Creationism - is purely a myth that is untestable - maybe not!

by Qcmbr 43 Replies latest watchtower bible

doogie

oh...you gotta be kidding me...
i've been typing for about 20 minutes and now it's gone...
jeez...
doogie

ok...let's try this again...
Q:
I do appreciate what you're trying to do, evaluate creationism as anything other than simply Anti-Evolution, but I think that it's just not possible (as others have already mentioned). It just seems like you're kind of grasping at straws here. (and you said you were going to avoid strawmen!)
Many of the arguments you presented are the exact same predictions that we would expect if evolution was true:
:Creation suggests that species cannot change from one species to another - this rule must hold for at least one species (ie even if one organism is shown to have not adapted from another that would be a proof for creation at least for that species.).
evolution suggests the same. evolution does not predict that entire species "change" into another. Natural selection does not work on species but rather on individuals within a species. You could say that one species splits into 2, but it doesn't magically "change" into another.
:It should be well nigh impossible to find transitional stages in the same fossil layer that show the eradication of species by adaptation into species found in the next geological layer (or even the same one)
You will never find the idea of "eradication of species by adaptation" in evolutionary theory. Some people say, "if humans evolved, why are there still monkies?" but this betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution rather than a weakness of the theory itself. (as mentioned above)
:9/ It must be possible to engineer the building blocks of life. It must be possible to create species that are mixtures of other species and that are viable and can produce offspring. Genetic engineering must be achievable using intelligent processes.
:10/ It must be possible to show how ecosystems can be planned and engineerable. This must be tied to the ability to disperse any life forms across planet boundaries. Creation must have a provable dispersal system.
if humans are able to "engineer the building blocks of life" and 'engineer ecosystems', how would that prove that a supernatural entity had to originally do these same things? I think this would rather disprove creationism.
Also, the definition of "species" is a group of lifeforms that are able to produce viable offspring. Conversely, if 2 creatures are unable to produce offspring they are not of the same species. So, it is impossible, by definition, for members of 2 different species to interbreed.
Are you saying that creationism would expect to see members of different species producing offspring?...because, umm...we don't. again, not a great argument FOR creation.
:11/ The addition of genetic information must be almost impossibly difficult to do by natural mechanistic approaches. While genetic mutation can occur creation would expect that mutation process to struggle to add new material.
so would evolution. that's why it takes millions of millions of years and the vast majority of mutations are harmful.
:no new information must be observed entering the gentic code to produce a large scale change.
This is also the case for evolution. Evolution would be disproved if we OBSERVED this. unless of course you live to be millions of years old...
I?m not trying to jump down your throat, Q, I just wanted to point out that many of your arguments are actually the same predictions that we would expect to see if evolution was true.
OldSoul
Q: This thread is to see what would creation evidences be not is evolution correct.

I'm game. It is an interesting request to intellectually take a step outside rational thought and hypothetically attempt to prove Creation/Design.
Okay, one of the fundamentals of proof for design is that you can show known examples of design that have distinct parallels to design. Besides instinctual design evident in the animal kingdom, the only examples of design we have to look to are the designs of man.
I can address this from one angle.
Objectives:
Maximum facility/usability for the purpose intended with minimal effort/complexity. Examples: Pencil with eraser on the other end, trash canisters for collection of waste, a door or window, a wash basin, computer applications.
Maximum usability, usefulness, effectiveness with little regard to simplicity and/or efficiency. Examples: Automobiles, refrigeration/HVAC units, computers/electronic devices.
New ability, only the purpose intended matters, complexity/effort/effectiveness only as secondary or irrelevant concerns. Examples: Early airplanes, early rocketry, early space flight (typically seen in the beginning stages of any new kind of human design).
Easy broad application of design, whether complex or not, if it is effective for many different applications you will see it in many different designs. Examples: Computer code/languages, O-rings, washers, standardized jacks, adapters, and connectors, fasteners (buttons, nails, staples, etc.).
One of these objectives is present in every example of human design I have ever studied, from paper making to painting, from farming to framing.
Compare to life. We witness incredible diversity (which people sometimes mistakenly refer to as complexity). Diversity is not automatically complexity. The ecological system is complex, but at its foundation life is not complex at all. It is relatively simple, as any biologist or gentecist can attest. All life that we know, with very little deviation at all, stems from a very simple code set configured in different patterns. TGAC for maintaining life, and UGAC for replicating life. This has been true as far back as we can trace the origins of life on this planet.
Great diversity from a very simple basis is fairly convincing proof of design, when compared to what we know to be design. Taking as assumed that the intent of a hypothetical Creator is to produce a diverse set of lifeforms and an incredibly complex ecological system that corrects itself and changes to meet new circumstances, what we see is very much in keeping with a comparison to human design. Self-replication and self-modification of design is a chief goal of human designers right now. In the biological world there is ample evidence of a very sophisticated system of self-replication and self-modification of design.
Interesting exercise, Q.
funkyderek

1/. evolution is only a theory - its not a fact any more than newtonian physics was a fact.

