Hello BobAliceEve:
I read the first post by BigMike twice and still cannot see how you warped his question about the scientific validity of creationism into a question on whether or not people who believe in God can debate in a scientific forum.but alasI’ll let BigMike deal with that. I do, however, have a few questions and statements of my own for you.
You say the following:
BobAliceEve writes:
Some to most of the evolutionists here use "Rule 1" to automatically exclude any statement that includes "the supernatural".
Which begs the question: what do you mean by any statement? For example, if you were to make a statement such as: In scientific endeavors, one cannot invoke the supernatural as an explanation of observed facts, I (and I’d be willing to bet most evolutionary biologists as well) would not automatically exclude that statement. Quite the opposite.
Rule #2, you state:
BobAliceEve writes:
...requires the statement to take into account "the whole body of evidence".
Ok, I’ll ask. And this is bad because? I mean really, what a horrible conceptrequiring the theory to address all the evidence. Man oh man, scientists sure are a picky bunch.
And the 3rd rule, according to you:
BobAliceEve writes:
...because any scientific theory must be "falsifiable" no theory involving the supernatural can be introduced...
Again I ask. This is bad because?
You then go on to ask three of your own questions.
BobAliceEve writes:
At least three questions come to me out of the rules. First, is tToE scientific.
I assume the question here is if the ToE is scientific. The answer is yes. There, that one was easy.
I assume your second question is:
BobAliceEve writes:
Second, since it is being used by many to "refute" the existence of the supernatural should not the supernatural be considered in those cases.
Well, first off, the ToE is NOT being used to refute the existence of God. But ignoring that, let’s look at the question as a whole. When you first read it, it seems like a thought provoking question. But if you read it S L O W L Y you see that it really is asking nothing of value. How can you consider that supernatural if you’re excluding the supernatural? So the answer to your second question is simple. No, we should not consider the supernatural in scientific endeavors (actually, by definition, we cannot include the supernatural in scientific endeavors).
You go on to say:
BobAliceEve writes:
Let me clarify by saying that I have complete respect for those who simply do not believe in God but I have no respect for those who know better and are simply using Evolutionism as a cover - and I do not decide who is in which group and I care only because a bad attitude gives a bad taste to the debates.
Let me ask you a question or two. First, what do you mean by saying those who know better and are simply using evolution as a cover? What does this meanthose who know better? I’m confused here. Are you saying you have no respect for individuals that accept the ToE but also believe in God? Second, if you don’t decide who is in which group, then how do you know who you do not respect? You say you have no respect for those that use evolution as a cover, but then go on to say that you don’t decide who does and who does not use evolution as a cover. Help me out here. Who does make the decision for you as to who you will and will not respect?
In other words, let me ask you two questions.
1) Do you have respect for me?
2) Why or why not?
Then you say:
BobAliceEve writes:
Creationism in its pure form uses the seemingly few facts that refute Evolution.
Please, give me one fact that refutes the Theory of Evolution.
Which is followed by:
BobAliceEve writes:
Since in its pure form it does not need to include the supernatural by reference, it is as valid a science as Evolutionism.
Its pure form? As valid as the Theory of Evolution? Pa Leez. Care to back this up? You could start by answering this question: What is the pure form of creationism?
Next we get:
BobAliceEve writes:
That there appears to be many versions of both tToE and tToC confuses the issue...
Wrong. There is one Theory of Evolution, and there are NO Theories of Creationism.
And you finish with:
BobAliceEve writes:
In summary, I assert that Creationism can be as scientific as Evolutionism and so Creationists have a right to debate in a forum related to EvC.
You cannot simple assert the creationism can be as scientific as the Theory of Evolution and let it go at that. Wishing it to be so, does not make it so. I guess your first step would be to define what you mean by scientific. In doing that, you will go a long way towards addressing the original question asked by BigMike, which, as I read it, asks creationists if they can defend their position based solely on its scientific merits.
As for your right to debate in this forum, no one ever said you couldn’t. All we ask is that you back up your claims.
™ Version 4.2