[quote]Wait, you challenge everyone to prove a negative? Creationism is not impossible, but it is very clearly something that yields basically no grounds or support, while there are other theories out there as AntiSleep has been describing (better than I could) that have been tested and proved thousands of times over, and clearly stand as the best theory we have at the time.[/quote] I think there's a very big difference between "proof" and "strong evidence". I can prove to you that 2+2=4. I cannot prove to you that every star is hot. So which category does evolution fit in? Now explain to me how you can disprove creationism.

Quote

Wait, you challenge everyone to prove a negative? Creationism is not impossible, but it is very clearly something that yields basically no grounds or support, while there are other theories out there as AntiSleep has been describing (better than I could) that have been tested and proved thousands of times over, and clearly stand as the best theory we have at the time.

I think there's a very big difference between "proof" and "strong evidence". I can prove to you that 2+2=4. I cannot prove to you that every star is hot. So which category does evolution fit in?

Now explain to me how you can disprove creationism.

[QUOTE]I think there's a very big difference between "proof" and "strong evidence". I can prove to you that 2+2=4. I cannot prove to you that every star is hot. So which category does evolution fit in?[/QUOTE] Probably the latter, which means that it is the most likely determination someone can make based on the provided data and tests of the data. [QUOTE]Now explain to me how you can disprove creationism.[/QUOTE] It cannot be disproved completely. It can also not be justified enough to be considered a valid theory in [I]science[/I]. It makes no testable predictions. If everything taught in school only needed as much evidence as creationism yields to be taught, then we'd also need to have classes on the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the martians that live on mars. Maybe the theory of how we were placed here by aliens too. That is if this was you somehow trying to justify creationism being taught in school.

Quote

I think there's a very big difference between "proof" and "strong evidence". I can prove to you that 2+2=4. I cannot prove to you that every star is hot. So which category does evolution fit in?

Probably the latter, which means that it is the most likely determination someone can make based on the provided data and tests of the data.

Quote

Now explain to me how you can disprove creationism.

It cannot be disproved completely. It can also not be justified enough to be considered a valid theory in science. It makes no testable predictions.

If everything taught in school only needed as much evidence as creationism yields to be taught, then we'd also need to have classes on the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the martians that live on mars. Maybe the theory of how we were placed here by aliens too. That is if this was you somehow trying to justify creationism being taught in school.

[quote=cheeze][quote=AntiSleep][quote=cheeze]In that case, I challenge everyone to show me how evolution is possible [i]while[/i] justifying creationism's so-called "impossibility".[/quote] Evolution by natural selection is the transmission of information into the genome of a population, by means of selective survival and reproduction. Speciation occurs when a population splits into 2 populations. (when these two populations do not interbreed, they can be considered different species, and will become superior to each other in survival and reproduction in their respective environment/niches. [/quote] You didn't respond to the second part of my challenge. [quote]If you want anything more specific, you need to answer the following 2 questions: 1) Within an order of magnitude, how old is Earth? 2) What is science, and how is it useful?[/quote] 1. My personal opinion has no relevance to my argument. 2. Science is cool says Bill Nye the Science Guy.[/quote]Those questions were there to see if you were just trying to waste my time, it seems that you are. [quote=cheeze][quote]Wait, you challenge everyone to prove a negative? Creationism is not impossible, but it is very clearly something that yields basically no grounds or support, while there are other theories out there as AntiSleep has been describing (better than I could) that have been tested and proved thousands of times over, and clearly stand as the best theory we have at the time.[/quote] I think there's a very big difference between "proof" and "strong evidence".[/quote]Proof implies definition, a foundation based on axioms, evidence implies observation and testing, to try and discover the definitions, and the latter is all we have because we do not know upon what exact definitions the universe is built. Until we know we can take these definitions for granted(I am unsure we ever will be), there is no way to know we have not been deceived, mistaken, or just benighted. This does not give any credibility to creationism, and as you have not defined what you mean by creationism, I cannot answer that question.[quote] I can prove to you that 2+2=4. I cannot prove to you that every star is hot. So which category does evolution fit in? Now explain to me how you can disprove creationism.[/quote]I have proved that Creationism is useless(which is as far as I really see necessary), but if you [B]define[/B] creationism, along with any textual assumptions that the account requires, I may indeed be able to disprove it.

