Evolution and Creationism both have equal value and scientific evidence to support them.

[Autodidact]

So, MoF, I take it you don't have any evidence for your hypothesis? Maybe it would help if you first told us what your hypothesis is. Is it Magic Poofing? Of what? When? Thanks.

 

[Willamena]

That's right, there is only nature as data. There are two possible conclusions to draw from the evidence--right and wrong.

I agree, sort of --I think the two possible conclusions are "yours and mine".

 

[Jose Fly]

"But then, not all interpretations are equally valid, are they?"

Not at all. As any reader of Pop Science can attest. Or Haldane's remark, "We have been so damn sure of so many things that were just not so."

So we depend on the quantity and quality of evidence. And are always ready to abandon prior views when they can be shown to be fallacious.

And THAT is the real difference. Creation science (an oxymoron as others have noted) CS assumes what it wants to prove is true. It casts about for evidence that will support its assumptions. It ignores contradictory evidence or "interpreters" it light of its prior assumptions. What it can never do is admit to error.

As proclaimed at the AIG website.

Real science invites error and grows from confronting it.

And "intelligent design", a form of creationism, does the same.

 

[Jose Fly]

Evolutionst's starting point is evolution, creationists starting point is creation.

The problem is, evolution is not a "starting point"; it's an observation. When we look around, all we see are populations evolving. OTOH, you've never seen your god create anything, not even a single grain of sand.

IOW, your "starting point" is religious mythology, whereas evolution is a repeatedly observed fact. Well, and there's also the fact that all the available evidence is exactly what we would expect to see under evolutionary theory, and nothing at all like what we'd expect under YEC....

 

[Draka]

This has been explained countless times, but I have 5 minutes so I will try again. There isn't two sets of scientific evidence, one for evolutionists and one for creationists. There is only one set of scientific evidences, which is data, and both the evolutionists and creationists examine the same data and come to different conclusions based of their worldviews, meaning their starting points. Evolutionst's starting point is evolution, creationists starting point is creation.

Let my give an example of how the same data can be used for both sides. Look in the mirror and you will see a living being sometimes called a human, which can be broken down into scientific data but as a whole there you in the mirror. With the starting point that Darwinism is true a person could say that they are an ape came about by natural processes. I don't do that I start with creation as my starting point so I see a special being created in God's image.

Gotta love when creationists try this crapola.

First off, as far as I know, there are no "evolutionists". There are biologists, geologists, paleontologists and so on who devote their knowledge of science to particular fields of study. Each of the different fields of study have contributed evidence to an overall theory.

Second, real scientists do not start off their studies with an absolute conclusion like creationists do. You people never seem to understand the scientific method at all. You observe, hypothesize, experiment, collect data, and see if the data matches up with what you hypothesized, adjust your theory and re-experiment and do the whole process over and over again until you have data, which over and over, confirms a well worked out theory. This is how the Theory of Evolution has come about. Not the other way around.

Creationists start with their conclusion and then take information which which suits their purposes and twist it around what they want it to mean until they can say "Here! Look at this! We were right all along!" There is no science involved in it at all. So, therefore, to say that Creationism has scientific evidence is an out and out lie.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I have left out the posters name to avoid "calling out" another member.
But I would like to know if anyone who agrees with this statement would care to provide the scientific "Creationist" evidence that is equal to the evidence supporting the ToE.

Anyone?

Anyone who thinks creationism has any scientific evidence which supports it, is dishonest and/or ignorant. In this day and age, creationism is on par with arguing that the earth is flat.

 

[Danmac]

I have left out the posters name to avoid "calling out" another member.
But I would like to know if anyone who agrees with this statement would care to provide the scientific "Creationist" evidence that is equal to the evidence supporting the ToE.

Anyone?

I have a theory that God exists. I cannot demonstrate his existence in a lab because it is a process that requires millions of years. That is why I call it a theory. Kinds like.... you know.....evolution.

 

[Wotan]

Then you can provide tangible falsifiable testable objective evidence for your god thingy. Right?
ToE does all the above. In addition it predicts and so far has been quite accurate in the things it does predict.

Perhaps you provide an specific example a recent prediction from creation science or intelligent design or even your local pastor.

Do feel free to proceed.

 

[McBell]

I have a theory that God exists. I cannot demonstrate his existence in a lab because it is a process that requires millions of years. That is why I call it a theory. Kinds like.... you know.....evolution.

So are you being intentionally dishonest or are you honestly that ignorant?

 

[Tristesse]

I have a theory that God exists. I cannot demonstrate his existence in a lab because it is a process that requires millions of years. That is why I call it a theory. Kinds like.... you know.....evolution.

No, what you have is a hypothesis. And not a very good one. I suggest you investigate what a scientific theory actually is before making such an ignorant claim.

 

[Willamena]

I've got a theory, it could be bunnies...

Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses
And what's with all the carrots?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway?
Bunnies, bunnies, it must be bunnies!

 

[Danmac]

No, what you have is a hypothesis. And not a very good one. I suggest you investigate what a scientific theory actually is before making such an ignorant claim.

Said the creationist to the evolutionist.