No, evolution is a fact, just as gravity is a fact. Darwinism is a theory analogous to Newtonian physics.
2/. Clearly species adapt, clearly we can breed animals to select traits etc.. this is not evolution (in fact breeding is intelligent design on a micro level - a fairly provable and testable scientific area of study).
This is evolution, but it is evolution due to artificial selection. It's far closer to natural selection than it is to intelligent design.
3/. For the sake of clarity I'll remove the God agenda as long as those who will respond against remove their anti-God agenda. This is purely a look at what creationism would expect to see from the evidence.
4/. I'll try to avoid straw men on the understanding that nobody feels that they should expose their brilliance by reinterpreting what I say into what they think I believe (ie point 3.)
That seems fair.
Creation suggests that species cannot change from one species to another - this rule must hold for at least one species (ie even if one organism is shown to have not adapted from another that would be a proof for creation at least for that species.).
No. It must hold for all species. Finding one species that shows no evidence of evolution does not mean that none has occurred. It's a rather lame god-of-the-gaps argument. You can't prove that species evolved, therefore it must have been created even if all the others evolved.
1/ Fossil records that contain the same species from beginning to end of the gelogical period in question.
This is rare, if not unheard of.
2/ Without suggesting causes for extinction (or that there have been any mass extinctions) there would need to be species appearing in multiple layers seperated by millions of years apart that had not changed. As an additional bonus : finding species alive for which fossil records exist millions of years ago would suggest that as expected - adaptation had not altered the species into a new one.
These seems to be essentially the same as point 1. Again, it's not what we find.
3/ In the fossil record there should be no clear species that are clearly changing from one form into another.It should be well nigh impossible to find transitional stages in the same fossil layer that show the eradication of species by adaptation into species found in the next geological layer (or even the same one) - assuming two adjacent gelogical time periods of deposition.
Hopefully, you understand that no evolutionist would consider a species to be transitional except in hindsight, and that no creationist would ever accept a species as transitional. That being said, the fossil record is full of transitional species of the type you describe.
4/ Species must appear suddenly without precursor stages and either disappear just as suddenly or continue the same.
This is, of course, not what we find.
5/ It must be impossible to create life by recreating the conditions of this earth and then mixing, adding etc.. but not engineering. IE students in the classroom/lab should be able to put together experiment after experiment using sterile conditions and apply any conditions they think may have existed in the earth and all must fail to initiate life. This experiment must be allowed to scale as allowed by finance etc.. They must still fail. Life must not spontaneously generate. The odds must be stacked in favour of generation in that all basic building blocks of life can be added to the mix as long as they themselves are not alive. Self replicating organic compounds can also be allowed as long as they can be shown to exist/be made in isloation of actual living orgnisms. Time is not to be considered a factor and the more experiments running simultaneously the better.
Finally, you've got one. Of course, the fact that scientists cannot currentlu get life to spontaneously form does not mean that it did not occur. They cannot produce an infinitely powerful creator in the lab either.
6/ Mutations should rarely if ever be beneficial. In fact mutation should be increasingly less beneficial the larger it is.
This is indeed what we find, but is also expected by evolutionists. Most mutations are deleterious and therefore die out. A few are beneficial and propagate through the gene pool.
Statistics should be compiled to show beneficial mutations against non-beneficial.
What's beneficial or not often depends largely on the environment.
Fruit flies can provide evidence - with enough experiments there should soon be a species of fruit fly that is not bred but gains a mutation that is beneficial enough within its limited environment to supercede all other fruit flies and so replace those fruit flies as the dominant fly. This fly should probably not be released into the wild:) Should these experiments fail to produce not only beneficial mutations but also the propagation of that genetic alteration must be enough to survive and must not disappear after a few generations.
This is commonly done by biologists. Of course, the environment in these cases is by definition artificial, so you may make the distinction you did above between adaptation and selective breeding.
7/ Mutations should rarely happen in complementary groups suggesting that complementary systems in life are more likely planned than random and suggesting that benficial mutations would probably need complimentary mutations to be really effective.
I'm not sure what you mean by "complementary groups". Evolutionists expect mutations to be completely random.
8/ Irreducible complexity. Some systems should be complex enough to have no viable precursor stage.
None have ever convincingly shown to be so.
9/ It must be possible to engineer the building blocks of life. It must be possible to create species that are mixtures of other species and that are viable and can produce offspring. Genetic engineering must be achievable using intelligent processes.
I'm not sure why this would support creationism at all. There is no reason in a creationist worldview that species would be made of the same building blocks, let alone that genes from one species should have the same function when transferred to another species.
10/ It must be possible to show how ecosystems can be planned and engineerable. This must be tied to the ability to disperse any life forms across planet boundaries. Creation must have a provable dispersal system.
Agreed, although this would not cast any doubt on evolution. There is currently no natural way of fully engineering an ecosystem from scratch.
11/ The addition of genetic information must be almost impossibly difficult to do by natural mechanistic approaches. While genetic mutation can occur creation would expect that mutation process to struggle to add new material.
In reality, duplication is a very common kind of mutation, and there are countless examples of genomes that appear to have made use of modified duplication.
12/ Mobile species that are not isolated should be just as biodiverse as isolated populations.
Not what we find at all. Isolation rapidly leads to speciation.
13/ Reproductivity and reproductive length must have no effect upon the complexity of the species. Complex species could potentially have very long reproductive lengths and very low relative reproductivity. The following must be found false: the shorter the reproductive cycle coupled with higher reproductivity must consistently be shown to be an inverse relationship with the complexity of the species (ie most complex have had the most generations)
I'm having trouble figuring out your meaning there. In general, the reproductive cycle of more complex species is longer as would be expected.
14/ Life must be able to adapt back to traits that have been lost. Brown moths from mixed colour species must be able to revert when conditions change. Adaptation should be seen to work backwards. Genetic traits must be recessive and dominant to allow limited adaptation and the reoccurence of previous traits.
This is completely consistent with evolution. The only difference with a scenario that rejects evolution is that genes for all future adaptations must already be present in the gene pool. This is not the case.
15/ Incremental changes would rarely if ever be seen to produce any distinct major changes to an organism. The addition of large scale beneficial elements to a lifeform would be so unusual as to be astounding. The appearance of new organs in complex species - organs that actively work and solve some problem so confering an advantage must be almost never seen - if ever (time is irrelevant since the number of complex species effectively running individual experiments is so enormous.) It must be seen that all additional elements are merely mutations of existing information (ie extra body parts such as additional appendages must already exist - just in a different place) - no new information must be observed entering the gentic code to produce a large scale change.
Nobody expects to see new organs appearing from nowhere. Evolutionists expect to see only mutations of existing information, many complex organs appear to only have evolved once or a small number of times and have become more complex over millions of generations.
Things don't look good for the creationist viewpoint. Several of the results that you claim a creationist worldview expects - and indeed requires - are not observed in the real world. To the extent that a belief that involves a supernatural being can be falsified, you've done a pretty good job of falsifying it.
Abaddon

