Sure thing.
Do you think they’re ready for the FAQ?
[Cheesy dramatic music]
NOTHING can prepare you!
[/Cheesy dramatic music]
-Ben
Erm, Just FTR I’m male, but you weren’t to know.
I can’t restate the OP any more clearly that I did halfway down [url=""Page 3, I’m looking for creationists to put forward solid evidence for the creation stance or solid evidence which casts real doubt on the validity of the evolution stance.
Just FTR, I’m not trying to debunk religion or assert that God doesn’t exist, matter of fact I’m a believer myself.
As regards the various posts about whether the creationists are liars, as I said in this thread, I’ve recently had no choice but to lose my creationist views, certainly I was lying to myself, I now have to face the possibility that the loud voices of creationism are at best subconsciously lying to themselves too, at worst deliberately lying to others.
I’ll support the sarcastic remark theory, but it does have a basis.
The OP asked for scientific evidence for Creationism and against Evolution. Royal Sampler wandered in and expressed his “refutation” as a a point of personal belief, (the Bible), and a vague reference to “the odds.” When challenged to stick to the OP, he immediately jumped over to talk about the Big Bang and insisted for several posts that people who accept the scientific validity are hoist by their own petard because they cannot show where the Big Bang came from. The assertion is false on the face of it. Any number of people will accept that God may have initiated the Big Bang (or some other creative activity) but recognize the validity of the scientific description of the evolutionary development of life on Earth. R S insisted that if one accepted evolution, one had to accept the (godless) Big Bang and that with no “First Cause” (for those who reject the Big Bang), the underpinnings of Evolutionary Theory fell apart.
Clearly, the two issues are separated, yet R S insisted on linking them through multiple posts. R S then claimed that his opponents were simply closed minded on the subject and wandered away.
It strikes me as rather less than honest to insert oneself into a clearly defined discussion with irrelevant points, then complain that one is being “attacked” when one’s arguments are shredded for inaccuracy and irrelevance.
(There is also, I admit, an emotional tie-in to the sort of games that Royal Sampler was playing. The false linkage of Evolution to the Big Bang is one of the favorite bugaboos of K. Hovind, a loud supporter of forcing Creationism into school biology classes. Hovind is one of the Great Liars living today, ranking up there with former presidents Reagan and Clinton. Hovind has been forced to make public recantations of lies he has told, then republished those same lies in subsequent books and lectures. People who choose to associate with Hovind’s arguments tend to be seen as mini-Hovinds and their honesty is generally suspect from the onset. Unfortunate, perhaps, but there is is.)
Tom raises a very important point here; the nature of science is to avoid making assertions about unknowns (speculation is OK, but then we go and test it); apart from the fact that the universe has to be here for evolution to happen, there’s no connection and the theory of evolution doesn’t rely on any specific cause for the existence of the universe, to insist otherwise is a dishonest argument.
Science on the other hand, quite honestly admits that the precise origin of the universe isn’t fully understood (at present), but since other parts of scientific knowledge aren’t dependent on it, it’s irrelevant.
It would be equally logical to assert that I won’t accept that water boils at 100[sup]o[/sup]C (pure water, at sea level) unless someone proves to me how Hydrogen and Oxygen came into existence; diversionary nonsense.
Hmmm. Why would I have assumed you were female? Perhaps French feminism gone awry… 
From the development of the thread, I observe that the majority of comments prior to RS’ appearance put forth the opinion that ‘creationists could never put forth solid evidence anyway’. Either because creationism is based on faith, not science, because scientists who ascribe to the creation theory are dishonest by definition, or because those who assent to the theory of creationism are subintelligent and potentially mentally off-balance (‘subconsciously lying to themselves’).
Therefore I suggest that the OP might in itself be dishonest.
Agreed to the impolite argumentation tactics of RS, particularly the inability to listen, a factor necessary for good debate.
However, I suggest that wishing him a sound ‘goodbye’ in the manner that you did and others calling him a liar (figuratively to his or her back) is unhospitable.
On purely empirical grounds, RS’ observation of the inequal balance of evolutionists to creationists on this thread is entirely correct. While I will not dwell on RS’ possible suicidal tendencies to pick a fight as a lone stutterer against some experienced debaters, the images that come to mind of similar scenarios (bar scene, school room, board room, court room) suggest that RS would be cast as the underdog hero in the Hollywood movie, the evolutionists as the ‘Establishment’. An unfortunate justification for the perception of persecution.
On purely spiritual grounds, I find it hard to conceive of a god who is frankly beyond the limits of our imagination needing human defense, rescuing from a box or from embarrassment that some of his followers cause him.
On the question of ‘honesty’, I do think that we are using different definitions but that all of yours is fascinating and historically accurate for the principles of good debate. It is something I would like to think more about.
Tangential, but this reminds me of Aristotle’s causes. That you don’t ‘know’ something unless you know its cause. I would be interested in seeing where it was that the developers of scientific method (Padua?) left off the need to answer the question ‘why’?
[sidebar for minor hijack]
katerina, are you the poster of the same name I know from the Pizza Parlor? If so, glad to have you over here! If not, well, never mind. 
[/sidebar]
**
Happens all the time, I think people sometimes misunderstand my nickname, hence the sig (which I hardly use)
Mangetout,
Well, I will not mention on all of the images of ‘eating, devouring, englobing’ everything that are associated with women.
