Napoleon's Nightingale said:
1. Interesting of you to say that. Achems razor is a widely used and accepted scientific principle until someone uses it to disprove a scientific theory..then it becomes invalid. Strange isn't it? Your refutation is incorrect though given observations of the sun. It's a big round object in the sky which rises and falls so whats more likely? It rises and falls on its own or somehow someone attached a little chariot to it and and lugs it around the earth. The reason why creationism is the simplest explaination is because it only requires 1 variable..a divine being while evolution requires an incalculable number of variables making it the most complex explaination.
2.Hmmm I believe evolution is the only instance inwhich scentists use an unprovable theory to substantiate scientific and genetic claims even though they are contradictory. It is a proven fact that mutations are NOT pased on through offspring and the idea of having the exact same mutation in two beings is an astromical improbability. Even if a human did manage to pop out of another species or genus let alone millions it wouldnt' matter because that mutation would die with that being. Perhaps creationism does defy scienctific thought however the first job of a scientist is to discover the TRUTH whatever that may be not to rule something out simply because it is less desirable and/or would turn the scientific world on it's head.
3. This only proves my point. A tree grows from a seedling but they are the same species it's simply a process of metamorphosis not a result of an evolution. A seedling can't be produced by a rock..only by a tree. And the seedling of an oak tree can only be produced by an oak tree not a maple tree. Species do not evolve into other species..they simply adapt becomming different genus' within the species.
1) "God Made It" isn't a SCIENTIFIC answer to ANY question. Therefore the assumption that it could fall under the principle of Occam's Razor is false to begin with. While it is very possible that god made everything, this assumption can not be tested or falsified. The question of wether or not god created the universe and everything in it is not a question that science can or was ever intended to answer. This is something left for philosophy, humanities, theology, and personal belief.
Despite your claims, evolution does not "require an incalculable number of variables". All that is necessary is external environmental pressure and a population of breeding organisms that exchange genetic information.
2) Your second statement is the crux of the matter. Your real problem is that you have NO real understanding of evolution. That's okay, because most people don't. It isn't a difficult concept to understand, people just don't care to learn. Your ignorance is forgiveable. However, arguing that something is false without having any understanding of it isn't.
Darwin based his theory of "Descent With Modification" (the theory which later came to be known as Evolution) on the idea of natural selection. The fact that organisms adapt to surrounding environmental pressure has been observed time and time again. At this point even most proponents of ID and Creation Science acknowledge this. Well known examples of natural selection include the pepper moth, adaptation to antibiotics by bacteria, beak sizes of "Darwin's Finches", clinal species in plants, morphological and physiological adaptations by members of the same species of animals in differing environmental conditions, and ring species. All of these have come under attack by opponents of natural selection and have successfully been refuted by experiments conducted within the framework of the scientific method. That doesn't mean that you as an individual have to accept these findings. Its a free country and you have the right to believe what you want. However, it doesn't change the fact that these adaptations have been scientifically tested and confirmed. Therefore making the process of natural selection (a component of the theory of evolution) a sound Scientific idea.
Your misunderstanding of genetics (mutation in particular) is typical and sad. Even though it isn't true, the idea that evolutionary change is driven solely by deleterious point mutations is common among detractors. However, you guys never seem to take into account neutral mutation, chromosomal translocation, sexual reproduction, sexual selection, random genetic drift, and immigration and emigration of organisms into and out of a population. All of which change gene frequency and gene pool makeup (the ingredients that natural selection operates on).
Contrary to popular thought, scientists aren't looking for missing links and "hopeful monsters" to provide the norm or the proof for evolution, in fact the exact opposite is true. The theory of Evolution is based on gradual, adaptation and change to surrounding environmental pressure, not freakish immediate transitions from one organismal class to the next. While it is true that there are currently no fossils showing half reptile and half mammal, there are thousands if not millions that show gradual transitions from common ancestors to both modern day reptiles and modern day mammals. Although fundamentalists will tell you that this is a lie, it isn't. Go to a natural history museum and you can see them for yourself.
3) Most of your third statement makes no sense. But I am agoing on the assumption that it is a response to another post that I wasn't able to read. I don't know where the idea of a rock turning into a tree came from. I am hoping that it is just a bad analogy. You are correct when you say that an Oak tree seedling can not be produced by a Maple tree. However, what you apparently don't know is that NOBODY has ever said that they do. I am assuming that this is also a bad analogy, attempting to draw incorrect conclusions regarding speciation. Your right, Oak trees can't become maple trees. However oak trees and maple trees are likely descended from a common ancestor. And at some point in the future, through many years of gradual change, Oak trees and maple trees will likely be the ancestors of tree types that don't currently exist.
