Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[orogenicman]

You again?

Me again. Hello Statler.

Posting two logical fallacies that I did not commit does nothing to support your position.

Oh, but clearly you did commit them.

The experts on your side of the aisle (including Darwin and Dawkins) agree that life on Earth either came about by naturalistic means or by supernatural creation.

Clearly you are mistaken. Both Darwin and Dawkins have had no problem whatsoever making it very clear that evolution is a fact and that the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution.

Evolution is considered the best and only option for naturalistic means, so evidence against it is evidence for supernatural creation.

Except:

1) There is no evidence refuting evolution, and
2) Even if there were, by itself, such evidence would not be evidence that your "God did it". For all you know it could be evidence of a magical woodpecker.

You should take your beef up with Dawkins and tell him to stop saying it’s a two model system. You will also see even Evolutionists try to use the Disjunctive Syllogism in peer reviewed journals.

Darwin has been dead for over 130 years, dude. I take it up with you because you are still trying to push a 19th century religious philosophy in the 21st century.

“Evolution is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.”
- Professor D.M.S. Watson in his article “Adaptation” in Nature Volume 124
This is a valid argument, though the way he uses it is not a sound argument because he fails to give any reasons as to why Special Creation is not possible.

Hey thanks for agreeing our point that evolution is a universally accepted theory. Oh, and it is a universally accepted theory because 150 years of experiments and observations support its validity. Likely he doesn't give any reasons why special creation is not possible because that's not his theory and it isn't for him to defend. It's for creationists to defend. So when are you going to actually start defending it?

Seems to me like maybe you either don’t have a firm grasp on the rules of logic, or you really need to take up issue with today’s Evolutionists because they completely agree with me from a logical perspective.

Seems to me that you should try getting an education before you try to lecture anyone on the rules of logic or the merits of scientific thought.

---

Sometimes I don’t even think you read my posts. You will notice that I said “Historical Sciences”, and then you run off and use an analogy that uses a principle used in Physics and Mathematics. Physics of course is not a historical science but rather an empirical science. C’mon man.

Geology is a historical science. And Steno's law is the only natural law that has been entirely devised and documented from geologic research. See, Statler, if you had taken rocks for jocks in your youth, you'd know this.