Quote from cheeze

Quote from AntiSleep

Quote from cheeze

In that case, I challenge everyone to show me how evolution is possible while justifying creationism's so-called "impossibility".

Evolution by natural selection is the transmission of information into the genome of a population, by means of selective survival and reproduction. Speciation occurs when a population splits into 2 populations. (when these two populations do not interbreed, they can be considered different species, and will become superior to each other in survival and reproduction in their respective environment/niches.

You didn't respond to the second part of my challenge.

Quote

If you want anything more specific, you need to answer the following 2 questions:
1) Within an order of magnitude, how old is Earth?
2) What is science, and how is it useful?

1. My personal opinion has no relevance to my argument.
2. Science is cool says Bill Nye the Science Guy.

Those questions were there to see if you were just trying to waste my time, it seems that you are.

Quote from cheeze

Quote

Wait, you challenge everyone to prove a negative? Creationism is not impossible, but it is very clearly something that yields basically no grounds or support, while there are other theories out there as AntiSleep has been describing (better than I could) that have been tested and proved thousands of times over, and clearly stand as the best theory we have at the time.

I think there's a very big difference between "proof" and "strong evidence".

Proof implies definition, a foundation based on axioms, evidence implies observation and testing, to try and discover the definitions, and the latter is all we have because we do not know upon what exact definitions the universe is built. Until we know we can take these definitions for granted(I am unsure we ever will be), there is no way to know we have not been deceived, mistaken, or just benighted. This does not give any credibility to creationism, and as you have not defined what you mean by creationism, I cannot answer that question.

Quote

I can prove to you that 2+2=4. I cannot prove to you that every star is hot. So which category does evolution fit in?

Now explain to me how you can disprove creationism.

I have proved that Creationism is useless(which is as far as I really see necessary), but if you define creationism, along with any textual assumptions that the account requires, I may indeed be able to disprove it.

[quote]Probably the latter, which means that it is the most likely determination someone can make based on the provided data and tests of the data.[/quote] Do you know that for sure or is it just a guess? Simply because an idea works with the evidence doesn't make it right. Similarly, if an idea goes against the evidence, doesn't make it wrong. [quote]It cannot be disproved completely. [/quote] Correct. [quote]It can also not be justified enough to be considered a valid theory in science. It makes no testable predictions. [/quote] You cannot "test" evolution in a necessary manner either. You may be able to see micro evolution on flies (I'll even go as far and say .. macro evolution) but you cannot see it on every single species, as required for a full and complete proof. Thus, we circle back to what I said above. Until you have a complete proof, nothing is impossible. [quote]Those questions were there to see if you were just trying to waste my time, it seems that you are.[/quote] Believe what you want, but I've yet to see a solid argument from you. [quote]Proof implies definition, a foundation based on axioms, evidence implies observation and testing, to try and discover the definitions, and the latter is all we have because we do not know upon what exact definitions the universe is built. [/quote] You're lacking proof. False implies anything. Evidence does not imply observation [i]and[/i] testing. It implies observation [i]and/or[/i] testing. In this case, observation. Refer to my "can you prove every star is hot?" argument. Astronomy is based purely on observation. You cannot test a single thing in astronomy; however, it is regarded as fact. But I'm challenging you to that belief. Is it [i]really[/i] fact or it is something that appears to be fact? Consider this: All of the known perfect numbers are even. By your thinking, no perfect odd number exists. Now, common sense has turned against you; both you and I now know this logic is flawed. However, this is the same logic you are using. [quote]Until we know we can take these definitions for granted(I am unsure we ever will be), there is no way to know we have not been deceived, mistaken, or just benighted. This does not give any credibility to creationism, and as you have not defined what you mean by creationism, I cannot answer that question.[/quote] Creationism: an alternative to evolution in explaining speciation.

