Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

No sir, naturalistic science is designed to develop a theory based on scientific facts not confirm what you believe is a fact already. This is why naturalistic theories fail so often, they are built upon assumptions of what you want it to be....it's pure faith in hopes that science will confirm it, but it hasn't done that very well at all...it's been overhauling it lol. This is why Creation science is superior to just naturalistic science alone. Science on the other hand rarely if ever conflicts with the Creation model, it actually confirms it :)

OldDoc Loc: New York

No, revising a theory merely indicates that science is doing what it should - growing to incorporate new observations as it asymptotically approaches the truth. In the case of evolution, details have been revised, but the core concepts remain after 150 years of efforts by reputable and disreputable scientists to disprove them.

OldDoc Loc: New York

You are not correct. Naturalistic science does not base theories on fact, as you claim. Naturalistic science bases theories upon actual observations, then makes predictions which can be tested. Creation "science" has yet to make a prediction that is testable since the existence of a magical being whose motivations are, by definition, unknowable makes objective testing impossible. The insistence on a scientific slant to what is a religious belief has always befuddled me. Religious beliefs are, by their nature, unverifiable, and untestable, hence, not scientific. One must believe in such beliefs, and the objective world shouldn't interfere with this. The only reason why religious adherents would try to develop a scientific slant, IMHO, is to make the introduction of crypto-religious indoctrination into public education possible. Fortunately, the SCOTUS and many lower courts have seen through this scam.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

The problem with that issue is that evolution is not a fact but assumptions built on unproven theories, even Darwin knew this yet he blindly propagated it 150 years ago with very little to no evidence. Therefore the theory of Darwinian evolution is based purely on speculation and assumptions. 150 years later and there is still no solid evidence even after millions of fossils that were discovered, where are all these non existing intermediate transitional forms??? If there have been millions of fossils discovered (which there were), where are these transitions? You would certainly think they would have filled up all the transitional missing links. Now when it comes to the complexity of organs he writes (said) in his book "Origin of Species"------- "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Darwin said,

“ … the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. … We should not forget that only a small portion of the world is known with accuracy.

A Smithsonian biologist said,

“The ‘modern evolutionary synthesis’ convinced most biologists that natural selection was the only directive influence on adaptive evolution. Today, however, dissatisfaction with the synthesis is widespread, and creationists and antidarwinians are multiplying. The central problem with the synthesis is its failure to show (or to provide distinct signs) that natural selection of random mutations could account for observed levels of adaptation.”
Leigh, E., The modern synthesis, Ronald Fisher and creationism, abstract in Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14(12):495–498, 1999; p. 495

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

"fact" and "Observations" are the same thing, you said the theory of evolution is NOT based on facts (which I agree with) but on observation.

Fact; a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true:

Whether you want to pin it as "fact" or "Observation", it has the same effect. Darwin neither had facts or observation, he only had speculations on what he thought might be there in the fossil record which he did not possess to even make this serious claim. Well he ended up being wrong about that and the complexity of the cell. If Darwin was alive today, I am sure he would reject his own theory of evolution. Now the most serious problem with naturalistic theories is the non materialistic reality of information code programming. You know this very well, material can not create or produce non material information...so how did the cells get it's non material DNA code information?

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

There have been no scientific studies that even come close to affirming the creation ideas.

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

You are much too logical for rac.

slocumeddie Loc: Inside your head, again

So, are you saying that creationism is not science...?

letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.

It looks like he finally caught on.

Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.

The law of gravity has been "tweaked" several times. Are you saying that gravity doesn't exist?

Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.

I know for a fact that I was concieved. I wasn't there to observe it.

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

Have you ever read Origins of the Species?

user47602 Loc: ip 304.0.0.33.32

does it come in a youtube?

...actually yes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfmOaAz371M

OldDoc Loc: New York

It would have helped if you had read beyond the abstract. This theoretical paper (it presents no data) is actually a discussion of the role of natural selection on individuals vs. on populations. It accepts the event of evolution, and places natural selection at the core of this event, and proceeds to discuss the work of Fisher, which examines how mutation produces either large or small changes in individuals, and how those changes can be modularized and lead to macroevolutionary changes. The paper was published in 1999, and since then there has been much experimental work that demonstrates that mutation is not the only driver. Genomic rearrangement, for example, explains the appearance of many heritable changes such as the appearance of flagella and the blood clotting cascade (I mention these two because it has been a creationist claim that such developments are impossible absent a designer). Laboratory studies have demonstrated, for example, in bacteria that organisms that cannot metabolize glucose can acquire the capacity to do so by repurposing other metabolic enzymes they already posses to do this task.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Amazing admission
Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it.

‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen.