Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Seems like a double-standard here ... YOU can ignore many of my other points, but if I say that I'M unable to research into this particular area, then you shoot me down?

I have critiqued all of your points if you'll look back. It's the theory that is being shot down, and that is how scientific review.

When YOU have written an 11-page summary of evolutionism and/or geology and posted it here, and when YOU have posted as much as I have on this subject, then maybe I'll take that criticism seriously.

I have also posted far more info on this topic on the Moot dating back to the "Theist" and "Anti-Theist" threads last year and more recently the "Should Evolution be taught..." and this thread than 11-pages and I make no apologies for engaging in debate on the thread topic. I'm sure you can browse talk.origins if you want a good source for evolution info. I have found that my posts of actual data supporting evolution are usually ignored (see post on Mississippi delta structure). If YOU don't want criticism you shouldn't have started this thread. I don't understand why you take criticism of creationism personally.

There is more than one truth in life that must be sought after by a truth-seeker, and seeking evolution/creation truth does not take up the vast majority of my life [...] I think it is a pretty valid request for me, personally, to say I am not familiar and don't have time to research one particular area, don't you?

I find it difficult to accept uninformed criticism of the subject for which I obtained my degree. The problem is that YEC requires an impossible age of the earth, unless your proposing the magic trick regarding fossil data, stratigraphy, dating methods etc. That would be preferrable to the baseless claiims about radiometric data being inaccurate or stratigraphy occuring in ways that defy the physical properties of materials. Since I spent four years of my life (not the vast majority, however) researching this particular aspect of this discussion, I don't think that equivocation and guesswork is passable as evidence in this case. If you are not going to commit to the effort to understand the facts then just admit you don't know enough to say which theory is right. I don't say this to be mean, but strong opinions invite strong criticism.

And I think that even counting the layering of fossils as a flaw in the creationism model (and NOT fatal, BTW - there has been a mechanism proposed, but there is not enough research in to support it or disprove it yet) that creationism is the better fit.

We have posted all the reasons why this mechanism is impossible. It IS a fatal flaw if the mechanism is impossible. How can you say it is a better fit when you don't understand the mechanisms described by geology (this seems apparent by your continued support of this idea despite facts that invalidate it)? There is a huge amount of data to invalidate it.

Fact 1: Carbonate formation cannot form at the rate neccessasry to accomodate the rate of formation required by the YEC idea. These are interbedded with sedimentary formations YEC proponenets claim to be deposited by a global flood in forty days or so.

Fact 2: Evaporite (salt) formations cannot be interbedded with global flood deposits since their formation requires an isolated. land-locked body of water.

Fact 3: If all animals and plants were created and existed prior to the flood then their fossils should be present below the global flood's first layer. This is not the case.

Fact 4: Peneplenation (erosion by exposure) occurs in all sedimentary formations around the world at different relative times. This is not possible in the YEC model since it requires all land to be submered continuously during the deposition.

Fact 5: Older paleozoic formations show deformation, erosion and subsequent overlaying of Cenozoic and Mesozoic formations. This indicates a much longer process at work. This particlur scenario requires continents to collide and break apart, mountains to rise and fall, and huge amounts of oceanic plate to form. The time frame of YEC defies the material peoperties of the earth.

These facts invalidate the theory of YEC as stated.

Nothing posted so far in this thread (or anywhere else) invalidates the ToE as stated.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
If YOU don't want criticism you shouldn't have started this thread. I don't understand why you take criticism of creationism personally.

No, Cirdan - I don't take criticism of creationism personally. What I WAS objecting to was your personal criticism of me when you said : "Now that's no attitude for a seeker of truth".

I am virtually the only poster on the creationism side here, and I can't cover all sides of the topic. The fossil layering is ONE area that I think is weak and there is not lots of info on, and I choose, at this point, to just let that one drop until there has been more research into it. I think there are enough other topics that are pertinent to the discussion.

BTW, I think when you get most irritated at me is when you appear to replace me with a shadowy figure of "creationists in general". If you read my posts carefully, you will notice that my statements are NOT as strong as many creationists' statements. For example, as far as extrapolation, I ONLY say that "extrapolation can be highly inaccurate", NOT (as YOU wrote) "it's extrapolation so it must be wrong". And MY statement, BTW, is FACT. How can you disagree with this? YOUR wording of the statement is NOT fact; that's why I don't word it that way.

