My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)

I say no.
The problem with race in America is that we haven't adequately defined it.We're still working off the Reconstruction South's definition of "black". One drop of black blood.A 100% African immigrant is black.
So is someone who's 1/2 or 1/4 or 1/8 or 1/16 or 1/32.Basically if you declare yourself "black", who's gonna question it.The same deal isn't working for 1/16th Latino. Or 1/16th Asian.Now couple that with the fact that America is a melting pot, and you're hard pressed to find anyone who is 100% one thing or another. So, then we've got the problem of determining if Tiger Woods is black or Asian. Should he get scholarships from two different programs? Does he have to declare that he's one thing or another.The whole system is a complete mess.

Yes. Also, yes. Well, TOE and "big bang" are wildly different parts of radically different areas of science. Just because the fairy tale your mommy told you links them, that doesn't make it so.But, more importantly, the only "assumption" involved in either is the same assumption that ALL of science utilizes: "Reality is real".If you have evidence to support the claim that reality is unreal, let's see it. Otherwise, we're going to stick to our guns on that assumption - since without that, there's literally no point to anything. Yawn. I strongly suspect that you aren't actually this stupid but are just pretending because you know that citing examples like proto-avians, archaeoptryx and chickens would clearly demonstrate that you're wrong.

Let's talk about logic, shall we?What specifically do you believe is 'unproven' in regards to evolution?I'll give you a list. You tell me.1) Genes code for features.
2) Genes are passed from parent to child.
3) Mutations can occur in genes introducing changes which were not seen in the parent but are present in the child.
4) A mutation can have either good, bad or neutral results.
5) Mutations which benefit the individual increase their chances of survival. Mutations which harm the individual decrease their chances of survival.
6) Only organisms with similar DNA can successfully reproduce with one another. If they are too different, they either fail or produce sterile offspring.Six simple statements. Can you disprove any of them?You wanted to talk logic, let's talk logic.

No. I asked you if you could disprove any of the points.I have not yet drawn any conclusions at all.I assume from your statement that "1+1=2" that you accept the points I gave as being valid.Is that correct?If not, can you point to a specific point that I made that you disagree with and explain why you disagree with it? Certainly.A group of humans lives in the Congo.
Some of those humans have genes that offer no immunity to malaria.
Some of those humans have genes which offer immunity to malaria.
The entire group is exposed to malaria regularly.
Children without immunity frequently die of the disease.
Children with immunity frequently survive the disease.If the group starts off with 50% with immunity and 50% without, in very short order the group without immunity will shrink. Eventually they will disappear completely.That's because dead children do not reach puberty and reproduce. Of course it can. However, it's ridiculous to replace only "human". You would also need to replace "Congo" and "Malaria".For example:
A group of _fish_ lives in _the ocean_.
Some of the fish have genes which camouflage them from _predators_.
Some of the fish do not have genes which camouflage them from _predators_.Or:
A group of _turtles_ lives in _the swamp_.
Some of the turtles have genes which help with mating.
Some of the turtles do not have genes which help with matingThe variations are ENDLESS. I just did.Here's the model:(SUBJECT GROUP) possess (VARIATION) and is exposed to (HARMFUL EXTERNAL FORCE) or (POTENTIAL BENEFICIAL RESOURCE) over time.Humans possess genes protecting against malaria and are exposed to malaria over time.
Fish possess genes helpful in camoflage and are exposed to predators over time.
Turtles possess genes helpful in mating and are exposed to potential mates over time.Exact same model. In what way is it not science.I can set up a scenario which will produce data. I can predict the outcome of the data. I can run the test and see what my outcome would be.I can further demonstrate falsifiability.If humans with malaria immunity are LESS likely to survive to reproduce than humans without malaria immunity, then my experiment is falsified.The _BEST_ you can offer is that some experiments are unethical or too time consuming (redwoods take centuries to grow) to be practical to run.That's not a valid criticism of science.

Dembski, one of the fathers of ID, has gone on record to say that the designer is "The Christian God".The fact that ID is VERBATIM Creationism with the word "creationist" replaced by "design proponents" (see Coyote's link above) is more than enough evidence to prove that any claims that ID is neutral in regard to "God" are dishonest at best.

Repeating points that have been disproven doesn't suddenly make you right. It just makes you dishonest.As I pointed out before, you can't prove that the Universe is finite. That's an unsupported claim.Second, MANY MANY MANY people on the thread have already pointed out a number of errors in Creationism, not the least of which is the fact that there are multiple versions of Creationism with timelines that vary so absolutely radically as to completely negate one another.And, ALL of these timelines are based on the same single source of evidence which itself has been demonstrated to contain errors.So, you've got nothing piled on nothing which is contradicted by others using the same nothing.Hardly a position to hold.

