Jeff Schnitker wrote:
>Logic is based on the persons judgement. If it fits within "their" process
>of "correct reasoning" then it is considered logical to them. This makes
>creation perfectly logical.
actually logic exists outside a single persons judgment. A single person may
not have accurate information to base their logic on. If your premises are
wrong, your logic is wrong.
>> * They must be consistent with experimental and/or observational data.
>>
>> Evolution (and Creation)
>
>Many of the observations of this world point to creation.
can you give us an example? a dozen examples would be better. If you are
speaking of young earth creationism, all observational data refutes it.
>> * They must be testable by scientists through additional experimentation
>> and/or observation.
>>
>> Evolution (and Creation)
>
>Testing using the theories of creation produces results consistant with that
>theory.
no it doesn't. That's why "creation science" was so short-lived. Sincere
creation scientists tried to find hard data to support their theory and
failed. That's why the fall-back position is spurious "attacks" on evolution
or merely propaganda campaigns such as Johnson's.
>> * They must follow strict rules that govern the repeatability of
>observations
>> and experiments."
>>
>> Evolution (and Creation)
>
>The issue with "Creation is not a theory" is that both Creation and
>Evolution come from preconceived ideas that are not scientifically testable.
>This preconception causes the data that is not scientifically provable to be
>validated by the preconception, or their logic, not by fact.
evolutionary theory makes many testable statements that have been tested and
borne out. It would be easy to refute evolution--find that pre-Cambrian rabbit!
has anybody pointed you to http://www.talkorigins.com ?
Susan
--------
Peace is not the absence of conflict--it is the presence of justice.
--Martin Luther King, Jr.
Please visit my website:
http://www.telepath.com/susanb