Replies

>>>Archeopteryx IS a transitional.<<<

No, there is more and more scientists who disagree that it is.

More are just saying it is a funky part of nature, like the Platypus.

>>>Wrong on all accounts.<<<

Yea, I know Behe is wrong. :rolleyes:

>>>>Historical sciences are as valid as any other branch of science.<<<<

No, Origin Sciences is based upon your Philosophical Presuppositions, because it can not be observed. You can not breed a fruit fly today and tomorrow get a cricket. Rather you have to infer one can evolve into the other based upon....here it comes....your presuppositions that Evolution and Naturalism are true.

Even worse is that Material Monism is irrational in the most basic, and scientists don't even bother to try to address it, because they know that Kalam Cosmological theory and basic rationalism on Matter and the universe not being eternal, Material Monism falls apart. It is why Hawkings tried to get a TV>FV Eternality in order to get around the boulder in the road.

Even most Evolutionary Scientists will reject Creationism, not on facts, but on the presupposition, they say, "Science can only be concerned with what is observable and testable, and can not have beliefs based upon 'faith'".

Ironically, they have blind faith in Material Monism with out justifying the rationality. Rather they try to "shift the burden of proof" and tell the Creationists they need to "Prove God First", but this is a rejection of rationalism. Rationalism requires both to prove their position.

Because the most basic of the Material Monist worldview is irrational, Atheists have:

1) Rejected Rationalism (Modernism and Post-Modernism) in order to justify their beliefs in Materialism, yet hold to rationalism in Science, which is contadictory
2) Keep to Rationalism without proving any basic priori, but maintain the priori of empiricism.

The fact is that Science has no right to talk about anything Philosophical, they claim this philosophical position, but are unable to rationally justify it and have repeated it enough that most non-philosophers buy it hook line and sinker.

"No, there is more and more scientists who disagree that it is."

Feducia is in a very small minority. The vast majority consider it transitional.

"More are just saying it is a funky part of nature, like the Platypus."

Nonsense.

"Yea, I know Behe is wrong."

Behe IS wrong, though that isn't what I was talking about when I said *Wrong on all accounts*. I was talking about your statement:

"They want to claim missing links such as in a "Punctured Equilibrium" fashion, but admit that "Punctured Equilibrium" can't occur without:

A)Intelligent Design
B)Discounting everything we know about Micro-Biology "

Unless these are Behe's words and not yours and you just forgot to attribute it to him. The above is, as I said, wrong on all accounts. PE doesn't need ID, and it doesn't go against anything known about microbiology.

"No, Origin Sciences is based upon your Philosophical Presuppositions, because it can not be observed."

No, it's based on the same type of evidence gathering as other sciences. A great many events in science are not directly observed. Nobody has ever seen an atom directly. Historical sciences, like geology, use the same methods of finding physical evidence and testing that evidence as other sciences. If historical sciences were just a fairy tale, then there would be no way to do forensic studies of a murder. In fact, forensic evidence is considered much more reliable than eyewitness accounts.

"You can not breed a fruit fly today and tomorrow get a cricket."

If we did it would falsify the theory of evolution. You obviously are arguing against a theory you don't even understand.

"Rather you have to infer one can evolve into the other based upon....here it comes....your presuppositions that Evolution and Naturalism are true."

Actually, nobody thinks you can evolve a fly into a cricket. That being said, scientists conclude that populations of organisms evolve based on multiple lines of evidence (including direct observation of speciation)in many different fields that are cross checked and verified by continued observations and experimentation.

"Even most Evolutionary Scientists will reject Creationism, not on facts, but on the presupposition, they say, "Science can only be concerned with what is observable and testable, and can not have beliefs based upon 'faith'"."

And the scientists are correct. God isn't testable or observable. Faith is for theology.

"Ironically, they have blind faith in Material Monism with out justifying the rationality. Rather they try to "shift the burden of proof" and tell the Creationists they need to "Prove God First", but this is a rejection of rationalism."

Scientists don't ask for *proof*, at all. They ask for evidence. There is a difference. It is not possible to prove God using science. It is not possible to prove ANYTHING using science. It is however possible to test certain things using science, and to come to a reasonable degree of confidence in our conclusions. It is simply not possible to test for God.

BTW, scientists are not *Material Monists*; they do not say that the physical is all there is. They say that the physical and testable are all that science is capable of examining. If there are other states of existence, they are outside the ability of science to make a claim one way or the other. This is called methodological naturalism, not material monism.

"Because the most basic of the Material Monist worldview is irrational, Atheists have:"

Atheism has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution, like every theory in science, is incapable of saying anything pro or con about the existence of a God.

"The fact is that Science has no right to talk about anything Philosophical, they claim this philosophical position, but are unable to rationally justify it and have repeated it enough that most non-philosophers buy it hook line and sinker."

That's why science is agnostic about God, not atheistic.

And this has nothing to do with evolution.