Quote

Probably the latter, which means that it is the most likely determination someone can make based on the provided data and tests of the data.

Do you know that for sure or is it just a guess? Simply because an idea works with the evidence doesn't make it right. Similarly, if an idea goes against the evidence, doesn't make it wrong.

Quote

It cannot be disproved completely.

Correct.

Quote

It can also not be justified enough to be considered a valid theory in science. It makes no testable predictions.

You cannot "test" evolution in a necessary manner either. You may be able to see micro evolution on flies (I'll even go as far and say .. macro evolution) but you cannot see it on every single species, as required for a full and complete proof. Thus, we circle back to what I said above. Until you have a complete proof, nothing is impossible.

Quote

Those questions were there to see if you were just trying to waste my time, it seems that you are.

Believe what you want, but I've yet to see a solid argument from you.

Quote

Proof implies definition, a foundation based on axioms, evidence implies observation and testing, to try and discover the definitions, and the latter is all we have because we do not know upon what exact definitions the universe is built.

You're lacking proof. False implies anything. Evidence does not imply observation and testing. It implies observation and/or testing. In this case, observation. Refer to my "can you prove every star is hot?" argument. Astronomy is based purely on observation. You cannot test a single thing in astronomy; however, it is regarded as fact. But I'm challenging you to that belief. Is it really fact or it is something that appears to be fact?

Consider this: All of the known perfect numbers are even. By your thinking, no perfect odd number exists. Now, common sense has turned against you; both you and I now know this logic is flawed. However, this is the same logic you are using.

Quote

Until we know we can take these definitions for granted(I am unsure we ever will be), there is no way to know we have not been deceived, mistaken, or just benighted. This does not give any credibility to creationism, and as you have not defined what you mean by creationism, I cannot answer that question.

Creationism: an alternative to evolution in explaining speciation.

[QUOTE=cheeze]Creationism: an alternative to evolution in explaining speciation.[/QUOTE] What is your point here? Refer to what I said earlier. [QUOTE=Dapperdan]If everything taught in school only needed as much evidence as creationism yields to be taught, then we'd also need to have classes on the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the martians that live on mars. Maybe the theory of how we were placed here by aliens too. That is if this was you somehow trying to justify creationism being taught in school.[/QUOTE] Evolution does infact have much more evidence in it's favor than your alternatives, and that is what it is taught in school over Creationism. Also, back to Anti's point, define what you mean by creationism here or else this is going nowhere. There are arguements people can make where I can understand them believing in something like creationism, but I have yet to see them presented to me.

Quote from cheeze

Creationism: an alternative to evolution in explaining speciation.

What is your point here? Refer to what I said earlier.

Quote from Dapperdan

If everything taught in school only needed as much evidence as creationism yields to be taught, then we'd also need to have classes on the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the martians that live on mars. Maybe the theory of how we were placed here by aliens too. That is if this was you somehow trying to justify creationism being taught in school.

Evolution does infact have much more evidence in it's favor than your alternatives, and that is what it is taught in school over Creationism.

Also, back to Anti's point, define what you mean by creationism here or else this is going nowhere.

There are arguements people can make where I can understand them believing in something like creationism, but I have yet to see them presented to me.

I have a few things that prove creationism (with science :D) : [QUOTE]Etched within Earth's foundation rocks — the granites — are beautiful microspheres of coloration, halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence. The following simple analogy will show how these polonium microspheres — or halos — contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. To the contrary, this analogy demonstrates how these halos provide unambiguous evidence of both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth. A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock. An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly "froze" into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation.[/QUOTE] [URL=http://www.halos.com/]Source[/URL].

I have a few things that prove creationism (with science ) :

Quote

Etched within Earth's foundation rocks — the granites — are beautiful microspheres of coloration, halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence.

