Quote:

No, even if modern evolutionary theory is completely false, it in no way validates any part of creationism.



Yeah, because then we could have come from space. Blah, blah, blah.

Quote:

This is not a logical neccesity--perhaps life developed because of the way the wind blows, and molecules are atrracted together by n-forces in the sixth dimension.



Eh

Quote:

In any case, science must deal with purely natural explanations, so it has nothing to say whatsoever on a creator or a god. Why cant you see that? How does it hurt you to admit it?



That you cannot see the logical problems with this isn't very surprising.

Let's say, hypothetically, we were created. But we had the rule that we could only deal with natural explanations? How would we ever discover this? Is science about limiting possibilities? No.

In fact, just because we deal with natural explanations doesn't mean we specifically discount creation. It just means science would only deal with natural evidence for creation. Not that we immediately know creation didn't happen, simply because God isn't natural. In that case, we just can't scientifically know God.

However, let's give you that we must immediately pursue a natural explanation. Why don't scientists present EVERYTHING to people so they can compare different origins? Why don't they tell people that the fossil record doesn't back up evolution? Why don't they tell them that they have no idea how life might have started on its own? Why don't they tell them that cosmic evolution doesn't happen, nor have we seen any evidence of it happening? Why don't they tell them we can't observe macroevolution? So on and so forth. Just present the information fairly. If your assumption that only natural explanations can exist, science can come up with the natural explanation, but then tell people that its full of holes, and ultimately makes no sense. You guys are essentially pushing lies as truth. You'd have people believe that the mystery of a natural explanation for biogenesis is possible. This is why your beliefs are a religion. You don't use them as explanations, you use them as gospel.

Quote:

There will probably never be an evidence for a creator. This is only guessing and guessing with no proof at all is not the way science works.



No, just things like biogenesis and evolution.

Quote:

Evolution has enough proofs and there is no need to discuss this further.



Oh yeah, the fossil record with a clear line of evolution. Mutations that write information. Genetic trees that match paleontological trees. Oh wait....all of that stuff actually contradicts evolution. Ooops.

Quote:

Just study it and you will be overwhelmed with info's and articles that come from thousands of authors over a very long period.



I've studied it and was hardly overwhelmed. Its all assumptions, or they'll find proof against evolution and claim its proof for evolution. For instance, genetic similarities will exist in animals that should have nothing in common, but that's because evolution can do the EXACT SAME THING twice, or dozens of times. Evolution is nondisprovable pseudoscience. You can rationalize anything as evolution.

Quote:

It is really simple: Why should so many smart people over such a long period be wrong?



Creationists are scientists too. Why should they be wrong? This is a pathetic appeal to authority.

Quote:

Why should Irish_farmer suddenly appears and is the smartest guy in the whole world and falsifies everything. Please be realistic.



I didn't invent the idea that things were created. Nice try, though.

Quote:

I never said we have found the 'exact same species in the fossil record',



I didn't need you to, paleontologists say it.

Quote:

I didn't say they didn't change at all.



The fossil record says they don't change. So regardless of what you say, if you want to contradict 150 years of digging through the fossil record to prove evolution, then go ahead.

Quote:

I would agree to restricting science to natural explanations, but this does not necessarily exclude a creator - as long as there's a natural explanation for that creator.

For instance, if we one day find evidence that extraterrestrials have created life on earth, science had to deal with those extraterrestrials. Especially with the question how they evolved and became able to create life.



So then let's imagine an alternate universe, where God created the universe. The people in the universe might not know it, but for the purpose of this demonstration we're omnipotent so we know it. In this universe they say, "Well, things can only have a natural explanation so we automatically weren't created."

We would wrinkle our brows and go, "Why would their science cut off possibilities? Now they're going to get it wrong."

Science never said that we had to assume their was no creator. We can find natural explanations for the universe, and life. But at least be fair in presenting them. I have no problem with evolution, I just want evolutionists to stop using their monopoly to mislead people. For instance the numerous lies the evolutionists on this board STILL keep using as evidence for evolution. Things that have been known to be false for years.

Quote:

Fortunately, at the moment it does not look as if life were created by gods or extraterrestrials



Says the man who looks at a watch and goes, "How did it create itself?"

Quote:

Blind people can have sins too, not just that, but why would people that can see be blind? Blind people often are just as biased. The sole purpose of that little line amongst many similar lines is to keep you from asking yourself the right questions ...



Wow, Phemox, its amazing to see how you absolutely refuse to even understand a single word in the bible. Regardless of whether or not the bible is true, even the smallest of understanding would tell you that much of Jesus' actions and words were.....metaphorical. He didn't always speak directly, and when he was referring to blindness, it wasn't physical blindness. But I doubt you've read the bible beyond the skeptic's annotated version.

Quote:

The design of nature is fantastic and impressive. I agree with you in that point. But that is absolutely no proof of a designer / creator. There are explanations for every detail in plants and animals. You just have to explore them. Open your eyes.



Just because someone comes up with a guess besides 'creator' doesn't make it true either. So why are you so sure?

Quote:

If you will not do that then you have to explain everything that is beyond your comprehension with something that has to do with god. And that is a really cheap method of thinking. Maybe C-Script is a result of god?



After thousands of years, no one has come up with a better explanation.

Quote:

Just yesterday i was looking through a book of different reptile and amphibian species, and the differences were just so many there is no way to conclude that they evolved...the differences within the major types themselves, the crocidile, the frog and the snake are absolutely defined; how could they have evolved? which one evolved first? Its utter foolishness, nobody here knows how species evolved, or in which order, yet everyone believes that it happened, that is so stupid to me.



What I love is nature is so varied, you could come up with any arbitrary tree of life you want, and guess what? You'd be right every time.

Quote:

Yes, you are right, intelligence has got nothing to do with it, but I didn't bring it up either. I understand that wise people don't get excluded, but why does it look like that?



Most of the major scientists who formed the foundation of modern science were christians or some other major faith. If we were having this discussion at that point, could I use that as proof that religion is superior to atheism?

"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."