Challenging Evolution

Even evo-loopies admit those 2 statements
.... Evo-loopies expect uys .......
So evo-loopy-poop is unscientific

trinity mentioned information and was asked to define information three times, but has not yet done so.

Originally Posted by 1Trinity3

Trinity has a life away from the computer. Trinity does not spend his entire existence replying to babble on this board. I am replying now

As I was leaving this thread, something struck me and I would greatly appreciate someone answering the question I have without the usual circular logic and arguement.

On according to the biblical account of creation, two elements apply.
1. God created the world and all that is in it.
Now we have already established that this is not testable, so as far as scientific methods go, Neutral.

2. Animals recreate after there kind.
Now science has been observing this phenomina for as long as science has been studied. So how then has science disproven the TOC?

I would seem to me that by the definitions given, C is fact and theory just as you claim the TOE to be.

Hummm, How then has science disporven the TOC???? Any help on this one?

Creation is fact, the standard theory of creationism is a falsified one.

If you mean by "creation is fact" "we're here, so SOMEthing/one must have created us," yes, it is fact..

It comes down to the definition of kind.

How many kinds were created and what are they?

If kind=species (in the classic taxonomic definition of species), then species must be "fixed" such that no species changes over time to become or produce a different species.

This was the creationist position of the mid-19th century, and the one that Darwin spent the most of his work on refuting.

TOC did change this position and today, both TOE and TOC would agree that "kind" is not equivalent to "taxonomic species". Taxonomic species do change over time; they do produce new species.

That fact, accepted by TOC and TOE is what I have been referring to as the "fact" of evolution.

The current TOC definition of kinds envisages the creation of something wider than a taxonomic species, but still sees the creation of many kinds such that the "rabbit kind" is distinct from (and not related to) the "mouse kind".

TOE generally does not use the concept of "kind", but if it did, it would envisage the creation of only one or a very few simple kinds of prokaryotic life forms of which all present-day life forms are descendants.

Science has proven that the TOC definition of "kinds" is invalid, by showing that all life forms are indeed phylogenetically related i.e. related through descent from common ancestors --- and presumably--- from a single common ancestor of all currently existing species.

As I stated at the very outset, a lot of creo-evo disputation is not grounded in disagreement about actual observation, but in how we define and label those observations. For evo's changes in species, whether or not those changes lead to speciation, is evolution. But creo's define evolution differently so that these changes do not, by their definition, add up to evolution, even when they do lead to speciation.

We agree on the observation. We disagree on the label.

So where evo's see evolution as a fact, creo's don't see evolution at all.

The theory of Creationism as often used by youth earth creationists which contents that the earth is under 10,000 years old and that all 'kinds' were created as is at one time has been falsified by evidence and observation. Throw in the global flood which has also been falsified and the 3 major points of standard creationism have been falsified by science.

Creation is fact, the standard theory of creationism is a falsified one.

You left quite a bit out of the definition of creationism.

1. God created the universe and all that is in it.

2. Animals recreate after their kind.

So if I am understanding you correctly, what you are saying is that this entire argument is occuring because neither side understands the definitions being used when discribing terms and that would equal lack of communication as I see it. Have I about covered what you are saying adequately.

BTW, my son suggest that kind be defined by the old definition of species. Could you please explain the old and new definitions for species and highlight the differences between the two.

2) But thats not quite what creationism says, it says that not only do animals recreate after their kind, but that they can't change beyond this "kind" and that there is some sort of barrier (none has ever been shown). Other creationist groups have dropped this and they say that there are no "upward" mutations or mutations that increase the information. And again, its very hard to get anyone to define information or what an increase is. But this as well is false.
Creationism is basically super hyper evolution with barriers.