Evolution

[Pooeypants]

I'm going to introduce myself with a disagreement with you cachekntx: While Evolution is a theory, to quote "The creationists make it sound like evolution was thought up after a hard night drinking". Sure its still a theory, but it has a lot more evidence going for it, than a book that was Orally transmitted for over 800 years, and has no valid tangible proof, short of the assurances that can be given by figures such as the Pope, who happens to incidentally be running one of the worlds richest orgnisations.

I'll be quoting from here.
"In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
"Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

Schools should not be teaching evolution, they dont here in Australia. And the reasons are as above - Theres no tangible proof - It shows that there isnt a seperation between church and state - It limits peoples perspective, and discourages free thought

Schools in UK teach evolution as biology, just like the cell theory or the theory of Germs, infact, biology wouldn't make sense if evolution wasn't taught along side it (at higher level such as Secondary school). Evolution has as much proof as that which supports that gravity exists. It has been recorded scientifically many times. Evolution has nothing to do with church and state, so no idea what you're on about there. And it does in no way limit ppl's perspective or discourage free thought. Unless you can prove otherwise.

On the other hand, playing the devils advocate why should we teach evolution, and biology? - Natural Selection, Genetic Theory are linked heavily in Mutation proposed by Darwin's "The Origin of Species"

I don't think Darwin new anything about mutations but he did propose that variation will arise, same thing but genetics was before his time (which goes to show what a genius he was (brown nose moment :p)).

- It has more proof going for it than the nearest contender

Correction, creationism has no proof, hence it is the only explanation for the diversity of life.

- It's not open for interpretation, and represents the most likely occurance of what really happened.

Science is all about interpreting the data, but yes it does represent the most likely occurance of what really happened...exactly the same with all science. (nothing is absolute if you boil it down to the most accurate level).

- Its being taught as a THEORY, not FACT. But its also being taught with the EVIDENCE that will some-day prove it. (See the first post for examples) -Gwala

See above about fact and theory of evolution.

tsk tsk, looks like some ppl need lessons in science and terminology.

[Dislogic]

Great work pooey pants! id love to argue back but i dont have an arguement for that... and besides what you said was very accurate. in other words im totally in agreement although i guess me saying that wont do much. lol

[Geoff332]

A couple of quick points.

1. Darwin described the mechanism of natural selection, requiring variation within species. Later genetic theories provided a more detailed explanation of the mechanisms how this variation occurred. For natural selection to work, variation is necessary, but understanding how variation occurs is not necessary to propose (and support) a theory of natural selection. The fact of variation is enough.

2. Being value neutral, the individual people who support or deny a given scientific theory are completely irrelevant. Hitler's (supposed) support for evolution has no effect on whether it is true. I suspect Hitler believed in gravity too. (If he used evolutionary theory to justify his actions in any way, then this is an issue -- but one of the morality of Hitler's actions, not of evolution).

It's also worth noting that evolution is not a progressive theory. The core mechanisms proposed by evolution (natural selection) is an immediate process: does the species surivive in this environment or not. Evolutionary changes are supposed to build on previous evolutionary changes, but there is no sense in which evolutionary theory suggests they are building towards anything beyond immediate survival. As such, eugenic notions are entirely different from evolution, which does not rely on natural selection.

3. Most decent models of what science is include some aspect of testability (you have an idea (theory), you compare it with the world (observations), and you see if it works). Most modern science is based on methods that emerged from people like Bacon and Newton. Basically, science is systematic approach to knowledge that is value neutral. It is iterative (goes over and over again) and progressive (builds on and revises previous knowledge).

Most modern science operates on Popper's logical positivism. The core idea of this is falsifiability. To be considered a scientific theory, and idea must able to be falsified -- that is there must be tests, analyses and data that can be conducted that will either be consistent with the theory or not. One cannot positively prove a theory (this was the problem with the earlier Vienna circle positivists); so any theory is accepted provisionally. However, one gets to a point where theories become accepted pretty much universally. If inconsistent evidence is uncovered, the theory must either be modified to account for the new data or rejected. A tested theory has been subjected to a systematic process of inquiry.

