Creationists, would you like to know why scientists reject Creationism/ID as a scientific theory?

You are wrong about creationism not being falsifiable. The basic assumption is not falsifiable: i.e., there is a creator god. However, they make statements based on the Bible that are falsifiable.

It can be pretty well proven that creation did not occur 6,000 years ago. It can also be proven that there was no world-wide flood about 4300 years ago.

But, of course, creationists will ignore any evidence that disproves what they believe.

Added:

@Questioner gets his information from creationist web sites, which are notorious for presenting misinformation about evolution.

Karl Popper changed his mind about the falsifiability of evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Issue_of_...

Evolution is falsifiable. As one scientist said, all you would need to do to falsify evolution is to find a fossil rabbit in Cambrian strata.

If you really understand what evolution is about and know anything about the fossil record, you will understand what that scientist means.

You also said Darwinism never predicted anything. That is totally false. Numerous predictions have been made on the basis of evolutionary theory and have been verified.

Here's an example. When it was learned during the last century that humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes but the great apes have 24 pairs, evolutionary scientists predicted that the difference was the result of the fusion of two of the ancestral chromosomes in the human line from the common ancestor. That prediction has been verified.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

And there are numerous others, but you won't find them on creationist web sites.

Also, Michael G. Houts is a mechanical engineer, which gives him no credentials to comment about the validity of evolution, particularly since he is a creationist.

Though Don Batten has a degree in plant physiology, he is also a creationist, so his view on evolution is colored by his religious beliefs.

Christians ought better to be employed in the good news of

our Creator ...stepping into our very shoes rather than setting up a laboratory to prove Himself or draw evolutionary diagrams,.He actually identified with our real concerns and problems.Very few people care about contemplating their navel, more about their own happiness , safety and destiny. If He had told us we were the product of chance and probability I don't think that would have answered our deepest needs , do you?

Who tries to disprove evolution? Certainly the majority must accept a proven capacity for mutation within species ,otherwise they would become extinct under environmental change.

Even though I and many more sensible people including the majority of scientists are not persuaded about "Genetic Evolution" that doesn't totally discount popular theory or opinion. Darwin and the neo Darwinists of today simply have had an impossible problem with the complete dearth of inter species proof.So to project a fraction of human of experimentation onto a multi billion year canvass of their own invention seems a giant step of Faith in their own devices.

Without trawling through the whole of your red herrings (sic) I think if we spent more time reading about the incredible correlation between Scriptural revelation and the course of history you would have proof enough that everything ,including the whole cosmos is moving inexorably according to a predetermined climax.

Let us therefore concentrate on the only burning issue of the day:-

Not the " Big Bang" of the past but the glorious " Big Bang" not so far away from us. Maybe black or white hole, what difference?

"There are NO examples of any animal on earth which is presently evolving into another kind of animal."

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘” . . . . . . . . . ``~., . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,.-” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “-., . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . ,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .”:, . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . ,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \,. . .

. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,} . .

. . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`. }. .

. . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,:”. . . . ./. . .

. . . . . . . ?. . .__. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:`. . . . . ./. . .

. . . . . . ./__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . . . /. . . .

. . . . . ./(_. . ”~,_. . . . “~,_. . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . . _/. . . . . .

. . . . . {. _$;_. . . ”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . .,.-~-,},.~”;/. . }. . . . . .

. . . . . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . . “;,,./`. . /”. . . . . . . /. . . . . .

. .,,,___.\`~,. . . “~.,. . . . . . . . . . `. . .}. . . . . . . /. . . . . . .

. . . . . . (. . `=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . . (. . . ;_,,-”. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . /.`~,. . . `-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\. . . /\. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .\`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|,./. . .\,__. . . . . .

,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . . `=~-,. .

. . .`=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,,. . . . . . . . . . . . . .`\. . . . . . . __.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . .`\. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,<`. _|_,-&``. . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . .

Am I the only one who gets the feeling creationists have yet to determine the difference between evolution in science and evolution in pokemon?

Thank you for making the case that evolution is NOT legitimate science since evolution is NOT falsifiable. We have seen over and over again evidence which ought to have falsified evolution but evolutionists continue in their beliefs despite the evidence. Evolution does NOT fall under the purview of the scientific method because it is merely speculation about past events which are not observable, repeatable or measurable. Evolution is based completely on speculations which have NEVER been observed such as the big bang, abiogenesis, fossil transitions from one kind of life to another, beneficial information gaining mutations and observed changes from one kind of creature to another. Evolution is therefore only a religious/philosophical belief inferior to creation science which is based on an actual eye-witness account of our history.

