Questions on biology

[Rían]

I don't know that I would categorize them as "successive steps", GrayMouser ... I disagree with that statement from TalkOrigins. I think it would be more accurate to amend your statement to "the TalkOrigin site presents them as 'ends of a continuum' and suggests the following list:", but that's only MHO

(Presenting the options this way is also a subtle slight to creationists, btw, (as in "they belong down there with the stupid flat-earthers, who we all know are wrong") but I'm not surprised by that, seeing as it's from TalkOrigins. They do better than usual at repressing prejudiced, un-scientific jabs, but they still do it.)

And Janny, here's a link to my summary posts on creationism, if you're interested: link

TalkOrigins is a pretty good site, IMO, and I've enjoyed reading it. However, I find them prejudiced in favor of evolution (which is certainly their right, but they should not present themselves as being neutral, then.) I've found that several of the arguments against creationist positions which they present as CONCLUSIVE are COMPLETELY hypothetical; this is not proof. (IOW, they "refute" some creationist points by saying "This creationist point is false, because it is possible that so-and-so is true." I'm sorry, but that is NOT proving the creationist point false; it is merely pointing out that it MAY not be true - there is a HUGE difference!)

A creationist would get (rightly) laughed off the site if they said "evolution is not true because God may have created things like the Bible says", yet in those cases, the evolutionists are saying the SAME THING, and presenting it as conclusive proof against the creationist point in question. Read their posts with an open mind (yes, I said an open mind, IRex ) and you will definitely see this happening in some cases.

I still need to get my rear in gear and present my logical objections to their computer simulation examples ... I think my objections are quite valid, and I have the background to support them. Should be interesting.

And also, I've been meeningtersay that frankly, I think the purpose of science is to .... find out things. The universe is incredible - let's find out more about it! "Science" has been kinda hijacked in the creation/evolution debate, IMO, like "science supports evolution!" or "science supports creationism!" Well, science should support whatever observations are observable, measureable, and repeatable. And it does. And the important underlying assumptions of the theory of evolution and creation are NOT observable, measureable and repeatable. I'm NOT saying we shouldn't make logical inferences, such as punctuated equilibrium, but I AM saying we should not label these inferences as "supported by science".