If Evolution is Science, why not Creationism?

[Idadunno]

This thread is a fucking joke, full of psuedo bullshit and pure, willful stupidity. I'd rather follow evidence and listen to the scientific community, not ray comfort. Idiot.

I've read some of your posts and you're a fucking idiot. Away with you bugger!

 

[rdean]

I think he is on to something. Being shimmered into being from a pile of dirt makes a lot of sense.

 

[Idadunno]

‘It’s not science’
by Don Batten

Published: 28 February 2002 (GMT+10)
Revised 18 September 2014

Evolutionary teachers often use equivocation to indoctrinate unsuspecting students with the general theory of evolution (GTE).

Anti-creationists, such as atheists by definition, commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a ‘good scientific theory’. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of ‘prediction’ of evolution, whereas they question the value of the creationist model in making predictions. Since, they say, creation fails their definition of ‘science’, it is therefore ‘religion’, and (by implication) it can simply be ignored.

What is science?
Many attempts to define ‘science’ are circular. The point that a theory must be acceptable to contemporary scientists to be acceptable, basically defines science as ‘what scientists do’! In fact, under this definition, economic theories would be acceptable scientific theories, if ‘contemporary scientists’ accepted them as such.

A philosophy of life does not come from the data, but rather the philosophy is brought to the data and used in interpreting it.
In many cases, these so-called definitions of science are blatantly self-serving and contradictory. A number of evolutionary propagandists have claimed that creation is not scientific because it is supposedly untestable. But in the same paragraph they claim, ‘scientists have carefully examined the claims of creation science, and found that ideas such as the young Earth and global Flood are incompatible with the evidence.’ But obviously creation cannot have been examined (tested) and found to be false if it’s ‘untestable’!

The definition of ‘science’ has haunted philosophers of science in the 20th century. The approach of Bacon, who is considered the founder of the scientific method, was pretty straightforward:

observation → induction → hypothesis → test hypothesis by experiment → proof/disproof → knowledge.

Of course this, and the whole approach to modern science, depends on two major assumptions: causalityLoren Eiseley have recognized. Many scientists are so philosophically and theologically ignorant that they don’t even realize that they have these (and other) metaphysical assumptions. Being like a frog in the warming water, many do not even notice that there are philosophical assumptions at the root of much that passes as ‘science’. It’s part of their own worldview, so they don’t even notice. We at CMI are ‘up front’ about our acceptance of revelation (the Bible). Unlike many atheists, we recognize that a philosophy of life does not come from the data, but rather the philosophy is brought to the data and used in interpreting it.

Perceptions and bias
The important question is not, ‘Is it science?’ One can just define ‘science’ to exclude everything that one doesn’t like, as many evolutionists do today. Today, science is equated with naturalism: only materialistic notions can be entertained, no matter what the evidence. The prominent evolutionist Professor Richard Lewontin said (emphases in original):

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”Sir Isaac Newton, widely considered the greatest scientist ever, is a prime example) and they did not see their science as somehow excluding a creator, or even making the Creator redundant (see The biblical roots of modern science: A Christian world view, and in particular a plain understanding of Scripture and Adam’s Fall, was essential for the rise of modern science.). This recent notion has been smuggled into science by materialists.

There is no logically valid way that the materialist can define evolution as ‘science’ and creation as ‘religion’, so that he/she can ignore the issue of creation.
Michael Ruse, the Canadian philosopher of science also made the strong point that the issue is not whether evolution is science and creation is religion, because such a distinction is not really valid. The issue is one of ‘coherency of truth’. See The Religious Nature of Evolution.

In other words, there is no logically valid way that the materialist can define evolution as ‘science’ and creation as ‘religion’, so that he/she can ignore the issue of creation.

Ernst Mayr and E.O. Wilson both acknowledged the distinction.

The inclusion of historical science, without distinction, as ‘science’, has undoubtedly contributed to the modern confusion over defining science. This also explains the statement by Gould (above), who, as a paleontologist, would have liked there to have been no distinction between his own historical science and experimental science. Gould rightly saw the paramount importance of presuppositions in his own science and assumed that it applied equally to all science. This is not so, although some presuppositions play an important role in operational science.scathing assessment of the inventive scenarios that often characterise historical science. See also Is it science?

The evidence matters
Now in pointing out that presuppositions drive what stories are acceptable in historical science, I am not saying that it is merely or solely a matter of those philosophical/religious assumptions. The stories still have to account for the evidence in a coherent manner. That is, the stories provided can often be tested according to the evidence. For example, the claim that coal-bearing geological strata were laid down over many millions of years is flatly contradicted by the evidence of polystrate tree fossils, with their roots broken off, traversing those strata (how did they stand there for millions of years while the layers of deposits built up around them, and all without rotting away?). There are many facts that contradict the evolutionary story: here are 101 evidences that speak against the billions of years of age claimed for the earth: Age of the earth. There are also many counts against the story of biological evolution; see 15 Questions for evolutionists.

If the same data could be consistently interpreted in two entirely different ways, then Romans 1 would have no basis for saying that people have no excuse for denying that things were created by God because it is clear from the physical evidence.

We can speak of a ‘coherency of truth’ as a test; that a truthful account of history will give a coherent (logically consistent) account of the evidence.

Define terms consistently!
It also suits materialists to shift the definition of evolution to suit the argument. Let’s be clear that we are discussing the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE), which was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’discussion of definitions.

How evolution harms science. On the other hand, modern science rides on the achievements of past creationists—see How important to science is evolution? and Contributions of creationist scientists. For one clear example of modern-day scientific predictions based on a creationist model, see Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation.

Many ‘predictions’ of evolutionary theory have been found to be incompatible with observations; and yet evolution reigns. For example, there is the profound absence of the many millions of transitional fossils that should exist if evolution were true (see Are there any Transitional Fossils?). The very pattern in the fossil record flatly contradicts evolutionary notions of what it should be like—see, for example, The links are missing. The evolutionist Gould wrote at length on this conundrum.

Contrary to evolutionists’ expectations, none of the cases of antibiotic resistance, insecticide resistance, etc. that have been studied at a biochemical level (i.e. operational science) have involved de novo origin of new complex genetic information. In fact, evolutionists never predicted antibiotic resistance, because historically it took the medical field by surprise—see Anthrax and antibiotics: Is evolution relevant?

Contrary to evolutionists’ expectations, breeding experiments reach limits; change is not unlimited. See the article by the creationist geneticist, Lane Lester. This matches what we would expect from Genesis 1, where it says that God created organisms to reproduce true to their different kinds.

Another failed evolutionary ‘prediction’ is that of ‘junk DNA’. Evolutionists long claimed that 98% of the human DNA is junk, mere leftovers of our supposed evolutionary ancestry. This has hindered the discovery of the function of this DNA, now known to be at least 80% functional, and probably 100% is functional. See Dazzling DNA.

Evolutionists expected that, given the right conditions, a living cell could make itself (abiogenesis); creationists said this was impossible. Operational science has destroyed this evolutionary notion; so much so that many evolutionists now want to leave the origin of life out of the debate. Many propagandists claim that evolution does not include this, although the theories of abiogenesis are usually called ‘chemical evolution’. See Origin of Life for an explanation of the many profound problems for any conceivable evolutionary scenario.

Note: Claiming fulfilled predictions as proof of a hypothesis is known as the fallacy of affirming the consequent. However, if a prediction is falsified, it amounts to formal disproof of the proposition, so evolution has been formally disproved with multiple failed predictions.
Falsified but not abandoned
So, why do evolutionists persist with their spurious theory? For many it’s because they have never heard anything else. For avowed materialists it’s the ‘only game in town’—the only materialistic story available to explain how everything came to be; the materialist’s creation myth. It’s a bit like the proverbial ostrich putting its head in the sand, thinking that all that exists is what it can see under the sand. The ostrich’s worldview excludes everything that it does not find convenient. In the darkness of the sand, all unacceptable facts cease to exist.

The persistence of evolutionary thinking in the face of so much contradictory evidence indicates that the philosophical presupposition of materialism (atheism) is being permitted to trump the facts. The paradigm has priority, no matter what the evidence, because the secularist ‘cannot allow a divine foot in the door.’ For a summary of the failed arguments for evolution, see Arguments evolutionists should not use.

Light in the darkness!
Jesus Christ came as ‘the light of the world’ (John 8:12), when the Second Person of the Trinity took on human nature (see The Incarnation: Why did God become Man?). He came to shed the light of God in dark places. The greatest darkness is to live without God; to live as if you are a cosmic accident, just ‘rearranged pond scum’, as one evolutionist put it. Sadly, many are being duped into thinking that way, and we are seeing the horrendous consequences in escalating youth suicide, drug problems, family break-up, violence, etc. How much we need the light of Jesus to shine! God will hold each one of us accountable—all of us deserve His condemnation. But the Bible says that He has provided a way of escape through Jesus Christ for all that turn to God, humbly admitting our need of forgiveness. See Here’s the Good News.

