Creationists look at the same evidence with different, but reasonable conclusions, except it disagrees with evolution. Why is that less of a proof?
Because “because god made it that way to trick us” is not a valid scientific explanation?
Evolution is a theory based on reproduceable observations, not the absence of observation. Do you know what all the observations are that support the theory of evolution? Can you reproduce an observation of your own that is inconsistent with the tenets of evolution? If an observation could be reproduced that is inconsistent with evolution, scientific origin theory would have to account for it, and textbooks would be altered to reflect the new theory.
And I believe people must be arguing the point with him out of a very limited experience with religious extremists. You’re not going to convince him. You can’t make people accept ideas, no matter how well supported the reason or eloquent the argument.
His beliefs are invalid, illogical, ridiculous, backwards, and utterly false. Isn’t that enough, without having him admit it too?
The key difference is that science is willing to discard or modify its hypotheses to accommodate the data, whereas creationism is willing to ignore or obfuscate the data to accomodate the hypotheses.
Mind telling us this theory of creationism. Please let us know what its predictive value has been, and how it explains all the data found since it was first promulgated, including the age of the earth and of the universe, and the countless fossils discovered in the past 150 years.
By the way, dismissing all evidence against creationism as errors on the part of scientists is not a reasonable explanation. You might also give an example of how the theory has changed to meet the facts, as opposed to ignoring or distorting facts to meet the theory.
As an example of how it should be done, Darwin’s hypothesis of how traits are passed on to descendants is totally wrong. As it turns out the way it really works is even more supportive of evolution. That my friend, is how science works.
There’s a saying that goes something like “you can’t use reason to argue a person out of a position that he didn’t use reason to arrive at in the first place.” I’m sure that I said it more clumsily than it should be, but you get the drift.
I heard it as “you can’t reason a person out of a position they didn’t reason themself into”, but you got the meaning and it is very appropriate in this context.
That would be a class in theology NOT History.
I would have no problem adding Theology as an elective course. Then you can teach all the intelligent design you want without impinging your beliefs on my Child in the classroom.
If it were taught as an elective I would allow my daughter to choose the course, but I would neither forbid or demand it of her.
I say make it an elective and allow the kids to decide.
Sure: but apparently god was worried that the Pharoh was going to show mercy and let the people go. So he swung into action.
Then why do anything? The Bible says that God not only did it, but did it for a purpose: go look and see what that purpose was. It’s hard to argue that, no matter how bad the Pharoh was, that it’s okay to make someone WORSE, and then claim not to have inspired further evil behavior.
I suppose: what was a two year old firstborn child being punished for exactly?
Frameshift mutations, specifically, insertions.
New “kinds” are relative. When you look at the fossil sequence from reptile to bird in detail, you see a gradual transition, not a sudden jump. At which point we define a “new kind of animal” is largely arbitrary.
I mean that given a global flood, the appearance of the fossil record would be one of one or a very few uniform layers. Instead, we have numerous layers, each with distinct fossils which tend to be unique to those layers. Further, the sequence of the fossils is one in which we find forms ancestral to modern forms lower down in the record, and modern forms near the top. We find intermediate forms in between, strongly suggesting the populations themselves underwent a transformation. This is, of course, exactly what we should expect to find if those populations represent evolutionary lineages. We do not find what we should expect to find if everything died all at once in a single global catastrophe.
Again, how “different” an animal is is largely an artifical human construct. When you look at details, you find that many of the groups you mention have a good deal in common. Birds share many characteristics with reptiles. In fact, there is nothing you can say about all reptiles that you cannot also say about all birds. Birds are, by modern taxonomic schemes, reptiles. Similarly, dogs and cats (or, more properly, felids and canids) are more similar to each other than gross outward anatomy alone might indicate. And, we even find fossils that share characteristics of both canids and felids.
So, is a fox a different “kind” from a wolf? Is a grey wolf a different “kind” from a red wolf? Is a hummingbird a different “kind” from an emu?