Qcmbr
I've been doing my homework having been stung by the vehemence of the evolutionary believers - I've got some interesting things that maybe science in the classroom could approach.
Some premises -
1/. evolution is only a theory - its not a fact any more than newtonian physics was a fact.

Mmmm. Wrong.
There are fossils showing that various forms of life arose in a sequence over a vast period of time. This is evolution as a fact, so termed because rather than just being 'the same but different' with no 'pattern' or 'direction' of development, the sequence shows development from 'simple' forms to 'complex' forms.
It is also a fact that objects fall at 9.8 m/s/s at sea level on Earth. Newtonian physics explains how objects fall like this.
Evolutionary theory seeks to explain how the fact of how life forms developed from 'simple' to 'complex'.
2/. Clearly species adapt, clearly we can breed animals to select traits etc.. this is not evolution (in fact breeding is intelligent design on a micro level - a fairly provable and testable scientific area of study).
If we allow species to mean "non-inter-fertile life forms", then the micro-evolution within a species, be it by natural or un-natural selection, is part of the process that will give rise to a new non-infertile species originating from the first. This can be seen in nature. There are birds who are inter-fertile throughout most their range, but the varieties at the extremes of the range have drifted apart so much they are no longer inter-fertile. Thus your contention "this is not evolution" would not be agreed with by an evolutionist.
3/. For the sake of clarity I'll remove the God agenda as long as those who will respond against remove their anti-God agenda. This is purely a look at what creationism would expect to see from the evidence.
Straw-man argument. I don't have an anti-god agenda. I have an anti-making-things-up agenda.
4/. I'll try to avoid straw men on the understanding that nobody feels that they should expose their brilliance by reinterpreting what I say into what they think I believe (ie point 3.)
To late on your part. No probs though.
OK now for some observations:
Creation postulates that an intelligent force is required to create life and to continue this process to account for the proliferation of species.
As new species are arising today, for example, in York Train station car park, your theory should cater for the fact of the continuing proliferation of species. However, it does not.
When new species are discovered today, their ancestry, i.e. the way they arose from another species, can normally be determined accurately, and this has always conformed with evolutionary theories.
There are no instances of new species with no possible ancestor appearing on the planet. Your theory would have to explain why creation is only taking place by means of modifying genetic code in a manner identical to that predicted by genetics, and thus apparently by wholly naturalistic processes.
Oh, I assume we're defining species as in a fertile life-form that is not inter-fertile with similar life-forms.
Creation is not, in this case the ark, Vishnu, 6 x 24 hour periods of creation.
Ah, so it is possible that the Biblical account of creation is not an accurate or literal account of the events it claims to cover. Am I correct in saying this is you broadening your concepts of what god might be/how creation happened?
Creation must play on the level field that evolution claims - no impossible time limits and huge amounts of material and energy to play with.
I agree to be accepted as a science, creationism has to play on the same playing field. However, if creationist makes factually incorrect claims or unfalsifiable claims it automatically puts itself on a different playing field to science. What can be disproved or that which can be claimed and not disproved do not belong in science.
Every traditional creation story consigns itself to a different playing field to evolution by setting impossible time periods or other similarly disprovable claims, or insisting that the major mechanism for the process exists even if there is no proof.
Creation suggests that species cannot change from one species to another - this rule must hold for at least one species (ie even if one organism is shown to have not adapted from another that would be a proof for creation at least for that species.).
Mmm... some people who define themselves as believers in creation might disagree with that statement, but anyway, errr. No. If we found H. sap fossilised with T. rex, evolution, the theory, is dead.
If we find that species DO change from one to another, creation, specifically literalistic creationism, is dead. If we were unable to find proof one organism had not not adapted from another, it might just mean we hadn't found the proof that existed.
For example, looking for god and not finding him does not prove there is no god, it just proves you didn't find him. Same with bones.
Finding H sap with T rex is impossible if evolution is right. Finding a species with no precursor species is possible without creationism being right.
OK what would I expect to see:
1/ Fossil records that contain the same species from beginning to end of the gelogical period in question.
Mmmm, and the correlation between a species and a geological period is? Creation would not necessarily stop producing new species in a geological period and wait for the next one. I don't see this as something that would prove creation or as something one would logically expect.
