BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
So, are you saying you have seen a creation event? Have you observed the formation of coal? Do you reject that coal formed from ancient organic material? Do you reject the theory that the elements on Earth originated in a super nova? What exactly about evolution do you reject? And why your assumption that a loss of a species is counter to the theory of evolution?
Thousands of thousands of creation events. The creative ability and the designing instinct are apparent in man and he has produced some entirely unique and new things. As far as original creation that my firend is a hypothesis that I developed from consulting ancient texts, trying to make sense of the apparent world, and forces that seem to exist, my own reason, and logic, and the marvelous order have all lead me to form a theory about how life came to be, and observations answer the predictions, and it explains my observations.
Never have seen that, I understand it can be replicated. I believe coal was formed in the Global water cataclysm that the God that created things, according to my theory, said he caused to come upon the earth, and that violently changed the face of the earth. I have no evidence to say that this speculation, that is akin to the explanations by evolution, is science, but the old book says it happened. Explaining unobserved observations is speculative, but there are tears in the earths crust, uplifts, volcanoes, huge beds of coal, and lakes of oil to explain.
Well from the theoretical perspective of creation I would speculate that God created them. I would assume from a evolutionary persceptive one would say that a Super Nova caused it. These are speculations and not really science, although there are certianly measurements and observations that do say there was a begining, and that is science, and It is entirely interesting it would be interesting, if this fascist culture within science would go away, to see where the two theoretical perspectives would take us next in discovering (a uniquely human and hugely adaptive trait) the infancy of this wonderful existence.
I do not reject anything much about evolution, I do think it is overrated. IT seems to have a superiority complex, and is being accepted and tought in schools as if it were fact, as if it were the very science, the very observations itself. Evolution is a particular theoretical perspective that allows one to guide and interpret and predict within the framework of science, The more open science is to the free exchange of ideas the better. I cringe when I hear the term theoretical framework, the conjecture and hypothesis and explanations are the theories and the operate with the framework of science each yielding different predictions and explanations, but both only geared at discovering the reality of things. I repeat, and shout it for the world to hear. LET SCIENCE BACK INTO THE ARENA OF IDEAS!!! I think that a evolutionist and a creationist could work very well side by side, and both be amazed by the wonders of this world.
The reason I made that point is beacuse I was taking the perspective of an evolutionist and predicting that if life came from one being and branched out through mutation and speciation that I would expect to see a history of increasing numbers of species, but from a creation perspective I would predict that since all species that ever existed were created at one point in time, that there would be a gradual lessening in number of species.