The following simple analogy will show how these polonium microspheres — or halos — contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. To the contrary, this analogy demonstrates how these halos provide unambiguous evidence of both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth.

A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.

An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly "froze" into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation.

Source.

Cheeze, It is quite obvious you have no clue what you are talking about, I refer you here: http://staredit.net/?topic=686 [quote=Akar]I have a few things that prove creationism (with science :D) : [QUOTE]Etched within Earth's foundation rocks — the granites — are beautiful microspheres of coloration, halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence. The following simple analogy will show how these polonium microspheres — or halos — contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. To the contrary, this analogy demonstrates how these halos provide unambiguous evidence of both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth. A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock. An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly "froze" into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation.[/QUOTE] [URL=http://www.halos.com/]Source[/URL].[/quote] http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html as specific to this claim, A more general overview of how radioactive dating works(skip to 54 minutes for Carbon, 59 for potassium argon): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6025887559771837885

Cheeze, It is quite obvious you have no clue what you are talking about, I refer you here: http://staredit.net/?topic=686

Quote from Akar

I have a few things that prove creationism (with science ) :

Quote

Etched within Earth's foundation rocks — the granites — are beautiful microspheres of coloration, halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence.

The following simple analogy will show how these polonium microspheres — or halos — contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. To the contrary, this analogy demonstrates how these halos provide unambiguous evidence of both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth.

A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.

An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly "froze" into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation.

Source.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html as specific to this claim,

A more general overview of how radioactive dating works(skip to 54 minutes for Carbon, 59 for potassium argon): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6025887559771837885

[quote]These groupings are empirical sciences, which means the knowledge must be based on observable phenomena [b]and[/b] capable of being experimented for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.[/quote] How can you test evolution on all species (which is the only way to prove that evolution occurs for all species)?

Quote

These groupings are empirical sciences, which means the knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and capable of being experimented for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.

How can you test evolution on all species (which is the only way to prove that evolution occurs for all species)?

Cheeze, http://staredit.net/?topic=686 A theory must fit all existing evidence, make at least one new prediction, and have predictions tested and verified(any predictions will do, so long as they are novel and testable). The theory is then considered a working model on a tentative basis(existing theories are constantly refined as well), there is no absolute proof in science, because we are constantly learning.

Cheeze, http://staredit.net/?topic=686 A theory must fit all existing evidence, make at least one new prediction, and have predictions tested and verified(any predictions will do, so long as they are novel and testable). The theory is then considered a working model on a tentative basis(existing theories are constantly refined as well), there is no absolute proof in science, because we are constantly learning.

Yes. Your little diagram clearly states "testable". I'd like to see the "testable" evidence for evolution.

Yes. Your little diagram clearly states "testable". I'd like to see the "testable" evidence for evolution.

Gah, he beat me... Regardless, I still believe in God. Theres this complex thing called speaking in tongues in my religion. And that person utters words that come from God (He tells you what to say, and you form the words, so it is on your own free will). Now when people do this they speak in another language they do not understand (the bible says of angels or of men). However, just because that person doesn't understand that language doesn't mean someone else couldn't. There have been people that do know the language they are speaking and interpreted it is basically manifestations from God. Now, I don't have any links or sources to this. But, it does happen. And lets see science debunk that one. Because just making up "rubbish" shouldn't be correct grammar in other languages. And that is all the proof I need that God exists.

Gah, he beat me...
Regardless, I still believe in God. Theres this complex thing called speaking in tongues in my religion. And that person utters words that come from God (He tells you what to say, and you form the words, so it is on your own free will). Now when people do this they speak in another language they do not understand (the bible says of angels or of men). However, just because that person doesn't understand that language doesn't mean someone else couldn't. There have been people that do know the language they are speaking and interpreted it is basically manifestations from God. Now, I don't have any links or sources to this. But, it does happen. And lets see science debunk that one. Because just making up "rubbish" shouldn't be correct grammar in other languages. And that is all the proof I need that God exists.

