Why is the story of evolution....?

Evolutionary scientists mock creation and/or intelligent design as unscientific and not worthy of scientific examination. In order for something to be considered a “science,” they argue, it must be able to be observed and tested; it must be “naturalistic.” Creation is by definition “supernatural.” God and the supernatural cannot be observed or tested (so the argument goes); therefore, creation and/or intelligent design cannot be considered science. Of course, neither can evolution be observed or tested, but that does not seem to be an issue with evolutionists. As a result, all data is filtered through the preconceived, presupposed, and pre-accepted theory of evolution, without alternate explanations being considered.

However, the origin of the universe and the origin of life cannot be tested or observed. Both creation and evolution are faith-based systems in regards to origins. Neither can be tested because we cannot go back billions (or thousands) of years to observe the origin of the universe or of life in the universe. Evolutionary scientists reject creation on grounds that would logically force them to also reject evolution as a scientific explanation of origins. Evolution, at least in regard to origins, does not fit the definition of “science” any more than creation does. Evolution is supposedly the only explanation of origins that can be tested; therefore, it is the only theory of origins that can be considered “scientific.” This is foolishness! Scientists who advocate evolution are rejecting a plausible theory of origins without even honestly examining its merits, because it does not fit their illogically narrow definition of “science.”

If creation is true, then there is a Creator to whom we are accountable. Evolution is an enabler for atheism. Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God. Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe. Evolution is the “creation theory” for the religion of atheism. According to the Bible, the choice is clear. We can believe the Word of our omnipotent and omniscient God, or we can believe the illogically biased, “scientific” explanations of fools.

Darwin's Deadly Legacy (1 of 7)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mxXICZ9mXo

Darwin's Deadly Legacy (2 of 7)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMWGgY6wT30&feature...

Darwin's Deadly Legacy (3 of 7)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFKbgIr6ngE&feature...

Darwin's Deadly Legacy (4 of 7)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haDsxjsGP0A&feature...

Darwin's Deadly Legacy (5 of 7)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmlLjs2rHpI&feature...

Darwin's Deadly Legacy (6 of 7)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCqRcMXVC5o&feature...

Darwin's Deadly Legacy (7 of 7)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWdA6-m4ZxQ&feature...

The Battle for the Beginning

By: John MacArthur

http://www.christianbook.com/the-battle-for-the-be...

Creation In The 21st Century - Planet Earth Is Special 1 of 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk8xtXRI6OE

Creation in the 21st Century - Amazing Design (1 of 3)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2d2yo8fbuo

So, two groups of scientists disagree on the interpretation of some evidence. Well who'd a thunk it.

Did you know that the mechanism of the chemical reaction of a compound found in camphor was the subject of dispute between organic chemists for something like 20 years and for all I know the argument is still going on?

The argument over H floresiensis reminds me of an old controversy about Australopithecus afarensis. In the 1950s all that was available was a few skulls. One group used a particular method of measurement and concluded that the organism could have walked upright in life. Another group used a slightly different method and concluded that it could not. A well known scientist of the time, Solly Zuckerman, agreed with the second group. At the end of the 1960s he wrote the first volume of his memoirs in which he mentioned this.

In 1974 the A. afarensis fossil "Lucy" was found. This included part of the pelvis, two or three leg bones, ribs and a skull of a young female. Examination of the fossil showed that the first group was correct, A. afarensis could have walked upright. That is one of the reasons that the fossil was considered to be important.

Now why do I mention this old argument? Because on several occasions, young Earth creationist Dr. Duane T. Gish has claimed that Zuckerman wrote that "Lucy" could not walk upright. But Zuckerman's book was written before the fossil was found. Gish has been corrected on this at least three times but continued to claim it.

What do you make of that?

Further evidence, if it is found may resolve the issue over the Flores fossils. Then again, it might not.

Oh, by the way, biological evolution is now and always has been based on observation and measurement of existing organisms. Fossils are merely supporting evidence.

93,

You are dealing with taxonomy, here, sweetie. You are also touching on saner forms of cryptozoology, as well as archeology, but not evolution.

The reason such a thing occurred is because when new bones are found, they must be studied. Some studies will lead to conclusion X, and others may lead to Y, and so forth, until we figure out the best conclusion. Remember in school when they taught you the scientific method? Remember the last step? The one where things get studied again? It's the same process.

93 93/93

Well, part of that is the idiotic "publish or perish" nonsense perpetrated by colleges on their professors. Part of it is that the way to get more money for research grants is to grab headlines. As a result, people publish prematurely. Further research would have clarified the situation. The story of evolution has funky results because people make mistakes due to the pressure placed on them. They are just people with a need to keep their jobs and find other sources of money.

However, no amount of research has ever clarified the Bible enough to prove it as truth OR lie. That is the difference between science and the Bible. Science is testable. Geniuses can prove their theories by testing. Idiots can have their theories disproved by testing.

Why are creation myths always shown to be violations of physical laws? Why are all creationist arguments against evolution always shown to be due to a lack of understanding of either the real world or a lack of appreciation for simple statistics?

Theories are proposed and people investigate them, sometimes they find evidence that supports the theory sometimes evidence is found that disproves the theory or casts doubt on it and requires further investigation.

The theory on the origins of this skeleton are far from complete there is much more work to be done.

Science has no problems with finding new evidence and changing their beliefs as long as the evidence is there.

The problem with the creationist theory is that it started with a belief and still has no sound scientific evidence to support it. It is a pure simplistic belief not a scientific theory.

Science is willing and able to accept new information, religion is not capable or willing to do this .

In a recent interview Professor Charles Oxnard admitted that he was far more familiar with hyperthyroid cretinism so was able to spot the similarities but he still felt that there needed to be a lot more research before any conclusions could be reached.

In the Christian creation story, plants existed before the sun. That is not consistent with the theory of evolution, in which the organelles that perform photosenthesis would not have been naturally selected if there was no sun. So no. It doesn't make sense.

Yes, people will squabble over details until a consensus is reached, compounded by the media and their sensationalist reporting.

How does any of this cause problems for the theory of evolution, except to simpletons who didn't accept it in the first place and crow about every little disagreement between scientists, not realising that this is how we gain in knowledge?

You are here because of evolution.

One can have one's view for theory of evolution. Scientists have contrary opinion, What is true science has not confirmed it. According to me Incarnation of GOD in different forms and at different time is most appropriate way of evolution.

You mean written in the proper publishing form for scientific findings?

Because science is continually correcting itself as new information becomes available.