evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins

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).

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.

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.

Another perfect post Sylas,but maybe heading a long way off topic here?

This is one way that creationists avoid what is there. They play goal post moving. First we can have no evolution at all, then we have sub speices evolution, then when a new species is shown it has to be of a particular type, then it has to be new genera and so on.There are two aspects to the arguement. As I noted it wouldn't matter if the ToE was very wrong. A YEC, flood based, no evolution idea is wrong. It isn't an iffy thing. Falsification is much more reasonable to call "proved" than the truth of something. First that needs to be understood and put aside.Even in your post you go off into asking for "proof" of evolution. That isn't the first point. The first point is that those creation so-called "scientists" are simply wrong in very many ways. It seems it is necessary to follow the actual history and repeat it.First you have to understand that the current idea is wrong then you are left wondering what is right. That happened a couple of centuries ago for scientists. Maybe each individual who has been lied to for most of their life has to recapitulate that path. Then they are ready to wonder what did happen.Then we can start explaining why the ToE is a pretty darn good explanation for what we do see.Explaining it to a newbie YEC isn't likely to work if they still think that the earth is 6,000 years old, flood happened etc. That will be enough to blind them to it.Once someone is past all that stuff it is still a bit hard to get into ones head. A couple of reasons for this:
1) While the basic idea is simple it is hard to understand the emergent phenomenon that can come from simple things. It takes a bit of time for that to sink in and some experiences that are hard to give here.
2) While the basic idea is simple the deep workings are dammed complex. This means you can go on forever explaining the details.

But this isn't the topic of this thread. This thread is explicitly about "creationism" and, in this context, the word is meant to mean those who can not accept the majority believers view which is what, I think, you have described.Since we don't know (in the same way we "know" other things) the nature of the deep origin of the universe it is something of a philosophical question -- for now.

I don't think I've communicated it yet. What I am saying is that it is easier to be more certain that something is false than that it is true.While we may get to the point were we are awfully darn sure something is true there is still room for some doubt, however ridiculously small. However, when something is falsified it is easier to be very nearly absolutely certain that it is false.Or in other words it is harder to be almost sure something is true than it is to be almost sure it is false.(The above is all my view, it's not something I've seen discussed anywhere in any detail. There may be something askew with the reasoning.)

This is a different class of thing. In this case we are trying to show that something does exist. This can be a bit hard. Until we turn over every rock we can't be completely sure that bigfoot (for example) doesn't exist. Well, not little rocks or it wouldn't be "big"foot would it .If however, bigfoot was conjectured to be 120 feet tall and glowing in the dark we could do a couple of things:
1) satillite photos of north america could consitute a complete scan and show that it wasn't there.
2) calculations of material strength can demonstrate that a living thing can't stand up to 120 feet tall and still move. It would have to be a tree.Thus such a conjecture could be moved to really, really close to proven false.The idea of a young earth, a flood and that there hasn't been large scale evolution over time can be shown to be false by the available evidence. They are extreme enough to be something like our 120 foot tall, glowing hairy monster. To extreme to hide from various demonstrations of falsehood.

Exactly!What this analogizes is the kind of arguements that creationists put forward. Without any reason, other than wishful thinking, they make up "whatifs" to try to bolster their ideas. They keep making up more and more ad-hoc solutions to the problems.If we had hypothisized a 120 foot bigfoot we need other, separate, reasons for suggesting that such capabilities are possible. Without them we are only damaging our credibilitiy by suggesting outlandish solutions.

and he has made it clear how any interactions with him will go too: Anyone who engages him has been warned.

Using math as an example is not appropriate. Mathematical constructs are, in some cases, defined as being true. The important question is how well do what they represent correspond to some sort of reality.There are real world things for which 1 + 1 does not equal 2. Which Moose didn't really handle well. In your case you presumed the arithmetic that you are familiar with. There are many other forms of "addition" defined where appropriate. Various of these are useful in different areas of scientific investigation. Your statment here isn't really correct but it is a nit pick we don't need to get into. This really is simply not true. Please google "escape velocity" for an explanation. In this case the gravitational forces will continually slow the raise of the "whatever" but it will never get it to zero and then reverse it's direction.It is not an "add on". It is a direct, basic consequence of the nature of the "laws" of gravity. No, it seems to be something you are calling "science today" not what it actually is.What is true is that science operates with some basic background assumptions. These are not often questioned but they are checked if there is any reason to or a new ability to.For example, there is an assumption that certain "laws" (of motion, gravity, chemistry etc.) act the same way every time and every where. This seems to work darn well but part of science is to check it. If it didn't work we would have found that we are in a universe that is different than we thought.It has been stated (can't remember by who, Einstein?) that what is amazing about the universe is that it is comprehensible to us. If there wasn't some consistency, as you point out, it might be more difficult. I don't know if the result would be comprehensible or not.This isn't some sort of "absolute truth". It has worked so far. We retest things if there is reason too. We should have learned a contradictory pair of things by now. One is that we really can understand the universe and the best of our understandings are very robust (Newton's laws for example). The other is there is room for enormous changes in our understanding to arise which have to be absorbed and replace our old understandings (Einsteins "laws", for example).This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-06-2004 12:08 AM

Ok, sorry I misunderstood.Then all we have to disagree with is the use of the word "truth". Could you clarify your point all in one place for me then?

Your first link to answers in genesis is discussing information. Please take that to a separate thread and define what is meant by information in this context. Evolution of complexity/information might be a good place to pick it up and add your comments. We have yet to get a good, operational definition of what information is in the way answers is using it. You can defend them and show how information is calculated perhaps. Do it in that thread as it is more "on topic" there.You will probalby have too much on your plate but there is also a place to discuss chimp genetics. I find it amusing that 95 % isn't considered similar. You should know that the people you know are hardly a valid sample to draw any conclustions from. The absolute majority of people I know believe something rather different. They don't represent a valid sample either.If you won't waste time arguing something do NOT bring it up. You are expected in a good faith debate to defend any assertions you make.

You simple must be more careful about what you use as a source and believe. That site is even worse than many.I suggest you start at about this message and read up and down discussin g the Coelacanth and the serious 'misunderstanding' of it. Message 31

Well, what you have to say, knowing nothing about why this is not tenuous isn't really worth much is it? It is, for one thing, not the only reason for thinking that the intermediaries between land animals and whales has been found.It is embarassing for those who make the claim: "there are no transitionals" of course. But they should have shut up on that one decades ago as there have been such evidence around for that long.