2/ Without suggesting causes for extinction (or that there have been any mass extinctions) there would need to be species appearing in multiple layers seperated by millions of years apart that had not changed. As an additional bonus : finding species alive for which fossil records exist millions of years ago would suggest that as expected - adaptation had not altered the species into a new one.
Do you actually realise you're doing a great job of falsifying creationism? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just wondering if stuff is starting to rub off on you...
3/ In the fossil record there should be no clear species that are clearly changing from one form into another.It should be well nigh impossible to find transitional stages in the same fossil layer that show the eradication of species by adaptation into species found in the next geological layer (or even the same one) - assuming two adjacent gelogical time periods of deposition.
"Clear species" is hard using claudistics (the study of bones I believe). With genetics it is easier, but given the above definition of species (where inter-fertility is the decider), and the fact we can't yet with genetics predict interfertility (we just bang some sperm and an egg in a petri dish) means for older fossils (without genetic information) claudistics is what we have. However, there are clear transitions even if we can only speculate about when one species became non-inter-fertile with another. You also make an error, as a species can arise from another species without the original dying out, and you assume the contrary.
4/ Species must appear suddenly without precursor stages and either disappear just as suddenly or continue the same.
No. Qcmbr, evolution can be divided into different types; divergent evolution doesn't fit your above definition as with divergent evolution the original species still exists when a new species arises from it.
This strikes at the heart of my concerns about your knowledge of the subject. Not knowing about divergent evolution is as big a red flag in a discussion about evolution as someone not knowing about the Opium War if they were discussing the British Empire in the 19th Century. You can take this the wrong way, but I hope you'll see I'm not having a go, I'm making a fair comment.
If I assumed racial equality came about in the USA after th Civil War, you pointing out I was wrong, and maybe needed to brush up on US history would be a fair comment, not a personal attack.
All of the above signs ("Species must appear suddenly without precursor stages"; this can be due to fragmentary evidence, as discussed above, and "Either disappear just as suddenly or continue the same") are categorically not proofs of creation, as you will realise as your knowledge of evolution develops.
5/ It must be impossible to create life by recreating the conditions of this earth and then mixing, adding etc.. but not engineering. IE students in the classroom/lab should be able to put together experiment after experiment using sterile conditions and apply any conditions they think may have existed in the earth and all must fail to initiate life. This experiment must be allowed to scale as allowed by finance etc.. They must still fail. Life must not spontaneously generate. The odds must be stacked in favour of generation in that all basic building blocks of life can be added to the mix as long as they themselves are not alive. Self replicating organic compounds can also be allowed as long as they can be shown to exist/be made in isolation of actual living orgnisms. Time is not to be considered a factor and the more experiments running simultaneously the better.
I thought you were talking about evolution? Abiogenesis is a different subject. Let's stick with evolution for now, eh?
6/ Mutations should rarely if ever be beneficial.
In the timescales evolution takes place over, "rarely if ever" is enough.
In fact mutation should be increasingly less beneficial the larger it is. Statistics should be compiled to show beneficial mutations against non-beneficial.
To what ends? Non-beneficial mutations means the organism is more likely to die without breeding. Beneficial ones mean the organism is less likely to die without breeding. The relative ratio is unimportant, as the non-beneficial ones do not persist. This is natural selection.
Fruit flies can provide evidence - with enough experiments there should soon be a species of fruit fly that is not bred but gains a mutation that is beneficial enough within its limited environment to supercede all other fruit flies and so replace those fruit flies as the dominant fly. This fly should probably not be released into the wild:)
What makes you think that this hasn't happened? However, what will make a mutation common in a captive population with un-natural selection is not necessarily an indication that in the far more variable natural environment the same features would be any good.
Should these experiments fail to produce not only beneficial mutations but also the propagation of that genetic alteration must be enough to survive and must not disappear after a few generations.
Well, those experiments haven't failed. But the continuation of such a variety is dependent upon the conditions that gave rise to that variety remaining stable, and upon that variety having enough diversity to establish as a genotypically sound species. By way of example, the cheetah seems to have gone through a major population scrunch a long time ago, and is hanging onto viability as a species as its gene pool is not sound.