For more information about the above issues, and more, check out the Q&A section, or use the search window to search for articles on subjects of interest.

I believe in God and evolution. I do not see a conflict in my beliefs either. Apparently, I am an extraordinary human being.

Are you extraordinary because of God or your belief in evolution?

Brilliant question! God gave me a brain and incites me to use it. I am extraordinary because I use logic and critical thinking and know that life is not mere happenstance... there must be a creator that put the shit in motion to create me. His name was not Merlin by the way, which is what one might think if one chooses to believe things or people appeared out of thin air all cute and cuddly. Neanderthals died out...modern man survived. Although I'm not sold on the ape relationship completely, I am cute and sociable like a Lemur so.. you never know.

If something must have put us here then something must have put the Creator here? First cause. Why must the universe that we all know and see have a creator but this creator that you can't even see or prove exists doesn't have to have a creator? and why are you so certain? Is this just speculation? Because it doesn't seem like any of your information is based on actual scientific knowledge or evidence. Even if something created all this why do you think it cares about you for created a heaven for you?

You are pushing fallacies instead of argument--unless I can prove God exists, he does not. I can use the same fallacy and say that until you prove God does not exist, then he does. Neither of our arguments will hold up in a court of law.
As a Deist, I believe in a creator but also believe that he, she, or it has nothing to do with humans. Why did God let 9/11 happen, why did God let a drunk driver kill my baby, why did God let that serial killer kill my mother, why did God let my sister get cancer... God didn't do any of that shit. People with free will did and nature did.
I never said that there was not a creator for the creator... I wonder about that myself.
If you want some type of scientific or logical reasoning that a creator exists, then first you must disprove the idea of a creator--a great creator... by creating yourself. Create a life--human, animal, or plant--without a seed, DNA, eggs, sperm, stem cells... you cannot use anything from an existing life form. When you can do this... then you have disproved the idea of a creator, but until this feat is accomplished by a mere mortal, then there is certainly a higher form of being.
That is it right there. That is why I believe in the mystery of a creator--in a God. Although it seems like more fallacy, it is not because there is proof that something exists that can create life. Meteors can collide, but they cannot produce the natural growth products needed to create life... but they can destroy it.

 

[abu afak]

..
If you want some type of scientific or logical reasoning that a creator exists, then first you must disprove the idea of a creator--a great creator... by creating yourself. Create a life--human, animal, or plant--without a seed, DNA, eggs, sperm, stem cells... you cannot use anything from an existing life form. When you can do this... then you have disproved the idea of a creator, but until this feat is accomplished by a mere mortal, then there is certainly a higher form of being.
That is it right there. That is why I believe in the mystery of a creator--in a God. Although it seems like more fallacy, it is not because there is proof that something exists that can create life. Meteors can collide, but they cannot produce the natural growth products needed to create life... but they can destroy it.

This is False/Fallacious.
Because one cannot Disprove something does NOT mean you can logically assume a creator.
This is Weak-minded.
It Never has worked in the cases all the Other False gods either.
Thousands of them used as IGNORANT explanations (Lightning, Fertility, Fire, etc) because they did Not understand YET.

Now god/gods have been whittled DOWN to just the two by the same people/religion who told said Copernicus and Galileo were wrong.

"GodDidit" is NOT a logical assumption in the lack of apparent explanation.
The ONLY one that has worked is "we don't know", "we don't know YET".
That is Logical, instead of NO-evidence Faith/Empty Speculation.
All gods created using YOUR Goofy assumption have been proven Bogus.
20,000 down, two to go.

BTW, I AM GOD.
Until you can "disprove" that, you'd best be careful disagreeing.. That's logical Right?
`

 

[Syriusly]

Why not teach Creationism?

For the same reason we don't teach Islam or Christianity in Science classes- it is nothing more than a whacky Christian religion dressed up as science.

According to Creationist, dinosaurs existed at the same time as humans, and somehow fossils magically were formed in 6,000 years.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"If Evolution is Science, why not Creationism?"

Because 'creationism' is religion.

Edwards v. Aguillard US Law LII Legal Information Institute

 

[sealybobo]

‘It’s not science’
by Don Batten

Published: 28 February 2002 (GMT+10)
Revised 18 September 2014

Evolutionary teachers often use equivocation to indoctrinate unsuspecting students with the general theory of evolution (GTE).

Anti-creationists, such as atheists by definition, commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a ‘good scientific theory’. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of ‘prediction’ of evolution, whereas they question the value of the creationist model in making predictions. Since, they say, creation fails their definition of ‘science’, it is therefore ‘religion’, and (by implication) it can simply be ignored.

What is science?
Many attempts to define ‘science’ are circular. The point that a theory must be acceptable to contemporary scientists to be acceptable, basically defines science as ‘what scientists do’! In fact, under this definition, economic theories would be acceptable scientific theories, if ‘contemporary scientists’ accepted them as such.

A philosophy of life does not come from the data, but rather the philosophy is brought to the data and used in interpreting it.
In many cases, these so-called definitions of science are blatantly self-serving and contradictory. A number of evolutionary propagandists have claimed that creation is not scientific because it is supposedly untestable. But in the same paragraph they claim, ‘scientists have carefully examined the claims of creation science, and found that ideas such as the young Earth and global Flood are incompatible with the evidence.’ But obviously creation cannot have been examined (tested) and found to be false if it’s ‘untestable’!

The definition of ‘science’ has haunted philosophers of science in the 20th century. The approach of Bacon, who is considered the founder of the scientific method, was pretty straightforward:

observation → induction → hypothesis → test hypothesis by experiment → proof/disproof → knowledge.

Of course this, and the whole approach to modern science, depends on two major assumptions: causalityLoren Eiseley have recognized. Many scientists are so philosophically and theologically ignorant that they don’t even realize that they have these (and other) metaphysical assumptions. Being like a frog in the warming water, many do not even notice that there are philosophical assumptions at the root of much that passes as ‘science’. It’s part of their own worldview, so they don’t even notice. We at CMI are ‘up front’ about our acceptance of revelation (the Bible). Unlike many atheists, we recognize that a philosophy of life does not come from the data, but rather the philosophy is brought to the data and used in interpreting it.

Perceptions and bias
The important question is not, ‘Is it science?’ One can just define ‘science’ to exclude everything that one doesn’t like, as many evolutionists do today. Today, science is equated with naturalism: only materialistic notions can be entertained, no matter what the evidence. The prominent evolutionist Professor Richard Lewontin said (emphases in original):

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”Sir Isaac Newton, widely considered the greatest scientist ever, is a prime example) and they did not see their science as somehow excluding a creator, or even making the Creator redundant (see The biblical roots of modern science: A Christian world view, and in particular a plain understanding of Scripture and Adam’s Fall, was essential for the rise of modern science.). This recent notion has been smuggled into science by materialists.

There is no logically valid way that the materialist can define evolution as ‘science’ and creation as ‘religion’, so that he/she can ignore the issue of creation.
Michael Ruse, the Canadian philosopher of science also made the strong point that the issue is not whether evolution is science and creation is religion, because such a distinction is not really valid. The issue is one of ‘coherency of truth’. See The Religious Nature of Evolution.

In other words, there is no logically valid way that the materialist can define evolution as ‘science’ and creation as ‘religion’, so that he/she can ignore the issue of creation.

Ernst Mayr and E.O. Wilson both acknowledged the distinction.

The inclusion of historical science, without distinction, as ‘science’, has undoubtedly contributed to the modern confusion over defining science. This also explains the statement by Gould (above), who, as a paleontologist, would have liked there to have been no distinction between his own historical science and experimental science. Gould rightly saw the paramount importance of presuppositions in his own science and assumed that it applied equally to all science. This is not so, although some presuppositions play an important role in operational science.scathing assessment of the inventive scenarios that often characterise historical science. See also Is it science?

The evidence matters
Now in pointing out that presuppositions drive what stories are acceptable in historical science, I am not saying that it is merely or solely a matter of those philosophical/religious assumptions. The stories still have to account for the evidence in a coherent manner. That is, the stories provided can often be tested according to the evidence. For example, the claim that coal-bearing geological strata were laid down over many millions of years is flatly contradicted by the evidence of polystrate tree fossils, with their roots broken off, traversing those strata (how did they stand there for millions of years while the layers of deposits built up around them, and all without rotting away?). There are many facts that contradict the evolutionary story: here are 101 evidences that speak against the billions of years of age claimed for the earth: Age of the earth. There are also many counts against the story of biological evolution; see 15 Questions for evolutionists.

If the same data could be consistently interpreted in two entirely different ways, then Romans 1 would have no basis for saying that people have no excuse for denying that things were created by God because it is clear from the physical evidence.

We can speak of a ‘coherency of truth’ as a test; that a truthful account of history will give a coherent (logically consistent) account of the evidence.