I hope your insomnia was not due to the difficult times of several weeks ago. I hope things are better, and that the insomnia was just the occassional "can't sleep tonite" type.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
IRex - I think that Willow Oran's point (which is entirely right) is that one CANNOT throw out creationism by using the argument "well, where did GOD come from, then?" because one can say the same thing about the raw material for evolution - "well, where did the raw material for evolution come from, then?" You may try to evade by saying that evolutionism doesn't deal with origins - that is irrelevant - I can say just as easily that creationism doesn't deal with the origin of God. BOTH theories have an unexplainable source of the original stuff.

creationism is defined basically as the doctrine that ascribes the origins of all things to God's acts of creation rather than to evolution. So believing in creationism means you have to believe that ALL things in the universe (including the universe itself) were created from nothing by god. Otherwise the theory fails. Because if that’s not 100% true then something else must have done some creating. So yes the simple minded question “well who made god� does in fact eliminate creationism outright because god is supposed to be the ultimate creator. If he isn’t then other “creating forces� may be at work and hey that opens the door for evolution. what do you know.

The whole “what created god� thing by the way has long been on my list of unexplained inconsistencies fundamental to Christianity. Up there with “why faith is all you need� and “why the bible is The Word of god because it says it is� and other fun stuff. The easy answer of course (I mean right after “shut up and just believe like the rest of us!�) is well god created god! But that means that creationism CAN apply to the very beginning (genesis?) of everything where as when we talk about evolution we ARE simply talking about a mechanism in nature that allows life forms to change over time. Nothing more. So yes there is a huge difference between what the Christians propose when they talk about creationism and what scientists have in mind when they speak of evolution. Evolution doesn’t pretend to say anything beyond changes in life. Its not supposed to explain the origin of the earth or the galaxy or the universe. Just you and me. Creationism has a much bigger ego. But it falls way short of its grasp.

[Insidious Rex]

I don't see any reason why "all" marine life would die. I imagine a lot of them would die, but not "all"

if you fill the oceans with enough (fresh) rain water to cover EVERY bit of land you are going to kill just about every type of marine life there is one way or another. The massive change in salinity, water depth and water pressure, plus the erosion factors of suddenly having stuff that’s been locked on dry land for millions (woops! Sorry! A couple thousand…) years suddenly and instantly ALL under water reacting with the waters is going to wipe out countless sea creatures. Nevermind the fact that essentially every food chain is going to be broken so even if some of the big guys manage to deal with countless trillions of tons of water suddenly tossing them around like a cork under Niagra Falls they will starve to death because the plankton will be dead and the coral reefs will be dashed to pieces and both killed off by the salinity changes and the sea will essentially become a desert. Just because its all water doesn’t mean its not a very delicate environment.

Now lets assume that MAYBE .00000001 % of the species in the ocean survive somehow. Maybe they are lung fish or something and they burrow down for months till its all over with. Who knows. Anyway these scant few creatures survive. Are you saying that ALL the creatures we know of in the sea came from these few rag tag fish “kinds� that managed to tough out this global catastrophy? If so then how? Sorry you aren’t eligdable to use the evolution card remember so how could such a proliferation of fish “kinds� come about?

And that brings up another point. Were fish fundamentally different creatures before the flood? Are all the fish we see now different from the pre-flood fish? Or did all the same fish reappear? I mean there are a number of fish species described in the bible pre-flood I believe (may be wrong about that) and we still have them here with us today. Whats with that? Did god “create� them all again? And if so, if its just that easy then why not just kill EVERYTHING and recreate EVERYTHING lock stock and barrel. Why the whole song and dance with the ark? He can just recreate all the animals. He can recreate a new garden of Eden for that matter and put Noah and his family there to start over. Whats the point of all this nonsense with flooding and ark building and gathering every animal on earth in a little boat when theres much easier ways to do things that fit right in with the creationism way of thinking. UNLESS the story is meant to be a parable about just how harsh god can be if people stop believing in him and party way too much and act generally hedonistic. And NOT a literal interpretation of events. THEN yes it makes sense. “You better toe the line if you don’t well lemme tell you a story about gods wrath so you will think better of your ways!�

Also, remember it's "kind", not "species", so there would not need to be aviaries for each "species" as currently defined

same problem as the post-flood fish explosion. Are we lead to assume all birds came from one “kind� or a few “kinds� that happened to be hanging around the ark? How so? By what mechanism did the chickadees turn into ostriches? The hummingbirds into condors? What about bats? They fly. Were non-avian flrying creatures considered worthy of penning up in the ark or did they spontaneously generate from the bird kinds too? And was Noah given the 411 on this whole “kind� thing by god? I mean he would have to have so that he could know which “kinds� were essential to take and which would just umm… (what word do you use if you aren’t allowed to use “evolve�?) transform from their parent “kinds�. I would think he would need a list or at least a pretty solid working definition of what “kinds� are.

