Evolution? How?

Creation does not deny all science it just sees beyond science.

Science thinks (though unknown to them) that God is within creation (they seek God in science) but the creationist believes that God is outside of creation/science too.

hardly to be considered an unbiased source for an appraisal of scientific positions

Not true; science can use existing information to postulate intermediate events through various methods to verify its findings

Answer: such as creation?

The bible is a rewritten comic book based on cultural religious tales and myths

Revealed word" has much sense as a wet dream; no substance.

Could you please just point to one flaw in my previous post?

I'm insulted when you keep insulting my case, when you won't give me a straight reply to the case I present.

Micro-evolution, changes within a species on a small scale, is observable. But evidence for macro-evolution, changes transcending species, is conspicuous by its absence.[/qutoe]

This is a distortion of terms and context. Creationists are desparate to posit that there are two discrete processes known respectively as micro- and macro-evolution. The terms do not describe different processes, however, but are simply verbal shorthand for the scale on which the process is viewed. A statement that evidence for the evolutionary process is conspicuous by its absence is either the product of confusion, profound ignorance or a willful lie.

Quote:

To prove the possibility of anything, science must be able to reproduce exact original conditions.

This is willful distortion. A theory of evolution is an explanation of the data accumulated, and the relationships which exist between any one datum and any other datum--which explanation is most plausible to explain said data without internal contradiction. Scientists don't seek to "prove" anything per se, they seek that explanation which most accurately describes observed and observable data and will discard any explanation or part of an explanation which fails to account for that data or which is contradicted by the data. This is an intentional oversimplification which intentionally employs the word "proof" because it forms a mantra of the creationists--you can't prove it, you can't prove it! In fact, a theory of evolution is an explanation, not a proof of anything. If you can present a more plausible explanation which does not rely upon the supernatural, and which explains the data without being contradicted by the data, science will follow your lead. Imaginary friend superstitions, however, don't fit that bill.

Quote:

Even when it proves something is possible, it doesn't mean it therefore happened.

The obvious corollary to this statement is that the inability to demonstrate a proposition from science does not automatically authorize reference to your imaginary friend.

Quote:

Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information.

This is a non sequitur in a discussion of a theory of evolution. A theory of evolution does not concern itself with cosmic origins. This is the dodge which "real life" has consistently attempted to peddle here. There are literally hundreds of millions of theists in the world who assert that there is a deity which created the world, and accept that a theory of evolution to explain contemporary species diversity by reference to descent with modification by natural selection from common ancestors does no violence to their theology. It is the perfervid rantings of a small segment of christians in the United States, and those whom they have proselytized in other nations, which asserts that the object of evolutionary science is to prove that no god exists. I have no reason to believe in your imaginary friend. A theory of evolution plays no part in my refusal to buy that story, nor was any part of it ever intended to do so.

Quote:

If I put on rose-colored glasses, I will always see red.

I would point out that such an individual would likely always see pink, but this is, of course, meaningless tripe. It sounds good to those who go to Eternal Perspecitve Ministries to have what they wish to believe confirmed, but it is completely meaningless here.

Quote:

I accept the Bible's teaching on creation, and see the evidence as being consistently supportive of that belief.

The author here refers to evidence which he or she has not adduced.

Quote:

When dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith, whether faith in God, the Bible, himself, modern science, or the dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data.

This statement is, once again, a non sequitur, because a theory of evolution does not concern itself with cosmic origins, is not intent on disproving the existence of a deity, and remains a plausible explanation of the data whether or not one wishes to believe their imaginary friend created the cosmos.

Quote:

I would rather put my faith in God's revealed Word.

So? This remains a non sequitur. It is revealing, however, about the species of theology with which we have affair here--revealed truth is a concept which asserts that scripture is inerrant. It is the antithesis of science, because it always seeks to describe the cosmos and all within it in terms of scripture, and therefore fails when confronted with that for which scripture has taken no account. It cannot admit of error or lacunae, and cannot be changed if the data is not supported or contradicts scripture. It is at that point that feeble comments such as "god moves in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform" are dredged up.

So, in response to your request, i have, in detail, pointed out why this entire passage is flawed.

real life

Quote:

I've said all along that both creation and evolution rely largely on circumstantial evidence and the inferences drawn from it.

I find that a rather amusing statement since youve neither shown noer pointed to any such evidence that "suggests" a creation model. All youve been doing is trying, as best as you can, to shoot down multi sourced data and evidence that supplis some of the basic tenets of an evolutionary model...................

Youve attempted tosuggest that retrograde rotation of some of the planets of the solar system are proof that the solar system didnt enucleate as scientists have modeled......

Youve tried to suggest that close morphological associations among stratigraphically superior fossils doesnt evidence derivation from an ancestor

Youve attempted to have us believe that microevolution exists but macroevolution does not

the fact that we have niches all over the world that are populated with species found nowhere else is a glaring slap in the face of Creationist thought

This is a distortion of terms and context. Creationists are desparate to posit that there are two discrete processes known respectively as micro- and macro-evolution. The terms do not describe different processes, however, but are simply verbal shorthand for the scale on which the process is viewed. A statement that evidence for the evolutionary process is conspicuous by its absence is either the product of confusion, profound ignorance or a willful lie.