So, my question is this:
What tests can be derived that will falsify a creationist model of the variety of species on the planet?

[cachekntx]

You seem to have at least looked into what evolution is rather than fear treading into a science book-that is commendable. Most Jewish people I know do not take Genesis to be literal and it is their Scripture. I have yet to find a Christian Scholar who rejects Evolutionary science.(and no, I do not accept Falwell as being a scholar)lol. I respect someones desire to believe in whatever, as long as they don't deprive my children of being educated and don't force my children to accept their beliefs as science.

Fedfem: I never feared a science book... tbh, in the context you put it in, that made it sound like I fear of what I'm about to read may hinder my belief in God. However, that will never be the case... for the simple reason is that I like to learn and expand my knowledge on most subjects that I find interesting - if not all - particularly science and religion... ultimately, my belief in God is somewhat liberal... so yes... pretty much I don't take the book of Genesis quite literaly... Concidering as well that I'm a Greek Orthodox... It's hard enough to argue with certain folks that specific activities we do are nothing more than made up rituals/traditions/superstitions and are not necessary than sit down and worry what a book written by a scientist(s) might do to me...

As for what to teach in school... I don't have a problem if the education system wants to include evolution as a topic in science... but I'd expect the school to teach theology as well... I would like my chilrdren, well future children if I'm blessed, to know that there is more than just Christianity and the like... (I'm orginally from Lebanon btw, and currently in Cyprus... and though the education system here is within good standards there's much room left for improvements...)

Lastly, I would like to ask those calling yourselves Christians (I am a Christian myself) and yet believing that evolutionary theory and Christianity can be combined to seriously question whether this is so, or whether it is simply complacency and apathy. Genesis states that the world was created in 6 literal days (the original Hebrew speaks of literal days and nights) not simply periods of time. Therefore to think that evolutionary theory can be fit in here somewhere is completely erroneous. Make a decision, where do you stand?

Aphex: I resent your sarcasm... I would have loved to argue with you about the book of Genesis and all that... but reality is that I made my decision on what to believe... I am a Christian... and will always stay as one... as for evolution - I see that there's some viable truth in it... (and here comes a typical orthodox christian comment) pretty much... it could be one of God's mysterious ways to *add what you like here* it all....

[Gwala]

but I'd expect the school to teach theology as well

Would you be saying the same if you were from another religion or belief's system?

-Gwala

[fedfem]

I believe Theology should be taught--in a comparative sense. It should be part of Social Studies not Science. Elementary public school have begun "cultural studies" to introduce the various peoples in the world and touches somewhat on their religions. The same group or sects that are trying to get Creationist "science" in the curriculum are fighting to remove "cultural studies". For those that don't have children in school or frankly don't care--it seems like a conspiracy against Christianity which it is not by a longshot.

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by fedfem@Sep 5 2003, 12:25 PM I believe Theology should be taught--in a comparative sense. It should be part of Social Studies not Science. Elementary public school have begun "cultural studies" to introduce the various peoples in the world and touches somewhat on their religions. The same group or sects that are trying to get Creationist "science" in the curriculum are fighting to remove "cultural studies". For those that don't have children in school or frankly don't care--it seems like a conspiracy against Christianity which it is not by a longshot.

Indeed, theology in the Uk is taught as part of Religious education, you learn about the half dozen main religions. Creationism is also taught here, where it belongs. However it has no place in science as this the d00d above said.

[aphex]

fedfem: nothing I gave to you was to disprove evolution, simply to show the challenges that are being brought against its more fundamental supports and demonstrating that much of what it claims to be 'factual' simply does not stand up to modern scientific findings.
Again, with the scripture I posted, it was not meant to be against evolution in any way. What it was meant to show was that there is plenty of science in the Bible which has described and explained things which took secular science decades to catch up with, and before it did so it was more than happy to scoff at them.

"Many parts of the theory have been proven and that is what the science being taught is based on."

