Quote:

Not that I feel that it really makes a difference to post this, but I've learned that most creationists are amazingly stubborn and take every chance of changing the facts a bit to fit their view or at least their interpretation of things is different because of their original view, that alone will make it hard to impossible to even change their view at all.



Creationists would say the same things about evolutionists. I feel its more important to focus on the science (argue the evidence) than worry about the motives and intents of anyone else. I mean, what are you some kind of conspiracy theorist?! Just kiddding.

Quote:

because of their original view, that alone will make it hard to impossible to even change their view at all.



Evolutionists must have evolved a resistance to this natural human tendancy then. Do you really claim that you're invincible to this sort of reasoning? You're a human just like everyone else, believe it or not. However, this does help put a spotlight on the arrogance of evolutionists in thinking that their way of thinking is the standard for everyone else. Imagine if christians did that? Actually they have, and we get bashed for it to this day, but its ok if its not christians doing it.

I'm not going to respond to anything else you said, Phemox, because its irrelevant. I'd rather stay focused on the 'science' of your naturalistic faith.

Quote:

(Also remember, what's in the bible now, is a selection of texts, so it can't be original at all, let alone the influence of all the translations and reproductions.



Those other excluded texts were often excluded for good reason. If something is written by an agnostic (and so on), why would we include it? Its couter-point to everything the bible teaches. You're just parroting long-refuted atheist arguments against the bible. Of course, I parrot a lot of creationist ideas, but at least I take the time to understand them and elaborate on them when I'm questioned.


Before I continue, I want to point out once again that it appears the resevoir of evidence for evolution has dried up. That's two posts, one from someone who I consider to have more-than-average intelligence, that did nothing except tell me that I can't be believed because my faith doesn't make sense, and that I'm scared etc.

Its pretty easy to see that this argument has degenerated into this.

But that's besides the point. I'll just make a quick point to the rest of the responses before I have to run off to band practice.

Quote:

You don't have a problem with evolution. You have a problem with science. And the problem you have is that science is not a dogma.



What's your evidence of this? I've never had any problem using logic, science, common sense to refute evolution. Until now you've had no problem using those same tools to defend evolution.

Quote:

You didn't get the Hubble effect and some other things 100% correct, but the basic point that you've got is that science often leads to a change of knowledge.



No, I've pointed out the difference between scientific change, and outright guessing based on assumptions. In my equation example, the assumption of when the two objects passed by is parallel to the big bang. We assume it happened (despite lack of evidence) and then suddenly we can start coming up with all sorts of distances for celestial objects. The stars aren't really that far away.

Quote:

600 years ago, science told everyone that the earth was unmoving at the center of the universe; then suddenly they said "It's moving around the sun". Hubble measured his constant at 500 km/s/Mpc; today we know that it's in the range of 70 km/s/Mpc,



These are two completely unrelated events. The Hubble 'constant' was changed because the value we had led to us finding wrong ages for stars. Of course, that's easy to fix when your evidence is based on assumptions anyway. All you have to do is find a way to change the assumption.

Quote:

and is not even a constant but changes over time.



Yeah, objects are decelerating. But if they were decelerating at the rate that gave us those two values within such a short range of time then all objects in space would be moving 'backwards' for quite some time now.

Quote:

And indeed, we also know that the visible matter in the universe does not explain the rotation speed of galaxies.



It doesn't explain it because you're assuming your theory is true. Maybe the fact that the physical universe (reality) doesn't match up with your theory is due to the fact that your theory is wrong.

Quote:

Only 4% of the universe consists of baryonic matter, 23% is dark matter and 73% dark energy. And those percentages might even change.



So here's your answer to that. Space magic!

I've researched scientific information on dark matter. The only proof I read for it is that it fills in the gaps left by the big bang. That's circular reasoning. It exists because of big bang. Its also caused by the big bang. Once again, did you ever just assume the theory is wrong?

Quote:

While this is fascinating for some people, others are scared.



Please, let's keep the amount of assumption-based theories I have to argue down to a minimum. I'm only one man.

Quote:

If science does not offer certainty, where do I find certainty at all? In religion? In superstition?



