Wilso wrote:baddog1 wrote:The proof for creation is --------- creation! It happened! Isn't the historical reality of something, anything - the best proof available?
I've read that pathetic cop-out before. However, since that supposition is not testable, then it doesn't count as evidence.
Well, in the same sense, evolution (like creation) is a past event that is not repeatable, and therefore not observable or testable.
Now if you want to claim you've seen evolution happening NOW, put it on the evolution thread and we'll have some real laughs.
Any critters forming new organs, new systems, new limbs that you can tell us about?
C'mon just one, and I might really be convinced.
But back to creation, since this is the thread for it.
I have never claimed that creation was observable or repeatable.
Both creation and evolution really face the same challenges.
Both rely on evidence that is largely circumstantial and inferential.
Both actually have the exact same evidence.
Let's look at fossils, for instance.
None of them come with a tag and the date the critter lived, or the 'family line' he evolved from do they?
No, conclusions are inferred, based on data and based on presuppositions of the researcher.
Evolutionists don't like to admit that they rely on presup just like creationists (and everybody else in the world) , but they do.
The figure of the 'objective scientist' is really no more than a myth.
Ros asked wouldn't there be evidence of creation in something that is incongruous with the rest of nature?
Really that is silly.
If you were designing something (a car, an airplane, etc) would you include something that clearly didn't fit and didn't work together with the whole? C'mon.
For me, the greatest evidence that supports creation is in looking at what it would take for natural causes to produce life, and then produce the complexity of life we see today --- and realizing it can't have happened.
Life cannot have produced itself from non-life. We can go back thru the whole discussion in the evolution thread about it, but you've got two basic naturalistic views ('metabolism first' or 'replicator first'), and both of them are poor excuses for science. Why?
Because if first life were 'metabolism first', then your first success is a dead end because it can't replicate itself.
And if 'replicator first'..........c'mon give it up. Any xNA which managed to self generate for a few nanoseconds would be destroyed by the very environment which supposedly produced it.
Then we get to producing complex life.
The bombardier beetle is interesting, not just because it farts explosively but because such a defense mechanism is impossible to explain with evolution.
The critter has two reservoirs with complex chemicals that explode when combined.
Now you can say that it coulda evolved stepwise over thousands or millions of years if you want, but the system is useless until it's complete. Face it.
Why a squirting mechanism if there's nothing to squirt?
Why fluid sacs if there's no fluid?
Why do these two fluids just happen to get squirted at the same time and with precision combine just as they reach the target?
I'd say it's a fine example of design.
I know you may think it accidentally happened, but that's okay I need a laugh or two every day.
Well, I don't usually like long posts, so I'll let someone else blab a while.