So when exactly was it proven through solid scientific data that the universe originated from a bang? As far as I know, no one was there to witness that, and really there aren’t any scientific procedures I can think of to test that theory. And yet it is taught as fact in schools. When was it proven that life as we know it today originated from a primordial sludge pool? Again, the same scenario.

Yes, in fact, evolution is non falsifiable. There are no scientific tests that can be done to disprove the theory. The problem is, there are also no scientific tests nor methods which can be done to prove the theory! People love yelling 'there are facts, there are facts!' Yet we have yet to see any facts which show any sort of proof of any evolutionary origin. All we have seen thus far is evidence of variation (discussed in my last post). Yet, it is still taught as fact in school the life and the universe as we know it today developed through a slow evolutionary progress billions and billions and billons....of years ago.

I will explain a few other points as well in response to those who have joined in with us =)

[aphex]

Pooeypants: As far as your comment about the world needing to be flat in order to see it, I enjoyed seeing how you ruled out all explanations besides just seeing everything physically in front of your face. And really I don’t see the purpose behind the post, but ah well I will move on.

“And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

Sure this is nice to say, but as explained before, show me some evidence (there must be some somewhere if it is a fact, shouldn’t there?)

“Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact”

Again, its nice to say, but a fact requires evidence, so if you don’t mind I’d like to see some =).

“Evolution has as much proof as that which supports that gravity exists.”

(See above).

“Correction, creationism has no proof, hence it is the only explanation for the diversity of life.”

I’m sorry, but this is quite an uninformed statement, and some quick research in modern scientific findings will quickly show you otherwise. I could go into detail later if you like.

“However it has no place in science as this the d00d above said.”
Again, a rather uninformed statement.
In your ‘arguments’ I really see what is all too common in the mainstream scientific community today, and unfortunately in education as well. Evolution is proclaimed as factual over and over again, yet offers no solid scientific proven data to back it up. Rather it molds small pieces of what it call evidence into its ever changing story and then demands that it be unquestionably accepted as fact.
Another strong misconception that you make is: evolution is science, creation is religion. Well, a quick look at the amount of conjecture, guessing, and lack of actual scientific data strongly demonstrates the fact that evolution itself is a religion. It is no longer, though some may wish to believe, an interpretation of data to test a theory (in this case evolution) but rather the interpretation of data within a strong preconceived expectation and belief that evolution is fact. If you challenge evolution, you are reprimanded and attacked as being a dissenter and fundamentalist. So, seeing as how you say religion has no place in science, where should evolution now stand?

[aphex]

Geoff332: A few comments on your post.

“The fact of variation is enough”

This is quite untrue. Variation is observable and proven in all species (in which variation is possible of course, without going into asexual reproduction and all the details). But, variation is just that: a varying. It does not and cannot bring about an entire different species! And therein lies the problem. There is absolutely no evidence for any sort of macroevolution from one species to another. Neither is there evidence for chemical evolution, cosmic evolution, and on and on. To say that variation is enough is far from the truth. In fact, natural selection (and the variations it brings about) was rejected decades ago even by the most prominent evolutionary scientists as being responsible for macroevolutionary changes. Variation is a fact, its tested and proven. Natural selection is a fact, its tested and proven. But these do not bring about transitions from one species to another, this is also a fact. To do so requires the inputting of new genetic information and specific design. Variations simply rearrange the genetic information available.

“Hitler's (supposed) support for evolution has no effect on whether it is true.”

Yes this is true, but that was not the purpose of the discussion. The purpose was more on the philosophical side, showing the impacts evolutionary theory has had on society.

“Basically, science is systematic approach to knowledge that is value neutral.”

That is a beautiful statement. The problem is, in the mainstream scientific arena at least, that true science (as you describe it) is not taking place. Much like I described previously and in earlier posts, mainstream science is being undertaken with the preconceived idea that evolution is fact. Data is not taken to test evolutionary theory, it is taken in light of evolutionary theory meaning that data, whether harmful to the theory or not, is woven into the story carefully in order to further convince believing scientists as well as the public that it is ‘fact.’ Unfortunately, this is in no way science.