By the way, read Questioner's answer a couple of times since it is an excellent response.

Straw man fallacy.

Your confusing Creationism with Intelligent Design. I'm not a Christian so don't believe in the Bible or Creationism. I'm a Deist so believe in Intelligent Design.

ID is falisifiable.

The facts of biological variation and development is one thing, the theory of evolution is another.

Gravity is a fact and a theory.

ID predicts you will never find transitional species, oh look you haven't!

People often claim: “Evolution is just as substantiated as the theory of gravity,” and they like to play on that word “theory.” But, everyone has observed an object falling at 9.8 meters per second squared. On the other hand, no one has observed life come from non-life, or functional, complex design come from non-intelligence. You are failing to differentiate between operational science (such as gravity) and historical science (interpreting evidence from the past). And, by the way, gravity as a scientific concept (an attractive force between two masses) was discovered by Sir Isaac Newton who just so happened to be a creationist.

You said, "Evolution has NOTHING to do with the Big Bang or the origin of life." Then you need to differentiate between cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, and biological evolution. Many people like to ignore it or say it doesn’t count, but before you can invoke natural selection, you need an organism that can acquire food, make energy, and reproduce itself. Abiogenesis (or sometimes called chemical evolution) is very pertinent.

Funny, but a lot of what you said about creationism is what we say about evolutionsim. The general theory of evolution is so “plastic” that it can be expanded to fit any data. Even data that is exactly the opposite of what has been used in the past to teach evolution is twisted as new “proof” of evolution. Just look at the Scopes trial. Ironically, the very arguments used in Darrow’s biology lesson to convince everyone that evolution is true have virtually all been discredited and thrown out by evolutionists themselves. Since 1859 the theory of evolution has encountered a myriad of surprises and adjustments. What scientists believe about the evidence frequently changes.

As Dr. Michael G. Houts has said, “This illustrates another key (non-scientific) feature of the theory of evolution. The theory is constructed in such a way that no matter what the evidence, evolutionists can claim it supports their religion. If a bird is brightly colored, it evolved vivid feathers to attract a mate. If a bird’s plumage is drab, it evolved that drabness to provide camouflage. If similar structures are derived from similar gene sequences, it is because the two species share a common ancestor. If similar structures occur in species that are genetically quite different, it is because of ‘convergent evolution.’ No matter what the evidence, in the eye of the believer, evolution is true. One criterion for determining if a theory is scientific is if it is falsifiable. In other words, the theory must be constructed in a way that an experiment could be devised to prove it false. In the discussion of similarities between organisms, the theory of evolution is purposely constructed so that no experiment can prove it false.”

And as Dr. Don Batten said, “...Darwinism never predicted anything, it was modified to accommodate the observations. In fact, because Darwinism is so malleable as to accommodate almost any conceivable observation, science philosopher Karl Popper proclaimed that it was not falsifiable, and therefore not a proper scientific theory in that sense.”

"God is trying to trick us to test our faith" is a straw man and usually only said by trolls. I have never heard it in real life and I am around Christians all the time. If you really want to know what we believe and how we argue, you need to go to websites like these:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

http://www.icr.org/

http://www.crev.info/

And here is a brief overview of the scientific case for ID: http://www.arn.org/docs/positivecasefordesign.pdf

=================================

Here is our response to your lizard story:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/06/0...

Creationists believe in natural selection and even “speciation.” Natural selection is a logical process that anyone can observe and it was actually a Creationist named Edward Blyth who first wrote about it. Blyth published some articles describing the process of natural selection in The Magazine of Natural History between 1835 and 37—over 22 years before Darwin published his book (he just didn’t come to the same conclusions as Darwin). I believe Dr. Terry Mortenson is correct: “Natural selection is the God-designed method of preserving representatives of the original created kinds.”

I got half way down and it was a good argument so far, but I think that last cone really did for me. I'll just assume the rest made sense as well

It would be nice if your little rant had some truth to it,but it does not,in order to qualify as science,evolution must be "provable and repeatable" which it is not.There are NO examples of any animal on earth which is presently evolving into another kind of animal.There are no fossils of such noncategoric forms either.Science is proven wrong EVERY DAY.God is not.You sir,are a gold-plated FOOL.

All good points, but they won't listen.

Whoever disproves evolution using real science would SURELY win the Nobel.

You're likely the 378247858th person to point this out to them. They probably aren't listening now either. Sorry, nice try though.