evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins

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]

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.

Ofcourse, Creation Scientists would disagree with you about that. I don't see how both can be falsified easily with past tense being such an issue. Afterall isn't that why such debates as these exist? Because we cannot know for sure what exactly is totally correct = absolute certainty. That time machine would be useful, or even showing us how evolution is happening. A lot would rather argue with newbie yecs though, than to show us how evolution is actually happening and then surely you would win the debate. Could you show a newbie yec kid how evolution happens in layman's terms? If you can then I think a lot of them would listen. Or maybe it cannot be explained easily to a layman. Have we seen a new species emerge ever? - I'm talking about, say - a mammal. Hence, the can of worms is open.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-21-2004]

Hi Sylas, no obligatory sheesh needed. I have just read about the mice and will read more in your thread. I've been quite busy and so I can't read every thread, nevertheless this is the first I have heard about these mice.
Also, Ned, I do speak from a somewhat neutral position. Or how I observe it from a Layman's point of view. If you say it is complex to explain that partially answers my question because already I can see that there is going to be a natural gap between a newbie yec and an evolutionist. In all honesty, from my learning of Natural Selection I can see that gap is real. Well, I know one particular Creation Scientist who was an evolutionist for many years and then came to be Creationist. You'll have to understand that from a somewhat neutral position I'd have to disagree with your statement. A Scientist is a Scientist, I see no reason to doubt a Creation Scientist if he is a Scientist like all of the others.
Okay, I did go off and ask for proof of evolution, guilty. I think I get you. You are saying there's a difference between falsification and absolute certainty? I'd have to agree that is a very good explanation. Neutrally - I'd say it seems to be the best Theory of what happened or is happening. BUT - I don't think comments about it being an absolute certainty would be true. Certainly, I don't think the statement I conjured up is correct, or " evolution wins ". Surely you would need it to be a certainty for such a statement.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-22-2004]

Ah forget it, no apology needed. BTW Apparently the mice are somewhat explained as when in your link the Creationist says speciation is infact assigned a place in the Creationist model. I'm guessing you would disagree with him about that?
Am I off topic?

Oh, I get you now - I think. It's probably me who insists with waffling on about absolute certainty. Ofcourse it seems easier to falsify things as you say. For example - Am I to believe in bigfoot, ufo's, ghosts, the green giant? It seems easy to falsify these things, as most of us do not experience these things, hence our understandable scepticism. Also there is a lack of evidence. My main point is though, that I could not infact say with absolute certainty that these things are false or true because lack of evidence/unbelief albeit on my part do not necessarily make these things absolutely untrue. But I'm pretty inclined to say they are false.- But I am not absolutely certain.
Fair enough about your reasoning, it seems fine, keeps me thinking anyways atleast.

Well, yes. But I'm trying to show it doesn't and it seems just as hard, Lol. Run and hide or ignore the claim? I think this would be harder to prove, than to not prove. What if we didn't know that he could detect satellites and camaflage as a tree at any given moment? What if he was only glowing in the dark because he was angry? What if, he could shrink to chimp size at will? So I'm still not sure he's not out there but I'm inclined to doubt he is. At the risk of this being moved to the coffee house, I'm inclined to agree with you about the glowing bigfoot.

Are you saying I'm a classic creo?Some arguments I've heard aren't quite as bad as the one I made concerning our glowing buddy but then again there may well be those who are guilty of such attacks. I have seen some creos give some pretty unscientific rubbish to bolster their claims though. Like:" Hitler was evolutionist, so evolution is untrue "Unfortunately such things have nothing to do with the ToE and give creos a bad name. Maybe they should stress that some of the things they say is opinionated and not scientific. If you can show me an example of a Creation Scientist putting a " wishful " theory forward it would help. Or a ludicrous theory, as I'd rather not judge without seeing for myself. I wasn't being serious about the bigfoot turning to chimp size, as I know that what you said was fair, if such a claim was made, and I agree with you that it would be easier to falsify. BUT, my main argument in this thread is that absolute certainty would or might come into play, if we make, or if Scientists make such statements as the one a gave an example of earlier.

Well, you know more than this about me so I have nothing to say against that. If evolution has stood stongly and explained such things as your mice example correctly then I have to concede defeat. Obviously it's a good and tough Theory to crack and also I think the ToE is a work of genius. I guess that was what I was trying to say concerning the link you gave. I read that similar claims would still fit the Creation model. Basically it would probably come down to kinds again if I were to argue the same thing in for them. If speciation has happened and the Scientists can show it then I guess that is a kind of proof of it. Yet, obviously - the Creation side is going to say that the evolved mice are still mice. I'll have to read more about this mice links you gave. I'd rather not argue from an ignorant position, when you've done your homework. I'll be reading more yet. As observed evolution is obviously where I lack. I did think however that the mice event fit well with the recent things I have learnt concerning genetic drift and isolated populations. Certainly, the proof is in the pudding if the mice claim is true. I will however give you the benefit of the ignoramus (me) and suspect your are correct - for now. If speciation has been observed by honest Scientists then I have no argument that it hasn't happened, though I am not a Creation Scientist. Ofcourse, Can the Madiera mice mate with the previous population? I'm guessing NOT, though I forget this part of it constantly, Lol, the previous species cannot mate with the new species. Is that right? Why I always get confused by this part, I'll never know. Ho hum...Layman.Hehe, good idea about winning and contests. Now you're manipulating those evil mod's.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-22-2004]

Tee hee hee, now I'm excited." Dave, or rather " Asgara, I think you should calm down, take a stress pill and think things over. " - 2001Maybe she missed the movie, so she won't get that bit about Dave. [This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-22-2004]