Replies

Has your bird been subject to scientific study with regard to it's behavior? I would posit that it behaves in a manner generally in accord with its species.

Scientific study?

Why would a creationist want or need to study anything scientifically when he can simply fall back on the simplistic notion that an animal behaves the way it does because that's what God wanted?

And, of course, we know that animals never, ever changes their behavior to accomodate their enviroment, right?

And, naturally, we also know that the species's biology is never altered as a result of this accomodation, right?

Because if it did, it would mean that it is evolving into something it wasn't and as we all know from what you creationists say, evolution is an invalid theory.

According to you and your fellow creationists, animals have never evolved. Ever. They were created with their unique features intact, right? Fish created from nothingness with scales/fins and birds with feathers/beaks/wings, that's what you wrote.

Yes indeed. When it comes right down to it, that (believing) is largely what science is all about.

Wrong. Science is not about simple believing. Science involves taking that belief and testing it for validity which results in proving or disproving the postulate. Since creationism cannot be tested in the lab, it cannot be considered science.

600 years ago, everyone believed the world was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe and that all the planets and stars orbited the earth. That's what their religious leaders wanted them to believe and that's what they believed.

Was their belief scientifically sound? It was not because it was based upon their religious belief, under which, not coincidentally, is the same belief-system that modern-day creationists operate.

Science has evolved, but your belief-system has not. Like your counterparts from 600 years ago, you (generic, not specific) still believe that the earth is the center of the universe and that everything revolves around you.

They are not. Just as your ancestors were incorrect in their scientific assumptions, you are wrong about yours.

They were too arrogant to admit they were wrong when presented with scientific evidence that challenged their belief in how the universe operated (ask Galileo or DaVinci) just like you and your fellow creationists have too much pride to admit when you're wrong about evolution.

The problem isn't with the science or the evidence it presents. The problem is that your religious beliefs prevent you from acknowledging the truth about evolution.

"600 years ago, everyone believed the world was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe and that all the planets and stars orbited the earth."

Just a little correction. In Columbus' time no educated person thought the Earth was flat. It was know since the Greeks that the Earth was round. The navigators who thought Columbus was nuts thought the Earth was round, but about 25% larger than Columbus believed. In fact, they were correct; Columbus was relying on older, out of date charts. The only thing that saved him was the existence of the Americas.

It's one of my missions in life to fix this widespread misconception.

You may carry on destroying Fester's arguments. :)

Cheers!

Why would a creationist want or need to study anything scientifically when he can simply fall back on the simplistic notion that an animal behaves the way it does because that's what God wanted?

Creationists study God's creation to learn more about how God is doing things. As they progress they assign words to those processes, just as science has always done.

And, of course, we know that animals never, ever changes their behavior to accomodate their enviroment, right?

It would be a boring universe if God created one in which there were no such thing as change. The interrelation of matter according to predictable laws (which have yet to be fully explained by science, I might add) is another indication that the universe has been intelligently designed. It is no surprise that various specices demonstrate a variety of characteristics as they pass from generation to generation. In all of recorded human history, however, there have been limits to that change.

Since creationism cannot be tested in the lab, it cannot be considered science.

Yeah. It's fairly tough to lay hands on an "ism." But intelligent design? It is evident everywhere reason and senses are able to comprehend matter, and probably in some places science hasn't looked yet. Ultimately, no matter how much you wish otherwise, your whole reason and experience amounts to what you believe. Your belief is based on evidence, to be sure. But it is still belief.

So why is it that just because a creationist disagrees with the ToE that people assume that they want to throw all science out the window or don't see the point of parcticing any of it? That's a pretty big assumption to make and apply to a whole group of people and it's not true. There may be some fringe elements that feel that way but it's not because of the ToE but a reaction to science in general. I don't know anyone who would throw out the whole of anything just because they disagree with one small point of one part of it.