7/ Mutations should rarely happen in complementary groups suggesting that complementary systems in life are more likely planned than random and suggesting that benficial mutations would probably need complimentary mutations to be really effective.
Mutations are just as likely to occur in 'complimentary groups' as they are in 'non complimentary groups', allowing for the relative number of genes in each group. However, as before, the rate of this occurrence is meaningless with the time scales discussed.
Regardless of how often a particular mutation or set of mutations arises, it is natural selection which totally removes the randomness from a random system, as what goes 'into' natural selection from mutation may be random, but what comes 'out' ISN'T. This is a relatively basic concept of evolution.
8/ Irreducible complexity. Some systems should be complex enough to have no viable precursor stage.
As I say, you seem to have changed tack and are actually falsifying creationism. Most classic examples of 'irreducible complexity' have examples of 'reduced complexity' to falsify them.
9/ It must be possible to engineer the building blocks of life. It must be possible to create species that are mixtures of other species and that are viable and can produce offspring. Genetic engineering must be achievable using intelligent processes.
'Possible' and 'possible now' are two different things. But if I am correct and you are listing things a creationist would expect to see given their beliefs, you're wrong. The condition you state can equally be expected by an evolutionist one day.
10/ It must be possible to show how ecosystems can be planned and engineerable. This must be tied to the ability to disperse any life forms across planet boundaries. Creation must have a provable dispersal system.
See comments on 5/, 8/, and think about kangaroos.
11/ The addition of genetic information must be almost impossibly difficult to do by natural mechanistic approaches. While genetic mutation can occur creation would expect that mutation process to struggle to add new material.
Again, this is not observed in nature, which is a falsification of your creationary theory. The way natural selection 'works' means that whilst most mutations are junk or bad, the ones that are good don't struggle to survive as they make survival (to breeding) easier.
12/ Mobile species that are not isolated should be just as biodiverse as isolated populations.
Again, this is not observed in nature, which is a falsification of creationary theory. Hadn't thought of that one.
13/ Reproductivity and reproductive length must have no effect upon the complexity of the species. Complex species could potentially have very long reproductive lengths and very low relative reproductivity. The following must be found false: the shorter the reproductive cycle coupled with higher reproductivity must consistently be shown to be an inverse relationship with the complexity of the species (ie most complex have had the most generations)
Think of the time scales.
14/ Life must be able to adapt back to traits that have been lost. Brown moths from mixed colour species must be able to revert when conditions change. Adaptation should be seen to work backwards. Genetic traits must be recessive and dominant to allow limited adaptation and the reoccurence of previous traits.
Why would that prove anything to a Creationist? Other than evolution happens? Whales with legs exist but are not explainable by creationary theory.
15/ Incremental changes would rarely if ever be seen to produce any distinct major changes to an organism. The addition of large scale beneficial elements to a lifeform would be so unusual as to be astounding. The appearance of new organs in complex species - organs that actively work and solve some problem so confering an advantage must be almost never seen - if ever (time is irrelevant since the number of complex species effectively running individual experiments is so enormous.) It must be seen that all additional elements are merely mutations of existing information (ie extra body parts such as additional appendages must already exist - just in a different place) - no new information must be observed entering the gentic code to produce a large scale change.
these are merely things as a rank amateur creationist I would expect to see
Well, some of the things you list are proofs of evolution (as the inverse of what a creationist would expect to find is found).
In some areas of knowledge, i.e. different types of evolution, the exact role of mutation in evolution, how mutation and natural selection 'interact', you show you need to learn more as your lack of understanding leads you to error. This is not an insult, it is a statement of fact.
Somethings you list are predititions an evolutionist would make (and find), not predictions a creationist would make (like 14/, unless you can explain why this is a creationist prediction).
But this is the most enjoyable post of your on the subject that I have responded to. It has some substance, and you are thinking not repeating. Thank you! I'm not being condescending, I am delighted. If you think in the box, all you see is box. Now you are getting out of the box.
EvilForce
I'll do the anal retentive line-by-line stuff. You hold your own. LOL.
I think we've started the JWD innuendo club...
EvilForce

