evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins

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.

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.

TrueCreation tells us:

quote:

---

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.

---

Absolutely, YEC/Flood "geology" is extremely falsifiable. The problem is that YECs utterly ignore the falsification. AiG/ICR/CRS style creationism was proven false two centuries ago. This is why the "professional" YECs tend to be dishonest, extremely incompetent, extremely dogmatic, or some combination. The honest, knowledgeable ones stop being YECs.

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.

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.

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.

We are both off topic; but if we are real quiet about it they might not notice. I'll try to slip in some stuff about a contest and winning; we might get away with it...I don't actually think anything the creationists have corresponds to a model, as the term is used in science. Some creationists think speciation can't occur; some recognize that it does occur. In neither case do they have an actual model which can be used to make any kind of prediction or test of the putative model. Talking of "winning" or "losing", in such cases, is beside the point. They aren't even playing the game.Science never works by absolute certainty or "truth", but it does work by proposing models that have empirical consequences, and we can have considerable confidence in various models which have been stringently tested and explored. Evolution is one such; it stands in relation to biology pretty much as the periodic table stands in relation to chemistry.In so far as a creationist model has been given that can be tested, it has been falsified. This at least is better than a no-show.The mice in Madeira don't usually give any pause to creationists. Those who insist speciation can't occur say that this isn't speciation, because they are "still mice". Those who agree that speciation does occur claim that this is just the kind of minor change which fits a creationist model.It does stand as an illustration that speciation occurs and is observed; and can be helpful in answering an honest question from someone like yourself on whether we observe speciation or not.Another thing about this example which is interesting is refutation of a common argument given against our relationship with the great apes. Humans have one less chromosome than chimpanzees and gorillas; and some creationists have argued that this indicates a deep division incompatible with common ancestry. The mice are a simple and comprehensible illustration that this argument is incorrect; since they have had just such a fusion of chromosomes as occured in our own lineage.In any case, the amount of speciation required to allow animal life to be descended from what was carried on an Ark several thousand years ago is orders of magnitude greater than what we see taking place today. It would be macroevolution at an unprecedented level; orders of magnitude more than anything proposed in evolutionary biology.Cheers -- Sylas

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]

<<< GLARES AT MIKE AND SYLAS Just kidding guys, I think your discussions fit the OP quite well.But if Mike calls me EVIL again, I'm going to have to dig out my whip.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

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]

"I don't think so Dave...er...Mike"

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

I'd like to add to the responses to this.It's hard to falsify a belief in UFO's. In this case, in fact, impossible, because UFO's just mean unidentified flying objects, and there have been plenty of flying objects that are unidentified.On the other hand, a worldwide flood is a lot easier to falsify. No one has been able to produce a worldwide flood model that gives accurate predictions. A worldwide flood, especially one 4,000 years ago, would produce noticeable results, such as the destruction of civilizations older than 4,000 years, like Egypt or China. Egyptian and Chinese history has no record of such a flood.Other flood models do predict things. Some creationists propose a flood that layed all or most of the layers of the geologic column and sorted the fossils by size. The fossils are not sorted by size, and the layers of the geologic column are not layed as a worldwide flood would lay them. Others propose a flood with the fossils sorted by the speed and climbing ability of the fossilized animals. Fossils are also not sorted this way, so both models cannot be true.Coming up with a flood model that explains how all humans were killed off except Noah and his family, while the Chinese and Egyptian nations just went on without noticing it seems pretty impossible to me, so I can feel comfortable when I say it didn't happen.The flood makes a much better example than UFO's or bigfoot.

quote:

---

Absolutely, YEC/Flood "geology" is extremely falsifiable. The problem is that YECs utterly ignore the falsification.

---

--Not all of them. I would say that I am one of those exceptions, but then again I am not a YEC myself.

quote:

---

AiG/ICR/CRS style creationism was proven false two centuries ago.

---

--Well there is hardly a substantial consensus in the creationist scientific community, so ultimately you might be right there. Nevertheless, 200 year old "flood geology" was disproven by 200 year old science. IMO newer proposals carry some potential, such as Baumgardner's geophysical proposals regarding catastrophic plate tectonics and runaway subduction.

quote:

---

This is why the "professional" YECs tend to be dishonest, extremely incompetent, extremely dogmatic, or some combination.

---

--Some of them tend to migrate toward some of these unfortunate characteristics. I think Baumgardner is one of the only ones I could disclude from that list with some confidence.

quote:

---

The honest, knowledgeable ones stop being YECs.

---

--Some. And while I have much to learn, it is possible that this is due to some unfortunate subjective characteristic inherent to humanity. For example, an intelligent YEC scientist might drift away from YECism because they may find abundant issues of misconduct in other YEC scientists. Or a knowledgable YEC scientist might drift away from YECism because they find it easier to just let go of the poorly researched and poorly advanced status of young earth issues, just to name a few. Others may just be daunted by the abundance of inconsistencies inevitably implied by a catastrophic view of earth history.Cheers,
-Chris Grose

I was interested to see Glenn Morton say similar things in a post at TheologyWeb; though with a rather serious proviso. I trust Glenn does not mind me quoting an extract... I've not looked into his material in any depth; but what little I have seen seems worse than Glenn's comments would suggest. In any case, those interested can see Baumgardner's own web site for themselves.Cheers -- Sylas

One would have to wonder why Baumgardner even bothers to develop a model. Simply declare the flood, plate tectonics and associated phenomena a miracle and be done with it. Why try to whittle it down to a small miracle when a large miracle is just as credible?