evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins

I have to do a presentation that convinces people that evolution is the truth and creationism is a lie. Can anyone help me understand them both a little bit more?

Why don't you start by asking us questions about what you don't understand?

Kid, science does not deal in truth. It deals with hypotheses and theories.So I suggest you reframe your quest. You'll be more convincing that way.

As Tamara said, science is not the pursuit for truth. Philosophy deals with this. Science looks for explanations for natural phenomena through natural mechanisms. While science does not deny supernatural mechanisms, it does base its inquiry on the basis that every natural phenomena has a natural mechanism. Scientific theories can then be supported or falsified by what we observe, be that in the fossil record or in the genomes of species. It is the predictions that the Theory of Evolution makes on the relatedness of species that is its strength, creationism does not have a testable hypothesis that even approaches evolution in the realm. Perhaps the best layman site on the internet for evidences of evolution is at No webpage found at provided URL: www.talkorgins.org.Perhaps the best question to ask of the other side is this: "Other than the Bible, what evidence is there of special creation." In other words, if the Bible said that life started 3.5 billion years ago and has evolved since from single celled organisms, would bible literalists still have a problem with the theory of evolution? I would think not.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 02-19-2004]

quote:

---

To prove creation you have to prove...that evolution doesn't happen.

---

--?

quote:

---

Most creationists also believe in a young earth which is one of the easiest ideas to shoot full of holes.

---

--Well it certainly and inevitably carries copious potential falsification.

quote:

---

Evolution is a theory based on the evidence at hand (fossil record, genetic data, age of earth/universe etc). The basic idea is evolution is science, its tested, it stands up to the questions, and its able to adapt to take new input to expand our knowledge. Creation is a theory that is declared by religion, then spends all its time desperately trying to defend itself.
As the famous quote goes "Evolution takes the evidence and makes a conclusion. Creation makes a conclusion then looks for evidence".

---

--Scientific analysis of a potentially young earth does not have to follow such a flawed scientific methodology. However, this does seem to be the case with most 'research' performed by scientists who advocate a young earth, and most unfortunatelly so. To me it is clear that the current understanding of science, as is manifested in the scientific literature argues well against a young earth by plenty of methods. While it seems more implausible every day in my opinion, if those scientists interested in "young earth research" were to take a more objective approach, without prejudicial requisites for 'scientific' conclusions, they could probably get somewhere.Nevertheless, I recommend the original author of this thread to not make any definite statements in his presentation. But of course if his only impetus to delve into this issue is to 'convince the audience', he could always get a copy of those Dr. Dino tapes and switch things around a bit. Ultimately, you probably won't know what you are talking about, but have fun trying.Cheers,
-Chris Grose[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-20-2004]

^ ????? What? Ok I'm confused.

I would agree that you have a good chance of convincing people of evolution on earth. If you are attempting to disprove God in any way that He is personal and that He is able to influence events on earth, I think that your effort will NOT succeed. You cannot tell someone who has smelled the coffee and tasted of it that coffee does not exist. Otherwise, I hope that you have a good presentation,verbiskit.

Can any one human actually make a statement like:
" Evolution has won, it is an absolute certainty and Creationism is completely false "They'd have to have a time machine to back up that claim. Also they'd have to define evolution and creationism completely.Now that would be hard because of things like;Creationism = God created the world and all animals etc. using evolution.
Creationism = God created everything with no evolution whatsoever and the earth is old.
Creationism = God created everything with no evolution and the earth is young.Unfortunately it's ford cars.
versus cars, motorcycles, prams, scooters etc.
In other words, Creationism = Philosophy, Religion, Faith, Theology, Science.
Evolution = Science.Ofcourse, that's why fitting Creationism in the science class is like having a whole load of subjects at once. So as a Creationist I'm doomed.
Does this honesty actually help my cause? [This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-20-2004]

To answer that line:
yes, no, and yes
That is, as an explaination for the world we see, evolution wins. As an absolute certainty, you'd have to define it in more detail but only some of the details could be nearly absolute a lot are not. They are just so very good that arguing further seems to be a poor investment of time.Creationism needs to be defined in some detail but over all it is false (maybe only nearly completely though rather than absolutely completely).

