The Anti-Evolutionists Are Crippled By Questions That Undermine Their Entire Case

I believe that I will be able to demonstrate that I am not crippled, in any way, by these questions or other related ones. It is part of Pro's burden, per the resolution, to show that I am somehow crippled by such questions. This is an interesting challenge and I look forward to our discussion. To clarify for the readers, I declined Pro's intitial challenge due to the fact that I do not dispute the entire Theory of Evolution. As is clear in the forums, I and most creationists, only dispute the Theory of Common Descent. When evolution is used to argue for common descent, is when the disagreement begins, so it is assumed that creationists dispute the entire concept of evolution, but that is not true. Regardless, I declined the original to allow Pro to make any necessary changes to his arguments, in light of that clarification. Now, on to Pro's questions.1a. Yes, I've heard of the Lenski Affair. It's obvious to any thinking person that Schlaffley didn't bother reading Lenski's paper before issuing critiques, thus obviously negligent from the start. I don't see how this is any more embarassing to creationists, as a whole, than frauds like Haeckel's embryos [1], or Nebraska [2] and Piltdown Man [3], are to evolutionists, as a whole. 1b. After my clarification, I'm surprised that this question was left in since it doesn't apply to anything that I actually contest. I've never challenged Lenski's findings so unless Pro wants to clarify, and has something specific in mind to discuss, this question doesn't apply to me.2. Lenski is way off base here. Our view in no way implies that God has limitations. It is not about what God CAN do, the question is about what He DID do. The Bible tells us ten times in Genesis 1 alone [4], that God created life forms to bring forth after their kind. It's as if He knew that this would someday be a point of contention, so He made it clear as to what He DID do. It also says that God made man in His image [4], and breathed into him the breath of life. Unless God evolved through the same lineage as man is alledged to have done, it is clear that the Theory of Common Descent, and the Bible, are at odds.3. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, when it comes to scientists, but I do believe that there is a huge bias against allowing any hint of theological thinking to penetrate the barriers of science, even when examining origins. Regardless, I don't think that scientists are actually protecting a theory that they know to be false. I'm sure they actually believe it to be true. However, the truth does not depend on how many people believe it, and a majority belief in a theory does not make it true. I think that how a scientist answers the question, "What is science? ", plays a big role in answering Pro's question. If one believes that science is a search for truth and knowledge, he is more likely to realize the limitations of science, and be willing to consider the possibility of the metaphysical. If one believes that science is an attempt to explain the natural world, using the natural world, then he will obviously stick to, what he believes to be, valid natural processes to explain everything. The latter is sometimes hampered by this view, as in the case of origins, because he forced to accept and defend the possiblity of logical absurdities, simply because it is the only "natural" possibility. Bottom line is that there are convincing arguments for and against both sides. How one chooses to interpret the evidence will be determined by their worldview, sometimes vice versa. The reasons why one would choose to interpret the evidence in a particular way, are many and varied. I can only speculate as to an individual's choices.4. Pro asks several questions in 4 but I think I can answer them all without separating them, in my response. I think there is evidence that clearly refutes common descent, as do some scientists, but there is no unanimous acceptance of that evidence within the scientific community, as a whole. In addition, there is tremendous bias against the concept of "creation science", so even though they are doing the same kind of work that scientists in their field are doing, by virtue of them being creationists, their work is ignored simply because it conflicts with majority view. Even here on DDO, I've seen voters refuse to even consider a source valid if it is a creationist, automatically giving the source points to whoever opposes the creationist. That is unfortunate, unfair, and small-minded, but it goes a long way in answering Pro's question. If people are unwilling to even look at the creationist's evidence, then how will they ever know if such evidence exists, or is valid? ? As for Simon's Cat, until seeing it mentioned by Pro in his question, I had never even heard of it. I've done a lot of research on the creation/evolution debate, over the past year or so, and have learned a lot about both sides. I guess a person's areas of interest, and how they spend their time are factors in what information they will be exposed to. The knock-out kind of evidence that Pro seems to be looking for, that would suddenly change everyone's mind, in one fell swoop is impossible, but it would also work in reverse if common descent was found to be true. That evidence is comparative analysis between organisms that are known to be unrelated by ancestry, but in the evolutionist's mind, such a creature does not exist. Many of us believe that is exactly what scientists are doing right now, and have been doing in the past. However, due to the evolutionary assumption that all organisms are related by ancestry, it is not possible to convince them that the results that they are getting is what would be seen in unrelated organisms. The impossibility of falsification through comparative analysis, and the refusal to consider other conflicting evidence makes such a convincing falsification nearly impossible. I believe that I have adequately answered Pro's questions and I look forward to the next round.1. . http://www.talkorigins.org...;2. . http://www.talkorigins.org...;3. . http://www.talkorigins.org...;4. . http://www.biblegateway.com...;