“So, my question is this:
What tests can be derived that will falsify a creationist model of the variety of species on the planet?”

None! But see the problem is, none can be taken to falsify the evolutionist model either. So why is evolution see as scientific fact and taught as so in society and most importantly in the classroom, which creation is quickly and harshly labeled fanatic fundamentalism for the intellectual, and banished from the classroom?

[aphex]

cachekntx: I really meant no sarcasm or personal attack by my post. Rather I was explaining what many see today to be a unfortunate compromise by those claiming to believe in the Bible. They have been convinced, along with everyone else, that the Bible is fanciful religion and evolution is modern scientific fact. Unfortunately this is far from the case, which I have been discussing in previous posts. As a result, they replace what is explained as a literal six day creation to be a mere analogy for a several billion year time period.

[fedfem]

Originally posted by aphex@Sep 5 2003, 11:14 AM Yes, in fact, evolution is non falsifiable. There are no scientific tests that can be done to disprove the theory. The problem is, there are also no scientific tests nor methods which can be done to prove the theory! People love yelling 'there are facts, there are facts!' Yet we have yet to see any facts which show any sort of proof of any evolutionary origin. All we have seen thus far is evidence of variation (discussed in my last post). Yet, it is still taught as fact in school the life and the universe as we know it today developed through a slow evolutionary progress billions and billions and billons....of years ago.

How can you say that if you read the site I linked to you?
Read this one and see if we can get on the same page.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

We really have to take point by point here. Your assertations are too general.

[aphex]

That is quite a read, but I managed to get through many of the main topics. After posting I will return to the rest and hopefully make it through all those pages in time enough to keep current with this debate haha. But to comment on some of the points: (all quotes, unless otherwise noted, are coming from the essays within the previous link you listed)

"In every example, it is quite possible that the predictions could be contradicted by the empirical evidence. In fact, without assuming the truth of universal common descent, it is highly probable that the hypothesis will indeed fail for most of these predictions."

Well at least he is honest about it. Now as you will see, assuming you have gone through these essays yourself, the majority of the assertions made by the author are assumptions. Now stay with me, because I will not be necessarily trying to show that this author is wrong (in fact he presents a wealth of information dealing with common descent, but more on that later) but using his arguments to show an inherent flaw in the arguments and ‘evidence’ used to support macroevolution.

The author gives strong evidence that life came from a ‘common descent’ if you will, basically meaning most life forms are made up of very similar materials and biochemical functions. For example, he states:

“However, all known life uses the same polymer, polynucleotide (DNA or RNA), for storing species specific information. All known organisms base replication on the duplication of this molecule.”

Ok, sounds good to me,

“If every living species descended from an original species that had these four obligate functions [discussed in detail within the essay], then all living species today should necessarily have these functions”

Seems logical to me.

But there is still a problem:

“As explained in the introduction, none of the predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred”

The evidence presented by the author shows that life today has several fundamental similarities, which would point to some sort of ‘common descent.’ But that is where the general evidence end and assumption begins, as the author also hints at (yes, much of me is similar to a chimp, but half of my genetic make up is also shared with a banana, so did I originate from primordial bananas as well?). He seems to think though that the details of how or if macroevolution even occurred do not matter, but rather that evidence of common similarities is enough to declare macroevolution a fact. In any other area of science, this would not hold up. Why not say that, in light of the fundamental similarities in life forms that a Creator used the same ‘materials’ to create all the diverse forms of life? This fits perfectly with the evidence and as much and more (in light of other evidence, such as complex design etc) evidence as the common descent, macroevolutionary theory. Of course it would be said that the idea of a Creator would be religious, having no place with ‘science.’ But as I see it, both cases take faith, so why rule out one over the other?

