How you ever got that out of what I said is a mystery to me. I suppose that is the same way that the rhetoric of evolution comes about also. You evolutionists are great story tellers now aren't you!
Everyone else reading this thread should notice that there was no story there. Never the less, it is "tell tale" that you were unable to produce a single credible proponant of evangelical creationism, nor a single verifiably accurate argument in favor of creationism. Why is that?
But I could give you substantial compelling reasons *if* you would answer my challenge to explain
(1) what you think evolution is,
I like the following defiition, it's concise and covers the gist of it.
"Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time."
"Descent with modification" would be more accurate. But let's go for more than the "gist". Let's be precise:
Biological evolution is a process of varying genetic frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in their morphological or physiological composition, which –when compiled over successive generations- can increase biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins.
(2) why you reject it,
It is against the Biblical account in Genesis. Because it can also be explained by Creation and an intelligent design.
Can it? How? How does "
intelligent design" explain -anything? Give me any example you've know of. Because to my experience debating supposed "experts" with the Discovery Institute myself, their whole and sole explanative argument amounts to nothing more than "Goddidit", and anything and everything which seems to run counter to that is dismissed with "
that doesn't mean anything." That's all they've got, and it aint enough. For example, referring to one of the questions you ignored earlier, how does creationism explain these:
Remember when I told you about eukaryotes earlier? Do you deny that you are descended from eukaryotes? How does creationism explain that fact?
And how can "
cumulative changes that occur in a population over time" both be against the Bible, and be explained by the Bible at the same time?
I believe that changes or mutations are far more negative than positive and it is only the rare mutation that may increase in fitness over time. I do not see this as the norm in evolution though. It seems to be directly opposite. I could believe that the lesser came from the greater before I could believe the greater came from the lesser. It's just not "RATIONAL" that way.
Actually, according to
the National Center for Biotechnological Information, we have an overall average rate of 128 mutations per human zygote. As we grow, and our cells continue to replicate, we accumate more mutations. These new mutations gained as we grow increase the chances of being inherited by the next generation. Some of these mutations can be harmful, but the vast majority are completely neutral, and a few are definitely beneficial.
There is no evidence that nothing could just become something in the physical realm.
And there's no evidence of a metaphysical realm at all. Quantum physicists and string theorists believe they can account for the Big Bang. But what part of evolution, -by your definition or mine- has anything to do with anything poofing out of nothing? And isn't that what you believe happened anyway?
The fact that there is an intelligent Designer is just more logical. It makes more sense to believe that than the other.
Thus far, no one using incantation spells has ever poofed anything out nothing in any demonstration. Magic wands dipped in bird's blood won't rid your house of mold, nor cure you of scabies either. If you want to see how much sense it makes to believe in creationist magic, Beliefnet.com posted instructions from the sacred Kaballah for how to perform the
golem spell in Genesis 1:7. But the first thing you should realize is that a 'fact' is something not in dispute because it is verifiably true. Is God verifiably true? Or does it require faith to believe he even exists?
I haven't really seen any evidence that it is true. I see a lot of things that are deemed as evidence but in fact, nothing more than interpretations of the data to fit into their bias of ToE.
Remember that rationalism is opposed to "biases". So that little jab doesn't apply to me. But I do want a specific example of some factual circumstance promoted as evidence of evolution, but which you think is only "interpreted" as such, and explain how you think it should be "interpreted."
(3) what evidence you would need to see to change your mind.
I would like to see more than a few questionable transitional fossils. There should be at least thousands if it were true. Especially after 25-50 alleged myr!
25-50 million years? Exactly what stage of evolution are you thinking of? Because I'm studying paleontology at the University of Texas. If you want to see thousands, I can show you thousands. But let's be specific. Give me any lineage you want to focus on, and let me know which transitional you want to see first.
I would like to see all this evidence, and then explained in laymans terms.
You got it. Except that I must be academically correct, and "layman's terms" may not be adequate or accurate in many cases. But I'll let you know when and why should it come up.
One thing I don't want is "reasons" as you mentioned above.
What are you talking about? Prove it to you, but without any reason behind it? What?
Show me the beef! Why is it so hidden?
That has long been my lament as well! Its the primary reason I'm seeking a science degree myself right now. Scientists have volumes upon volumes of fossils and other forms of evidence sitting forgotten in file drawers reguiring a membership logon just to see many of them. That's just not right. If scientists weren't so often elitests, or if science were taught properly, the creationist movement wouldn't even exist in this country.
I don't know why other Creationists end your debates but I know in that particular discussion you had just accused me of a bunch of things and quite frankly, I didn't want to keep going around with you on it. You are obviously a very smart man but not so smart that you know everything about everybody. The fact still remains that you the odds are that you are wrong a whole lot more than you think you are. And you were wrong and unfair in your description of me.
Prove it. Because I'm betting that you'll be a typical creationist, meaning that you'll repeatedly ignore critical points, you'll refuse to answer direct questions, you'll continue to embrace foundational falsehoods and maintain logical fallacies even after they've been disproved, and you will move the goal posts whenever or however you can in order to avoid being held accountable on any point. Because one thing that has always been consistently true is that no one can defend creationism otherwise. Once one begins to systematically explore this contraversy in-depth, one has to choose whether to remain honest or whether to remain creationist; because it will no longer be possible to be both.
(that one always tickles me 
All of those other benefits of science (a doubled average human life span, an infant mortality rate below 1/10th that of pre-industrial levels, methods for improving air, water, and land quality while remaining fully industrialized, agricultural science which allows for a human population thirty-fold greater than what the planet could provide for naturally, etc.) You assert that scientists are all about making themselves feel good, but their results speak to a benefit for others which is vastly more than what they may ever gain for themselves...