Define terms consistently!
It also suits materialists to shift the definition of evolution to suit the argument. Let’s be clear that we are discussing the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE), which was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’discussion of definitions.

How evolution harms science. On the other hand, modern science rides on the achievements of past creationists—see How important to science is evolution? and Contributions of creationist scientists. For one clear example of modern-day scientific predictions based on a creationist model, see Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation.

Many ‘predictions’ of evolutionary theory have been found to be incompatible with observations; and yet evolution reigns. For example, there is the profound absence of the many millions of transitional fossils that should exist if evolution were true (see Are there any Transitional Fossils?). The very pattern in the fossil record flatly contradicts evolutionary notions of what it should be like—see, for example, The links are missing. The evolutionist Gould wrote at length on this conundrum.

Contrary to evolutionists’ expectations, none of the cases of antibiotic resistance, insecticide resistance, etc. that have been studied at a biochemical level (i.e. operational science) have involved de novo origin of new complex genetic information. In fact, evolutionists never predicted antibiotic resistance, because historically it took the medical field by surprise—see Anthrax and antibiotics: Is evolution relevant?

Contrary to evolutionists’ expectations, breeding experiments reach limits; change is not unlimited. See the article by the creationist geneticist, Lane Lester. This matches what we would expect from Genesis 1, where it says that God created organisms to reproduce true to their different kinds.

Another failed evolutionary ‘prediction’ is that of ‘junk DNA’. Evolutionists long claimed that 98% of the human DNA is junk, mere leftovers of our supposed evolutionary ancestry. This has hindered the discovery of the function of this DNA, now known to be at least 80% functional, and probably 100% is functional. See Dazzling DNA.

Evolutionists expected that, given the right conditions, a living cell could make itself (abiogenesis); creationists said this was impossible. Operational science has destroyed this evolutionary notion; so much so that many evolutionists now want to leave the origin of life out of the debate. Many propagandists claim that evolution does not include this, although the theories of abiogenesis are usually called ‘chemical evolution’. See Origin of Life for an explanation of the many profound problems for any conceivable evolutionary scenario.

Note: Claiming fulfilled predictions as proof of a hypothesis is known as the fallacy of affirming the consequent. However, if a prediction is falsified, it amounts to formal disproof of the proposition, so evolution has been formally disproved with multiple failed predictions.
Falsified but not abandoned
So, why do evolutionists persist with their spurious theory? For many it’s because they have never heard anything else. For avowed materialists it’s the ‘only game in town’—the only materialistic story available to explain how everything came to be; the materialist’s creation myth. It’s a bit like the proverbial ostrich putting its head in the sand, thinking that all that exists is what it can see under the sand. The ostrich’s worldview excludes everything that it does not find convenient. In the darkness of the sand, all unacceptable facts cease to exist.

The persistence of evolutionary thinking in the face of so much contradictory evidence indicates that the philosophical presupposition of materialism (atheism) is being permitted to trump the facts. The paradigm has priority, no matter what the evidence, because the secularist ‘cannot allow a divine foot in the door.’ For a summary of the failed arguments for evolution, see Arguments evolutionists should not use.

Light in the darkness!
Jesus Christ came as ‘the light of the world’ (John 8:12), when the Second Person of the Trinity took on human nature (see The Incarnation: Why did God become Man?). He came to shed the light of God in dark places. The greatest darkness is to live without God; to live as if you are a cosmic accident, just ‘rearranged pond scum’, as one evolutionist put it. Sadly, many are being duped into thinking that way, and we are seeing the horrendous consequences in escalating youth suicide, drug problems, family break-up, violence, etc. How much we need the light of Jesus to shine! God will hold each one of us accountable—all of us deserve His condemnation. But the Bible says that He has provided a way of escape through Jesus Christ for all that turn to God, humbly admitting our need of forgiveness. See Here’s the Good News.

For more information about the above issues, and more, check out the Q&A section, or use the search window to search for articles on subjects of interest.

I believe in God and evolution. I do not see a conflict in my beliefs either. Apparently, I am an extraordinary human being.

Are you extraordinary because of God or your belief in evolution?

Brilliant question! God gave me a brain and incites me to use it. I am extraordinary because I use logic and critical thinking and know that life is not mere happenstance... there must be a creator that put the shit in motion to create me. His name was not Merlin by the way, which is what one might think if one chooses to believe things or people appeared out of thin air all cute and cuddly. Neanderthals died out...modern man survived. Although I'm not sold on the ape relationship completely, I am cute and sociable like a Lemur so.. you never know.

If something must have put us here then something must have put the Creator here? First cause. Why must the universe that we all know and see have a creator but this creator that you can't even see or prove exists doesn't have to have a creator? and why are you so certain? Is this just speculation? Because it doesn't seem like any of your information is based on actual scientific knowledge or evidence. Even if something created all this why do you think it cares about you for created a heaven for you?

You are pushing fallacies instead of argument--unless I can prove God exists, he does not. I can use the same fallacy and say that until you prove God does not exist, then he does. Neither of our arguments will hold up in a court of law.
As a Deist, I believe in a creator but also believe that he, she, or it has nothing to do with humans. Why did God let 9/11 happen, why did God let a drunk driver kill my baby, why did God let that serial killer kill my mother, why did God let my sister get cancer... God didn't do any of that shit. People with free will did and nature did.
I never said that there was not a creator for the creator... I wonder about that myself.
If you want some type of scientific or logical reasoning that a creator exists, then first you must disprove the idea of a creator--a great creator... by creating yourself. Create a life--human, animal, or plant--without a seed, DNA, eggs, sperm, stem cells... you cannot use anything from an existing life form. When you can do this... then you have disproved the idea of a creator, but until this feat is accomplished by a mere mortal, then there is certainly a higher form of being.
That is it right there. That is why I believe in the mystery of a creator--in a God. Although it seems like more fallacy, it is not because there is proof that something exists that can create life. Meteors can collide, but they cannot produce the natural growth products needed to create life... but they can destroy it.

I never said unless you prove God exists then he doesn't. I simply said because you claim he does exist I asked you what proof you had

 

[sealybobo]

‘It’s not science’
by Don Batten

Published: 28 February 2002 (GMT+10)
Revised 18 September 2014

Evolutionary teachers often use equivocation to indoctrinate unsuspecting students with the general theory of evolution (GTE).

Anti-creationists, such as atheists by definition, commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a ‘good scientific theory’. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of ‘prediction’ of evolution, whereas they question the value of the creationist model in making predictions. Since, they say, creation fails their definition of ‘science’, it is therefore ‘religion’, and (by implication) it can simply be ignored.

What is science?
Many attempts to define ‘science’ are circular. The point that a theory must be acceptable to contemporary scientists to be acceptable, basically defines science as ‘what scientists do’! In fact, under this definition, economic theories would be acceptable scientific theories, if ‘contemporary scientists’ accepted them as such.

A philosophy of life does not come from the data, but rather the philosophy is brought to the data and used in interpreting it.
In many cases, these so-called definitions of science are blatantly self-serving and contradictory. A number of evolutionary propagandists have claimed that creation is not scientific because it is supposedly untestable. But in the same paragraph they claim, ‘scientists have carefully examined the claims of creation science, and found that ideas such as the young Earth and global Flood are incompatible with the evidence.’ But obviously creation cannot have been examined (tested) and found to be false if it’s ‘untestable’!

The definition of ‘science’ has haunted philosophers of science in the 20th century. The approach of Bacon, who is considered the founder of the scientific method, was pretty straightforward:

observation → induction → hypothesis → test hypothesis by experiment → proof/disproof → knowledge.

Of course this, and the whole approach to modern science, depends on two major assumptions: causalityLoren Eiseley have recognized. Many scientists are so philosophically and theologically ignorant that they don’t even realize that they have these (and other) metaphysical assumptions. Being like a frog in the warming water, many do not even notice that there are philosophical assumptions at the root of much that passes as ‘science’. It’s part of their own worldview, so they don’t even notice. We at CMI are ‘up front’ about our acceptance of revelation (the Bible). Unlike many atheists, we recognize that a philosophy of life does not come from the data, but rather the philosophy is brought to the data and used in interpreting it.

Perceptions and bias
The important question is not, ‘Is it science?’ One can just define ‘science’ to exclude everything that one doesn’t like, as many evolutionists do today. Today, science is equated with naturalism: only materialistic notions can be entertained, no matter what the evidence. The prominent evolutionist Professor Richard Lewontin said (emphases in original):

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”Sir Isaac Newton, widely considered the greatest scientist ever, is a prime example) and they did not see their science as somehow excluding a creator, or even making the Creator redundant (see The biblical roots of modern science: A Christian world view, and in particular a plain understanding of Scripture and Adam’s Fall, was essential for the rise of modern science.). This recent notion has been smuggled into science by materialists.