 

[Draka]

I've got a theory, it could be bunnies...

Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes
They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses
And what's with all the carrots?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway?
Bunnies, bunnies, it must be bunnies!

I've got a theory, it could be witches,
some evil witches...
which is ridiculous 'cuz witches they were persecuted,
Wicca good, and love the Earth and women power
and I'll be over here. :run:

 

[Man of Faith]

The problem is, evolution is not a "starting point"; it's an observation. When we look around, all we see are populations evolving. OTOH, you've never seen your god create anything, not even a single grain of sand.

IOW, your "starting point" is religious mythology, whereas evolution is a repeatedly observed fact. Well, and there's also the fact that all the available evidence is exactly what we would expect to see under evolutionary theory, and nothing at all like what we'd expect under YEC....

Evolution is a starting point for all modern day science and those that accept the ToE (evolutionists). Since Darwin's The Origin of the Species people have used that as their starting point and it is deeply engrained into every part of science.

Darwin was right to some degree, there is change within organisms and if you want to call that evolution that is fine I won't argue much about that. But what Darwin observed and what we observe today is change with limits. What we don't observe is common descent which is where I believe Darwin went too far. However people accept common descent because they see the change with limits.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Evolution is a starting point for all modern day science and those that accept the ToE (evolutionists). Since Darwin's The Origin of the Species people have used that as their starting point and it is deeply engrained into every part of science.

Like I said. It is so easy for Creationists to assume that this is the case, because this is how they use their logic in Creation "Science".
They cannot imagine that it is the evidence that actually leads to a conclusion. Rather than forming a conclusion then looking for the evidence to support it, as is common in creation "research".

Man Of Faith, no one has answered this question yet, so I will pose it to you...

Please give me an example of a currently accepted biological or geological finding that is the direct result of ignoring empirical evidence to the contrary.

 

[Man of Faith]

Like I said. It is so easy for Creationists to assume that this is the case, because this is how they use their logic in Creation "Science".
They cannot imagine that it is the evidence that actually leads to a conclusion. Rather than forming a conclusion then looking for the evidence to support it, as is common in creation "research".

Man Of Faith, no one has answered this question yet, so I will pose it to you...

Please give me an example of a currently accepted biological or geological finding that is the direct result of ignoring empirical evidence to the contrary.

The evidence that is presented today for the ToE came after The Origin of the Species so how can we say that the evidence lead to the conclusion? The conclusion came first.

Concerning the question, I have answered that to the best of my ability and the answer is the evidence is not ignored, it is interpreted. No scientist in their right mind would say that any evidence is contrary to the ToE. That is a one way ticket to the unemployment line and obscurity. Let's take homology as an example because that is easy to understand how evidence can be interpreted in multiple ways, IMO. However we could take any "evidence" for evolution and reinterpret it to fit the creation model. Man is homologous to Apes so that is evidence for evolution. The data showing that man is homologous to apes is available to evolutionists and creationists alike. However a creationist will interpret the data to say that creatures were created homologous to other creatures so that is only evidence for evolution if one has a prior acceptance of common descent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Darwin was right to some degree, there is change within organisms and if you want to call that evolution that is fine I won't argue much about that. But what Darwin observed and what we observe today is change with limits.

What limits? Can you give me one example of an observed actual limit on the allowable amount of genetic change over many generations?

 

[McBell]

The evidence that is presented today for the ToE came after The Origin of the Species so how can we say that the evidence lead to the conclusion? The conclusion came first.

See, here is a prime example of you not knowing what you are talking about.
The theory of evolution was already well established BEFORE Darwin.

No scientist in their right mind would say that any evidence is contrary to the ToE.

Really?
And what evidence is contrary to the ToE?
Please present it.

That is a one way ticket to the unemployment line and obscurity.

Oh yes, back to your "conspiracy"...

Let's take homology as an example because that is easy to understand how evidence can be interpreted in multiple ways, IMO.

Yes, let us go back to one specific thing and ignore everything else...

However we could take any "evidence" for evolution and reinterpret it to fit the creation model.

Yes, we know that creationists have to twist the evidence to fit their preconceived notions.

Problem is that that is not science, that is blatant dishonesty.

Man is homologous to Apes so that is evidence for evolution. The data showing that man is homologous to apes is available to evolutionists and creationists alike. However a creationist will interpret the data to say that creatures were created homologous to other creatures so that is only evidence for evolution if one has a prior acceptance of common descent.

Yes, creationists, whilst completely ignoring the scientific method, make conclusions that fit their worldview.
They disregard anything that they cannot twist to fit their box.

 

[McBell]

What limits? Can you give me one example of an observed actual limit on the allowable amount of genetic change over many generations?

Good luck.
He has completely avoided this inquiry from get go.

 

[Man of Faith]

What limits? Can you give me one example of an observed actual limit on the allowable amount of genetic change over many generations?

I would be happy to give you the limits. Mankind has different traits, haircolors, skin colors, heights, facial features, etc... however they are all still mankind. Birds have different features, colors, leg lenghts, beak shapes, different calls, etc... however they are still birds. Dogs have different features too yet they are still dogs. limits limits limits.