[quote=cheeze]Yes. Your little diagram clearly states "testable". I'd like to see the "testable" evidence for evolution.[/quote] you mean testable predictions? The discovery of transitional fossils, (to be more more accurate, every organism on the planet is transitional, the stronger the selective pressure, the fewer 'transitional' fossils will be found, because one cause of speciation is for a new niche to be utilized, and the big morphological changes leading to utilization of this new niche tend to happen in a relatively small number of generations, these new morphological changes are inefficient, and can only be beneficial if the niche is not already occupied by a more efficient organism.) The discovery of fossils of extinct species(99% of historical species are now extinct, even if the number of living species now is the same as any point back then). A predictable distribution of complexity of life forms, when compared against the age of the strata, where simple organisms are in strata of all ages, and relatively complex organisms are exclusively found in higher strata(this is not because evolution selects for more complexity, it does not care about complexity nor does it care what the organism will look like several generations down the line, it only cares if the genetic change is immediately beneficial to reproduction and survival.---- basically, there will be no fossil rabbits in Precambrian strata, the discovery of one would blow darwinian evolution out of the water. The adaptation of organisms to new environmental conditions. Shall I continue? [quote=Akar]Gah, he beat me... Regardless, I still believe in God. Theres this complex thing called speaking in tongues in my religion.[/quote]You mean like in Jesus Camp (documentary)? I sure hope you don't consider yourself rationalist.

Quote from cheeze

Yes. Your little diagram clearly states "testable". I'd like to see the "testable" evidence for evolution.

you mean testable predictions?

The discovery of transitional fossils, (to be more more accurate, every organism on the planet is transitional, the stronger the selective pressure, the fewer 'transitional' fossils will be found, because one cause of speciation is for a new niche to be utilized, and the big morphological changes leading to utilization of this new niche tend to happen in a relatively small number of generations, these new morphological changes are inefficient, and can only be beneficial if the niche is not already occupied by a more efficient organism.)

The discovery of fossils of extinct species(99% of historical species are now extinct, even if the number of living species now is the same as any point back then).

A predictable distribution of complexity of life forms, when compared against the age of the strata, where simple organisms are in strata of all ages, and relatively complex organisms are exclusively found in higher strata(this is not because evolution selects for more complexity, it does not care about complexity nor does it care what the organism will look like several generations down the line, it only cares if the genetic change is immediately beneficial to reproduction and survival.---- basically, there will be no fossil rabbits in Precambrian strata, the discovery of one would blow darwinian evolution out of the water.

The adaptation of organisms to new environmental conditions.

Shall I continue?

Quote from Akar

Gah, he beat me...
Regardless, I still believe in God. Theres this complex thing called speaking in tongues in my religion.

You mean like in Jesus Camp (documentary)? I sure hope you don't consider yourself rationalist.

[quote]you mean testable predictions?[/quote] Finding transitional fossils is an observation. It is in no way a testable evidence. [quote]The discovery of fossils of extinct species[/quote] Means there are a lot of dead species. So? [quote]A predictable distribution of complexity of life forms, when compared against the age of the strata, where simple organisms are in strata of all ages, and relatively complex organisms are exclusively found in higher strata(this is not because evolution selects for more complexity, it does not care about complexity nor does it care what the organism will look like several generations down the line, it only cares if the genetic change is immediately beneficial to reproduction and survival.---- basically, there will be no fossil rabbits in Precambrian strata, the discovery of one would blow darwinian evolution out of the water.[/quote] Once again, all observed. Not tested. [quote]The adaptation of organisms to new environmental conditions.[/quote] This [i]has[/i] been tested and proved. I accept this. This does [i]not[/i] prove speciation. [quote]Shall I continue?[/quote] Of course. In an argument, you present all of your evidence until you're fully exhausted. So far, I've yet to see one single [i]plausible[/i] evidence for speciation from you.