There is no logically valid way that the materialist can define evolution as ‘science’ and creation as ‘religion’, so that he/she can ignore the issue of creation.
Michael Ruse, the Canadian philosopher of science also made the strong point that the issue is not whether evolution is science and creation is religion, because such a distinction is not really valid. The issue is one of ‘coherency of truth’. See The Religious Nature of Evolution.

In other words, there is no logically valid way that the materialist can define evolution as ‘science’ and creation as ‘religion’, so that he/she can ignore the issue of creation.

Ernst Mayr and E.O. Wilson both acknowledged the distinction.

The inclusion of historical science, without distinction, as ‘science’, has undoubtedly contributed to the modern confusion over defining science. This also explains the statement by Gould (above), who, as a paleontologist, would have liked there to have been no distinction between his own historical science and experimental science. Gould rightly saw the paramount importance of presuppositions in his own science and assumed that it applied equally to all science. This is not so, although some presuppositions play an important role in operational science.scathing assessment of the inventive scenarios that often characterise historical science. See also Is it science?

The evidence matters
Now in pointing out that presuppositions drive what stories are acceptable in historical science, I am not saying that it is merely or solely a matter of those philosophical/religious assumptions. The stories still have to account for the evidence in a coherent manner. That is, the stories provided can often be tested according to the evidence. For example, the claim that coal-bearing geological strata were laid down over many millions of years is flatly contradicted by the evidence of polystrate tree fossils, with their roots broken off, traversing those strata (how did they stand there for millions of years while the layers of deposits built up around them, and all without rotting away?). There are many facts that contradict the evolutionary story: here are 101 evidences that speak against the billions of years of age claimed for the earth: Age of the earth. There are also many counts against the story of biological evolution; see 15 Questions for evolutionists.

If the same data could be consistently interpreted in two entirely different ways, then Romans 1 would have no basis for saying that people have no excuse for denying that things were created by God because it is clear from the physical evidence.

We can speak of a ‘coherency of truth’ as a test; that a truthful account of history will give a coherent (logically consistent) account of the evidence.

Define terms consistently!
It also suits materialists to shift the definition of evolution to suit the argument. Let’s be clear that we are discussing the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE), which was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’discussion of definitions.

How evolution harms science. On the other hand, modern science rides on the achievements of past creationists—see How important to science is evolution? and Contributions of creationist scientists. For one clear example of modern-day scientific predictions based on a creationist model, see Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation.

Many ‘predictions’ of evolutionary theory have been found to be incompatible with observations; and yet evolution reigns. For example, there is the profound absence of the many millions of transitional fossils that should exist if evolution were true (see Are there any Transitional Fossils?). The very pattern in the fossil record flatly contradicts evolutionary notions of what it should be like—see, for example, The links are missing. The evolutionist Gould wrote at length on this conundrum.

Contrary to evolutionists’ expectations, none of the cases of antibiotic resistance, insecticide resistance, etc. that have been studied at a biochemical level (i.e. operational science) have involved de novo origin of new complex genetic information. In fact, evolutionists never predicted antibiotic resistance, because historically it took the medical field by surprise—see Anthrax and antibiotics: Is evolution relevant?

Contrary to evolutionists’ expectations, breeding experiments reach limits; change is not unlimited. See the article by the creationist geneticist, Lane Lester. This matches what we would expect from Genesis 1, where it says that God created organisms to reproduce true to their different kinds.

Another failed evolutionary ‘prediction’ is that of ‘junk DNA’. Evolutionists long claimed that 98% of the human DNA is junk, mere leftovers of our supposed evolutionary ancestry. This has hindered the discovery of the function of this DNA, now known to be at least 80% functional, and probably 100% is functional. See Dazzling DNA.

Evolutionists expected that, given the right conditions, a living cell could make itself (abiogenesis); creationists said this was impossible. Operational science has destroyed this evolutionary notion; so much so that many evolutionists now want to leave the origin of life out of the debate. Many propagandists claim that evolution does not include this, although the theories of abiogenesis are usually called ‘chemical evolution’. See Origin of Life for an explanation of the many profound problems for any conceivable evolutionary scenario.

Note: Claiming fulfilled predictions as proof of a hypothesis is known as the fallacy of affirming the consequent. However, if a prediction is falsified, it amounts to formal disproof of the proposition, so evolution has been formally disproved with multiple failed predictions.
Falsified but not abandoned
So, why do evolutionists persist with their spurious theory? For many it’s because they have never heard anything else. For avowed materialists it’s the ‘only game in town’—the only materialistic story available to explain how everything came to be; the materialist’s creation myth. It’s a bit like the proverbial ostrich putting its head in the sand, thinking that all that exists is what it can see under the sand. The ostrich’s worldview excludes everything that it does not find convenient. In the darkness of the sand, all unacceptable facts cease to exist.

The persistence of evolutionary thinking in the face of so much contradictory evidence indicates that the philosophical presupposition of materialism (atheism) is being permitted to trump the facts. The paradigm has priority, no matter what the evidence, because the secularist ‘cannot allow a divine foot in the door.’ For a summary of the failed arguments for evolution, see Arguments evolutionists should not use.

Light in the darkness!
Jesus Christ came as ‘the light of the world’ (John 8:12), when the Second Person of the Trinity took on human nature (see The Incarnation: Why did God become Man?). He came to shed the light of God in dark places. The greatest darkness is to live without God; to live as if you are a cosmic accident, just ‘rearranged pond scum’, as one evolutionist put it. Sadly, many are being duped into thinking that way, and we are seeing the horrendous consequences in escalating youth suicide, drug problems, family break-up, violence, etc. How much we need the light of Jesus to shine! God will hold each one of us accountable—all of us deserve His condemnation. But the Bible says that He has provided a way of escape through Jesus Christ for all that turn to God, humbly admitting our need of forgiveness. See Here’s the Good News.

For more information about the above issues, and more, check out the Q&A section, or use the search window to search for articles on subjects of interest.

I believe in God and evolution. I do not see a conflict in my beliefs either. Apparently, I am an extraordinary human being.

Are you extraordinary because of God or your belief in evolution?

Brilliant question! God gave me a brain and incites me to use it. I am extraordinary because I use logic and critical thinking and know that life is not mere happenstance... there must be a creator that put the shit in motion to create me. His name was not Merlin by the way, which is what one might think if one chooses to believe things or people appeared out of thin air all cute and cuddly. Neanderthals died out...modern man survived. Although I'm not sold on the ape relationship completely, I am cute and sociable like a Lemur so.. you never know.

If something must have put us here then something must have put the Creator here? First cause. Why must the universe that we all know and see have a creator but this creator that you can't even see or prove exists doesn't have to have a creator? and why are you so certain? Is this just speculation? Because it doesn't seem like any of your information is based on actual scientific knowledge or evidence. Even if something created all this why do you think it cares about you for created a heaven for you?

You are pushing fallacies instead of argument--unless I can prove God exists, he does not. I can use the same fallacy and say that until you prove God does not exist, then he does. Neither of our arguments will hold up in a court of law.
As a Deist, I believe in a creator but also believe that he, she, or it has nothing to do with humans. Why did God let 9/11 happen, why did God let a drunk driver kill my baby, why did God let that serial killer kill my mother, why did God let my sister get cancer... God didn't do any of that shit. People with free will did and nature did.
I never said that there was not a creator for the creator... I wonder about that myself.
If you want some type of scientific or logical reasoning that a creator exists, then first you must disprove the idea of a creator--a great creator... by creating yourself. Create a life--human, animal, or plant--without a seed, DNA, eggs, sperm, stem cells... you cannot use anything from an existing life form. When you can do this... then you have disproved the idea of a creator, but until this feat is accomplished by a mere mortal, then there is certainly a higher form of being.
That is it right there. That is why I believe in the mystery of a creator--in a God. Although it seems like more fallacy, it is not because there is proof that something exists that can create life. Meteors can collide, but they cannot produce the natural growth products needed to create life... but they can destroy it.

If I can create life from nothing how does that disprove God? Because that's what you're claiming God did was create all this from nothing

 

[sealybobo]

‘It’s not science’
by Don Batten

Published: 28 February 2002 (GMT+10)
Revised 18 September 2014

Evolutionary teachers often use equivocation to indoctrinate unsuspecting students with the general theory of evolution (GTE).

Anti-creationists, such as atheists by definition, commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a ‘good scientific theory’. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of ‘prediction’ of evolution, whereas they question the value of the creationist model in making predictions. Since, they say, creation fails their definition of ‘science’, it is therefore ‘religion’, and (by implication) it can simply be ignored.

What is science?
Many attempts to define ‘science’ are circular. The point that a theory must be acceptable to contemporary scientists to be acceptable, basically defines science as ‘what scientists do’! In fact, under this definition, economic theories would be acceptable scientific theories, if ‘contemporary scientists’ accepted them as such.