[Rían]

Again -

My position is that evolutionism is NOT as FACTUALLY supported as many people think, and that creationism is MORE supported than many people are aware of. And I think I've given evidence to support this.

I, personally (as opposed to some creationists) DON'T claim that evolutionism is disproven or that creationism is proven. I DO state my personal opinion that creationism is MORE supported by the data that is out there.

I don't think either theory is proveable, because so much lies in what happened in the past. I think they are more properly called models, because as more data comes in, some of the sub-tenets and mechanisms are adjusted (perfect example - the change to punctuated equilibrium - the MECHANISM was changed, but the TENET of macro-evolution was not).

Lizra is the only one so far that has attempted to answer my question I asked the evolutionists, altho I wish she would have answered the strong point for creationism more seriously. For example, Lizra, your very good common sense must point out to you the simple fact that dogs remain dogs, etc., despite years of breeding. This is observable over and over, and is a strong point for creationism. And this is where evolutionism jumps over to conjecture and extrapolation when they claim that fish-type-thingys can develop into man. Nothing wrong with conjecture, but - the EVIDENCE supports creationism more.

I really, REALLY find it hard to believe that the evolutionists here cannot come up with even ONE point that seems to be in favor of creationism, or share even ONE point that seems to be a weak area of evolutionism. I shared my opinion on the subject; will the evolutionists here please share their opinions?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
[B]creationism is defined basically as the doctrine that ascribes the origins of all things to God's acts of creation rather than to evolution. So believing in creationism means you have to believe that ALL things in the universe (including the universe itself) were created from nothing by god. Otherwise the theory fails. Because if that’s not 100% true then something else must have done some creating.

Yes.

So yes the simple minded question “well who made god� does in fact eliminate creationism outright because god is supposed to be the ultimate creator. If he isn’t then other “creating forces� may be at work and hey that opens the door for evolution. what do you know.

Then who made the other creating forces? Shall we eliminate evolution because we don't know who made the creating force behind it?

If something is HERE (as in people, the earth, the stars, etc.), shall we say they are NOT here because we don't know for sure how they GOT here? I don't follow this reasoning.

The whole “what created god� thing by the way has long been on my list of unexplained inconsistencies fundamental to Christianity. Up there with “why faith is all you need� and “why the bible is The Word of god because it says it is� and other fun stuff. The easy answer of course (I mean right after “shut up and just believe like the rest of us!�) is well god created god!

I hope to talk about this eventually in the Offshoot thread, after we talk about suffering. I, personally, do NOT offer the answers you gave.

But that means that creationism CAN apply to the very beginning (genesis?) of everything where as when we talk about evolution we ARE simply talking about a mechanism in nature that allows life forms to change over time. Nothing more. So yes there is a huge difference between what the Christians propose when they talk about creationism and what scientists have in mind when they speak of evolution. Evolution doesn’t pretend to say anything beyond changes in life. Its not supposed to explain the origin of the earth or the galaxy or the universe. Just you and me. Creationism has a much bigger ego. But it falls way short of its grasp.

Again, I've never seen the question of "where did God come from" as part of creationism. Creationism deals with how things as we see them got here; so does evolutionism.

[Rían]

OK, IRex, I see by your little green leaf that YOU'RE online now; will YOU lead the way and openly and honestly answer the question I posed to the evolutionists?

Here it is again, for your convenience:

What do you see as a strong point for creationism, and what do you see as a weak point for evolutionism?

[Rían]

Oh, and I just re-read your post, Irex - sorry, I misunderstood it a bit - I thought you were saying how did God GET here. You were being more specific - how was God MADE.

The answer is that God was NOT made; He exists. He does not have a starting point, as created things do. Creationism has as its starting point a being that is NOT created/made. And yes, this cannot be proved, but neither can evolutionists say where THEIR initial conditions came from. You can keep taking "made" back forever, but that will still not answer the question of "what was the material for evolution made FROM, and how did it get here in the first place?"

