I'll concede on (1).
(2) "Creationism explains exactly what it's supposed to: the origin of Life, the Universe, and Everything. Of course it doesn't predict anything, it's a theory of the origin of life." Then in what sense can it explain anything? A theory with no predictive power is like Calvin's dad explaining that wind is caused by trees sneezing. Might be true, might not, and if true then it does give a picture of the causation underlying observed events -- but it's not clear what part of any of this deserves to be called an explanation. An explanation should be something that makes parts of a picture fall into place so that you can see something simpler underlying them and bringing them together.
I mean that it doesn't predict anything in the future. While this may not be entirely useful, that doesn't mean that it's incorrect.
(3) "Everything (or at least a lot) of the things in the Bible that can be proven have, so it follows logically that that which cannot be proven is also correct." That's not logic, it's induction -- the same principle that underlies the discovery of scientific truths. But in this case it's faulty induction. If 999 randomly chosen statements from a book all turn out to be true, you can be pretty sure that the thousandth is probably also true. But if a book has sections on history and sections on theology, and the historical sections turn out to be true, that doesn't guarantee anything about the theology. They're such different fields that even if the book was written by one writer, it would be entirely plausible that he knew lots about history and nothing about theology.
Alright, it's induction. Either way, there are still a fair amount of theological stuff that has turned out to be true - prophesies and the like. For example, there are a number of prophesies, that when worked out provide the year that Israel was accepted by most of the world as a country. Remember, none of the Bible was written past 1000AD, and Israel became a country in the 1940s. I know this is hardly convincing evidence, but it's there.
(4) "Evolutionists are the same way about Evolution. They say that Creation is not a viable scientific theory (neither is Evolution, by the way), but then make arguments against Creation as if it proves Evolution." I'm not responsible for what any particular evolutionist has said, but even if some of them have used this faulty reasoning, that doesn't disprove evolution. The fact is, evolutionists are keen to make arguments against creationism because many people are convinced of the truth of creationism and need to be unconvinced before they will look at the evidence for evolution with an open mind. But the evidence is there; there are a lot more reasons why I believe in evolution than just because I don't believe in creationism.
Here I was just responding to Maurog. I don't think this disproves evolution.
(5) As for evolution "not being a viable scientific theory", I'd like to know why you think that -- as the only thing you've said so far that really carries bite, it deserved a little more respect than being confined to a parenthetical comment. If your main argument here is that we can't get into a time machine and observe the evolution of the giraffe, I wonder whether for the same reason you would say that geology is not scientific, or astronomy, or even the reconstruction of unrecorded proto-languages in linguistics. All the knowledge we have comes from observing the present state of the world, but in all these cases we can make hypotheses about what the past must have been like for the present to be the way it is, use these hypotheses to make predictions about as-yet unknown aspects of the present state of things, and test these predictions. Sounds pretty scientific to me.
But as I said before, Evolution is not scientific. This is simply because science is, by definition, "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena [and activities thereof]." http://www.answers.com/science Because the origin of life and species cannot be observed, Evolution (or, more correctly, the Theory of the Origin of Species) cannot be a scientific theory.
This isn't saying that evolution is wrong, but instead that it is not a
scientific theory and should not be treated as such. Like it or not, believing in Evolution is equal to having a religion.
Why do we need new anti biotics, as bacteria somehow evolves to become drug resistant? That's positive proof of evolution.
No, actually it's not. Evolution requires organisms to gain genetic information. In drug resistance, what happens is a certain bacteria will
lose the ability to let in or use a certain drug. Because most drugs are beneficial in low quantities (alcohol, in low doses, improves the ability to think clearly. However, after that very low dose it quickly degrades the ability to think.), the bacteria which lose this ability are less fit to survive than the bacteria who didn't lose that ability, except in circumstances where that particular drug is present. The ability they lose is sometimes the ability to transport a similar, more important molecule.
So, for NiroZ's link to "
New Testament Contradictions"
, I'll correct whoever wrote that misunderstandings.
Click here to view the secret text
×(1a1)The contradictions in the Bible are usually only seen by those who don't know what they're talking about. For example, genealogies are not intended to be precise records, they just give a general idea of the line of descent. "Son of" sometimes just means "descendant of".
(Rest of 1a)Not contradictions, just oddities in how Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote their gospels. They were just recording events as they saw fit and based on their memories. Jesus was the descendant of David, just as someone who is adopted is the son of his (legal) father. (4) particularly is inference, and is wrong anyway. There aren't stories of other women in Jesus' line in the Bible, so maybe that's why he included them.
(1b)Just plain wrong as a contradiction. Are parents always perfect?
(1c)I don't know about this one.
(1d)This is incorrect. The second paragraph is the only one that says anything, and it's wrong as the bible never says that he didn't come from there in the first place.
Wow. This is really annoying. I'm not going to do anymore because the writer either knows next to nothing, or is deliberately misinterpreting things.
Just to be clear, we are talking about macro evolution, not micro evolution (i.e. adaption), which very few people disagree with.