Theres design everywhere.
you ignored my question. show me a test for design. i ALMOSY bought behe's book today (along with the blin watchmaker, and the origin of species) just to see if he had a test for design. irreducible complexity comes close, but the assumption that it proves design is false, as can be demonstrated by evolution algorithms (see dawkin's book. his program made some rather nice looking pictures...) and by the fossil record.
It does not conclude first. It bases its evidence on the Bible. Evolutionists base their evidence on an evolutionary framework. Their bible states in the beginning life evolved from natural processes.
no, you are GROSSLY mistaken. evidence is not BASED on anything. it's evidence. theories are based on evidence, NOT the other way around. you said creationism does not conlcude first, but then you show it tries to fit evidence in an existing framework. the theory of evolution does not do this. if something comes up that VALIDLY contracts the current framework for how things happened, the framework is revised. this is the scientific process.
creationism does not do this, and does not base itself on methodological naturalism, but the supernatural. qed, it is NOT science.
What animal in the history of mankind has changed from one specie to another?.
here's a bunch:
Observed Instances of Speciationhere's some more:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
and viruses and bacteria consistently speciate. where did aids come from? it didn't exist in the dark ages, in human form. (although, some studies have shown that it may be partially related to the bubonic plague)
Ok lets go through your list here. Number one goes for evolutionists also. Evolution is true and did occur. The book Teaching about Evolution & the Nature of Science states "There is no debate within the scientific community over weather evolution occured, and there is no evidence that evolution has not occured" p4. Hmm sounds awfully similar to creationists accepting the Bible as fact. Do you see a bias developing?. Or should i say developed.
creationists like arguments from authority. so-and-so says this. evolutionary biologists do not. remember that last step in the model i posted? publish and retest? science checks itself. the fact that evolution has occured and continues to occur is not in dispute, it's a little lower on the list, under observations.
darwin's original theory was not called "evolution" it was called "evolution
by means of natural selection" or just "natural selection" for short, as opposed to "by design." basically, he was attempted to explain how the observed evolution takes place, and what mechanism is guiding it.
Number 3 once again evolution discards any evidence against evolution. "But it isnt evidence thats why!" Thats simply your own bias. Creation dont accept anything evolutionary either. Do you see the similaritys? they are both science and they both contradict each other.
show me the evidence that contradicts the principle that the frequencies of alleles change from one generation to the next?
that evolution. that's what you're debating. show me that that doesn't happen, ever. no framework here, just show that, for instance, i did not inheret my father's nose and my mother's eyes. because at the basic level, that's exactly what evolution is: basic genetics.
the model for how this produces the variety of life we see is always changing. there's always debate about convergent evolution, direct ancestry, slightly different branches etc. this model has been being revised since it was proposed. with the amount of evidence (taxonomical definitions based on the fossil record) the generalities of it are pretty certain.
Well thats definately not true as creation magazine shows real science in the present with real scientist using their 5 senses.
senses lie. that why we have tests. lots of thing look designed... if you squint your eyes enough. did you see lenin in the shower curtain and rasputin in the kitten's ear in the other thread where you ignored my comments about archaeopteryx? i mean, the likenesses are incredible, they must have been put there, right?
Evolutionists look for old earth, creation look for young earth, creation looks for design and complexity, evolution looks for transtional forms,natural selection evolving into higher beings, creation looks for evidence consistent with the Bibles account of origins, evolution looks for evidence supporting their natural processes into life and so on. Do you see, they are both science. Both using the same method. There is one difference and that is creation are basing their evidence on a creator and evolutionists do not want a creator just natural processes.
what about old earth creationists? what about people who believe in theistic evolution?
personal bias is not to play a role in science. and it doesn't. this is why creationists are rejected from scientific jobs, because they are (or at least by your admission) allowing a personal bias to affect their outcome. the process is simple, hypothesize, test, conclude, repeat. the conclusion is either that your hypothesis was right, or that it was wrong. there's no place for personal bias in this process, and rejecting, fudging, or cheating evidence is unacceptable.
and this is exactly what creationists do repeatedly. because the evidence simply does not agree. how do you answer for john morris, phd of geological engineering and head of icr misrepresenting what a flood plain looks like, geologically? lying about erosion patterns and speed, things that can be observed easily and are elementary geology concepts?