A philosophy of life does not come from the data, but rather the philosophy is brought to the data and used in interpreting it.
In many cases, these so-called definitions of science are blatantly self-serving and contradictory. A number of evolutionary propagandists have claimed that creation is not scientific because it is supposedly untestable. But in the same paragraph they claim, ‘scientists have carefully examined the claims of creation science, and found that ideas such as the young Earth and global Flood are incompatible with the evidence.’ But obviously creation cannot have been examined (tested) and found to be false if it’s ‘untestable’!

The definition of ‘science’ has haunted philosophers of science in the 20th century. The approach of Bacon, who is considered the founder of the scientific method, was pretty straightforward:

observation → induction → hypothesis → test hypothesis by experiment → proof/disproof → knowledge.

Of course this, and the whole approach to modern science, depends on two major assumptions: causalityLoren Eiseley have recognized. Many scientists are so philosophically and theologically ignorant that they don’t even realize that they have these (and other) metaphysical assumptions. Being like a frog in the warming water, many do not even notice that there are philosophical assumptions at the root of much that passes as ‘science’. It’s part of their own worldview, so they don’t even notice. We at CMI are ‘up front’ about our acceptance of revelation (the Bible). Unlike many atheists, we recognize that a philosophy of life does not come from the data, but rather the philosophy is brought to the data and used in interpreting it.

Perceptions and bias
The important question is not, ‘Is it science?’ One can just define ‘science’ to exclude everything that one doesn’t like, as many evolutionists do today. Today, science is equated with naturalism: only materialistic notions can be entertained, no matter what the evidence. The prominent evolutionist Professor Richard Lewontin said (emphases in original):

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”Sir Isaac Newton, widely considered the greatest scientist ever, is a prime example) and they did not see their science as somehow excluding a creator, or even making the Creator redundant (see The biblical roots of modern science: A Christian world view, and in particular a plain understanding of Scripture and Adam’s Fall, was essential for the rise of modern science.). This recent notion has been smuggled into science by materialists.

There is no logically valid way that the materialist can define evolution as ‘science’ and creation as ‘religion’, so that he/she can ignore the issue of creation.
Michael Ruse, the Canadian philosopher of science also made the strong point that the issue is not whether evolution is science and creation is religion, because such a distinction is not really valid. The issue is one of ‘coherency of truth’. See The Religious Nature of Evolution.

In other words, there is no logically valid way that the materialist can define evolution as ‘science’ and creation as ‘religion’, so that he/she can ignore the issue of creation.

Ernst Mayr and E.O. Wilson both acknowledged the distinction.

The inclusion of historical science, without distinction, as ‘science’, has undoubtedly contributed to the modern confusion over defining science. This also explains the statement by Gould (above), who, as a paleontologist, would have liked there to have been no distinction between his own historical science and experimental science. Gould rightly saw the paramount importance of presuppositions in his own science and assumed that it applied equally to all science. This is not so, although some presuppositions play an important role in operational science.scathing assessment of the inventive scenarios that often characterise historical science. See also Is it science?

The evidence matters
Now in pointing out that presuppositions drive what stories are acceptable in historical science, I am not saying that it is merely or solely a matter of those philosophical/religious assumptions. The stories still have to account for the evidence in a coherent manner. That is, the stories provided can often be tested according to the evidence. For example, the claim that coal-bearing geological strata were laid down over many millions of years is flatly contradicted by the evidence of polystrate tree fossils, with their roots broken off, traversing those strata (how did they stand there for millions of years while the layers of deposits built up around them, and all without rotting away?). There are many facts that contradict the evolutionary story: here are 101 evidences that speak against the billions of years of age claimed for the earth: Age of the earth. There are also many counts against the story of biological evolution; see 15 Questions for evolutionists.

If the same data could be consistently interpreted in two entirely different ways, then Romans 1 would have no basis for saying that people have no excuse for denying that things were created by God because it is clear from the physical evidence.

We can speak of a ‘coherency of truth’ as a test; that a truthful account of history will give a coherent (logically consistent) account of the evidence.

Define terms consistently!
It also suits materialists to shift the definition of evolution to suit the argument. Let’s be clear that we are discussing the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE), which was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’discussion of definitions.

How evolution harms science. On the other hand, modern science rides on the achievements of past creationists—see How important to science is evolution? and Contributions of creationist scientists. For one clear example of modern-day scientific predictions based on a creationist model, see Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation.

Many ‘predictions’ of evolutionary theory have been found to be incompatible with observations; and yet evolution reigns. For example, there is the profound absence of the many millions of transitional fossils that should exist if evolution were true (see Are there any Transitional Fossils?). The very pattern in the fossil record flatly contradicts evolutionary notions of what it should be like—see, for example, The links are missing. The evolutionist Gould wrote at length on this conundrum.

Contrary to evolutionists’ expectations, none of the cases of antibiotic resistance, insecticide resistance, etc. that have been studied at a biochemical level (i.e. operational science) have involved de novo origin of new complex genetic information. In fact, evolutionists never predicted antibiotic resistance, because historically it took the medical field by surprise—see Anthrax and antibiotics: Is evolution relevant?

Contrary to evolutionists’ expectations, breeding experiments reach limits; change is not unlimited. See the article by the creationist geneticist, Lane Lester. This matches what we would expect from Genesis 1, where it says that God created organisms to reproduce true to their different kinds.

Another failed evolutionary ‘prediction’ is that of ‘junk DNA’. Evolutionists long claimed that 98% of the human DNA is junk, mere leftovers of our supposed evolutionary ancestry. This has hindered the discovery of the function of this DNA, now known to be at least 80% functional, and probably 100% is functional. See Dazzling DNA.

Evolutionists expected that, given the right conditions, a living cell could make itself (abiogenesis); creationists said this was impossible. Operational science has destroyed this evolutionary notion; so much so that many evolutionists now want to leave the origin of life out of the debate. Many propagandists claim that evolution does not include this, although the theories of abiogenesis are usually called ‘chemical evolution’. See Origin of Life for an explanation of the many profound problems for any conceivable evolutionary scenario.

Note: Claiming fulfilled predictions as proof of a hypothesis is known as the fallacy of affirming the consequent. However, if a prediction is falsified, it amounts to formal disproof of the proposition, so evolution has been formally disproved with multiple failed predictions.
Falsified but not abandoned
So, why do evolutionists persist with their spurious theory? For many it’s because they have never heard anything else. For avowed materialists it’s the ‘only game in town’—the only materialistic story available to explain how everything came to be; the materialist’s creation myth. It’s a bit like the proverbial ostrich putting its head in the sand, thinking that all that exists is what it can see under the sand. The ostrich’s worldview excludes everything that it does not find convenient. In the darkness of the sand, all unacceptable facts cease to exist.

The persistence of evolutionary thinking in the face of so much contradictory evidence indicates that the philosophical presupposition of materialism (atheism) is being permitted to trump the facts. The paradigm has priority, no matter what the evidence, because the secularist ‘cannot allow a divine foot in the door.’ For a summary of the failed arguments for evolution, see Arguments evolutionists should not use.

Light in the darkness!
Jesus Christ came as ‘the light of the world’ (John 8:12), when the Second Person of the Trinity took on human nature (see The Incarnation: Why did God become Man?). He came to shed the light of God in dark places. The greatest darkness is to live without God; to live as if you are a cosmic accident, just ‘rearranged pond scum’, as one evolutionist put it. Sadly, many are being duped into thinking that way, and we are seeing the horrendous consequences in escalating youth suicide, drug problems, family break-up, violence, etc. How much we need the light of Jesus to shine! God will hold each one of us accountable—all of us deserve His condemnation. But the Bible says that He has provided a way of escape through Jesus Christ for all that turn to God, humbly admitting our need of forgiveness. See Here’s the Good News.

For more information about the above issues, and more, check out the Q&A section, or use the search window to search for articles on subjects of interest.

I believe in God and evolution. I do not see a conflict in my beliefs either. Apparently, I am an extraordinary human being.

Are you extraordinary because of God or your belief in evolution?

Brilliant question! God gave me a brain and incites me to use it. I am extraordinary because I use logic and critical thinking and know that life is not mere happenstance... there must be a creator that put the shit in motion to create me. His name was not Merlin by the way, which is what one might think if one chooses to believe things or people appeared out of thin air all cute and cuddly. Neanderthals died out...modern man survived. Although I'm not sold on the ape relationship completely, I am cute and sociable like a Lemur so.. you never know.

If something must have put us here then something must have put the Creator here? First cause. Why must the universe that we all know and see have a creator but this creator that you can't even see or prove exists doesn't have to have a creator? and why are you so certain? Is this just speculation? Because it doesn't seem like any of your information is based on actual scientific knowledge or evidence. Even if something created all this why do you think it cares about you for created a heaven for you?