Mars,
The one and the same.
Later.
What kind of science do you practice, Andros?
**Not quite; creationism (largely) advertises itself as scientific, however when examined closely it fails miserably to live up to those claims.
Creationists subintelligent? maybe, maybe not, I couldn’t say, certainly when I accepted creationism myself, it wasn’t from a position of sound reasoning, I’d go further and say that the loud voices in the creationist camp don’t seem to be encouraging independent cynical thought.
We may have to agree to differ on that then, I’m simply asking the creationists to put their money where their mouth is, one shouldn’t claim to be able to prove something or debunk something else unless one has the goods to back up those claims.
From experience, I can tell you that the creationist stance is based mainly on persuasive argument rather than solid fact, yet every creationist publication/website claims that all of the facts point to [their particular brand of] creationism. What I want is to see those facts.
**Yes, this was impulsive and rude of me.
People can use dishonest arguments without realising it; often anecdotal evidence gets escalated to the status of fact by mere repetition; someone arriving late on the scene of this could well simply accept it.
What kind of science do you practice? People other than scientists are aware of what’s going on in the scientific community.
As I said before (I think), while the mechanisms of macroevolution are less well understood than those of microevolution, there is very compelling evidence for both phenomena. Would you mind telling us where you got the impression that “macroevolution is more dubitable than microevolution”?
I don’t quite agree with your characterization (I am not a biologist, not do I play one on TV, but I follow the field especially in reagards to the creationism controversy).
Macroevolution as defined by practicing biologists essentially equals speciation, and has been directly observed to take place in the lab and in the wild in extant organisms. The mechanisms are pretty well understood and are the same as those of microevolution (the difference between the two is a matter of degree only). There is no known data that contradicts the thesis that the observed “large morphological changes” in organisms found in the fossil record is just normal variation after macroevolution/speciation events.
However, “macroevolution” is often used in discussions of creationism in a sense different from the meaning above. It is often used to denote the “large morphological changes” in organisms which we indeed have not observed in one lineage of organisms, and don’t expect to have observed in the amount of time that we’ve been watching (although in the cases of eyes and wings and perhaps others, we do observe the full gamut of possible intermediate morphologies in different lineages today). I surmise that the usage in this thread is this second meaning.
Many have asked for an operational and testable defintion of this second sense of “macroevolution”, and few have even attempted to supply one. There appear to be some attempts to do so (e.g. see Baraminology—Classification of Created Organisms) but so far they appear to be just linguistic games and the definitions are not really operational (i.e. the definitions do not allow one to classify two arbitrarily chosen organisms as members of the same or different holobaramins or monobaramins). It’s interesting to read the criteria proposed in the above-referenced paper:
"In accomplishing the goal of separating parts of polybaramins, partitioning apobaramins, building monobaramins and characterizing holobaramins, a taxonomist needs guidelines for deciding what belongs to a particular monobaraminic branch. These standards will vary depending upon the groups being considered, but general guidelines which have been utilized include: …
-
Lineage. Is there evidence of a clear-cut lineage between and among either or both fossil and living forms. …
-
Fossils in rock layers. These studies can include locations of fossil forms in the rock layers, and may entail considerations of Flood sediments."
which appear to me to doom the attempt to separate the “tree of life” into separate trees.
Mangetout:
Doesn’t your question assume that all creationists believe in literal biblical translation, a “young earth” and instant creation at a single point in time? While these fundamentalists may be the loudest, are they really a majority?
Anyone know what the Pope’s stance is?
Is this how you believed before you “switched sides?”
DH
Duck Hook Yes, the question was aimed mainly at YECs, for no particular reason than they are the ones who most firmly assert that evolution is bunk.
And yes, it was pretty much literal creationism (wavering between YE and OE) that I was clinging to.
What made you see the “light” and pulled you away from that line of reasoning?
You’ll find my answer in this thread :
Creation/Evolution - What would change your mind for you?
(I shan’t squander bandwidth by posting it all again)
It was a fair deal of what Mars Horizon says too; you can preach creationism into a vacuum quite merrily for an indefinite period, but once challenged to dredge up some real hard facts, it’s not quite so easy a viewpoint to maintain.
It’s not totally clear. In a statement made October 23, 1996, the Pope definitely accepted evolution to some degree, reserving that the possibility of original Divine creation must still be considered.
There’s some question about exactly to what degree he accepted evolution. The original speech was in French. The Vatican Information Services released a press release in which they quoted the Pope as saying “new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis. … The convergence, neither sought nor induced, of results of work done independently one from the other, constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.” (The Vatican’s search engine appears to be down right now, so I can’t get at their copy; but see this). But that’s a translation of the Pope’s remarks. Other Catholic agencies released different translations (see Dueling Translations, Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and TEXT OF POPE’S STATEMENT REGARDING EVOLUTION.
In any case, most creationists do no accept the Pope as an authority, and many do not accept him as a Christian. Here’s Henry Morris’s take and another interesting article.
Some more information, should anyone care, about the Pope’s stance:
French text of the Pope’s statement
Some messages from a French Catholic who appears to make a good case the the Pope really meant “more than a hypothesis”:
Google search (pick the first and third items in the list).