Great post Abbadon...you did a much better job than I could have...

And as a matter of fact I'm holding my junk right now :P Although it makes typing slower only using one hand since the other one is busy :o
funkyderek

Great post Abbadon...you did a much better job than I could have...

Me too. I could have saved 20 minutes
tetrapod.sapien

holy-moly,
you guys are good. nice replies everyone. i don't know if we will be able to ever help Q, but at least all the lurkers know that it's a ridiculous issue he brings to the table. like terry said: medieval.
simply, ID assumes a creator, which creates more questions and mysteries than it answers and explains. insert Occam's Razor. ID is total mind garbage.
Elsewhere

I was referring to Newtonian physics as a situation wherby it seemed a very good explanation of the observed facts but it didn't stop people looking for more answers and that finally came up with a better theory
No one ever stopped using Newtonian physics. Sure, technically you can modify his equations to account for relativistic effects (I did this once in a high school physics class) on a car driving at highway speeds, but the results would be to same as if you used the old Newtonian equations.
His equations are still good and will always be good because they work. Experimentation clearly demonstrates they are good. If you are looking for some "perfect" equations that will describe all physics with perfect accuracy, then you will never get what you want because that is impossible - even for a deity.
Evolution describes in detail how organism change over time and what processes cause these changes. "Intelligent Design" only says that maybe their might be something that we don't know about that might be changing things in a way that we don't yet understand. That is NOT a theory that can be tested experimentally... that is speculation... no different than a couple of drunks talking about what they think is buried 100 meters under the back side of the moon - NOTHING will ever come of it.
GetBusyLiving

Thanks for taking the time to post this info you guys. I love reading about this shit.
GBL

Creationism - is purely a myth that is untestable - maybe not!

Share this