Well they’re a proof that we come from primitive origins…
Mmmm… pond slime.
My favourite one is when it goes like this:
**Creationist: ** The symbiotic, interdependent relationship between [some tiny animal] and [some huge plant] is irreducibly complex and cannot have evolved; all of the parts are necessary for the system to work at all, therefore it can only have been created in this fully-functional state! I have many many more examples just like this one!
**Evolutionist: **So, how did [the tiny animal] and [the huge plant] survive a year-long global flood? What about all the organisms in your many other examples?
[sound of crickets chirping]
My absolute favorite creationist evidence is that the Grand Canyon was carved out by Noah’s flood.
At that point, you just have to admit that some people are beyond hope.
[Creationist]
God is omnipotent! Duh!
[/Creationist]
:rolleyes:
But…but…but what about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, huh?
:dubious:
My favourite is the Diluvian rationale behind the fossil record:
The more intelligent and advanced creatures sought higher ground and thus drowned last, while the stupid old trilobites and coelacanths drowned first and sank to the bottom. (Hang on, how can a trilobite drown? ERROR, ERROR, GO TO 10)
Is this where I post the Jack Chick tract?
My personal favorite is when they say “Oh, but there are serious disagreements about evolutionary theory even among evolutionists,” as if they had the slightest idea of the meaning or significance of those disagreements.
i havent been on lately and just got around to reading all this, mabye we could try to narrow down the center of our topic for now atleast. So far most of you seem to have opinions about im assuming the opposition of your views. im gonna tell you guys right now i concider myself to believe in creation but right now id just like to hear what you have to say about evolution before i make up my mind. i recently watched a video tape of a debate between Gish and Doolittle. one point that doolittle stressed was why gish would not give him a straight answer on what creation scientists believe is the age of the earth. as far as i know why would creation need an age of the earth to go along with it, since no where in the bible it says the date when the earth was created, or how long the 7 days would take.
**
Wanting to hear “what [we] have to say about evolution” is hardly “narrowing down the topic.” You may want to read through some of the threads that have already been linked. Or better yet, go to the search page and type in “creationism.”
**
Except, I guess, for the part where that stretch of time is referred to as “7 days.”
Thanks for coming back to your thread. 
The reason Doolittle asked that question is because most creationism seems to be trying to find holes in science, not producing a hypothesis of their own. How can we test the creation hypothesis (and testing is a lot of what science is about) if no one will say what it is.
As for the age of the earth - if you follow the geneolgy in Genesis, the date of the “birth” of Adam is very clear. I know about the day argument, but if you read the first passages of Genesis in Hebrew, it is very clear that they mean a 24 hour day. If you’ll check on your Bible, each day is marked by “it was the evening and the morning, the nth day.” Remember days in Judaism begin at sunset.
You’ve been given many links to good sites that tell you what evolution is and what the evidence is for it. What do you think the theory of evolution says? Is your information from scientific or creationist sources? I’ll tell you right now that many creationist statements of evolution are totally wrong.
And if you are link-impaired here is a simplistic description: Children have different characteristics from their parents. Since there are more animals or plants than can be supported by the environment, some will die before reproducing. In general the ones who do reproduce are better fitted for their environment than the ones who won’t. The genetic makeup of a population will thus tend to reflect what is best suited for survival. Diversity is introduced both by natural genetic recombination and by mutation, some of which is detrimental, some of which is favorable, but most of which is neutral now, but might become favorable later.
That is longer than I hoped it would be, but the bottom line is descent with variation filtered by natural selection.
Here’s hoping for an open discussion.
im not sure about you guys, but those links arent working for me… ill try them again later, but for now i wanna talk about what jshore said: " “Creation science” is not science at all but religion masquerading as science." how is creation science not science, because creation scientists believe life was created by “a higher being” of some kind doesnt mean they believe the earth is square.
got the thinks, time to read…
got the links, time to read…
stuffusbus
It is all covered in the links. Short answer. To call something science, you need to propose a hypothesis that explains observations, then you need to propose experiments to test the hypothesis. The creation scientists have a hypothesis, if you want to call it that, but it is by definition untestable. This disqualifies it as a science. Instead, they spend their time picking at different minor aspects of evolutionary theory, which does nothing to support their hypothesis. When they can propose and perform experiments to test their hypothesis, then we will start to call it science.
I think I addressed your question about creation science in one of the first few posts on this thread:
Do you know what the scientific method is? Why don’t you tell us how to apply that to “Creation Science”. If you can’t use the scientific method in what you are doing, then you aren’d doing science.
This was posted by rjung—
quote:
Originally posted by Brad Amundsen
Simple fact is he doesn’t offer an alternative he just asks questions that evolutionary science cannot answer.
Don’t you mean “cannot answer yet?” And note that merely not having an answer at this moment is not ipso facto “proof” that evolution doesn’t work.
ok end quote… if you dont mind that i use rjungs comment as a guinea pig because he may not share the same opinion as you, if there are questions that evolution cannot answer yet, how is it that evolution is referred to as fact and complete truth by so many people… oh, i almost forgot, Brad Amundsen is referring to a scientist called named behe
Wait are you confusing belief in Evolution with belief in The Flood? Not the same thing bub.
Also, the flood lasted forty days. I expect more from you Mangetout.
Creation Science does not operate in a scientific manner. CS does not propose hypotheses and set out to disprove them, letting them stand if they cannot be disproven, in the way that science should (and evolutionary biology does) behave. Instead, when CS runs into an unknown or a puzzle, the answer becomes “God did it.” Well, how did God do it? That is the question that genuine science seeks to answer.
Among Creationists’, the notion of “Intelligent Design” has been introduced to “explain” things that are too puzzling (to the Creationist). One of Intelligent Design’s biggest champions, Michael Behe, has written several books on the topic. In those books, he pointed to several biological systems that “could not” have arisen through evolutionary action, and claimed that the only sufficient answer was an “Intelligent Designer.” Since he has published those books*, just about every one of the “gaps” in evolutionary science has been filled by real scientists discovering how the evolutionary activity occurred while he was claiming that we would have to trust in some mysterious Intelligent Designer (a.k.a. God) to explain the biological features.
*Behe was either sloppy in his fact-finding when he wrote his books or he was dishonest, because the actual work to discover the evolutionary mechanisms had already been performed and published when he wrote his book claiming that evolutionary scientists were “avoiding” the topic.