Both theories have a set of initial conditions whose origin must forever be unproveable.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
OK, IRex, I see by your little green leaf that YOU'RE online now; will YOU lead the way and openly and honestly answer the question I posed to the evolutionists?

Here it is again, for your convenience:

What do you see as a strong point for creationism, and what do you see as a weak point for evolutionism?

Strong point for creationism. If I was a creationist I would constantly harp on the point that god can do what he likes. And if he wants to create everything in a way that makes it LOOK like creationism ISNT how it all came about then he has his reasons for doing so. And that’s that. That’s all you need to say really. Cant argue with that.

Weak point for evolution? I cant really help you there. Theres simply no debate about it in my opinion. Its like asking me for a weak point for the theory of gravity. Well what are you supposed to say? Theres nothing out there that could actively pop the whole theory of evolution like its some big debatable bubble. Its rock solid reality at this point. It cant be popped. Now we could get into microbiological menutia about things ABOUT evolution that we don’t know or understand yet but it wouldn’t be threatening evolution as a theory. It would simply be a way of tightening up what we know about it. And that’s how science works. Its never a “Oh! That doesn’t quite make sense! So throw it ALL out!� deal. It’s the perfecting of a tool that is reality

[Blackheart]

Someone, who shall remain nameless, asked me to take a peek.

Here are a few brief observations, since I’m still busy saving the world from computer virii…

“…realize that the theory of evolution is just that – a THEORY. It drives me nuts when people say that evolution is scientifically proven (referring to the entire theory) when, in fact, certain tenets are completely outside the realm of scientific proof!�

It is however the best available theory, that explains most of the current data. The “ether� is also a physics theory, but it is viewed as inferior to quantum physics, because it does not explain the data we have as well as quantum physics.

That said, the only part about the theory of evolution that is currently unverifiable by empirical evidence (because absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing, can be proven, except for tautologies- That is the nature of epistemology- the only thing you can have certainty about is that you cannot have certainty) is the idea of non direction. Randomnicity is notoriously difficult to demonstrate, as all events are causal*, except on a quantum level. Unfortunately many people choose to interpret this as evidence that evolution is undirected., and thus merely an “accident�. Which completely ignores the idea that the parameters are what are actually important in a chaotic process…. Far more so than the actual method of replication and change.

“My opinion is that both theories:

*are supported in differing amounts by the scientific evidence, and
*have tenets in them that are not scientifically provable (since they are talking about things that took place in the past)�

While you may be correct in saying that both theories are supported in differing amounts by scientific evidence (though I think the actual evidence for creationism is slim, and consists more of objections to flaws in the current theory- which is NOT actually evidence), the idea of science is that the best supported theory is the accepted one. The fact that there is a differing amount of evidence would suggest that the one which has more supporting evidence is the preferable theory….

I already addressed the idea of epistemological concerns with the idea of proof.

“BTW, amount of time is not critical to creationism; whereas vast periods of time are absolutely critical to evolutionism. The main points are: chance-driven beneficial mutations and selection acting over vast amounts of time (evolutionism) vs. irreducible design and initial complexity and defined types over probably, but not critically, shorter periods of time (creationism).�

Err.. no. Vast periods of time are not crucial to evolution. Genetically speaking, the largest division in the organic kingdom is one between Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes. Once the technique of cellular specialization arises, which is possible only in Eukaryotes (due to the nucleus separating the DNA from the rest of the cell) the vast differences in organisms are possible by only seemingly minor changes in the “code�. In fact, most of the “code� appears to be junk…. DNA seems to have a very high noise to signal ration when it comes to replication, which is very fortunate….

However the best evidence actually supports large tracts of time, and our best estimates actually come, not from radiocarbon and other testing methods, but from direct observation of distance in the universe, since we do seem to have a fairly accurate idea of expansion rates and the speed of light…

“But creationism and evolutionism are probably more properly called models, because they’re not quite predictive and falsifiable in the same way. Both have tenets that they are unwilling to give up, and if a prediction is found false, a new mechanism is proposed that fits the data.�

A model and a theory are basically synonymous…. Models must be predictable and falsifiable in order to gain acceptance. In fact many people use the words interchangeably. The practice of proposing new mechanisms is not something negative, but a positive function that is supposed to keep the theory in line with the data.

