[Jehu]

Funny and ignorant at the same time. I guess you missed the Reformation as just one example of self-correction by religion. (Read Christianity) I could also point out that your beloved science was only able to develop based on the long history and tradition of Judaism and Christianity.

Only after several thousand years tutelage in monotheism could mankind scratch his collective little head and figure out the universe was a creation. (Duh!)

If created...it must be sustained by principle and law. If laws...those laws could be found out, tested and retested by man. Man could then build technologies based on those laws.

For verification see who all the founders of modern science were...O, darn it, most of them were Christians, even devout Christians. Not until you get to the apostate Darwin does science veer off into mumbo-jumbo and superstition.

Almost back to the belief that life spontaneously arises from dirt. That rotting meat turns into worms. (But those clever evolutionists are pretty sly about that claim. They disguise the life from dirt fable by cloaking it in the magician's scarf of lots of time...lots and lots of time.)

Too bad evolution cannot be tested, and no discernible laws or principles appear on the horizon to describe the (forces? force? Gaia? Tinkerbelle? Magical inherent properties of insensate matter?)

We do have everything from very slow changes over gazillions of years to produce species. (Ops!!!) This is not confirmed by the fossil record.

OK, ok, then species must have arisen SUDDENLY (you know, kind of like created) but not really created, wink, wink. They just sort of punctuated themselves into existence.

Unfortunately right now we are in an unpunctuated state of evolution since we are deprived of witnessing species appearing all at once (sigh).

[js1138]

Funny and ignorant at the same time. I guess you missed the Reformation as just one example of self-correction by religion.

LOL. I see posts every day on FR lambasting the self-correction by religion. I suppose the value of reformation depends on which side of the street you work.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Top-ten cool things about being an Evolutionist:

10. You can call "punctuated equilibrium" a scientific theory, then explain why scientific evidence for it cannot be found.

9. When a student tries to raise critical scientific questions of evolution in science class, you tell him he can only ask them in a course on comparative religions.

8. To show transitional forms in school textbooks, you just hire an artist to invent some. (eg. Jazz Man by The Far Side)

7. You can ignore Phillip Johnson's book "Defeating Darwinism - By Opening Minds" and write your own: "Defeating Creation & Intelligent Design - By Closing Minds".

6. You can refer to books by atheists Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins as "Holy Writ".

5. If in need of spare cash, rob a bank and call it "natural selection".

4. You get to cross out the word "God" and print "Hydrogen" at Genesis 1:1.

3. You get to use quotation marks around the word "scientists" when writing about creationists who received their Ph.D.'s from major universities.

2. To convince the public that "Lucy" [Australopithecus afarensis] was one of man's ancestors, you fashion perfectly formed human hands and feet (and a pensive look) on a statue of a primate.

And the number one cool thing about being an evolutionist is:

1. You don't have to make any distinction between fact and wild speculation.

Link

[Alacarte]

What?

4 paragraphs of unaccountable opinion. Don't take your lame arguments against evolution up with me, take it up with the scientists in the life sciences, cause you are saying they are all wrong, and you and bob the plumber at church are the real science experts.

The AAAS and NAS have less than subtle online statements regarding their position on evolution AND ID. I feel no need to defend evolution when the actual scientific community goes out of its way to publically defend it.

"If created...it must be sustained by principle and law. If laws...those laws could be found out, tested and retested by man. Man could then build technologies based on those laws."

You realize none of this logic follows right? If created, it must be sustained by principle and law? You are talking about magic man!

"Almost back to the belief that life spontaneously arises from dirt. That rotting meat turns into worms. (But those clever evolutionists are pretty sly about that claim. They disguise the life from dirt fable by cloaking it in the magician's scarf of lots of time...lots and lots of time.)"


What are you talking about??? Are you some young earth creationist with wild regurgitated arguments and no understanding of science? Cause nothing in this paragraph makes sense! Rotting meat turn into worms... WHAT!?!?!

"Too bad evolution cannot be tested, and no discernible laws or principles appear on the horizon to describe the (forces? force? Gaia? Tinkerbelle? Magical inherent properties of insensate matter?)"

Evolution CAN be tested, where do you anti-evolutionists get off making wild claims like this, over, and over. Everytime a fossil is found, evolution is tested. If a horse skeleton was found in a layer of rock 1 billion years old, evolution would be canned. Evolution has predictive power, and everytime those predictions are tested, evolution is tested. You have no idea how science works. Just because we cannot see something happening does not mean it is untestable by science.

All your lame points are moot. Whether evolution is testable, and qualifies as science is a decision for the people who practice science, and they say evolution is by far the best explanatory model we have.

Strange I don't see the militant campaign against germ theory... oh wait, it doesn't conflict with your antiquated dogma!