Use of Science to Support Creationism

Hi BigMike,A hearty welcome. I hope you enjoy this group as much as I do.First, let me repeat your question in different words to see if you think I understand it. You may have asked "Do individuals who believe in God the Creator have any right to debate in a scientific forum."Some to most of the evolutionists here use "Rule 1" to automatically exclude any statement that includes "the supernatural". If a statement can pass rule 1 then it will surely be eliminated by "Rule 2" which requires the statement to take into account "the whole body of evidence".And because any scientific theory must be "falsifiable" no theory involving the supernatural can be introduced (I can't remember if falsifiable has it's own rule )The above rules are part of a post to me by a member called quetzal. Lest I sound like a whiner, I actually agree with these rules in a scientific debate.At least three questions come to me out of the rules. First, is tToE scientific. Second, since it is being used by many to "refute" the existence of the supernatural should not the supernatural be considered in those cases. Finally, must the whole body of evidence be considered or just those facts that refute evolution?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. I do not like a bad attitude from Creationists, either and have told at least one so.Enough "background" and to my response to your question. Creationism in its pure form uses the seemingly few facts that refute Evolution. Since in its pure form it does not need to include the supernatural by reference, it is as valid a science as Evolutionism. In both cases the -ism is a respectful form.That there appears to be many versions of both tToE and tToC confuses the issue but the individuals I have debated seem content with Natural Selection. I have not yet debated a Creationist but plan to when I see bad logic there not pointed out by someone else (Evolutionists usually jump right on it). Creationists, I believe, have no general plan other than to hold, at least loosley, to Genesis 1 and 2, and tightly to the creation of Adam and Eve. The glue for Evolutionists seems to be the "apparent common ancestor".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.Very best regards,Bob, Alice, and Eve

Hi Melchior,
Your post is great. I understood everything except the part about downgrading.For question 1, I understand your response to be general and, while tToE appears to pass all the rules of science today, I think it can and will be proven false with some very simple evidence. I think there are "magicians" on each side of the question. This statement is subjective on my part and requires no response from you unless you see something objective in it.For question 2, I am in complete agreement with your response as stated.For question 3, I don't think tToE will be replaced with another theory; but (only) with a visit from the Creator. This, too, is a subjective statement...And your final statement was perfect IMHO. I hope we have several opportunities to interact. It has been a pleasure to meet you.Bob, Alice, and Eve

Hi BigMike,
Your definitions are accepted. Your writing is excellent.A question similar to yours was asked by FliesOnly as follows: If I may phrase your (plural) question to:"Because Creationism has an element of supernatural is it not all scientifically indefensible including any scientific portion."I think we are debating the defensability of Creationism? I originally stated the question as "debating the right to debate" to set an extreme boundary to request clarification.The Creator and His act of creation can not be used in a scientific discussion until He is 1) observable by anyone and 2) shows those who will look how He did it.However, this should not automatically exclude any scientific evidence of the act. For example, if the age of something on the earth could be shown to be 12,000 years - possibly the atmosphere. Or if it could be shown, as Darwin stated, that any individual transition was impossible - possibly the elbow. Or if something could be shown as having the only possibility of its earthly existence to be supernatural - such as 38 trillion barrels of oil in one oil field.There are many other possible artifacts of creation which could be listed. I have listed some favorites which I think deserve attention in spite of the fact that they would be the result of the supernatural act of creation.Very best regards,
Bob, Alice, and Eve

Hi Almeda,I am trying to avoid being offensive so I hope this is taken as kindly advice: please be truly scientific and truly Christian when you post. Both can be accomplished. Most of the people posting here are decent enough to be excellent friends. If you can't love them then at least respect them. I am guessing that you became un-athiest through gentleness.You and I agree that there are problems with the theory of evolution but beating on people will not help. It appears that you are not a scientist - and I lack expertise in most fields. I learn a great deal here so I invite you to enjoy the reading.I am trying to locate a scientist with whom I can work on each of several topics which I think would, if established as fact, prove evolution impossible. So far, I have located only one but have not been able reconnect with him/her.I do want to point out that our fight is with poli-titions (people who set poli-cy) and not with scientists. Policy setters are the ones using the theory of evolution as fact - no one here will claim that the theory is fact. As I see it, we have choices: 1) fight the polititions, 2) work to prove evolution impossible, 3) wait until the Creator's return. We can do all three!Thanks for your patience,
Bob, Alice, Eve

I am working to enlist people here who "accept tToE as the best possible explanation of all the evidence" to walk with me through what I see as points of impossiblity, Denesha.Each of my points we are able to jointly disprove I will not bother the forums with again. Those which remain I will continue to work with here.Very best wishes,
BAEP.S. thanks to mark24 and Sidelined who also posted. I learn a little each time.