Now the author again says that in order to declare macroevolution a fact, we do not need the support of microevolution support among other supports. Of course, without such support you will never have a bullet proof scientific fact (though he regards macroevolution as fact regardless). Now, what if the evidence of microevolution disagrees with the needs of macroevolution? Well, in fact it does. As discussed before, there are no transitional fossils showing the leaps between species (now if we must return again to the skull issue, why not come up with some other evidences of transitional fossils for different species to avoid repeating ourselves). As a result, the evidences of microevolution disagree with the presumptions of macroevolution.

I also wanted to comment on his analogy of computer programs and macroevolution. He states the following:

“As a close analogy, consider computer programs. Netscape works essentially the same on a Macintosh, an IBM, or a Unix machine, but the binary code for each program is quite different. Computer programs that perform the same functions can be written in most any computer language - Basic, Fortran, C, C++, Java, Pascal, etc. and identical programs can be compiled into binary code many different ways. Furthermore, even using the same computer language, there are many different ways to write any specific computer program, even using the same algorithms and subroutines. In the end, there is no reason to suspect that similar computer programs are written with similar code, based solely on the function of the program.”

What I like about this is another inherent flaw in evolutionary theory, which it has yet to explain outside of assumption. Computer programs like those he discusses above are incredibly complex, but none would argue that you cannot even begin to compare their complexity with the incomprehensible complexity of life. But what is an important difference between the two? The computer programs which we marvel at were guided and created by an intelligent designer! Without the designer, we would have no program. Surely you would laugh at me if I were to tell you that my operating system simply came into existence one day on my computer. Of course you would know for a fact that it had to be designed, because it is so complex. And yet so many look at the wonders of life and its complex design and proclaim that it simply came about by accident; it just took time.

To conclude I just wanted to go over a quote the author uses by Richard Feynman, who states:

“Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment.”

This confirms what I mentioned in earlier posts: what experiments have been done to demonstrate macroevolution, transitions between one species to another, chemical evolution, etc. etc.? Unfortunately, such experiments cannot be done, going back to the original point that evolutionary theory truly fails to hold up to the requirements of an actual scientific theory. But! we are told, it is the epitome of science, so don’t question it!

[aphex]

To provide a more technical support to my arguments against macroevolution, I have provided the following links, which present fundamental challenges to the possibility of macroevolution: (all links also include an abundance of references for further research if you are interested)

This article explains 9 fundamental requirements for macroevolution to even occur, with strong technical explanations and evidence from geneticist R.H. Byles:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-166.htm

This article explains the importance of proving macroevolution to the evolutionary theory. It also discusses the lack of such proof, and also deals with the empty attack against creationists that they have no scientific backing:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-095a.htm

This article is similar, explaining the lack of evidence, the paranoia against the creationist model, and much of the other topics we have been recently discussing:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-109a.htm

EDITED to add another link. This article explains the confession of leading evolutionary scientists of the inability for natural selection to bring about any sort of marcoevolutionary change in species:
http://www.icr.org/newsletters/afsept02.html


EDITED to add another significant link. This article involves the whole transition fossil issue. Of significant importance is the discussion about Stephen J. Gould (one of the most prominent and recognized spokesmen for evolution today) and the article in which he confesses to the inability of the fossil record to support evolutionary theories. Though I hope you read the article in full (as there is much more information than this contained in it) here is the quote to which I am referring:

The idea has received support recently, however, from Stephen J. Gould, one of the main spokesmen for evolutionists in the U.S. today. In his 1977 article, "The Return of Hopeful Monsters, "2 Gould not only admits that the fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change, but he also asks the question (asked by creationists ever since Darwin), of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? For these reasons Gould suggested that eventually Goldschmidt would be largely vindicated. 2. S.J. Gould, Natural History, Vol. 86, 1977, p. 22

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-123.htm

I truly hope you will spend time fully reading these articles (yes, after posting this I am returning to the macro-evolution link you sent me earlier, so I am being fair =] ) as I think you might be quite surprised to see more technical evidence than I have been able to explain.

As always, if you would like more resources, I'm more than happy to post them for you.

