Read the full critical response of my testimony here:
Here is my rebuttal:
items in italics are quotes from the critical response…
You’ve admitted to me that you don’t consider creationism a science.
Yes I have. But you fail to recognize that I don’t consider evolution a science either. Both theories are based on unverifiable assumptions about the past. If we going to include one, lets include both.
Science is the explanations we have for natural phenomena based purely on facts, and no speculation. Creationism doesn’t fit that in any way.
In my presentation I used the FACT of the moon receding away from the earth at 4cm per year. My conclusion based on that fact is that the earth cannot be billions of years old. How is that not science?
There is nothing special about creationism that would make it any more valid than any other religion’s creation myths
Actually creationism gives a theory that the geologic column and fossil record are the result of a worldwide flood. No other creation stories allow for a fully plausible explanation of the evidence left behind.
Teaching creationism as a fact, whether in a science or history class, is illegal
Teaching any theory in science as fact should be illegal. It may be legal to state that evolution appears to make a more logical and better case for the evidence. Teaching creation does not endorse a religion any more than teaching the history of the slave trade endorses slavery. It’s like Fox News says – we report, you decide.
The only place it can be taught is in a cultural study class. It would not be teaching any of these things as fact
Perhaps you can answer your own question here. How come it can be taught here not as fact but not in a science class?
99%+ of the scientists out there perfectly accept the methodology as reliable. YOU must provide evidence which suggests they are not. You have not, and you cannot.
We’ve been down this whole debate several times. No need to go in depth here again. My argument is not in the evidence, it is in the interpretations.
You make the point that extrapolation can not be verifiable. This is true to a degree, but unfortunately, not to the degree which you hope. It depends on the circumstances. Some things extrapolated create a large range of error, and others result in a very small range. We can calculate these.
You nailed it! “It depends on the circumstances”. Creationists believe in a 6-day creation period vs. billions of years. Creationists believe in a year-long catastrophic deluge of the earth vs. millions of years of burial in the fossil record. I agree with you that it depends on the circumstances.
The moon example again? I don’t understand why you continue to use this when it has been proven to you that it’s a horrible example.
You seem to miss that I acknowledged in my presentation that there were problems with the moon example. I used those problems to make my point that extrapolation fails.
Living fossils are allowed by evolution. For example, if humans eventually evolved into some other form of life, lets call it human+, all humans wouldn’t suddenly cease to exist.
That’s not what Darwin said: “…evidence of their former existence could be found ONLY amongst fossil remains.” The question I asked is why would some species be evolving and not others.
Teaching science is not just about what can be proven, though you are incorrect in saying evolution cannot be proven. It can and has.
You use the words “proven” and “fact” incorrectly. At the committee meeting yesterday, NO ONE, including the science professor from Purdue University described evolution as fact. No professional I’ve ever heard speak on the topic would. In fact the professor agreed that it is not fact and he does not use the word “proven” ever
“we’ve never seen a young child jump straight into an adult” of course you haven’t, it doesn’t work that way. It slowly changes over time until it is eventually different enough to call it a different species than you used to call it.
For future reference, you might want to rethink using a human evolving into a human as your example. I understand the idea. I don’t dispute it because I don’t understand it. The logic makes sense, but that doesn’t mean the evidence aligns.
Look at the flu. Every single year it evolves rapidly. That’s why they need to engineer a brand new vaccine every year
Ah yes, the flu example. I believe I’ve talked with you about this before. The flu virus adapts. Creationists believe in adaptation. What the flu virus does not do is change into a fish or a bird or a monkey. Natural selection and adaptation are proven mechanisms. I don’t dispute that.
The depth the fossils are found further confirms.
Depth of the fossils confirm it only if you believe the fossils were buried over long periods of time. There is no proof that it took long periods of time to bury it, and some modern day proof that geologic strata can be created relatively quickly. Which verifies the theory that the geologic column was created quickly in Noah’s flood.
with humans and chimpanzees, there is a 96% DNA match
Close matching DNA does not prove a common ancestor any more than it proves a common designer.
If there would be no physical progression, it would just be randomness. However there is.
The fossils found in the geologic column from bottom to top actually represent perfectly what we would expect to see if waters enveloped creatures across the world in the days of the flood. We would see smaller marine fossils first up through larger mammal fossils towards the top layers.
I don’t normally post my debates here on this blog, but I do regularly debate on these issues on the social site: reddit.com. I can be found under www.reddit.com/user/tmgproductions and now more recently – www.reddit.com/user/tmgproductions1.
I posted this here as an example as to how the other side will respond. But just because they have a response does not make that the gospel. The debate will go back and forth. It will eventually come down to worldview theories and issues of authority.
To continue following the the debate click here.