Joined: Feb. 2008
|Quote (bjray @ April 22 2010,21:41)|
|But you, yourself, said that "science is based on evidence that stands up to everything." Are you telling me that evolution has passed this test?|
Thus far, yes. Next question ?
| One cannot provide evidence for some "big bang"|
Big bang is cosmology, not evolution. It's also the best fit to the available evidence by far. (Astronomers and cosmologists do talk about "stellar evolution" and such, but this is not related to Theory Of Evolution in biology.)
or "primordial soup" or whatever the new story is this time around.
Abiogenesis is closely related, but it's not evolution. The distinction is important because evolution works regardless of how the first reproducing organisms appeared. There's good reason to believe that chemical abiogenesis is possible, but common descent would be well support even if life appeared through some other means.
So I submit to you that evolution also fails in many areas.
I submit, based on the glaring errors above, that you don't have any idea what evolution is. I'd also submit that evolution is as well supported as pretty much any other widely accepted science, while creationism is not.
Is it simply that because Creationists attribute what might be a scientifically explainable event to an Intelligent Designer the primary issue? Or, is it t because Creationists do not use evolution to help explain their work?
Nope. Do you even read the replies to your posts ? This has been explained to you several times.
Or, is it that Creationists use a "get out of jail free" by attributing God to various things that science can explain?
Now you are getting closer. You can insert "god did it" anywhere, but it doesn't actually explain anything, precisely because you can insert it anywhere. God, by most popular definitions, can do anything. So there is no possible observation that is more compatible with "god did it" than any other, and "god did it" provides no predictions about what else you should observe.
Even you could say "god did it" was true in some abstract philosophical sense, it would be useless as an explanation.