Replies

Sure, but stating that a few fossils out of place would cause evolutionist's to abandon their theory is equally absurd, therefore it is equally "not science."

That is not correct. A few fossils out of place does not stand up against a few 100,000 in place. This isn't mathematics, and piles of rock cannot be expected to lay out like grids on graph paper. The compelling evidence lies in the weight of statistical preponderance. You don't see stellar astronomers abandoning the main story of the Hartzspring-Russell diagram because of the occasional star off the chart, do you? You don't see zoologists abandoning the taxonomic system when they discover playpuses, do you?

And...even if all this wwren't so, how can you stand there without turning beet red after presenting arguments for the flood, expecting they'd be responded to, and then pulling this kind of bait and switch? We've seen a lot of liars for God around here, but you're my first experience with contemptuously fatuous for God. Since no argument or evidence can change your mind, and since this is, by my lights, a place to argue, I am at a loss as to why this discussion should continue.

Why, we can't say that God did it that way. The current theory of evolution predicts a certain order of fossils. It predicts that all life will use the same basic molecules for its functions (polysaccharides, polypeptides, polynucleotides). It makes other predictions similarly. If these are not found to hold true, then the current theory will have to be modified. That's the mistake that creationists make. There is not one theory of evolution. We no longer believe that Darwin had everything exactly right. The basic principles of evolution via natural selection are still recognized, but nobody, for example, believes that Darwin had the exact phylogenetic tree correct. Many species have been found since Darwin's time. Evidence from the study of genetics (which wasn't known to Darwin) has arisen. The theory accepted by science is not the same as Darwin's theory. If you really want to be technical about it, Darwin's theory has been falsified and supplanted by a different, although admittedly very similar theory. I don't know what makes creationists think that if the current theory of evolution is falsified, that it logically follows that creationism (or ID) must be accepted. If the current theory of evolution is falsified, it will be replaced by another scientific theory, not some form of design theory or creationism.