[Geoff332]

The fact of variation is enough

If you are going to quote me, please do not quote me out of context. It is sloppy both logically, it makes your arguments on that point suprious, and it is largely a waste of time. Read the entire paragraph in which I wrote that. If you don't understand I what I wrote I would have been happy to explain it. As it is, your reply had absolutely nothing to do with the point of the paragraph.

The purpose was more on the philosophical side, showing the impacts evolutionary theory has had on society.

The impact of evolution on society has no relevance for whether it is true or not. Given that we were debating the issue of whether evolution was a valid scientific theory or not. Introducing them is surious reasoning and irrelevant conflation of very different topics.

None!

Therefore creationism is not science.

But see the problem is, none can be taken to falsify the evolutionist model either.

So you say. Unfortunately, you have not actually addressed the point. Problems with evidence are not the same as the absence of any tests.

I'm not going to continue in this debate. My general opinion (as a trained philosopher of science) of creationism and creation science is thast it is mis-informed, that it is disingenuous and that it is intellectually dsishonest. The basis of the argument is a rather weak and biased interpretation. Many of the tactics used to argue against evolution are so bad I can only assume that they are used intentionally. Each of your points I have highlighted here is an example of one of those tactics that makes me ashamed to be a Christian. If the Bible has to rely on such poor argumentation to back it up, then it's no wonder no-one takes it seriously anymore.

I won't read this thread again: I won't convince you of anything so there is absolutely no point. I don't really care if you respond or not, but I would suggest you think very carefully about what I have said.

[aphex]

geoff332: I'm sorry you found my posts so awfully repulsive. You said my methods have no value to them, yet you did nothing to back yours up, you merely expressed your opinion of them. If you had been carefully following the posts between myself and fedfem, you would have noticed that both of our arguments included several sources of support in addition to our own, yet your posts seem to contain little but opinion, a strong falacy of debate.

As far as my dealings with the philosophical side of the issue, fedfem and myself were expressing interests in including a more philosophical side to the argument, so I am assuming you either missed this or are ignoring them.

By saying creationism is not science, again you are introducing no support. If this was the case, somehow I think the whole controversy would have disappeared a century ago and evolutionary science would have risen to the seclusive majesty it proclaims of itself, and evolutionary scientists would not be so paranoid about creation science (note link posted earlier: http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-109a.htm ).

I am pretty convinced that you are, as you say a "trained philosopher of science" as your post used nothing more than the usual mudslinging found so common in evolutionist 'arguments' which is an obvious sign that there is no knowledgeable support to be offered on the part of the arguer.

It makes me wonder though why you react in such anger and frustration rather than calmly showing the 'trained' argumentation and support that you should have to offer. But I guess I didn't realize that simply practically calling your opponent an idiot was enough to solve the entire evolution/creation debate.

Since you are so determined to not return to this post, maybe we can return to stating arguments and evidence rather than name calling.

[RebelWithanAK]

It would appear that the problem concerning evolution being a theory is that scientists disagree on particulars: What explains spurts in development, the exponential acceleration of evolution, parallel species... the thing is, while these are being argued out (it IS still a theory), none of them are any cause for the entire concept to be thrown out (it is NOT a hypothesis). What creationism lacks, and evolution has, is the scientific method - a system to prove or disprove ideas through repeatable experiments.

What makes a straight linear path of progressive species difficult to find out is that this earth changes quite a bit, creating different situations all over that need to be reasoned out. Once a possible answer as to what happened when, where and why has been posited, then it can be tested and retested and modified to fit. Or thrown out, if it fails to fit at all. Religion has had to do this too, but with the sincere devotion to faith, it's been quite difficult in getting it to move hardly at all. When faced with dinosaur bones, they made an answer: "this doesn't exist." When that didn't fly, they made another one; "God must've fucked up a couple times before we came about." Ahh. That worked.

But it can't be tested. That's the point.

[Pooeypants]

Firstly I'd like to say that the ICR is a joke, if you find out the oath that their scientists swear by...you'd understand.