You are pushing fallacies instead of argument--unless I can prove God exists, he does not. I can use the same fallacy and say that until you prove God does not exist, then he does. Neither of our arguments will hold up in a court of law.
As a Deist, I believe in a creator but also believe that he, she, or it has nothing to do with humans. Why did God let 9/11 happen, why did God let a drunk driver kill my baby, why did God let that serial killer kill my mother, why did God let my sister get cancer... God didn't do any of that shit. People with free will did and nature did.
I never said that there was not a creator for the creator... I wonder about that myself.
If you want some type of scientific or logical reasoning that a creator exists, then first you must disprove the idea of a creator--a great creator... by creating yourself. Create a life--human, animal, or plant--without a seed, DNA, eggs, sperm, stem cells... you cannot use anything from an existing life form. When you can do this... then you have disproved the idea of a creator, but until this feat is accomplished by a mere mortal, then there is certainly a higher form of being.
That is it right there. That is why I believe in the mystery of a creator--in a God. Although it seems like more fallacy, it is not because there is proof that something exists that can create life. Meteors can collide, but they cannot produce the natural growth products needed to create life... but they can destroy it.

But then God was not created is what you're telling me? Why can't it be that the building blocks of life and the cosmos have always existed? Life in the universe just is and always has been and always will be. Maybe not the way it looks now and maybe not our universe but I don't understand why some Creator can be eternal but the universe cannot. I don't understand why we had to be created but the creator did not. And for the record you used to know science in your thinking so you shouldn't have used it in your sentence

 

[sealybobo]

‘It’s not science’
by Don Batten

Published: 28 February 2002 (GMT+10)
Revised 18 September 2014

Evolutionary teachers often use equivocation to indoctrinate unsuspecting students with the general theory of evolution (GTE).

Anti-creationists, such as atheists by definition, commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a ‘good scientific theory’. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of ‘prediction’ of evolution, whereas they question the value of the creationist model in making predictions. Since, they say, creation fails their definition of ‘science’, it is therefore ‘religion’, and (by implication) it can simply be ignored.

What is science?
Many attempts to define ‘science’ are circular. The point that a theory must be acceptable to contemporary scientists to be acceptable, basically defines science as ‘what scientists do’! In fact, under this definition, economic theories would be acceptable scientific theories, if ‘contemporary scientists’ accepted them as such.

A philosophy of life does not come from the data, but rather the philosophy is brought to the data and used in interpreting it.
In many cases, these so-called definitions of science are blatantly self-serving and contradictory. A number of evolutionary propagandists have claimed that creation is not scientific because it is supposedly untestable. But in the same paragraph they claim, ‘scientists have carefully examined the claims of creation science, and found that ideas such as the young Earth and global Flood are incompatible with the evidence.’ But obviously creation cannot have been examined (tested) and found to be false if it’s ‘untestable’!

The definition of ‘science’ has haunted philosophers of science in the 20th century. The approach of Bacon, who is considered the founder of the scientific method, was pretty straightforward:

observation → induction → hypothesis → test hypothesis by experiment → proof/disproof → knowledge.

Of course this, and the whole approach to modern science, depends on two major assumptions: causalityLoren Eiseley have recognized. Many scientists are so philosophically and theologically ignorant that they don’t even realize that they have these (and other) metaphysical assumptions. Being like a frog in the warming water, many do not even notice that there are philosophical assumptions at the root of much that passes as ‘science’. It’s part of their own worldview, so they don’t even notice. We at CMI are ‘up front’ about our acceptance of revelation (the Bible). Unlike many atheists, we recognize that a philosophy of life does not come from the data, but rather the philosophy is brought to the data and used in interpreting it.

Perceptions and bias
The important question is not, ‘Is it science?’ One can just define ‘science’ to exclude everything that one doesn’t like, as many evolutionists do today. Today, science is equated with naturalism: only materialistic notions can be entertained, no matter what the evidence. The prominent evolutionist Professor Richard Lewontin said (emphases in original):

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”Sir Isaac Newton, widely considered the greatest scientist ever, is a prime example) and they did not see their science as somehow excluding a creator, or even making the Creator redundant (see The biblical roots of modern science: A Christian world view, and in particular a plain understanding of Scripture and Adam’s Fall, was essential for the rise of modern science.). This recent notion has been smuggled into science by materialists.

There is no logically valid way that the materialist can define evolution as ‘science’ and creation as ‘religion’, so that he/she can ignore the issue of creation.
Michael Ruse, the Canadian philosopher of science also made the strong point that the issue is not whether evolution is science and creation is religion, because such a distinction is not really valid. The issue is one of ‘coherency of truth’. See The Religious Nature of Evolution.

In other words, there is no logically valid way that the materialist can define evolution as ‘science’ and creation as ‘religion’, so that he/she can ignore the issue of creation.

Ernst Mayr and E.O. Wilson both acknowledged the distinction.

The inclusion of historical science, without distinction, as ‘science’, has undoubtedly contributed to the modern confusion over defining science. This also explains the statement by Gould (above), who, as a paleontologist, would have liked there to have been no distinction between his own historical science and experimental science. Gould rightly saw the paramount importance of presuppositions in his own science and assumed that it applied equally to all science. This is not so, although some presuppositions play an important role in operational science.scathing assessment of the inventive scenarios that often characterise historical science. See also Is it science?

The evidence matters
Now in pointing out that presuppositions drive what stories are acceptable in historical science, I am not saying that it is merely or solely a matter of those philosophical/religious assumptions. The stories still have to account for the evidence in a coherent manner. That is, the stories provided can often be tested according to the evidence. For example, the claim that coal-bearing geological strata were laid down over many millions of years is flatly contradicted by the evidence of polystrate tree fossils, with their roots broken off, traversing those strata (how did they stand there for millions of years while the layers of deposits built up around them, and all without rotting away?). There are many facts that contradict the evolutionary story: here are 101 evidences that speak against the billions of years of age claimed for the earth: Age of the earth. There are also many counts against the story of biological evolution; see 15 Questions for evolutionists.

If the same data could be consistently interpreted in two entirely different ways, then Romans 1 would have no basis for saying that people have no excuse for denying that things were created by God because it is clear from the physical evidence.

We can speak of a ‘coherency of truth’ as a test; that a truthful account of history will give a coherent (logically consistent) account of the evidence.

Define terms consistently!
It also suits materialists to shift the definition of evolution to suit the argument. Let’s be clear that we are discussing the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE), which was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’discussion of definitions.

How evolution harms science. On the other hand, modern science rides on the achievements of past creationists—see How important to science is evolution? and Contributions of creationist scientists. For one clear example of modern-day scientific predictions based on a creationist model, see Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation.

Many ‘predictions’ of evolutionary theory have been found to be incompatible with observations; and yet evolution reigns. For example, there is the profound absence of the many millions of transitional fossils that should exist if evolution were true (see Are there any Transitional Fossils?). The very pattern in the fossil record flatly contradicts evolutionary notions of what it should be like—see, for example, The links are missing. The evolutionist Gould wrote at length on this conundrum.

Contrary to evolutionists’ expectations, none of the cases of antibiotic resistance, insecticide resistance, etc. that have been studied at a biochemical level (i.e. operational science) have involved de novo origin of new complex genetic information. In fact, evolutionists never predicted antibiotic resistance, because historically it took the medical field by surprise—see Anthrax and antibiotics: Is evolution relevant?

Contrary to evolutionists’ expectations, breeding experiments reach limits; change is not unlimited. See the article by the creationist geneticist, Lane Lester. This matches what we would expect from Genesis 1, where it says that God created organisms to reproduce true to their different kinds.

Another failed evolutionary ‘prediction’ is that of ‘junk DNA’. Evolutionists long claimed that 98% of the human DNA is junk, mere leftovers of our supposed evolutionary ancestry. This has hindered the discovery of the function of this DNA, now known to be at least 80% functional, and probably 100% is functional. See Dazzling DNA.

Evolutionists expected that, given the right conditions, a living cell could make itself (abiogenesis); creationists said this was impossible. Operational science has destroyed this evolutionary notion; so much so that many evolutionists now want to leave the origin of life out of the debate. Many propagandists claim that evolution does not include this, although the theories of abiogenesis are usually called ‘chemical evolution’. See Origin of Life for an explanation of the many profound problems for any conceivable evolutionary scenario.

Note: Claiming fulfilled predictions as proof of a hypothesis is known as the fallacy of affirming the consequent. However, if a prediction is falsified, it amounts to formal disproof of the proposition, so evolution has been formally disproved with multiple failed predictions.
Falsified but not abandoned
So, why do evolutionists persist with their spurious theory? For many it’s because they have never heard anything else. For avowed materialists it’s the ‘only game in town’—the only materialistic story available to explain how everything came to be; the materialist’s creation myth. It’s a bit like the proverbial ostrich putting its head in the sand, thinking that all that exists is what it can see under the sand. The ostrich’s worldview excludes everything that it does not find convenient. In the darkness of the sand, all unacceptable facts cease to exist.

The persistence of evolutionary thinking in the face of so much contradictory evidence indicates that the philosophical presupposition of materialism (atheism) is being permitted to trump the facts. The paradigm has priority, no matter what the evidence, because the secularist ‘cannot allow a divine foot in the door.’ For a summary of the failed arguments for evolution, see Arguments evolutionists should not use.

