I guess it would be according to definition. Evolution is for the most part seen as a transmutation process from one species to another. From a creationist point of view I would concede to change within a species caused by adaptation through selection not mutating from one species to another...
I was working on the notion that creationism requires a creator and am coming from that side of the debate, but the parameters have been noted now that I have been informed.
Not that we should discuss it here and maybe you or someone else could open a thread because I am still new at this, but why would you imply that dogma has no reason?
I could be wrong , but I thought this discussion fell under the category of "Evolution vs Creationism" even though the main subject was "natural selection". should it not be categorized as "Evolution" instead? No disrepect intended here.
If "Evolution by natural selection is a fact" then how can...
Certain ideas and theories were not considered or even comtemplated until Einstein discovered his theories which opened new possibilities. Would not be ignorant of us as a species to not learn from our past and be open to the possibilities?
Not to be rude, but is everything published fact and even in the field of science do they not work on the premise of theories and laws which could be disproved at some point in time?
No need to. The logical conclusion would be that if you were God then you would do as God does? Would you not agree? At least that is how I would see it.
Then God is not perfect and you would be therfore you would be God, would you not? Or am I making the wrong assumption in that God (a god) is supposed to be perfect?