The Scientific Method For Beginners

quote:

---

No, I have said quite clearly and explicitly that creationists are not consistent.

​

I'll say it again. Creationists can't get their story straight.

​

This is, of course, because they know what they need to deny --- but knowing that they need to deny the facts of biology gives them no clue as to what they should claim to be true.

---

Evolutionists can't get their story straight! from reading on this website and other discussions there are many varying views on precisely how everything happened including the beginning of life, beginning (or lack of beginning) of the universe, just to name some of the most obvious! A YEC can get their basic overall structure straight because it's written down for everyone to see, and has been on paper for thousands of years!
Your sentence could just as easily read:
Evolutionists can't get their story straight.This is, of course, because they know what they need to deny (i.e.God)--- but knowing that they need to deny the facts of biology gives them no clue as to what they should claim to be true.

quote:

---

ToE is the basis of these stories.

---

Yes!! I agree

quote:

---

Evolution is only the change in biological populations over time due to mutation and natural selection.

---

see this is the thing I don't understand. This is a pretty standard definition of evolution on this forum (and in a sense I agree that the word can have that meaning), however this forum is not called: change in biological populations over time due to mutation and natural selection vs Creation. If this were the case then nobody would be on here, as a change in biological populations over time due to mutation and natural selection is a vital part of creation theory. The two are not opposed. In commen language when you mention the debate creation vs Evolution to someone the thought is (or should be if they have some knowledge of the history of the debate): Old universe and old earth where life originated as a simple single celled organism which through various processes proceeded to give us the diversity of life that we have today VS Comparitively young earth, Creation by God of various kinds of organisms which diversified to the diversity of life we have today, most fossils laid down by a catastrophic world wide flood. yes, I know that there are many people who combine various parts of the two philosopies but basically these two philosophies are the main competitors. Are there really any creationists on this forum who believe that God directly creates each and every species? Please show me, as I have not seen or heard of any.

quote:

---

All of those have nothing to do with evolution.

---

See post above.

quote:

---

So I'd say evolutionists have a very consistent stance on them, namely, none at all.

---

hmm...Not sure what you are saying here. I am sure you have some sort of stance on the existance of the universe, the origin of life, even if it is exclusion of some stances such as biblical creation. Everybody does as far as I know. In fact most peole post on here because they have a stance, they may not have worked out all the details, but they still have a stance.

to Dr Adequate
Yikes!!
Is this some sort of scare tactic to stop me from posting or trying to make me crawl up into a corner and cry?
Please explain how I am lying. Maybe you didn't understand what I was trying to say so hopefully my latest posts will help. Your reply confuses me as it seems to be more of a hate post then anything helpful. Yes, you have been posting on this forum for a long time however this doesn't mean that you are somehow automatically superior to me on the topic of Creation vs Evolution.

On the comment about evolutionists denying God:
Ok maybe that comment was a bit excessive. It is true of some evolutionists but I guess not all.Edited by Arphy, : Just added the top line to show what i was responding to.

quote:

---

You are not correct that creationists accept mutation.
One of the primary thrusts of creationist "research" has been the attempt to discredit the notion of beneficial mutations.

---

What???, I think you have misunderstood the position of creationists and IDers. In fact creationists do accept mutations just not the notion of information increasing beneficial mutations, there is a difference between the two.
Just because my nickname is Arphy doesn't refute my argument.

quote:

---

The belief of some of us in "kind" boundaries that define the limits of evolutionary change is not suggested by any evidence.

---

The problem here is that we view the process differently. We do not say that there are limits to evolutionary change but that this change is degenerative rather then producing more and more complex organisms and systems.

quote:

---

the pride of the Christian really does have no bound...

---

how so?

quote:

---

"a bit excessive" !!! It was an outright falsehood, whether deliberate or not.

---

As I said before, it may not apply to all evolutionists, but to some, so no, it is not outright falsehood. Maybe I should have used "e.g." instead of "i.e." to have avoided the confusion. However, you can not honestly say that no evolutionist on this forum has ever said something that was a bit hyperbolic.

First thanks for being a bit more civil, it is really refreshing

quote:

---

Curiously, reality is completely unaffected by what you think and say, and it continues to evolve and proceed according the the natural laws of the universe.

---

Yip, true (although depends on how you define evolve, but you know my position on that already).

quote:

---

Interestingly, if you view things differently, does that mean that you accept lies about the evidence as a valid argument, or do you test the validity of an argument by how completely it explains all the evidence? Do you believe the evidence lies?

---

No evidence doesn't lie. Yes to testing the validity of an argument by how completly it explains all the evidence.

quote:

---

Fascinatingly, what creationists accept or don't accept also has no effect on reality. Reality is not a democracy or a Chinese menu (one from column A and two from column B) where you can pick and choose what you accept as true.

---

Absolutly True. Same goes for any other person on earth whether creationist, evolutionist, or ...ist.

quote:

---

if you want to pursue this topic see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1.

---

Thanks, I'll go have a look.

quote:

---

Which, sadly, fails to explain all the evidence, and which is incoherent at making any kind of predictions for what we keep finding based on predictions based on evolution.

---

hmm... as you can guess i disagree with this statement. An example is the prediction made by Russell Humphreys a creationist using a creation model, He predicted the strength of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune. These were then proven correct by Voyager II, unlike any of the secular predictions.Edited by Arphy, : oops, typo.