OMG I forgot all about POE!
You've all been had.
I'm unable to discern the difference between deliberate stupidity and natural stupidity.
I have not read a single creationist site where they didn't start making horrendous mistakes within a few sentences, making you think that the writer is either a lying scumbag, or a complete turkey. But, they are all brainwashed the same way, so they just copy bad arguments from each other.
From the site : http://creation.com/its-not-scienceAnti-creationists, such as atheists by definition, commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a ‘good scientific theory’. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of ‘prediction’ of evolution, whereas they question the value of the creationist model in making predictions. Since, they say, creation fails their definition of ‘science’, it is therefore ‘religion’, and (by implication) it can simply be ignored.
This article probably starts going off the rails around where I redded
In case SHIN actually bothers to read this, the reason that the article is going off the rails at this point, is because creationists have made no attempt
to set up their own peer review process, because their own hypothesis has no consistency that any of them will agree to. The article fails to mention this.
The rest of the article is almost valid satire/polemic, but it makes a few fatal mistakes.
It creates two classes of science: "Operational" and "Historical". It then implies that evolution and cosmology fit totally into the "historical" science category. Let's go with that, because he soon contradicts himself.
It then says that evolution has been falsified because : Contrary to evolutionists’ expectations, breeding experiments reach limits; change is not unlimited.
Having just put evolution into the historical category, we would not expect to see breeding causing "unlimited" changes, because real change takes thousands of years, and cannot be done by breeding, because breeding does not cause
He then raises the lame duck : there is the profound absence of the many millions of transitional fossils that should exist if evolution were true
What's he saying here? There are none? Or, is he saying that there is a profound absence of millions? Is this a new scientific term? I don't know how we could have millions of transitional fossils, unless... wait.. every fossil you dig out of the ground, is actually a transitional fossil.
The final skid off the rails, comes with: "So, Darwinism never predicted anything, it was modified to accommodate the observations. In fact, because Darwinism is so malleable as to accommodate almost any conceivable observation, ...."
Whilst there is an element of truth to this, it fails to acknowledge that these "any conceivable observations" are all nicely fitting a scheme that was mapped out in the early days of paleontology, and nothing terribly surprising is coming out of the ground. It all comes out of strata of the correct ages.
If I was a creationist, then nearly everything I dug out of the ground would be a big surprise, that in no way fitted my theory. Dinosaur? Hmmm.... Coal swamp 3km below ground with river bed ontop of it? Hmmm...
If I was a creationist, then I'd be looking for something that didn't fit the theory, rather than flying lame ducks, and contributing nothing.