Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Lethe]

Well then Evolution is not a Scientific Theory or Principle, because it is certainly not based on the “evidence”. It asserts that things which have never been observed not only happen but happen millions of times (mutations increasing information).

Indirect observation isn't invalid, in fact it's used every day. And yes, mutations have been observed and can indeed contribute new information.

The amoebas in the fossil record are almost identical morphologically to present day amoebas.

Haven't you already stated that morphological catagorization is flawed?

Being an Evolutionist actually does require rites and practices. You must adhere to certain presuppositions (methodological naturalism) in order to be considered part of the Darwin Religion.

There is no Darwin religion.

The Evolutionist G.A. Kerkut writes in his book “Implications of Evolution”, “general theory of evolution’ (GTE) is defined as the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.”

Yes, that is the implication, but evolution does not attempt to explain the fineries of first cell formations. Abiogenesis does.

Explaining the cause of a portion of a part of the universe (life on Earth) still falls under explaining the universe.

So is explaining how to operate a toaster.

So you are really trying to play semantic games and not coming to grips with the fact that you are a religious parson.

Now I'm a priest?

Well as I demonstrated with the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, atheism is positive belief not just “disbelief”.

And I demonstrated just the opposite.

Atheists love to try and act like agnostics when it suits them, yet the two are mutually exclusive. You’d never see an Agnostic-Theist, just like you will never see an Agnostic-atheist.

I'm tired of addressing your flat out wrong-ness.