Light in the darkness!
Jesus Christ came as ‘the light of the world’ (John 8:12), when the Second Person of the Trinity took on human nature (see The Incarnation: Why did God become Man?). He came to shed the light of God in dark places. The greatest darkness is to live without God; to live as if you are a cosmic accident, just ‘rearranged pond scum’, as one evolutionist put it. Sadly, many are being duped into thinking that way, and we are seeing the horrendous consequences in escalating youth suicide, drug problems, family break-up, violence, etc. How much we need the light of Jesus to shine! God will hold each one of us accountable—all of us deserve His condemnation. But the Bible says that He has provided a way of escape through Jesus Christ for all that turn to God, humbly admitting our need of forgiveness. See Here’s the Good News.

For more information about the above issues, and more, check out the Q&A section, or use the search window to search for articles on subjects of interest.

I believe in God and evolution. I do not see a conflict in my beliefs either. Apparently, I am an extraordinary human being.

Are you extraordinary because of God or your belief in evolution?

Brilliant question! God gave me a brain and incites me to use it. I am extraordinary because I use logic and critical thinking and know that life is not mere happenstance... there must be a creator that put the shit in motion to create me. His name was not Merlin by the way, which is what one might think if one chooses to believe things or people appeared out of thin air all cute and cuddly. Neanderthals died out...modern man survived. Although I'm not sold on the ape relationship completely, I am cute and sociable like a Lemur so.. you never know.

If something must have put us here then something must have put the Creator here? First cause. Why must the universe that we all know and see have a creator but this creator that you can't even see or prove exists doesn't have to have a creator? and why are you so certain? Is this just speculation? Because it doesn't seem like any of your information is based on actual scientific knowledge or evidence. Even if something created all this why do you think it cares about you for created a heaven for you?

You are pushing fallacies instead of argument--unless I can prove God exists, he does not. I can use the same fallacy and say that until you prove God does not exist, then he does. Neither of our arguments will hold up in a court of law.
As a Deist, I believe in a creator but also believe that he, she, or it has nothing to do with humans. Why did God let 9/11 happen, why did God let a drunk driver kill my baby, why did God let that serial killer kill my mother, why did God let my sister get cancer... God didn't do any of that shit. People with free will did and nature did.
I never said that there was not a creator for the creator... I wonder about that myself.
If you want some type of scientific or logical reasoning that a creator exists, then first you must disprove the idea of a creator--a great creator... by creating yourself. Create a life--human, animal, or plant--without a seed, DNA, eggs, sperm, stem cells... you cannot use anything from an existing life form. When you can do this... then you have disproved the idea of a creator, but until this feat is accomplished by a mere mortal, then there is certainly a higher form of being.
That is it right there. That is why I believe in the mystery of a creator--in a God. Although it seems like more fallacy, it is not because there is proof that something exists that can create life. Meteors can collide, but they cannot produce the natural growth products needed to create life... but they can destroy it.

You do realize that this earth the moon and you and me are all made up of star stuff correct? So if you give me a sun and billions of years I can produce a life for you. Maybe not in 7 days but you know what I mean

 

[LittleNipper]

Does anyone here think the Earth was created in 168 hours? If not why are some of you clinging to this straw man as a justification of your disproven theories? I don't have a dog in this fight, but I think the Darwinians protesteth too much...

There was a time when the smartest people on the planet pron thunder and lightning was Zeus. As time goes on we find most of what organized religions have been pushing on us for thousands of years are impossible stories probably made up. I find it offensive and ridiculous that this is the norm in our society. I'm happy to see you now that's a goal post for God has moved. Now asain normal rational person doesn't just expect you to believe the Bible's stories as fast for history because they're not. So all you religious people have is that you can't imagine all this was created without a creator. It's an opinion with the lack of any evidence whatsoever. Faith. Hope. Wishful thinking.

Yes, they were wrong. They didn't know the one true God. Such intellectuals made up gods that looked and behaved as they did. God revealed Himself to man and also came that we might be saved. He replaced all those silly gods and goddesses encouraged by satanic influence.

 

[Moonglow]

Does anyone here think the Earth was created in 168 hours? If not why are some of you clinging to this straw man as a justification of your disproven theories? I don't have a dog in this fight, but I think the Darwinians protesteth too much...

There was a time when the smartest people on the planet pron thunder and lightning was Zeus. As time goes on we find most of what organized religions have been pushing on us for thousands of years are impossible stories probably made up. I find it offensive and ridiculous that this is the norm in our society. I'm happy to see you now that's a goal post for God has moved. Now asain normal rational person doesn't just expect you to believe the Bible's stories as fast for history because they're not. So all you religious people have is that you can't imagine all this was created without a creator. It's an opinion with the lack of any evidence whatsoever. Faith. Hope. Wishful thinking.

Yes, they were wrong. They didn't know the one true God. Such intellectuals made up gods that looked and behaved as they did. God revealed Himself to man and also came that we might be saved. He replaced all those silly gods and goddesses encouraged by satanic influence.

Which true God is that now?

 

[Toro]

‘It’s not science’
by Don Batten

Published: 28 February 2002 (GMT+10)
Revised 18 September 2014

Evolutionary teachers often use equivocation to indoctrinate unsuspecting students with the general theory of evolution (GTE).

Anti-creationists, such as atheists by definition, commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a ‘good scientific theory’. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of ‘prediction’ of evolution, whereas they question the value of the creationist model in making predictions. Since, they say, creation fails their definition of ‘science’, it is therefore ‘religion’, and (by implication) it can simply be ignored.

What is science?
Many attempts to define ‘science’ are circular. The point that a theory must be acceptable to contemporary scientists to be acceptable, basically defines science as ‘what scientists do’! In fact, under this definition, economic theories would be acceptable scientific theories, if ‘contemporary scientists’ accepted them as such.

A philosophy of life does not come from the data, but rather the philosophy is brought to the data and used in interpreting it.
In many cases, these so-called definitions of science are blatantly self-serving and contradictory. A number of evolutionary propagandists have claimed that creation is not scientific because it is supposedly untestable. But in the same paragraph they claim, ‘scientists have carefully examined the claims of creation science, and found that ideas such as the young Earth and global Flood are incompatible with the evidence.’ But obviously creation cannot have been examined (tested) and found to be false if it’s ‘untestable’!

The definition of ‘science’ has haunted philosophers of science in the 20th century. The approach of Bacon, who is considered the founder of the scientific method, was pretty straightforward:

observation → induction → hypothesis → test hypothesis by experiment → proof/disproof → knowledge.

Of course this, and the whole approach to modern science, depends on two major assumptions: causalityLoren Eiseley have recognized. Many scientists are so philosophically and theologically ignorant that they don’t even realize that they have these (and other) metaphysical assumptions. Being like a frog in the warming water, many do not even notice that there are philosophical assumptions at the root of much that passes as ‘science’. It’s part of their own worldview, so they don’t even notice. We at CMI are ‘up front’ about our acceptance of revelation (the Bible). Unlike many atheists, we recognize that a philosophy of life does not come from the data, but rather the philosophy is brought to the data and used in interpreting it.

Perceptions and bias
The important question is not, ‘Is it science?’ One can just define ‘science’ to exclude everything that one doesn’t like, as many evolutionists do today. Today, science is equated with naturalism: only materialistic notions can be entertained, no matter what the evidence. The prominent evolutionist Professor Richard Lewontin said (emphases in original):

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”Sir Isaac Newton, widely considered the greatest scientist ever, is a prime example) and they did not see their science as somehow excluding a creator, or even making the Creator redundant (see The biblical roots of modern science: A Christian world view, and in particular a plain understanding of Scripture and Adam’s Fall, was essential for the rise of modern science.). This recent notion has been smuggled into science by materialists.

There is no logically valid way that the materialist can define evolution as ‘science’ and creation as ‘religion’, so that he/she can ignore the issue of creation.
Michael Ruse, the Canadian philosopher of science also made the strong point that the issue is not whether evolution is science and creation is religion, because such a distinction is not really valid. The issue is one of ‘coherency of truth’. See The Religious Nature of Evolution.

In other words, there is no logically valid way that the materialist can define evolution as ‘science’ and creation as ‘religion’, so that he/she can ignore the issue of creation.

Ernst Mayr and E.O. Wilson both acknowledged the distinction.

The inclusion of historical science, without distinction, as ‘science’, has undoubtedly contributed to the modern confusion over defining science. This also explains the statement by Gould (above), who, as a paleontologist, would have liked there to have been no distinction between his own historical science and experimental science. Gould rightly saw the paramount importance of presuppositions in his own science and assumed that it applied equally to all science. This is not so, although some presuppositions play an important role in operational science.scathing assessment of the inventive scenarios that often characterise historical science. See also Is it science?

