Get a chuckle out of this:

http://www.venganza.org/

BD
Here are the answers to your statements.
1) Science = repeatable testable [correct]

Can you 'test repeatedly' the evolution of one species into another ?

Answer "no" [Wrong! We can through prediction. Eg. If evolution is true then we should find "A" or "B". We find A & B therefore evolution is true. Creationism or ID cannot do this therefore creationism or ID are not science but evolution is.]

Has anyone ever witnessed the transformation of one species onto another ?

Don't think so. [Wrong again! We can observe evolution in action at the microscopic level. Microscopic organisms changing from one type of organism to another. How do creationists get away from this truth? They use Goebels' dictum - when in doubt, redefine. They just declare that's not evolution because we say so. In fact the truth is that anything that can be pointed to as an example of evolution would be redifined. Why? Because they don't WANT to believe evolution is true therefore to them it isn't true.]

Has any of this changed your mind in the slightest? I've no doubt that I was just wasting my time. Your mind is made up & you have no intention of examining the evidence against your position.

Want to prove me wrong? Contact an evolutionary scientist through the web & pose your problems to him. We both know you won't however.
Bye all.

To all creationists
Let's examine other characteristics of science vs. creationism.

Science = ruthless peer review. Does ceationism do this? No!

Science invites criticism [see point concerning peer review]. creationism & ID see any criticism as part of a conspiracy against it.

Science is impersonal [ie. the furtherance of a hypothesis does not depend on personalities.] Creationism on the other hand is cultic & depnds heavily on personalities [eg Behe, Gish among many others].

Science makes limited claims of usefulness. Creationism on the other hand makes claims of almost universal usefulness.

Science provides benefits for humanity. Creationism & ID provide mainly egotistical benefits. {Disagree? Name one material benefit that would accrue from the adoption of creationism?]

Science is falsifiable [ie given enough evidence any theory can be proven wrong]. Creationism & ID are non-falsifiable [name one piece of evidence that you would accept as proving creationism wrong. just one that's all I ask].

Science possesses the ability to predict [eg if my theory is true then I will find "A" or "B". I find "A" & "B" therefore my theory is true.] Creationism cannot do this - ever!

Science makes use of Occam's razor. Creationism & ID on the other hand possess cherished ideas which it's believers are not willing to part with.

As taken from p.8 "Telling Lies for God" by Ian Plimer.

Conclusion = creationism & ID do NOT meet the criteria needed to qualify as science. Therefore Creationism & ID are not science.

Brovo Bosk, bravo! (standing ovation...)

* Sounds of multiple hands clapping from the Flying Spagetti Monster of Creation! *

Bosk,
I note you changed the argument from evolution v creationism to science v creationism. a completely deceptive move. Creationist are not anti-scientific. The professor friend in my Church an advocate of creationism was extensively involved in the NASA space programme, developing computors. He was involved in building the first computor in Australia. You should also realise many Christians believe in evolution as part of intelligent design. You are arguing against the involvement of intelligence in creation. Your attitude reflects a predetermined bias.

AIG vs. Scientific American, good summary of this forum: http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp#intro

Spendo, thanks for your support. Obviously my mind isn’t “made up & [I] have [no]… intentions of examining the evidence against my position.” (Bosk). But I still don’t think evolution = hard science, data and FACTS. Oh well, next year I can’t wait to pose questions to evolutionary scientists.

Clarifications:
-I’m female.

-“This movement is driven almost entirely by religious motives.” Irrelevant, evolution was first driven by the Church and rejected by the secular world.

-Deuc: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/acceleration.asp which I’ve mentioned talks about Rh-Os.

-World-wide flooding is not a miracle. If it all happened at once, we might consider it unlikely without divine intervention, but hey, THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNIVERSE IS IMPROBABLE (1/ 10^273) without divine interference, but a large body of scientists don’t reject that! Re: experimental evidence for flooding, we do find “millions of dead things, buried in rock layers, all over the world”.

Creationist journals:
-Creationist scientists DO publish in Creation journals AND secular journals, but editors are EXTREMELY biased, and anything with an openly Creationist conclusion is not likely to be published in a secular journal. Creationists (e.g. my immun. assistant prof friend at JHU) DO publish articles that have NOTHING to do with the origin of the species in evolutionist journals, but their OTHER articles are NOT accepted outside of Creationist journals. I would very much welcome the two journals to cross over and to be reviewed by one another, but with such incredibly strong bias on each side, I don’t really expect it.

“We have also pointed out the materialistic bias behind evolutionary theory, but I don’t often notice them being denigrated for their faith positions. A few evolutionists are honest enough to own up to their biases, e.g. Lewontin and Todd.” (AIG)

Bosk: “They just declare that's not evolution because we say so.” Evolutionists do the same type of thing. E.g. many creationists are scientists by any normal criterion- have earned Dr titles and have published in secular scientific journals- but evolutionists sometimes deny this with a sweeping statement “no creationists are scientists”.