Secondly, if anything, the fact that evolution has occured is not in debate amongst scientist anyone educated enough to study biology, without evolution, the bulk of biology wouldn't make sense.
However what is argued over is the mechanism by which evolution occurs, we know macroevolution has and evidence was shown in link from the other d00d, or here if you want to see it again.
They're all scientifically valid and each one comes with how you can refute them, so then Mr Outdated Creationist, begin the refuting with scientifically accurate data.

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by aphex@Sep 6 2003, 12:31 AM geoff332: I'm sorry you found my posts so awfully repulsive. You said my methods have no value to them, yet you did nothing to back yours up, you merely expressed your opinion of them. If you had been carefully following the posts between myself and fedfem, you would have noticed that both of our arguments included several sources of support in addition to our own, yet your posts seem to contain little but opinion, a strong falacy of debate. As far as my dealings with the philosophical side of the issue, fedfem and myself were expressing interests in including a more philosophical side to the argument, so I am assuming you either missed this or are ignoring them. By saying creationism is not science, again you are introducing no support. If this was the case, somehow I think the whole controversy would have disappeared a century ago and evolutionary science would have risen to the seclusive majesty it proclaims of itself, and evolutionary scientists would not be so paranoid about creation science (note link posted earlier: http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-109a.htm ). I am pretty convinced that you are, as you say a "trained philosopher of science" as your post used nothing more than the usual mudslinging found so common in evolutionist 'arguments' which is an obvious sign that there is no knowledgeable support to be offered on the part of the arguer. It makes me wonder though why you react in such anger and frustration rather than calmly showing the 'trained' argumentation and support that you should have to offer. But I guess I didn't realize that simply practically calling your opponent an idiot was enough to solve the entire evolution/creation debate. Since you are so determined to not return to this post, maybe we can return to stating arguments and evidence rather than name calling.

I find your argument hilarious. Creationism is not science because it requires a creator/intelligent designer, and as you know we can't control the creator hence we can't do experiments that are valid to show that it was creator whom is/was present to action x etc. The whole controversy is still here because there are many religious ppl who are unwilling to here to the facts and have been brainwashed with stories about their imaginary friend known as God.

Put simply, you have no valid scientific data to support Creationism beyond reasonable doubt unlike Evolution, which has enough to bury you ten thousand feet under.

Try to live in the real world, it's time to move on from the fantasies and face the facts.

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by aphex@Sep 5 2003, 04:14 PM fedfem: nothing I gave to you was to disprove evolution, simply to show the challenges that are being brought against its more fundamental supports and demonstrating that much of what it claims to be 'factual' simply does not stand up to modern scientific findings. Again, with the scripture I posted, it was not meant to be against evolution in any way. What it was meant to show was that there is plenty of science in the Bible which has described and explained things which took secular science decades to catch up with, and before it did so it was more than happy to scoff at them. "Many parts of the theory have been proven and that is what the science being taught is based on." So when exactly was it proven through solid scientific data that the universe originated from a bang? As far as I know, no one was there to witness that, and really there aren’t any scientific procedures I can think of to test that theory. And yet it is taught as fact in schools. When was it proven that life as we know it today originated from a primordial sludge pool? Again, the same scenario. Yes, in fact, evolution is non falsifiable. There are no scientific tests that can be done to disprove the theory. The problem is, there are also no scientific tests nor methods which can be done to prove the theory! People love yelling 'there are facts, there are facts!' Yet we have yet to see any facts which show any sort of proof of any evolutionary origin. All we have seen thus far is evidence of variation (discussed in my last post). Yet, it is still taught as fact in school the life and the universe as we know it today developed through a slow evolutionary progress billions and billions and billons....of years ago. I will explain a few other points as well in response to those who have joined in with us =)

wow, ignoramus comes again. 29 evidences here. They're all proved scientifically and they can all be refute and falsified. Hence your argument is moot as you have simply ignored this.

It's not like its top secret, this kind of data is free for all to see.
I don't think that you've studied biology very much have you?