Evolution is Not Science

"[1] Genuine science is objective and invites scrutiny and investigation.
[1a]It does not ridicule the critics of its conclusions, but instead silences their criticisms by setting forth the evidence from which those conclusions are drawn"Although evolutionists do provide evidence against YEC conclusions occasionally, most of the time it does involve ad hominem and mean-spirited generalizations."[2] Genuine science seeks the truth that explains the observed evidence.
[2a]It does not prejudice the investigation by ruling out, from the start, hypotheses that may very well provide the best explanation for the observed evidence."I think this is a good point. Creationists have a tough mountain to climb. First, they have to deal with the claim that they are not performing science. Then they have to deal with the claim that religion cannot be taught in school. THEN they have to deal with the evidence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by quicksink:
The problem today is that time, and numbers, for that matter, are trivialized. We here million, and even billion, all the time. they've become cliches- they've lost their power and meaning.

​

My point? Events that occur on the million and billion year time scale are well beyind human comprehension- because we witness so incredibly little during our life, we are in no place to judge the plausibility of eovlution.

---

You have just basically admitted that the TOE is not falsifiable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by quicksink:
Q&A

​

This site is interesting- it gives very simple and straight-forward responses to the most common issues raised by YECs.

​

http://www-personal.si.umich.edu/~wmwines/WASP/creationist_arguments.html

---

That site is typical- give the worst arguments ever used for Creation. Pretend that Creationists have never encountered these "explanations" before. (For example, the "bad design" argument is extremely weak)

quote:

---

Originally posted by edge:
I don't understand. I thought you said that ToE was unfalsifiable.

​

---

I don't think TrueCreation said such a thing. If anything, I said it was unfalsifiable. But I didn't. I just pointed out that quicksink's comment (we are in no position to judge the feasibility of evolution) to be basically an admittance that evolution cannot be falsified.

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY JET:
"Instead, Evolutionists have had to confess that huge gaps occur in the fossil record at nearly every place where transitions were expected."EDGE:
"And those are explained. Evolution is not refuted."Of course they are explained! If there are no transitionals, it's punctuated equilibrium, if there are transitionals, it's gradualism. Heads they win, tails we lose.I find it interesting that evolutionary thought has such a huge salad bowl of explanations for everything.

The point that I was trying to make on this is that evolutionists are positive that they can totally smear Creationists when it comes to evidence. So why do they also resort to ad hominem and also claim that Creation science deserves quotations around the "science"? I can write "evolution" all I want, but it doesn't really prove a point.Many of you insult Jet for his arrogant and insulting nature, but I find that almost every evolutionist on this board has been extremely arrogant and extremely insulting on many occasions (although, I will admit, the evolutionists do generally have a bit more substance in their posts).

JM: You missed my point entirely. Since you claim to be alive and a real person, then you are a living breathing example of evolution.Au Contraire (sp?) Since he claims to be alive and a real person, he is a child of God and His Creation. "A change in genetic material through time is all evolution is."Whoops! I've been an evolutionist all along!"Now, there is no point in you denying this fact, what you will now do is to invent some hypothetical barrier through which evolution cannot cross."Actually, it is perfectly reasonable to create a hypothetical barrier. YOU are the one required to show that evolution can accomplish what we see here on Earth."What I want you to do is to define this barrier scientifically. Define this barrier scientifically. Give us a way to test this."I believe that creationists have been pointing to hybridization as a classification."If two animals or two plants can hybridize (at least enough to produce a truly fertilized egg), then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created kind. If the hybridizing species are from different genera in a family, it suggests that the whole family might have come from the one created kind. If the genera are in different families within an order, it suggests that maybe the whole order may have derived from the original created kind.On the other hand, if two species will not hybridize, it does not necessarily prove that they are not originally from the same kind."Sorry for stepping in Penguin.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
The short answer to your question is we resort to such behavior sometimes because we are human and we make mistakes and we become frustrated.

