Actually, Jeff, his point has some validity. Most evolutionists that get backed into a corner by someone with a really good scientific background end up going in the direction of naturalism; that is, that true science shouldn't even consider theories that aren't purely naturalistic in nature. If an evolutionist is at least open to the possibility of creation, and is willing to let the testable, objective data show us the way, then we don't need to talk about background radiation. If we have to go back further to remind ourselves that current naturalistic explanations provide very poor alternatives to the initial creation event, then phillip's point is timely...
Isn't it a little tough to say that science will cease to exist if we allow ourselves to believe that a supernatural being had a hand in all of this? We should continue to pursue the how and to test what we think we know. Attributing creation does not preclude science. Even if we were to all agree on creation, the Creator obviously used extremely precise and constant laws of physics and nature to define the universe. The science lies in continuing to further our understanding of these laws.
Rather than outright denial or acceptance of a supernatural creator, we should continue to advance scientific progress. However, in the vein of proving or falsifying God, as you put it, years and years of science should eventually point us in one direction or the other.
For instance - here's a basic evolutionary flaw that evolutionists don't really like to talk about.
Let's assume that the evidence for an old earth is overwhelming, that the combination of the measurements of the expansion rate of the universe, color-luminosity fitting, and nucleochronology techniques combine to date the universe from 11 to 20 billion years old, right?
One of my Favorite Flaws --Even crude mathematical models can demonstrate (and can be field-tested) that any species wishing to evolve significantly (into another species) would require a time period of at least one quadrillion years, a body length of one or fewer centimeters, and a generation cycle of no more than three months. Biology is more fun than math (to me), but it leaves excess room for debate (which is also fun). Just because we see a cute collection of fossils doesn't mean that we can make the huge leap over clear chaos and probability theory chasms to say that they must have evolved into each other. Shouldn't we discuss why, in the recorded span of human history, we have never witnessed even one single example of speciation through evolution? Only extinctions...
See? The objective data should lead us somewhere. In the case of the fossil record we've accumulated in the last century, i think it does.
-Perhaps i should refine my definition of crude. Take a multicellular organism. Take it's dna. Take the number of mutations that prove SUCCESSFUL. Take the probability that any single successful mutation survives into further generations. Sprinkle in chaos theory to speak to environmental factors, and spread out over the generational period. That's the crude model.
The nice model will do all of the above but with much greater precision.
Where did you observe speciation through purely natural selection, and can i see it too?
No offense to paleontologists, tho- you're right on that one, and it's my bad. The point that should have come through, and must not have because of the unintentional dig, is that our fossil record is a story of explosions, not consistent, plodding evolution. So we take what is already an [extremely] mathematically improbable mechanism in pure evolution, and then we tell it: "hey, by the way, you have to do this 100 times as fast as our worst models will allow." I'll say it again. The fossil record does point us in the right direction.
Think carefully about it. The speciation rate during the cambrian explosion meant that a new species appeared EVERY COUPLE OF THOUSAND OF YEARS. Are you ready to argue that evolution can work at that kind of a pace?
thanks for your thoughts...looking forward to more