Quote

you mean testable predictions?

Finding transitional fossils is an observation. It is in no way a testable evidence.

Quote

The discovery of fossils of extinct species

Means there are a lot of dead species. So?

Quote

A predictable distribution of complexity of life forms, when compared against the age of the strata, where simple organisms are in strata of all ages, and relatively complex organisms are exclusively found in higher strata(this is not because evolution selects for more complexity, it does not care about complexity nor does it care what the organism will look like several generations down the line, it only cares if the genetic change is immediately beneficial to reproduction and survival.---- basically, there will be no fossil rabbits in Precambrian strata, the discovery of one would blow darwinian evolution out of the water.

Once again, all observed. Not tested.

Quote

The adaptation of organisms to new environmental conditions.

This has been tested and proved. I accept this. This does not prove speciation.

Quote

Shall I continue?

Of course. In an argument, you present all of your evidence until you're fully exhausted. So far, I've yet to see one single plausible evidence for speciation from you.

Those predictions were made by evolutionary theory before any of them were observed, that is what is meant by prediction and verification. If you want an example of an observation that came [I]before[/I] evolutionary theory, look at hereditary morphology(fancy pigeons, etc.), geologic time(as evidenced by coral reefs), and the capacity for exponential reproduction in ideal circumstances.

Those predictions were made by evolutionary theory before any of them were observed, that is what is meant by prediction and verification. If you want an example of an observation that came before evolutionary theory, look at hereditary morphology(fancy pigeons, etc.), geologic time(as evidenced by coral reefs), and the capacity for exponential reproduction in ideal circumstances.

Also, I have yet to see anyone present one prediction made by creationism, [I]or[/I] ID.

Also, I have yet to see anyone present one prediction made by creationism, or ID.

[quote=AntiSleep]Those predictions were made by evolutionary theory before any of them were observed, that is what is meant by prediction and verification. If you want an example of an observation that came [I]before[/I] evolutionary theory, look at hereditary morphology(fancy pigeons, etc.), geologic time(as evidenced by coral reefs), and the capacity for exponential reproduction in ideal circumstances.[/quote] Yes. I predict this: there are no odd perfect numbers. Evidence says... there are no odd perfect numbers. Therefore there are none. Anyone should be able to see that logic is flawed; however, that's the logic you're using with evolution.

Quote from AntiSleep

Those predictions were made by evolutionary theory before any of them were observed, that is what is meant by prediction and verification. If you want an example of an observation that came before evolutionary theory, look at hereditary morphology(fancy pigeons, etc.), geologic time(as evidenced by coral reefs), and the capacity for exponential reproduction in ideal circumstances.

Yes. I predict this: there are no odd perfect numbers. Evidence says... there are no odd perfect numbers. Therefore there are none.

Anyone should be able to see that logic is flawed; however, that's the logic you're using with evolution.

No, that is wrong, a scientific theory is not a proof, because science is not based on axioms. Also, it is the prediction of an experimental result, before that result is known, that validates a scientific theory on a tentative basis, a hypothesis that simply agrees with existing evidence and makes no new predictions, is not useful, nor is it a scientific theory. You [B]still[/B] have not shown any predictions, evidence, or proofs of creationism.

No, that is wrong, a scientific theory is not a proof, because science is not based on axioms. Also, it is the prediction of an experimental result, before that result is known, that validates a scientific theory on a tentative basis, a hypothesis that simply agrees with existing evidence and makes no new predictions, is not useful, nor is it a scientific theory.

You still have not shown any predictions, evidence, or proofs of creationism.

