Yng
just a few points. I'm glad you now admit that the current form of my argument is valid [actually both were but that's neither here nor there]. Since I used the logical form of the argument to show how science can demonstrate the reality of evolution & since you now accept that my argument is valid then my conclusion that evolution can be demonstrated must also be valid since it follows from my premises. QED

Now a quote from you "Blah, u evolutionists still don’t seem to get this. Creationists do publish science in scientific journals." Ok. Let's get together our own scientific journal. We'll call it the flat earth journal. We will reject any evidence that goes against our paradigm of a flat earth but apart from that we will carefully examine how & why the earth is flat. Would that be a reasonable scientific enterprise? Of course not because our basic premise ie that the earth is flat will not be examined. We can even phrase it to be non-falsifiable.

Creationist journals operate in like manner. They will examine no evidence which challenges their original paradigm but they will look at how god created things. That is hardly science yng.
But you yourself have done exactly this on this thread. You've REFUSED to answer what evidence you would accept as falsifying creationism. If your views are truely scientific Yng then you should have no trouble with this question. So answer it please.

As far as the evidence for evolution & against creation it really is too vast to be gone into here. However if you truely are interested in finding the truth & not merely being a defender of the faith then try reading "telling lies for god" by Ian Plimer. That might open your eyes.

I would also like to ask you a series of questions concerning Noah's ark. feel up to the challenge?
Best to all

I realise now that I have not approached this forum correctly.

I set out to say that evolution is not absolute fact (which it is not). I then sought to either undermind evolution or argue in favour of an alternate form of belief, especially one which implies a deity, but I did not give any room to consider that deity in my exploration of that belief. The thought process behind this was that the presupposition "there is a God who has been involved in the scientific functioning of the planet" (as opposed to "there is not a God who was involved in the scientific funcitoning of the planet) is not an appropriate basis of belief from which to study science.

Before we go any further in exploring Creation/ID/Evolution/whatever , I think it would be a good idea for everybody to read this article (see below). I apologise for the AIG link once again to those who r anti-. Regardless of your opinion of what is said, I think its true that, failing to recognise what is said, proponents of alternate theories will merely continue to go round and round in circles, which is not good for anybody.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

re: the challenge- I am, but I'm travelling to Thailand next monday for a month where i will have very little time/availability(?) for internet access. if i am to get involved in a dialogue about the flood, and it takes longer than a week (which is likely with the 24 hour, 2* 350 word limit), I won't be able to contribute to it appropriately.

Are there any flood-believers out there who would wish to aruge for it? If not, I recommend u do some research into websites that believe and promote it, e.g. aig, etc. They have a "contact us" page where u can ask them to defend their beliefs one on one and a search engine that searches responses they have already written out on key subjects.

Peace, yo.

Yng

It is vital that we clarify the confusion and misrepresentation over this issue. Particularly, we must dispel the myth that this debate is ‘science vs religion’. It’s not that at all, it’s about the worldview(s) through which the facts are interpreted.

Those pushing the secular/atheist agenda have been trying to change the rules of the game by redefining science to exclude even the possibility of creation. One US scientist illustrated this recently when he wrote in a letter to Nature:

‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.’*

The idea of censoring students from even considering whether intelligence might have been involved in life’s origins would be astonishing to the creationist founders of modern science, like the great Isaac Newton. Science is supposed to be about the best, most logical explanation, trying to get to the truth of the matter—regardless of where the truth might lead. Those who want to deny intelligent causes from discussion are simply demonstrating their religious/philosophical bias.

So, don’t let them get away with the nonsense that IDers/creationists are trying to introduce ‘religion’ into science—today’s science is already saturated with naturalism/secularism/humanism religion. Their predetermined world view is there is no Creator designer

Guess who’s back.

Philo, there is no bias against religion, there is only bias towards evidence. Evolution is not irrefutable fact in itself, of course, but rather it is built on irrefutable facts. Creationism/ID is not dismissed because it is quasi-religious, it is dismissed because it is not supported by the facts. This has been demonstrated time and time again for the past one hundred years.

Scientists are only biased towards the truth. If creationism or ID theory was supported by facts and therefore looked to be true, there is no reason why scientists would be ‘biased’ against it, because all scientists are interested in is the truth. Therefore the claim that scientists are prejudiced towards creationism is bunk, because scientists are not in the habit of ignoring facts. If they were, they wouldn’t get very far.

You’re right, this isn’t science vs religion. This is science vs ignorance. For whatever reason people choose not to accept evolution, they are choosing to ignore the facts and ignore the reality of the situation. Why do I get the feeling that if ID hadn’t been dreamt up, you would be 100% behind a different theory that challenged evolution?

The fact is, evolution can’t be challenged, the evidence is just too strong. But people will keep trying no matter what, because that’s what people do.

But don’t take my word for it. Let’s sit back and watch the court cases in America. Whatever side you’re on, it’s gonna be interesting.

Whatever functioning this planet does, it doesn't do it in a scientific manner.

Mention the Bible all you like, but if you're going to use it to support your arguments then you will also have to demonstrate that it is inerrant and was meant to be taken literally. But if you could do that then there would be no need for this discussion. You're entitled to argue using subjective evidence, but it's not convincing to most people, it's not logically persuasive and it definitely isn't science.

"failing to recognise what is said, proponents of alternate theories will merely continue to go round and round in circles,"
Again, not a theory. There are too many points in that article for me to cover them all, so I will leave aside the belittling of Christians who accept evolution, its other false statements & characterisations, and its implausible "real-life" situations. The false claim that evolutionists presuppose that no god was involved in creation is simply an attempt at drawing equivalency to the fixed positions of creationists. Likewise for "evolutionist": those that accept evolution generally do not do so dogmatically and instead accept it because of how well it is supported. That article is a good example of why creationism is not science: it has already developed a position and will bend anything else to make it fit.

Often there is only one reasonable interpretation open on the facts. If we could only see stars within 6-10,000 light years and there was only radioactive decay equivalent to a similar amount of time, then absent contrary evidence it would not be reasonable to conclude that the Earth was older. Scientific facts would suggest that the Earth and life on it did not develop naturally. It is not reasonable to interpret known facts in such a way as to conclude that the Earth is that young, regardless of whether such a belief is otherwise reasonable. Alternatives involving miracles are easy to posit but without sound arguments and objective evidence to support them they are worthless; you can't conclude something by interpreting facts that don't exist.

Let me state my present leaning on the history of life.
1. The basic chemistry of matter has billions of years of existence
2. There have been previous living creations on the Earth over thousands of millenia.
3. There is variations within species that some could conclude as evolution.
4. There was some catastrophic event on the Earth about 6 - 10 thousand years ago that created extended darkness and a chaotic watery Earth. This wiped out most of a previous creation (all primitive cultures speak of a giant flood of water).

Possibly caused by an astoroid because the Chaldean account speaks of the fountains of water under and above the Earth breaking up. Some scientists have suggested a 1.200 mm - 3.000 mm ice crust about 9 klms above the Earth that created a hothouse effect was destroyed at that time. The colour spectrum of light through water was no longer a circle in the sky but a bow. Light shined directly on the Earth and now exposed man to higher levels of radiation shortening his life span. The same protein in the skin that protects us from radiation burn is the same protein that shortens human life. The ancients had extensive knowledge of the stars including the fact they emmitting sounds and this could have been gained by the amplification such created environment.