*(oops not casual- causal- unless you live in Athens GA, where everything is casual),

[Blackheart]

“In fact, because of the lack of expected evidence for intermediate forms, the theory of evolution has been modified from steady, small, evenly-spaced changes to “punctuated equilibrium�, which basically says that changes occurred in bunches and thus didn’t show up in the fossil record in the expected number. But that is a premise based on a LACK of evidence, not what is ACTUALLY OBSERVABLE in the fossil record.�

This actually begs the question, intermediate to what? Entire species have likely come and gone without leaving a single fossil trace. Fossilization is actually a rare phenomenon, much like a nova. When it does occur, it is illuminating, but drawing conclusions from the absence of a rare phenomena is tricky. It’s like saying there aren’t any dust clouds between us and point X in space, because there haven’t been any novas to illuminate them….

As for intermediate forms, many have been found. The problem is of course identifying what they are intermediate to… Not to mention that many intermediate forms are successful in their own right, and become species occupying a niche. I think the best examples currently bantered about are the intermediate whale forms, but also many examples exist of intermediate arthropod species, fish species, etc. In fact, one could argue that the entire amphibian phylum is an outgrowth of an intermediate between fish and reptiles…

“Now again, evolutionism can back off and say “well, the really simple creatures came BEFORE any fossils were preserved,� but again, that is arguing from LACK of evidence – we’re looking at OBSERVABLE evidence. What is OBSERVABLE in the Cambrian layer?�

The Origin of life question is actually a separate discussion, as it deals with the idea of spontaneous genesis. It’s more of an organic chemistry question about the matrix for replication. As I pointed out however, the main difference is between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Fossils exist of both, though they are predictably rare. Prokaryotes can actually be viewed as an intermediate step between no membrane “life forms� (such as prions and virii) and cellular creatures…

I’m just going to have to skip all the stuff about layering because of sedimentary deposits form the great flood. I don’t have time to address it, other than to point out that there are many obvious objections…

“The last area for this top-level summary is some of the observable laws of science, and how they fit/don’t fit into the two theories. The law that I think is most applicable to this discussion is the Second Law of Thermodynamics (I think the First Law is also applicable, but it’s not as relevant). The 2nd law is one of the most consistently observed in all of science, and affects processes in every scientific field. It basically states that ALL CHANGES are in the direction of increasing disorder and increasing randomness and loss of useful energy. IOW, as we’ve all heard, the universe is running down� –SNIP- “We all see this law in action every day – things left to time and chance, two of the driving forces behind evolution, do what? They go downhill! They do NOT increase in order or complexity.�

Actually, this is exactly the point that I addressed earlier. People really don’t have a good understanding of entropy. The idea of entropy headed towards disorder is a misnomer. It’s actually the idea that energy settles into the most compact “space�. Bubbles and spheres in physics, shallow pools for water in gravity, lower electron orbits for sub atomic particles, and niches for species…. Without entropy, it would be impossible for evolution to occur, as there would be no driving force… Death by failure to compete being an ultimate form of entropy… If you want more detail scroll back up.. or ask for more explanation…

I’m willing to discuss and evaluate this further, but I don’t have the time at the moment. I’ll check back in later and note objections…

[Lizra]

Originally posted by RÃ*an


Lizra is the only one so far that has attempted to answer my question I asked the evolutionists, altho I wish she would have answered the strong point for creationism more seriously. For example, Lizra, your very good common sense must point out to you the simple fact that dogs remain dogs, etc., despite years of breeding. This is observable over and over, and is a strong point for creationism. And this is where evolutionism jumps over to conjecture and extrapolation when they claim that fish-type-thingys can develop into man. Nothing wrong with conjecture, but - the EVIDENCE supports creationism more.

I really, REALLY find it hard to believe that the evolutionists here cannot come up with even ONE point that seems to be in favor of creationism, or share even ONE point that seems to be a weak area of evolutionism. I shared my opinion on the subject; will the evolutionists here please share their opinions?

I wasn't trying to be silly! Creation being "fun" to believe in IS the strong point for me. It is really nice the way the creation theory is done up. The whole thing is in the book (bible) you don't have to worry, fret, or wonder....God did it, God is all knowing, just be a good Christian, and celebrate the wonder of it all! There are large groups of people who get together every Sunday, (and other days too) and celebrate this theory. They sing, meditate, fix food, help other people...it's practically a party. It would be fun (and a bit of a mental relief) to believe in it. But, for me, that would mean tossing my brain aside. No can do....So I can't get in the god party. That's ok though, I'm not comfortable with pretending, which is what I would be doing if I were to try to believe in god.

