Replies

"It's currently the best scientific explanation that fits the evidence."

Again, you use value-weighted words like "best". I sincerely do not understand how you do not see this as circular logic. It begs the question of whether creationism in only discarded because it is not the best, or because you do not want it to be the best. After all, you chose the word, but you also tell me the theory cannot be proven. Can you prove "best"? Why can't you acknowledge that creationism is a valid theory? I have no problem if you like your theory better, but you cannot prove it, and you cannot show that creationism is false.

"All theories are impossible to prove by definition."

But your approach to those who would dare to question evolution is to behave as though it is proven while simultaneously retreating to this position which is nothing but a definition turned into a definition and then used as proof.

"Evolution has implications in medicine and in any field that deals with generations of biological life forms..."

But what are they - specifically, not abstractly, please? Mere assertions do not make something so. I must say I have not seen one practical applications of evolution to anything except as a point of debate and discussion.

As for your discussion about utility to society, you simply set up a strawman argument. You understand my point. And you do not have an aswer so you retreat to rhetoric.

"I don't see how evolution could help in the construction of semiconductors or gyroscopes. It's not really related to the same field of science."

Ditto. You understand my point. I was being metaphorical. Naturally, these three things have already been invented. So, you simply have no response. Well, I know I now have a good question. Thanks.

"It's a side-effect of constantly being attacked by people who oppose evolution..."

OK, a "side-effect", hmmm... So, someone else is to blame for your zealotry, are they? I would urge you to try to be objective about this final paragraph. It does your side no good. It really is intellectually dishonest.

As for the theological vs. scientific. This is a truly false dichotomy. Also, there you go again with your value-weighted speech. Why is science superior to faith? Do you think the mere mention of the word "science" offers some faultless pristine beackground for everythng? It is no trump card, I can assure you. I have been in charge of scientists for over a dozen years now, and I can tell you they are not what you think they are. The put their lab coats on one arm at a time just like the rest of us. They are flawed and fully human creatures. There is no distinction that you can draw that will somehow remove human nature from humans to suit your need for control of reality. Reality exists apart from you and your thoughts. As does Truth.

As for me, I truly do want to know Truth. I think that is the fabulous adventure of life. I do not claim to be Truth or to even be able to articulate it, but I want to know what it is. I fear that evolutionists simply want to win, to vanquish anything, including Truth just so they can assuage some inner deficiency. But there I go psychologizing, and I do not believe in psychology either.

Well, I have enjoyed debating wih you and the others, but I think it's time to end this for now. I truly and sincerely wish you the best and I hope someday you may know Truth as I do. Evolution is a bad thing for what it teaches and for it's continuos and relentless attempt to squelch all debate. It is the currency of tryranny, and although I have no idea if you area tyrant, and I am not accusing you of being anything other than confused in your thinking, you are aiding and abetting others who are. You are their lackey.

I may be Christ's lackey, but of that I am proud. It's easy to be proud of that since His example is so profound.

Again, you use value-weighted words like "best". I sincerely do not understand how you do not see this as circular logic. It begs the question of whether creationism in only discarded because it is not the best, or because you do not want it to be the best.

Creationism isn't the 'best scientific explanation' because it isn't scientific. It's kind of like how Dell computers aren't the best brand of automobile.

But your approach to those who would dare to question evolution is to behave as though it is proven while simultaneously retreating to this position which is nothing but a definition turned into a definition and then used as proof.

That isn't my approach, at least not deliberately (and if you've got evidence that I personally have engaged in such tactics, show me and I'll apologize for them). I maintain that all 'disproofs' of evolution that I've seen are fundamentally flawed, sometimes subtly but more often blatantly. Part of the problem is that evolution has been attacked in that fashion so many times that many proponenets of the theory start to see any attempt to refute evolution as fitting that criteria and they reject it outright. Fortunately there are still some cooler heads who will examine the evidence presented and demonstrate exactly why it is invalid rather than tossing it outright.

As for your discussion about utility to society, you simply set up a strawman argument.

My position is a strawman? You're the one attacking the validity of evolution based on what you perceive as a 'lack of contribution to society' from the theory. What if evolution cannot contribute to society? That does not invalidate the theory, and that does not vindicate creationism.

OK, a "side-effect", hmmm... So, someone else is to blame for your zealotry, are they?

If you make annoying, sometimes insulting, comments to me over and over again and I punch you in the face because you're the hundredth person to have done it, I'm the one responsible for your injury, but it's fair to say that your actions contributed to the punch.

As for the theological vs. scientific. This is a truly false dichotomy.

Um, why? They're two different disciplines.

Also, there you go again with your value-weighted speech. Why is science superior to faith?

When did I say that it was? You're inventing a strawman here.

Do you think the mere mention of the word "science" offers some faultless pristine beackground for everythng?

No, as evidenced by "Creation Science". Science is a methodolgy of specific standards that, so far, have produced consistent results.

It is no trump card, I can assure you. I have been in charge of scientists for over a dozen years now, and I can tell you they are not what you think they are. The put their lab coats on one arm at a time just like the rest of us. They are flawed and fully human creatures.

Now you're mistaking science for the scientists. Science requires certain methods. That some scientists might veer from these methods is a failing of the scientists, not science.

There is no distinction that you can draw that will somehow remove human nature from humans to suit your need for control of reality. Reality exists apart from you and your thoughts. As does Truth.

And I never claimed otherwise. Have you run so low on arguments that you're inventing strawmen instead?