Originally Posted by 6days
Either a) the 'author' does not know what real science is... or b) is equivocating on terminogy. (Real science is not your beliefs about the past, nor mine)
If you were right, we'd have to toss out geology, astronomy, archeology, forensics...(long list). But you're wrong. The notion that evidence can't tell us what happened in the past, is so patently foolish that no one actually believes it. Not even you.
In your case Barbarian, both option A and B apply.
Let's see... A. you don't know what science is.
B. you rather sloppily tried to equivocate "beliefs about the past"
Let's look at B first. As you know, the evidence for evolution (remember, "change in allele frequency in a population over time") is settled. We can watch it. Your equivocation for "evolution" and "common descent" really doesn't matter, since (as you learned) the evidence for common descent includes genetics, anatomy, transitional organisms, and phenotypes.
With regard to A, you attempted to show that there are no useful mutations. There are many, many examples, but you're having trouble getting your head around the fact.
Special Creation and common ancestry are beliefs about the past...
The difference is that there is abundant evidence for common descent, while special creation is a modern attempt to revise scripture.
(Although, science does help confirm the truth of God's Word.)The belief a frog can become a handsome prince...
...is a fairy tale proposed by creationists, who can't figure out how science works.
Fortunately not all Christians have compromised on scripture. Many of them reject the modern doctrine of YE creationism.