As far as the dogs...once again, people haven't been around (recording their observations) long enough to see macroevolution occur. Not enough time has passed....how many times do I have to say this? I'm not trying to be snippy, you just want to see something that takes increments of time that humans don't have. So you won't be seeing it!

If you do not believe in a creator, then the creation theory has no evidence that holds any water! The "evidence" then points to something else. We use the "evidence" to suit us, I guess! You for god, and me for evolution as the biological explanation part of this world we live in.

[Blackheart]

"Theres nothing out there that could actively pop the whole theory of evolution like its some big debatable bubble. Its rock solid reality at this point. It cant be popped."

Actually I deplore this kind of thinking... It's exactly the attitude that the church used to supress Copernucus' theories....

Examples of things that could pop the bubble:

Discovery of a directed mechanism, such as a quantum link, that actually mandates favored mutations.

Discovery of species mutability, which would overide the concept of speciation. (in other words the idea that speciation is done or undone by viral repliction for example)...

Discovery of manipulation by outside forces at any level, from micro management to setting the matrix at the level of space and parameters...

Any of these would neccesitate a major reworking of our understanding of reality and how life forms change...

[Willow Oran]

Its rock solid reality at this point

I must disagree with that. The only thing that is rock solid reality at this point is nothing. Quite a few people these days aren't even sure there is a reality, I'm sure I'm not. Too many things exist that disprove reality as we would like to know it. The world being one of them. Yes we can see, feel, hear, smell, taste and even believe in the world but if we try hard enough we can experience equal sensory belief in other worlds and therefore other possible realities.

Furthermore, the very complexity of this question of reality supports the idea that we were created. An incomprehensible being could easily create an incomprehensible set of possibilities, any one of which could become a reality of sorts to concious life forms as long as those lifeforms posessed the ability and the will to believe in that reality. This theory though opens the door for the question:
If our reality is shaped by our beliefs then is it not possible that creationism used to be true because more people believed in it and now that more people are believing in evolution creationism has become less true and evolutionism more so?
That, in fact, the nature of the world is shaped by what its inhabitants believe about it?
Think about it.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Sorry, Eärniel, that's one area that I'm not up on, and also is a weak area, as far as research, in creationism, IMO. I'll try to look up some links.

Thanks, much appreciated.

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I just re-read your post and as far as "new layers", if the new layers are laid down by water, too, then I don't know why they should look very different. Do you think they should? (just trying to get some more details so I can try to find a better answer)

If the new layers are also laid down by water, I suppose they are indeed sort of simular. With the only difference perhaps that the flood-layers probably would hold more specimen than modern layers.

But post-flood layers are not necesarily laid down by water. Especially after the water receded there should have been plenty 'dry' deposited layers, I imagine. The thing is that all the layers that were layed down by the supposed flood should - I think - share at least one certain aspect, a difference with post-flood layers that would make them stand out as flood-laid layers. Otherwise, how else can you have geological evidence of the flood? It's that one aspect that I can't find, nor remember ever having read about. Again, I admit that my geology knowledge is very rudimentary but to me the whole flood-ordered-the-fossil-layers-theory falls or stands with that proof on that one aspect of difference. I hope I put that coherently.

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Did you read my multiple post? If so, what did you think of all the other areas of evidence I discussed? To repeat yet again, I think there are strong points and weak points in BOTH theories, but creationism is better supported.

I read them, there were some points on which I disagreed but I believe all have since then been addressed. And then there were a few things that seemingly went right over my head but that's just me.

I agree that there are strong and weak points in both theories but in my opinion (and with my limited knowledge on both of them), evolution is better supported.

[Lizra]

Originally posted by Willow Oran
I must disagree with that. The only thing that is rock solid reality at this point is nothing. Quite a few people these days aren't even sure there is a reality, I'm sure I'm not. Too many things exist that disprove reality as we would like to know it. The world being one of them. Yes we can see, feel, hear, smell, taste and even believe in the world but if we try hard enough we can experience equal sensory belief in other worlds and therefore other possible realities.

Furthermore, the very complexity of this question of reality supports the idea that we were created. An incomprehensible being could easily create an incomprehensible set of possibilities, any one of which could become a reality of sorts to concious life forms as long as those lifeforms posessed the ability and the will to believe in that reality. This theory though opens the door for the question:
If our reality is shaped by our beliefs then is it not possible that creationism used to be true because more people believed in it and now that more people are believing in evolution creationism has become less true and evolutionism more so?
That, in fact, the nature of the world is shaped by what its inhabitants believe about it?
Think about it.

