have not."
--If you can give me one example that proves this statement true, I will refute my own reasoning, if not I will assume this is nothing short of ignorant conjector."If you do not see that, after so many people here (including several professional scientists) have tried to explain how science is done to you, I fear that you are choosing to not learn."
--Again, if you can give me one example, making relevance to the statement..."It might apply to the supernatural, but as science ignorses the supernatural, it is a moot point."
--I would be to say that science does not include the supernatural, unless it were to amazingly appear for experimentation. But I thought that you said 'You do not separate your religious faith and your science.' I thought that we were suppost to?"My original point remains; People may not have the brain power to understand a lot of things, but this in no way constitutes positive evidence for Godidit."
--Have you at all been reading my posts? I have not in any way shape or form claimed such an assertion, as is evident directly through my responses. I will quote myself as it seems they have been ignored:

quote:

---

Like I have emphesized continuously, I don't claim that just because we can't figure it out that 'Goddidit'. I said that this is what my pre-conseived faith tells me, and I believe it, this has nothing to do with science.

---

"This is the basis of your argument for why science's logic is flawed and why yours is better, and it is the God of the Gaps argument."
--I have again, in no way shape or form, claimed in any way that 'my science is better' or 'your science is flawed'. On the contrary I have claimed correctly that science is science, nothing different, and that creation is science, being it is only another interperetation of the evidence that science tells us, it is simply a name given for the people to recognize that there is another interperetation of the evidence, and that everything does not flawlessly believe that everything points towards an old earth or 'E'volution."You have said, over and over, that the reason why God "had" to have been the cause of this or that is because we either do not know how something happened, or you cannot even imagine humans ever figuring out how this or that happened."
--Again this is a self-refutation, I will quote myself once again from a previous post, as it too, seems to have been ignored.

quote:

---

Like I have emphesized continuously, I don't claim that just because we can't figure it out that 'Goddidit'. I said that this is what my pre-conseived faith tells me, and I believe it, this has nothing to do with science.

---

"This is the God of the Gaps argument, pure and simple. I understand it all too well."
--You should search out someone else that can constitute for your incorrect assertion, as you won't find it anywhere in here from myself."This is not specific at all In fact, it is a general hand-wave."
--I am not going to write you a book or even an article, as that is what it seems you have called for, I simply stated this to encompass the possibility of discussion, I see there is no response."Present some equations or some specific physical properties and consequences which you think are flaws in the theory."
--I just stated them, Initial conditions, ie what was it before 10 -43 seconds, the singularity problem, and imaginitive senarios surrounding conflicts with physics and known theories, and to add another. the obvious argument of Matter ex-nihilo."More vague hand-waving. SPECIFICS are what I asked for. Which odds, exactly? What do you mean, exactly, by "fine-tuning"? Fine tuning of what, exactly?"
--I gave you all the specifics you need for a start in discussion, Fine tuning is a well known phenomena in scientific origins related plausable ideas. Fine-Tuning is the factor that it would take this amount of precision to create the universe as we see it, even its existance is operating under the influence I have read of a 10 *60 fine tuning event."You haven't listed any problems, only vague assertions."
--I have listed vague problematic assertions, I am very sure that as it is evident that you are most knowledgable than me on these problems that you would be well aware of their existance."My point is not to discuss the Big Bang or Abiogenesis, althoug we can do that. My point is to show you that you hold very strong opinions about subjects that you know LITTLE TO NOTHING about."
--Neither do you know anything about the supernatural... You shouldn't make an assertion that I 'know LITTLE TO NOTHING about' such cosmological and biological implications, I have found this strategetic form of argument well throughout your responses."Why do you think you have any business holding forth about how the Big Bang is such a flawed theory when it is clear that you cannot even identify SPECIFIC problems with the physics or the math? This is a very arrogant attitude."
--I have already given you argumental problems, and being so knowledgable in these realms and the problems, you should be well equipt to sustain an argument against them I am sure."Speculation is all you have got. That means that you don't know, and because you don't want to just "not know", you decide that you actually DO know...Godidit!"
--...Ehem:

quote:

---

Basically what I said.

---

quote:

---

...my speculation is that it requires emense 'finely tuned environments'

---

quote:

---

I don't claim that just because we can't figure it out that 'Goddidit'

---

--If speculation is all I have, and you introduce to the board that this is a problem, thus I am sure that you know the origins of self-sustaining life."So, you will renounce YEC, the Flood, etc. and retreat to ID?"
--Actually it is the other way around, 'I will simply again state that it takes intelligence to create life.'
--I will find it more evident that it did take what I believe in to create life."Well, then you retreat to non-science, because ID is not science, but philosphy."
--ID is not a philosophy, it is a study."It provides no theory, makes no predictions, and is not supported by positive evidence."
--Intelligent design, aka, Irriducable complexity, the name says all you need to know to make an argument."If you mean that with YOUR OWN understanding of how things work in nature the Bible is correct, then that is one thing."
--Ofcourse, this is one way I show that I am open to new scientific implications on aspects in the variations of itself. Unlike someone who say 'it can never happen this way' or 'your wrong, evidence says otherwize' and the variants of the nature."However, who do you mean when you say "we" in the above sentence?"
--I do say 'we' alot, sorry, I would agree that this would not apply to much, as I have different views than many different creationists, though you attack them as a whole and as 'creationists' in many of your arguments, so this is where I get it much of the time."? I know you cannot mean AIG, the ICR or the CRS, because you have already told me that these groups, even though they are the most prominent Creation "science" organizations, do not actually represent current Creation "science" study or thought."
--I don't mean to make it relevant of AIG, ICR or the other creationist organizations, yes, though I did not present them as not presenting current Creation science study or thought. I simply stated that if you want to argue that an organisation is not scientific then argue with them, not creation science. I think we need the hierarchy of Creationism. 'Young earth Creationism' is the highest on the hierarchy of Scientific interperetation. Creation science is lower than that, it is a branch making root from Creationism. Creation science is simply science as I have stated. Creationism is including the findings of creation science and applying the interperetation that this points towards Creationism whether infallably, or pointing towards it just as well or better than evolution. They do preform science, but its what they do with their science that constitues its relevance on creationism. Their science is good as long as it is the true finding, so fight with their interperetation, not their 'creation' science.------------------