Trying to prove that God exists is an impossibility, nor trying to prove creation would be very hard. The genesis book of the bible is hardly vague, starts around with things that vaguely match anything in our current analysis. And then it talks about the stories of Adam and Eve. It sounds more like a fairytale than a proof. And usually following our logic, things have to be proven to exist. Like how almost every single system works in our society now today. Christianity is based off of faith, it doesn't want people to prove things. Attempting to prove such things as creationism, existance of God- I would have to call it a fool. [quote] Of course. In an argument, you present all of your evidence until you're fully exhausted. So far, I've yet to see one single plausible evidence for speciation from you.[/quote] As far as I can see, arguments don't have to be plausible by you to be valid. More arguments win the debate right? You aren't arguing them. You're just denoting them, and they still have an effect. You aren't even doing a very good job at denoting the arguments being made.

Trying to prove that God exists is an impossibility, nor trying to prove creation would be very hard. The genesis book of the bible is hardly vague, starts around with things that vaguely match anything in our current analysis. And then it talks about the stories of Adam and Eve. It sounds more like a fairytale than a proof. And usually following our logic, things have to be proven to exist. Like how almost every single system works in our society now today.
Christianity is based off of faith, it doesn't want people to prove things. Attempting to prove such things as creationism, existance of God- I would have to call it a fool.

Quote

Of course. In an argument, you present all of your evidence until you're fully exhausted. So far, I've yet to see one single plausible evidence for speciation from you.

As far as I can see, arguments don't have to be plausible by you to be valid. More arguments win the debate right? You aren't arguing them. You're just denoting them, and they still have an effect. You aren't even doing a very good job at denoting the arguments being made.

[quote]As far as I can see, arguments don't have to be plausible by you to be valid. More arguments win the debate right? You aren't arguing them. You're just denoting them, and they still have an effect. You aren't even doing a very good job at denoting the arguments being made.[/quote] BeDazed and AntiSleep. Stop saying I'm doing something wrong and [i]show[/i] me where my mistakes are. [quote]Also, it is the prediction of an experimental result, before that result is known, that validates a scientific theory on a tentative basis, a hypothesis that simply agrees with existing evidence and makes no new predictions, is not useful, nor is it a scientific theory.[/quote] Evolution: an idea (hypothesis if you will) that speciation occurs over the course of many generations. Evidence: fossils (among other minor things). Does the idea match all evidence: Yes. Proof: None. No testable procedure for a scientific experiment has been created so far. By your definition, evolution is not useful nor is it a scientific theory. [quote]You still have not shown any predictions, evidence, or proofs of creationism.[/quote] In case you haven't noticed, I am not arguing for creationism. I merely present the idea of it. If you would like, I can present the idea of Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Or anything else you'd like. Any preferences?

Quote

As far as I can see, arguments don't have to be plausible by you to be valid. More arguments win the debate right? You aren't arguing them. You're just denoting them, and they still have an effect. You aren't even doing a very good job at denoting the arguments being made.

BeDazed and AntiSleep. Stop saying I'm doing something wrong and show me where my mistakes are.

Quote

Also, it is the prediction of an experimental result, before that result is known, that validates a scientific theory on a tentative basis, a hypothesis that simply agrees with existing evidence and makes no new predictions, is not useful, nor is it a scientific theory.

Evolution: an idea (hypothesis if you will) that speciation occurs over the course of many generations.

Evidence: fossils (among other minor things).

Does the idea match all evidence: Yes.

Proof: None. No testable procedure for a scientific experiment has been created so far.

By your definition, evolution is not useful nor is it a scientific theory.

Quote

You still have not shown any predictions, evidence, or proofs of creationism.

In case you haven't noticed, I am not arguing for creationism. I merely present the idea of it. If you would like, I can present the idea of Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Or anything else you'd like. Any preferences?

Cheeze, it does not matter when the transitional fossils were buried, it matters only that they were discovered[B]after[/B] the theory of evolution predicted their existence, and location in the strata relative to other organisms. You are trying to call verified predictions equivalent to existing evidence, when this is most definitely not the case.

Cheeze, it does not matter when the transitional fossils were buried, it matters only that they were discoveredafter the theory of evolution predicted their existence, and location in the strata relative to other organisms. You are trying to call verified predictions equivalent to existing evidence, when this is most definitely not the case.