I figured you'd take this way out. The evidence for a Creator is just as logical and sound as the evidence that the Pyramids were built by intelligent men. Every point you can make for believing the pyramids are a result of an intelligent cause can also be just as well used to demonstrate that life also had an intelligent cause. I also find it funny that you get down on me for using "logic", I will never apologize for using logic, maybe you should try it sometime.
You also seem to believe that evolutionary theory is very successful at making predictions, I have already demonstrated in previous posts that many scientists can operate just fine without using evolutionary theory and many of our greatest modern breakthroughs (the MRI machine) were created by people who didn't even believe in evolution. Biblical Creationism has made many successful predictions; Creationists knew the Universe had a beginning long before the rest of secular science caught up. Even Richard Dawkins admits this in his "God Delusion" debate with John Lennox. In fact, all of Darwin’s original predictions in the origin of species (millions of transitional fossils and hundreds of vestigial organs) have been falsified. Creationists also predicted that there would be measurable levels of C14 in both coal and diamonds, something thought to be impossible by Evolutionists. Low and behold, there’s C14 in coal and diamonds (over ten times the minimal detectable amount). Creationists also predicted that many species that were thought to be extinct could be found still today. Low and behold, we find numerous species such as the Coelacanth that were thought to be extinct for millions of years. Creationists also predicted that all the major phyla of Organisms should appear at once in the fossil record. Low and behold, the Cambrian explosion holds all of the major phyla of organisms. Creationists also believed that finding soft tissue in Dinosaur fossils was a very real possibility. Low and behold, we find soft tissue remaining in dinosaur fossils. The list goes on and on, so to say that creationism never makes any predictions is a complete farce. They can do all of this inspire of intense persecution by the secular majority and having a fraction of the funding. If it were an equal playing field who knows everything we’d have by now. We’d probably have time machines lol. Now how about you tell me why you think the pyramids were made by people?
(December 15, 2010 at 7:10 pm)Chuck Wrote: Guys, the turnip is a young earth creationist. He is incapable of providing what you would expect from a discussion partner in this subject. He is unable to accommodate any external doubt about his interpretation of his filthy little book. What he could do, and is doing, is going around and around and hope to ensnarl you in his circular arguments. He gains credibility in his own eyes so long as you talk to him. That's the whole reason why he is here. What you actually say doesn't matter to him.
I assume I am the turnip (cute but pretty childish). Actually according to other’s on here, I use logic too much haha. I am sure you are also aware that a circular argument is not a logically invalid argument. It all depends on where it is used. Creationists only use it at the very top of their belief system which is where it should be used. Evolutionists use it all over in their belief system which is not good.
(December 15, 2010 at 8:19 pm)orogenicman Wrote: Statler, I have a question for you. Surely you understand that one of the tests of any scientific theory is that it can be falsified. I can think of a number of scenarios that could falsify evolution (i.e., a cat giving birth to a dog). So my question to you, since you believe that creationism is a scientific theory, what, in your view, would falsify creationism?
I appreciate the question, but you really think that a cat giving birth to a dog would falsify Evolution? There would be evolutionists who would say, “look! This is an example of rapid speciation!” Besides, a cat giving birth to a dog is impossible, so you picked something you know can’t actually falsify your theory. I think you are mixing up your sciences a bit, in operational sciences testability and observations are a must. These theories must be falsifiable. However, because historical/origins sciences are not directly observable they are not truly falsifiable in that regard. They are more based upon circumstantial evidence that requires interpretation. I suppose if you really wanted to falsify creationism you could find Christ’s body and prove 100 percent that it is really his body. However, this would be about as probable as a cat giving birth to a dog. So evolution and creation are both just as difficult to falsify. Just ask any evolutionist how they would falsify their theory and you will get some very strange and unrealistic answers. My favorite was published in Scientific America and pretty much said that if Aliens came down and told us that Evolution didn’t occur then they could falsify it. I still believe they are both examples of historical science. So if your real beef with creationism is that it is too difficult to falsify, then you probably shouldn't be an evolutionist either.