Religion? No. Superstition? Certainly not. Both of these things are man-made inventions. I won't argue whether or not its good to go to church, but you're missing the point. The only thing we can really be sure of is God. Traditions, imagination, stories are all irrelevant.

Quote:

This is obviously one of the reasons for the phenomena of creationism and science rejection in some parts of the US population.



I'm going to respond to this by accusing evolution as being born from the simple rejection of God. Of course, if I stereotype all evolutionists this way, does that make me more right, and you wrong? For being the frightened one based on irrational logic, at least I've stuck to scientific explanations. I may have slipped up and name-called people a few times, but those were mistakes. In general, I've avoided questioning your character, motives, etc. If your belief is the universal standard for intelligence, correctness, enlightenment, and logic, why are you doing this to me and my compatriats?

Is it possible that you're running out of ways to defend your theory? I don't want to be accusatory, but I can't think of any other explanation for people saying what they say.

This is pretty typical of my discussions with evolutionists. By about this point, it degenerates into name-calling. They'll bring up religion, question my motives, or sometimes my character. Its fairly amusing...

Quote:

I think it's also a reason for the lack of a "creationism theory"



You name the theory and then say there is no theory? Our theory is a theory, its just contrary to yours so its "Those peoples' theory." Evolution says that the variety of animals we see popped up out of non-living chemicals and evolved accidentally writing all of the well-formed creatures we see today.

Creation says that there were several created 'kinds' of animals. They speciated, gene shifted, some species or even entire kinds went extinct, and we're left with what we have today. The word 'kind' is a biblical word, but it applies to those of us who believe in creation without the biblical God. He had to start somewhere.

The proof is in Darwin's finches, in horses and zebras, in lions and tigers, and in other natural observations of rapid speciation and hybridization. Our theory exists, it makes predictions, and its proven true by observations of these predictions.

We deal with the same evidence, our conclusion/theory, is just different from yours. Why should I bore you by outlining what creation believes? Why shift the argument away from evolution? It is, after all, based on the beliefs of infallible humans, and is the standard for all scientific knowledge and truth. So why get sidetracked on 'crazy theories' like mine?

Quote:

aside from the apparent difficulty to sell a belief system as a scientific theory.



When we find evidence that genetics can not be changed very far beyond their original programming, that's evidence of creation. Not a belief system. Since we first discovered genetics, this has been the only possible conclusion we can make. You guys deny it based on your faith, that's fine.

Quote:

For delevoping a theory, you had to apply the very scientific methods that you reject.



You mean things like ignoring reality, making assumptions, and ignoring evidence? Doesn't sound like the scientific method to me.

Quote:

Christianity today is very different to Christianity in 1000 AC.



How? Society changes, so christians themselves are different (they do after all live in society) but our beliefs have always been based on the infallible word of God. So really, we have not.

Quote:

And creationism, if it wants to survive, can't remain unchanged either.



So change is the reason why Christians beliefs are fallible? But change is the only thing that can save Creationists? Hm. The way I see it, as more and more people are starting to realize that random scrambling of the genetic code cannot write new creatures, and the other impossibilities of evolution (like the evolution of sex, the evolution of mammary glands, the evolution of scales into feathers (two structures that have nothing in common), etc), combined with constantly being tossed back and forth by scientists (archaeopteryx is a transition, oops it turns out birds came first, piltdown man, finding an early bone of man only to discover that its a pig's tooth, finding a new early man only to find out its made of parts of other early men, etc) people are probably just going to continue becoming more skeptical. Can you really blame them? The evidence for creation has always been here. On the other hand, your evidence comes and goes like the wind.

Quote:

and are mostly occupied with putting up websites and papers



Evolutionists are more notorious for doing this than creationists. When I do research on any given subject, I'll find at least five times more evolutionist sites than creationist (usually more).

Not surprisingly, the first sentence on each page is usually some recombination of, "Creationists use their junk science to refute evolution." Each page is using an attack on creationist motives, while creationists tend to use science. Is it possible that this widespread use of bullying, and intimidation are a reflection of the increasing impossibility of defending evolution? Why go the hard route of defending evolution, when you can just attack anyone who goes on the offensive?

Anyway, I'd list off creation scientists, but I doubt that even if I did name past and present creation scientists who make real scientific contributions, and do peer-reviewed work would really change your mind.

"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."