Therefore anything with a creator cannot even be considered
i believe in god and that he created everything. figure that one out, and come back to me. science ignores religion and god, and examines the processes. if god was behind, well, good. but that's not the area that science covers.
umber 6 states no test?. Well thats nonsense as they test all their evidence thats how they come to conclusions. They dont dogmatically cling on to the Bible if the evidence is against them, they stay with creation because they believe the evidence does fit with what Gods word says
that's complete bull.
but i'll allow you the benefit of the doubt and capitulate this point... if you can demonstrate one prediction about the natural world that can be tested as either true or false, that is only true if and only if god created the world personally over 6 days, 6000 years ago.
show me the claim, show me the test. this does not include poking holes in evolutionary theory, just a claim that creationism makes that can be tested.
for instance, einstein's theory of relativity was accepted because it accurately predicted the precession of mercury, and the apparent position of stars on the opposite side of the sun (tested during an eclipse).
Number 7 states no publising in journals, well many creationists have had their work published, unfortunately the mainstream secular world would never even think about publishing something against the fact of evolution.
yes, there's for instance a creationist at aig that publishes in a herpetology journal. i think this ruins the conspiracy argument, because they don't seem to rule out creationists, just the bad science. on any side.
they are not science just religion.
can i quote-mine you on that?
Umm what about humanists?, darwinists?, atheists?, naturalist?, evolutionists?, theistic evolutionists?.
humanists are people in favor humanity and acting humane. christians are sometimes considered religios humanists, when they act according to the teachings of jesus.
darwinists? not familar with the term. if you're referring to social darwinists, those guys have very little to do with darwin or evolution at all. they borrowed the name and perverted it to gain legitimacy. the school of thought existed in a formal form before darwin ever published.
atheists are simply people who lack belief in god. (a-without the-god ism-doctrine). they don't go to the church of evolution or anything. most couldn't care less about biology.
naturalists are people who take the evidence, and consider it and draw natural (as opposed to supernatural) conclusions. ie: the apple fell, something must have caused it to fall, so some force must have acted upon it. anyone in the field of any scientific study is a naturalist, whether or not they believe in god.
evolutionist is a word made up by creationists to make evolution sound less valid. i've only used it once, and it was meant to be derisive and insulting, because people on this side occasionally act like creationists. but, there is not such thing as an evolutionist, and that was my point. it's not a matter of belief, any more than "skybluism" is. people in science, such as EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS can check this sort of thing, even if you can't.
i have seen enough fossils in person, in books, etc to know myself.
and theistic or deist evolutionists are people who believes that god works through natural processes, such as evolution.
Yes they do have a doctrine. Evolution gives mankind a foundation with no deity
what about the aforemention theistic evolutionists? evolution says nothing about god, but if you choose to believe in him, describes the way he creates.
Therefore man by himself can determine truth because we evolved through natural processes.
science is not in search of ultimate truth. we have philosphy and religion for that.
The universe is all their is was ever will be.
the quantum physicists would argue differently.
Man can now control their destiny.
do you believe that faith saves? then you control your destiny, don't you?
Evolution does not directly give this doctrine. But of course once man accepts evolution he comes to the conclusions such as humanistic philosophy.
or, we could watch the apple fall from the tree, wonder why, and say "i don't know, god must have done. it has his reasons which are dark and mysterious to us" or better yet "magic"
that's called a black box. aren't you curious? don't you wanna know how stuff works? it's curiousity, not evolution.
The reason evolution needs billions of yrs is to give the impression that anything can happen over time. Evolution could not possibly occur in 6,000yrs. For particles-to-people evolution to have occured, the earth needs to be billions of yrs old.
evolution occurs from one generation to the next. have there been more than one generation of people? my point was that even if we were created somewhere in the middle, evolution would still occur.
I dont recall reading in the What is Science textbook saying science is only dealing with an old earth.
i'll repeat the important part of the sentance again, and weed out the confusing words.
quote:
creationism is the idea that god...
—me
how is it science again? find me again when they prove god. of course, you know that would invalidate scripture, which says that faith saves, so you'd still be wrong.
Science can only deal with an old earth and evolution
no. this is the conclusion that has been reached, not the inference. there is no compelling evidence otherwise, and tons of evidence that earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and even that universe is about 10-14 billion years old.
and there's lots of areas of science that have nothing to do with evolution. like physics and chemistry.
By the way creation find evidence to be consistent with what God says. This is science being used to prove Gods existent.
ok, here's a cunundrum for you. prove what's in the bible is actually what god says. i'll make it easy for you, just restrict it to the actual quotes where it says "and god said" etc.
the bible talks about:
complexity
book, chapter, and verse?
no missing links
book, chapter, and verse?
no evolution
book, chapter, and verse?
don't play the "bible says" game with me. i own several.
then the Bible is consistent therefore we can trust what God says
wanna see a few hundred biblical inconsistencies?
™ Version 4.2