I'll stipulate that there are lots of really smart qualified scientists whose parents named them Steve before they got their degrees if you'll stipulate that there are lots of really smart qualified scientists who chose to reject evolution with or without any help from their mommy and daddy.
The choice of the name "steve" was really just to lower the numbers.
In the same way (exactly the same way), it does not follow that because some creationists have been unscientific therefore creationism is unscientific, which is PRECISELY the argument that you made and which what you incorrectly claim was an appeal to authority refutes. I love it when people make self refuting arguments!
That's not at all what I said. I said creationism is unscientific and used the properties of science to explain why.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
In fact, if you want to be taken seriously, you should avoid saying such things. I mean, that's just stupidity.
And taking bits of a post and responding to it while ignoring the rest does the same for you.
This is all over generalized and none of it is actually true at all in the way you mean it, but that's a different debate.
So you don't actually want to discuss the *reasons* why I said creationism is unscientific? (The evidence rather than my say-so)
Even if all this were the case (just for the sake of argument), the exact same thing can be said of most of modern cosmology, physics and even evolution itself. You can't see it because your evolutionary paradigm won't allow you to see it.
So your answer is to say "I'm rubber you're glue?" This is not true at all and you've given no specific examples to support your case. Your answer is just "you're deluded" which isn't much of an argument at all.
And to address the "I'm rubber you're glue" response we'll go with what stripe added:
Evolutionism is unscientific for one simple reason. Its foundational claim is "evolution did it", and as everyone should agree, evolution is not subject to testing or any sort of investigation.
Wrong.
Evolution has been tested multiple times and continues to be tested.
Let's remember that evolution was proposed in a time before the understanding of DNA or genetics.
Darwin proposed that all life shared a common ancestor. DNA and genetics *could* have shown that not to be the case. There were many possibilities
There could have been entirely different genetic codes used in different organisms or entirely different genetic material, TNA or PNA instead of DNA. There could have been almost identical genes in every organism that encoded the exact same protein - say actin or tubulin. The idea that life had been around for millions of years and shared a common ancestor would have been destroyed by this last option since a gene couldn't have been around for billions of years with mutation and selection and stayed the exact same.
But we observed none of those things. Instead, relationships predicted by careful phylogenetic analysis were largely supported by genetics. Organisms that shared a common ancestor longer ago have more genetic differences, while organisms sharing a common ancestor more recently have fewer genetic differences.
For example, Mice and rats are far more different from one another at the genetic level than humans are to macaques or whales are to cows.
There's also patterns of multiple pseudogenes, endogenous retroviruses and the like. All of these could have been organized differently to give evidence of a recent de-novo creation, but they're not.
Creationism would never predict such a pattern. But they can try to "explain" it by saying "God just made it that way, because". That's what makes creationism unscientific.
Fossils too can be used to test evolution, find us a fossil of something BEFORE it could have possibly evolved. The classic "rabbit in the cambrian" is a well known example.
