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

[Draka]

Just like evolutionists we interpret the data to fit our model of how mankind got here. There is no difference.

Yes there is. As I have said over and over and over and over yet you seem to want to ignore completely. Evolution is NOT a starting point. There is not all this random data laying around that just gets interpreted in such a fashion to make it fit evolution. There are tests, experiments, research done and the results of which bring data that POINTS TO EVOLUTION. Not the other way around. Creationists take the same data that was collected by REAL scientists already, data which points to evolution, and they twist it all up and say it points to creationism...which is impossible. Like I said before, but you also ignore, you can't prove creationism by trying to discredit evolution. Creationism depends on a creator. You cannot prove a creator. It is fundamentally impossible. Therefore there is NO scientific evidence for creation.

 

[Jose Fly]

YEC's "interpret the evidence" in the same way flat-earth geocentrists "interpret the evidence".

 

[Draka]

My investigation would go something like this. I would see if I was really aware of it. Then I would make a determination as to what the definition of evolution really is for that observation. And I would employ all my mental facilities to understand what it is, being careful to weigh each piece of data against what my mental model is. Then I would research creationists websites to see what they say about it. Then, depending on it's strength and validity I would ponder if a few days, weeks, or months, praying and asking God for understanding on how this fits into creation.

In other words...you'll ignore what something reallly means and just work on twisting around to make it fit, in your own limited mind, what you already WANT TO BELIEVE is true...even though it's not true at all. You will make yourself misunderstand reality in order to stay in your imaginationland bubble of belief.

 

[Autodidact]

I disagree that change has been observed that has changed one kind of organism into another kind of organism.

Well if you don't know what a kind of organism is, how could you have any such belief? And how can anyone address your claim? It's like saying, "Evolution is not true because of the existence of quapnorks." "What is a quapnork?" "I don't know, but I know they exist, so evolution isn't true."

So, what is a kind?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I disagree that change has been observed that has changed one kind of organism into another kind of organism.

You're dodging my questions. You said that the limits on change are observable. What are those limits, and how have they been observed?

And in case my analogy wasn't clear, when responding, please remember that "we haven't seen 'X' do 'Y'" is not the same thing as "'X' cannot do 'Y'". Your claim is in the second form, so please give us your explanation on that basis. I'm not interested in you telling me what you think we've never seen. I want you to tell me what demonstrable limits we have seen.

 

[Autodidact]

Have you observed a random mutation that has changed one organism into another kind of organism?

I don't know, what's a kind of organism?

So, do mutations happen, or not?

 

[Autodidact]

Just like evolutionists we interpret the data to fit our model of how mankind got here. There is no difference.

And that's where you're completely, totally, 100% wrong. This is the opposite of what scientists do. btw, what's an "evolutionist?" Do you mean perhaps, "person who accepts science?"

 

[Autodidact]

Just like evolutionists we interpret the data to fit our model of how mankind got here. There is no difference.

Do you often find that telling slanderous lies is an effective way to argue?

 

[Autodidact]

That's the model, I was asking if it has been observed.

Yes. Would you like some examples?

 

[Autodidact]

The evidence for evolution is the same evidence for creation. It only supports evolution with a prior acceptance of evoluton.

This is utterly false. This is the opposite of how science works. Either you have no idea what you're talking about, or you're not telling the truth, because this statement is false.

I have an idea, MoF. Would you like to learn what the evidence is for ToE, and why scientists accept it as the foundation of Biology?

 

[Autodidact]

A kind is closely related the the family classification in the taxonomic ranks.

Pardon? Are you saying that a kind is a family?

 

[Autodidact]

My investigation would go something like this. I would see if I was really aware of it. Then I would make a determination as to what the definition of evolution really is for that observation. And I would employ all my mental facilities to understand what it is, being careful to weigh each piece of data against what my mental model is. Then I would research creationists websites to see what they say about it. Then, depending on it's strength and validity I would ponder if a few days, weeks, or months, praying and asking God for understanding on how this fits into creation.

And there you have it, folks, creation "science." It uses prayer, not science.

 

[McBell]

And there you have it, folks, creation "science." It uses prayer, not science.

Yeah, but based upon the 'answered prayer" in another thread, then it all makes sense how they get that Creationism is science....

 

[Danmac]

And there you have it, folks, creation "science." It uses prayer, not science.

Darn it. You found out our secret.

 

[Valjean]

"...being careful to weigh each piece of data against what my mental model is..." is telling.

 

[Autodidact]

Darn it. You found out our secret.

So I'd really like to get an answer from you, Danmac, because I think this is really the core of the disagreement between creationists and people who accept science. In your view, does the scientific method work?

 

[Autodidact]

Darn it. You found out our secret.

And therefore is not science at all, which is what we keep telling you. Game, set, match. Please by all means continue to believe it, it's your prerogative to reject science and its methods. What bothers me is people who lie and say the scientific evidence supports their view, when it doesn't. Rather you reject the scientific method in favor of prayer.

btw, how did that work out last time we tried it--from the 6th to 14th centuries?

 

[Danmac]

So I'd really like to get an answer from you, Danmac, because I think this is really the core of the disagreement between creationists and people who accept science. In your view, does the scientific method work?

Of everything that can possibly be known, what percentage of that everything do you think science knows. 10%, 30%, 70% ?????? Let's assume that science knows 50% of everything that can possibly be known, which is a far stretch btw. Out of the other 50%, would it be possible for a God to exist somewhere within that other 50%? To answer that question you must base your answer on assumptions, and untestable science, since science cannot test what they do not know. In fact you are basing your belief that God does not exist on assumptions not testable science, yet that is what you accuse God believers of.

Is there a cure for cancer? Is there a cure for Parkinsons? Is there a cure for aids? Since there isn't would it be wise to assume that there are no cures and we should stop looking. The science you say you embrace is hoping that cures do exist and are presently searching to find what doesn't yet exist.

I can understand the position of the agnostic, because they do not yet know, but the arrogance of atheism to base a claim that God doesn't exist on mere assumptions is foolish in my opinion.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Of everything that can possibly be known, what percentage of that everything do you think science knows. 10%, 30%, 70% ?????? Let's assume that science knows 50% of everything that can possibly be known, which is a far stretch btw. Out of the other 50%, would it be possible for a God to exist somewhere within that other 50%? To answer that question you must base your answer on assumptions, and untestable science, since science cannot test what they do not know. In fact you are basing your belief that God does not exist on assumptions not testable science, yet that is what you accuse God believers of.

Is there a cure for cancer? Is there a cure for Parkinsons? Is there a cure for aids? Since there isn't would it be wise to assume that there are no cures and we should stop looking. The science you say you embrace is hoping that cures do exist and are presently searching to find what doesn't yet exist.

I can understand the position of the agnostic, because they do not yet know, but the arrogance of atheism to base a claim that God doesn't exist on mere assumptions is foolish in my opinion.

The Evolution v. Creation debate here is concerned with the equal scientific validity of Creation "Science" with the Theory of Evolution. Whether or not a deity exists is irrelevant and has no bearing on the evidence supporting the ToE.
Bringing up atheism, or the probabilities of God are mere strawmen that divert from the question asked in the OP.

 

[Wotan]

According this this myth the oldest life forms on this planet are about 6 maybe 10K yrs old tops. Further there were according to the "Creation science" only a relatively few initial "kinds."

Are fossils of these original kids on display at say, the IRC? Maybe they are at Ham's museum in KY.
Where can I go to see this evidence of "kinds."