I did, got a headache! Too far out for me...must take some drugs for this!

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lizra
[B]I wasn't trying to be silly! Creation being "fun" to believe in IS the strong point for me.

I meant strong point in terms of observable scientific evidence, but I'll let it pass

As far as the dogs...once again, people haven't been around (recording their observations) long enough to see macroevolution occur. Not enough time has passed....how many times do I have to say this? I'm not trying to be snippy, you just want to see something that takes increments of time that humans don't have. So you won't be seeing it!

Yes, I realize not enough time has passed, but again, my point was what is observable. As long as people keep the word "could" in the theory, as in "since we see lots of small changes happening, therefore large changes such as fish-type to mammal COULD occur", I have no problem with it . It's when "could" gets changed to "will" that I object.

If you do not believe in a creator, then the creation theory has no evidence that holds any water! The "evidence" then points to something else. We use the "evidence" to suit us, I guess! You for god, and me for evolution as the biological explanation part of this world we live in.

We disagree Now let's get that phone call together sometime and chat about some other stuff! I wish we lived closer. My in-laws used to live near you.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Eärniel
I agree that there are strong and weak points in both theories but in my opinion (and with my limited knowledge on both of them), evolution is better supported.

OK

Would you mind telling me a specific strong(er) point for creationism and weak(er) point for evolutionism that you see, just out of curiosity?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Blackheart
"Theres nothing out there that could actively pop the whole theory of evolution like its some big debatable bubble. Its rock solid reality at this point. It cant be popped."

Actually I deplore this kind of thinking... It's exactly the attitude that the church used to supress Copernucus' theories....

Examples of things that could pop the bubble:

Discovery of a directed mechanism, such as a quantum link, that actually mandates favored mutations.

Discovery of species mutability, which would overide the concept of speciation. (in other words the idea that speciation is done or undone by viral repliction for example)...

Discovery of manipulation by outside forces at any level, from micro management to setting the matrix at the level of space and parameters...

Any of these would neccesitate a major reworking of our understanding of reality and how life forms change...

how would any of these things completey level the theory of evolution? how would any of them use other mechanisms other then those utilized by what science has observed when speaking of "evolutionary change"? you would have to show that everything we know of on a basic level is an illusion first. otherwise everything you just named there would be taking advantage of the VERY SAME mechanisms that we believe evolution uses. we can call evolutionary mechanisms something else other then evolutionary mechanisms and say its completely different but thats just silly.

creationism says god made stuff. genes dont play the roll we think they do. its god. nothing becomes anything else. its god. thats a FUNDAMENTALLY different way of focusing on the way life changes. it doesnt utilize the mechanisms and "tools" that evolution uses according to science. so if you can come up with something as fundamentally different as creationism (but of course not dead wrong) then bravo. But none of those things above escape the same pool of tools that evolution uses. Directed evolution is still evolution. Find me something that discards these mechanisms entirely and we can throw away the whole theory of evolution. Now how bout we see how gravity doesnt actually work.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Strong point for creationism. If I was a creationist I would constantly harp on the point that god can do what he likes. And if he wants to create everything in a way that makes it LOOK like creationism ISNT how it all came about then he has his reasons for doing so. And that’s that. That’s all you need to say really. Cant argue with that.

No, IRex, I was talking about strong in terms of observable scientific evidence - sorry, I should have been more specific. Or you can say least-weak, if you want to

Weak point for evolution? I cant really help you there. Theres simply no debate about it in my opinion. Its like asking me for a weak point for the theory of gravity. Well what are you supposed to say? Theres nothing out there that could actively pop the whole theory of evolution like its some big debatable bubble. Its rock solid reality at this point. It cant be popped. Now we could get into microbiological menutia about things ABOUT evolution that we don’t know or understand yet but it wouldn’t be threatening evolution as a theory. It would simply be a way of tightening up what we know about it. And that’s how science works. Its never a “Oh! That doesn’t quite make sense! So throw it ALL out!� deal. It’s the perfecting of a tool that is reality

I'm not talking about throwing the whole thing out. I'm just interested in what you, personally, think to be the relatively weakest or least-supported, observable-evidence-wise, area of evolution.