Replies

There was only one question I could find, which was addressed. Apparently, you either did not want to hear or did not understand the answer.

Perhaps you are correct in that I did not understand your answer(s). However, even if you feel you have already addressed them, I beg you to do me the courtesy of addressing the questions, again, more plainly, as I obviously did not comprehend your previous answer(s). To ease the task I have requested of you, I will restate my questions (both those I implied and those directly queried earlier) below:

1. Having provided you with the references, one an encyclopedia, and the other an article on the scientific method, do you still maintain that either of these are “a creationist crapsite?” If so, please explain your rationale.

2. Are you currently someone who can “walk on water when it isn’t frozen or call forth some dead person from the tomb before my eyes?” If so, when are you going provide a demonstration? If you are not such a human, then exactly why is your opinion on matters not subject to scientific proof any more valuable and worthy of acceptance than any one else’s opinion?

3. Who or what “created” evolution (not the theory but the “fact” by your interpretation)? Is this “evolution creator,” if you maintain such exists, bound by the naturalistic processes posited by the theory? If you maintain that there is no “evolution creator,” please explain how the process came to be.

4. As I think you will find that the topic is still listed in the legitimate scientific community as the theory of evolution not the natural law of evolution, how is it you feel that you have the authority to pronounce it fact rather than theory?

5. What exactly is the “strawman” on which you have based your statement, “creationism is nonsense based on a strawman?”

1. Having provided you with the references, one an encyclopedia, and the other an article on the scientific method, do you still maintain that either of these are “a creationist crapsite?” If so, please explain your rationale.

No. (actually I didn't see the scientific method one and don't feel like finding it, so next time include the reference. That IS the scientific method ;-). The Theory of Evolution does not include biogenesis.

2. Are you currently someone who can “walk on water when it isn’t frozen or call forth some dead person from the tomb before my eyes?” If so, when are you going provide a demonstration? If you are not such a human, then exactly why is your opinion on matters not subject to scientific proof any more valuable and worthy of acceptance than any one else’s opinion?

Using your criteria, experience, education, wisdom and knowledge are useless to anyone. I reject your assumptions.

3. Who or what “created” evolution (not the theory but the “fact” by your interpretation)? Is this “evolution creator,” if you maintain such exists, bound by the naturalistic processes posited by the theory? If you maintain that there is no “evolution creator,” please explain how the process came to be.

Probably indirectly God created evolution. Directly God created everything, but neither you nor I know how He did it and we never will. I posted this same answer to you before. I believe in a Creator God, but I don't have to believe nonsensical Bible misinterpretations to do it.

4. As I think you will find that the topic is still listed in the legitimate scientific community as the theory of evolution not the natural law of evolution, how is it you feel that you have the authority to pronounce it fact rather than theory?

Science does not really use the concept of Law anymore, except perhaps in math where definitive proofs are possible.
A theory in science is the highest status of scientific knowledge.

It is not a guess or a hunch. Creationists try to demean the word theory by applying the colloquial meaning to the word. If you want to argue science, you must use the terms of science as science defines them.

5. What exactly is the “strawman” on which you have based your statement, “creationism is nonsense based on a strawman?”

Creation is not included in the Theory of Evolution. It is just not there. When creationists say it is there and argue against it, it is a strawman. In fact, it is a classic big fat elephant in the room strawman.