The evidence matters
Now in pointing out that presuppositions drive what stories are acceptable in historical science, I am not saying that it is merely or solely a matter of those philosophical/religious assumptions. The stories still have to account for the evidence in a coherent manner. That is, the stories provided can often be tested according to the evidence. For example, the claim that coal-bearing geological strata were laid down over many millions of years is flatly contradicted by the evidence of polystrate tree fossils, with their roots broken off, traversing those strata (how did they stand there for millions of years while the layers of deposits built up around them, and all without rotting away?). There are many facts that contradict the evolutionary story: here are 101 evidences that speak against the billions of years of age claimed for the earth: Age of the earth. There are also many counts against the story of biological evolution; see 15 Questions for evolutionists.

If the same data could be consistently interpreted in two entirely different ways, then Romans 1 would have no basis for saying that people have no excuse for denying that things were created by God because it is clear from the physical evidence.

We can speak of a ‘coherency of truth’ as a test; that a truthful account of history will give a coherent (logically consistent) account of the evidence.

Define terms consistently!
It also suits materialists to shift the definition of evolution to suit the argument. Let’s be clear that we are discussing the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE), which was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’discussion of definitions.

How evolution harms science. On the other hand, modern science rides on the achievements of past creationists—see How important to science is evolution? and Contributions of creationist scientists. For one clear example of modern-day scientific predictions based on a creationist model, see Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation.

Many ‘predictions’ of evolutionary theory have been found to be incompatible with observations; and yet evolution reigns. For example, there is the profound absence of the many millions of transitional fossils that should exist if evolution were true (see Are there any Transitional Fossils?). The very pattern in the fossil record flatly contradicts evolutionary notions of what it should be like—see, for example, The links are missing. The evolutionist Gould wrote at length on this conundrum.

Contrary to evolutionists’ expectations, none of the cases of antibiotic resistance, insecticide resistance, etc. that have been studied at a biochemical level (i.e. operational science) have involved de novo origin of new complex genetic information. In fact, evolutionists never predicted antibiotic resistance, because historically it took the medical field by surprise—see Anthrax and antibiotics: Is evolution relevant?

Contrary to evolutionists’ expectations, breeding experiments reach limits; change is not unlimited. See the article by the creationist geneticist, Lane Lester. This matches what we would expect from Genesis 1, where it says that God created organisms to reproduce true to their different kinds.

Another failed evolutionary ‘prediction’ is that of ‘junk DNA’. Evolutionists long claimed that 98% of the human DNA is junk, mere leftovers of our supposed evolutionary ancestry. This has hindered the discovery of the function of this DNA, now known to be at least 80% functional, and probably 100% is functional. See Dazzling DNA.

Evolutionists expected that, given the right conditions, a living cell could make itself (abiogenesis); creationists said this was impossible. Operational science has destroyed this evolutionary notion; so much so that many evolutionists now want to leave the origin of life out of the debate. Many propagandists claim that evolution does not include this, although the theories of abiogenesis are usually called ‘chemical evolution’. See Origin of Life for an explanation of the many profound problems for any conceivable evolutionary scenario.

Note: Claiming fulfilled predictions as proof of a hypothesis is known as the fallacy of affirming the consequent. However, if a prediction is falsified, it amounts to formal disproof of the proposition, so evolution has been formally disproved with multiple failed predictions.
Falsified but not abandoned
So, why do evolutionists persist with their spurious theory? For many it’s because they have never heard anything else. For avowed materialists it’s the ‘only game in town’—the only materialistic story available to explain how everything came to be; the materialist’s creation myth. It’s a bit like the proverbial ostrich putting its head in the sand, thinking that all that exists is what it can see under the sand. The ostrich’s worldview excludes everything that it does not find convenient. In the darkness of the sand, all unacceptable facts cease to exist.

The persistence of evolutionary thinking in the face of so much contradictory evidence indicates that the philosophical presupposition of materialism (atheism) is being permitted to trump the facts. The paradigm has priority, no matter what the evidence, because the secularist ‘cannot allow a divine foot in the door.’ For a summary of the failed arguments for evolution, see Arguments evolutionists should not use.

Light in the darkness!
Jesus Christ came as ‘the light of the world’ (John 8:12), when the Second Person of the Trinity took on human nature (see The Incarnation: Why did God become Man?). He came to shed the light of God in dark places. The greatest darkness is to live without God; to live as if you are a cosmic accident, just ‘rearranged pond scum’, as one evolutionist put it. Sadly, many are being duped into thinking that way, and we are seeing the horrendous consequences in escalating youth suicide, drug problems, family break-up, violence, etc. How much we need the light of Jesus to shine! God will hold each one of us accountable—all of us deserve His condemnation. But the Bible says that He has provided a way of escape through Jesus Christ for all that turn to God, humbly admitting our need of forgiveness. See Here’s the Good News.

For more information about the above issues, and more, check out the Q&A section, or use the search window to search for articles on subjects of interest.

Arguments like this make rdean appear perceptive.

 

[Thanatocoenosis]

Why is this religious nonsense posted to a science and technology forum?

Isn't this forum moderated?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Good luck with creationism when drug-resistant germs threaten to kill you and that they evolved from an earlier version never occurs to you.

 

[sealybobo]

Does anyone here think the Earth was created in 168 hours? If not why are some of you clinging to this straw man as a justification of your disproven theories? I don't have a dog in this fight, but I think the Darwinians protesteth too much...

There was a time when the smartest people on the planet pron thunder and lightning was Zeus. As time goes on we find most of what organized religions have been pushing on us for thousands of years are impossible stories probably made up. I find it offensive and ridiculous that this is the norm in our society. I'm happy to see you now that's a goal post for God has moved. Now asain normal rational person doesn't just expect you to believe the Bible's stories as fast for history because they're not. So all you religious people have is that you can't imagine all this was created without a creator. It's an opinion with the lack of any evidence whatsoever. Faith. Hope. Wishful thinking.

Yes, they were wrong. They didn't know the one true God. Such intellectuals made up gods that looked and behaved as they did. God revealed Himself to man and also came that we might be saved. He replaced all those silly gods and goddesses encouraged by satanic influence.

God revealed himself? After millions of years of evolution he finally decided to come pay a visit? Same way he visited Muhammad and Joseph Smith? If humans made up all the gods before your god i have to assume your God is made up too.

 

[sealybobo]

Good luck with creationism when drug-resistant germs threaten to kill you and that they evolved from an earlier version never occurs to you.

All they are admitting here is that they don't even understand what the scientific method is how important it is to have scientific consensus within the scientific community or facts and logic and reasoning all play no part in the creation story

 

[Abishai100]

Dispersion Doughnuts

Memes proliferate like monads (as Mendel or Liebniz might tell you).

When we rent movies such as "Swamp Thing" (1982) on Netflix, we think about the appearance of substances in nature.

Dispersion and coagulation comes in stuff like aerosols (or foams) and gels (or colloids). Mankind may make such stuff synthetically in a lab, but animals such as bees form intricate labyrinths of solubility/viscosity based pods (or honeycombs) naturally/instinctively.

Why do sports shoe companies make brand-name pedestrianism-agility products such as Nike Air basketball shoes? People care about mobility/motility. That's why everyone is so curious about where we came from and where exactly we are headed.

One of my favorite comic book characters is Mister Fantastic (Marvel Comics), a superhero who can stretch to incredible lengths, because he captures a sci-fi fascination with body change as it relates to flexibility.

When we pick and choose between Creationism and Evolution, we could consider how civilization products such as foams and gels (or mousses and gelatins) motivate us to think actively about element dispersion.





Swamp Thing (Film)

 

[sealybobo]

Dispersion Doughnuts

Memes proliferate like monads (as Mendel or Liebniz might tell you).

When we rent movies such as "Swamp Thing" (1982) on Netflix, we think about the appearance of substances in nature.

Dispersion and coagulation comes in stuff like aerosols (or foams) and gels (or colloids). Mankind may make such stuff synthetically in a lab, but animals such as bees form intricate labyrinths of solubility/viscosity based pods (or honeycombs) naturally/instinctively.

Why do sports shoe companies make brand-name pedestrianism-agility products such as Nike Air basketball shoes? People care about mobility/motility. That's why everyone is so curious about where we came from and where exactly we are headed.

One of my favorite comic book characters is Mister Fantastic (Marvel Comics), a superhero who can stretch to incredible lengths, because he captures a sci-fi fascination with body change as it relates to flexibility.

When we pick and choose between Creationism and Evolution, we could consider how civilization products such as foams and gels (or mousses and gelatins) motivate us to think actively about element dispersion.





Swamp Thing (Film)


View attachment 44048

How you went from shoes to that is beyond me

 

[ScienceRocks]

lol

-Evolution is based on scientific theory and real life evidence
-creationism is based on a book written by the same men that believed earth was flat, had a ocean in the sky and most of the evolutionary history of life on earth witihn its pages has soundly been disproven. Fact