I think I get you. Ofcourse absolute certainty is not very useful in science, but basically you feel evolution has won despite this Ned? Certainly there could be some aspects of it that are true, even to you?
For example, old earth?What about catastrophism rather than the flood, or are they the same thing?
Concerning evolution, what about the missing links, transitionals etc? - is this a myth when dissected? Can we say with for certain that there are definite transitionals? Ok, I'll admitt there seems to be transitionals you have shown me, but is this a constant throughout nature and can it not also represent diversity of a Creator and/or not evolution absolutely. Maybe I ask too much in one thread eh? To be honest though Ned - I think personally the statement " evolution wins " is premature, if not a can of worms.

That is why I said it has to be defined "in some detail". The "classic" creationist (and that of AIG and ICR) does not accept an old earth. The need for precise detail is partially because every individual creationist has their own story.The other reason for detail being needed before saying it is all false is that even in the most extreme form there may be some bit that is right. The mainstream (but certainly not all) now seem to have been forced to accept some evolution. To the degree that they do they would be correct.However, separate from how "absolutely certain" evolution (and physics and geology) is, creationism, in an over all view, (that is the YEC, all creatures created at once, flood based kind) is wrong. It is already falsified. If current scientific consensus is wrong then we will have to find another answer. The creationist one had it's day and is wrong and can not be revived by showing the current ideas wrong. Well, unless that "wrong" is really, really different, taking apart biology, physics and geology, not just biological evolution.

Another imortant issue that hasnt been mentioned yet here are dating methods. All these methods are based on differential equation models that have to be adjusted again and again to get the desired age. If no adustment is made the date given will be far smaller than the required for evos but perect for creos.The fundamental equation is T=Ti(e^kt) Where k is the constant that is constantly changed it comes from dk/dt=kt

Ok, Jazz why don't you head off to the dates and dating forum and show how those differential equations are used incorrectly? You must be beginning to get the idea that assertions without back up don't count.You can show the adjustments made over time and how they would produce a 6,000 year old earth when done correctly.

Basically, Ned is correct. We are like a giant courtroom of public evidence. For those of us who are Believers, God definitely exists! We cannot prove this as a fact that is verifiable to the satisfaction of the jury, however. The Atheists will try and write it all off as ancient superstition and the byproduct of man attempting to control man through Dogma. They have satisfied their own belief, yet they too can not convince the jury. The scientists and rational people like you, Ned...you are friends of the jury. The jury really likes you guys, and you keep the whole thing together! Court is NOW in session!

You seem to be really confused about elementary maths and calculus. The trick is to recognize that you don't actually know what you are talking about with respect to the mathematical formulae of decay, and express yourself accordingly.The constant k is does not change at all; that is what constant means. It is called the decay constant, and usually identified with the symbol lambda (λ). Every radioactive substance has a characteristic decay constant, which is fixed. Thus dk/dt = 0 (or dλ/dt = 0).The formula you have written uses a "T" and also a "t". This is a bit odd. The symbol "t" is a reference to time. Knowing this, the formula you have given is recognizable as an equation more often written as N = Ni(e^-λt). N is the number of atoms at time t, and Ni is the initial number of atoms (at time zero). Note the minus sign.From basic calculus, we have dN/dt = -λN, or in your notation dT/dt = -kT. Watch the capitals.The minus sign means that the number of atoms is getting smaller with time, as they decay. The derivative dN/dt is the rate at which atoms are decaying, or the number of atoms lost per unit time. The equation dN/dt = -λN means that the number of atoms that are decaying depends on the number of atoms in the sample, and on the decay constant of the substance.Cheers -- Sylas