Seems to me that you're the one taking pride in your ignorance.The Dover transcriptions revealed exactly what we are talking about: "cDesign Proponentists".This was a typo in the "new" version of the text book - the one that was "Intelligent Design based"
The "old" version of the text book has "creationists".Do you know how you get from "creationists" to "cdesign proponentists"?You have a careless worker go through your textbook file on the computer and copy and paste "design proponents" over the word "creationist".Now, the rest of the text DIDN'T change.So, you can keep your definitions.You tell me, if I replace subject A with subject B through out an entire book and nothing else changes what does that say about subjects A and B?They are the SAME.Of course, you would know all this if you weren't so damn...what's the word? Oh, right... ps, your picture is Jesus getting smooshed by a cross.

1) The universe can be both expanding and infinite at the same time. You are assuming that the expansion that happening around us is connected to some sort of edge getting further away. There's nor reason to assume that. You can be a part of infinite space AND have things around you getting further away from you at the same time.2) Of course things can change within an infinite space. It's ridiculous to claim otherwise.3) Of course an infinite space could contain finite stuff, however, there's no evidence that the Universe contains "finite stuff". We can only see a certain amount of the Universe. Beyond that point, we have no idea how much "more stuff" there is or isn't.So, again, your claim that the universe is "finite" is NOT supported. One group states that the Bible CLEARLY shows that the Earth is 6,000 years old.
One group states that the Bible CLEARLY shows that the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old.
One group claims that the dinosaurs drowned in the flood.
One group claims that the dinosaurs were on the Ark.
One group claims that the dinosaur fossils were hidden by the devil to trick us.That's 5 different versions right there, all based on the EXACT same source material. All supported by the EXACT same level of belief.They can't all be valid and if one of them is invalid, then all of them lose their evidence.

Awww, did baby get sad sad and go cry cry.Here's a little tip for you. Don't step up if you can't back it up.You tried to play big man, you got slap down like a bitch ass punk. Now you just wanna toss insults.Laughable.Oh and it's YOU'RE not YOUR you jackass.

Math quiz for you.(infinity) = (infinity)
(infinity)+10= ? Ridiculous.If you have an infinitely large collection of cue balls, they extend out in rows and columns forever.
You can still take a magic marker and draw an X on one of them.
Drawing an X on a cue ball at your present location does not negate the existence of the rest of the cue balls. Because everything we see is limited by what light can reach us.If you live in an infinite environment filled with evenly spaces pillars, there is no point at which you can stand where you can see everything.At all points, some pillars will be blocking your view.AND, your vision is limited by your ability to distinguish objects at great distance, so even if you could find a vantage point, you can not see further than you can see.I don't know if you ever played peek-a-bo as a baby, but your mommy was still there even when you couldn't see her. Totality. We can observe X amount of the universe, therefore the universe is a certain age. Because the universe is a certain age, then it can only be X big.It's true that we can not see beyond the background radiation. That does not mean that there is nothing behind the background radiation.Again, peekaboo. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. We can just as easily say:
"Its like finding a pile of eroded gravel at the bottom of a cliff and allocating it to a Jewish Wizard."

Oh really?Let's look at your quotes over the last two posts, shall we? That's 6 insults in about 5 LINES of total text. And one of those lines was "and".I'm reminded of something someone once told me: So, Chucky, I'm going to quote Chucky here and tell you -
You look like you are clueless on the topic and instead are resorting to low level debate tactics.Sad bro, sad...... owned.

Technically, nothing has anything to do with "ID theory". There is no "ID theory".There's "ID theology".
There's "ID PR"But there's not "theory" of ID.There's no ID experiments.
There's no ID falsifiability.
There's no ID predictions.
There's no ID mechanism.
There's no ID limitations.Here's a tip:
Don't use terms like "theory" if you don't know what they mean.Someone on the thread. Can't quite remember who.... oh, right. YOU.... seems to like playing dictionary.Well, go look up "scientific theory" and then bury your head in the sand.I await your predictably sad reply.

A little math for you.Something can't be "less true" when it's 0% true.He's wrong. Repeating him doesn't make him right no matter how desperately you want him to be.I eagerly await your childish reply.

Because the answer would still be infinity.You are hooked on this idea that there can not be change within an infinite system.That's wrong.Repeating what you believe doesn't make it right.Infinity is not required to be static.

That doesn't make it scientific.In order for the claim to be scientific, you would have to be able to present an experiment through which we could falsify at least one of the mechanisms behind the claim.What mechanisms are given in Genesis?
What experiment can we run to test one of those mechanisms?