​

---

Thanks for admitting that ad hominem attacks are a mistake."The reason I put quotes around the word "science" when used in the phrase 'Creation "science"' is because Creation "science" is science in name only, not in practice or product, and it is important to always make this distinction. Creationists have given themselves this description, even though they do not follow any of the tenets or methods of real scientific inquiry."It's not really a big deal.

"CS- this was done a very long time ago. Dating methods have proved that the less advanced a fossilized creature is, the older it is."Ok, fine. But more evidence is needed than "the fossils get more advanced." Remember, creation isn't the only competing theory. Some IDers think that evolution is guided by intelligent processes. SO, you need to show that this wonderful genetic mechanism is available to create all of those nifty fossils."The fossil strata reinforces evolutionist theories with its distinctive "primitive to advanced" pattern, which, throught the eyes of the scientific community, is overwhelming proof of genetic evolution over vast and, quite frankly, incomprehensible periods of time."Right, but more evidence is needed. And, point me out if I'm wrong, the Cambrian fossils don't exactly blend perfectly with evolutionary theory. So I don't think you're correct that the fossils offer undeniable proof of blind naturalistic processes can create life as we see it."You and your fellows in the creationist camp are trying to disprove these theories, and shed doubt on its assertions and evidences. It is your responsibility to demonstrate that macro-evolution is impossible and thus did not occurr. The scientific community is already confident of its findings, and will only listen if you come up with something of interest."Demonstrate that macro-evolution is impossible? That's disproving a negative. Whether or not the "scientific community" is confident of this so-called undeniable proof of common ancestry holds no bearing."Such questions as "why does the fossil strata look the way it does""Whether or not they have been successful, many creationists have acknowledged this, especially TC."or why starlight appears to be so young"Actually, a whole book was written addressing the issue.Your other questions were a bit more difficult for me to answer, but I don't think it is true that creationists ignore huge issues like you claim.Besides, even if you could prove that all Creation scientists were inbred heathen retards, it would do nothing to help evolutionary theory.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
The point that I was trying to make on this is that evolutionists are positive that they can totally smear Creationists when it comes to evidence. So why do they also resort to ad hominem and also claim that Creation science deserves quotations around the "science"? I can write "evolution" all I want, but it doesn't really prove a point.

​

Many of you insult Jet for his arrogant and insulting nature, but I find that almost every evolutionist on this board has been extremely arrogant and extremely insulting on many occasions (although, I will admit, the evolutionists do generally have a bit more substance in their posts).

---

​

Careful Cobra, your assertion here could be taken the wrong way. Care to respond to my critique of your most recent post on the (now-defunct) "Why Creationism isn't Science" thread? I'll be happy to open a new thread to continue that discussion. Unless, of course, you'd simply care to concede the debate?

​

---

Sure, go ahead and make a new topic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:

JM: Ok, you're wrong. The Cambrian fossils pose no special problem for evolution. You have to stay up with the literature. New discoveries keep eliminating small mysteries.

​

---

Really?By the way, I don't see why you think Cambrian fossils are "small mysteries."

Thanks TrueCreation for your assistance. "JM: Well, the fossils themselves are no mystery. The small mystery deals with why they appear when they do in the geologic record. As I mentioned, I have no clue why creationists accept the 'Cambrian Explosion since it poses more of a problem for them."Whew! I was worried for a second that you were actually going to provide a "realistic" explanation for the explosion of diversity! How wrong I was. Instead you decide to say that the Cambrian fossils do not support Creation. Of course, I didn't even claim that the Cambrian fossils support Creation (whether or not they do). I claimed that the Cambrian explosion is an aspect of the fossil record that does not mold well with evolutionary theory.

I don't really understand all of what you posted completely, but I did find this tidbit interesting:"Six studies of molecular divergence versus time point to a date
for the divergence of the animal phyla that is substantially before the Upper Vendian. These studies, done in very different ways, do not
suggest with any confidence a specific alternative date, but they all
agree that there must be an as yet hidden record of animal fossils
before the time currently thought to encompass the "Cambrian explosion."So, they are assuming that there were fossils that are not found? That seems a bit like special pleading to me. You must understand, though, that I do not think that the Cambrian fossils "damn" evolution, just that I don't think evolution has a great explanation for them.