It's amazing what a feisty creature the creationist is. When you have him completely backed into a corner, all his arguments destroyed and yours triumphant, he still comes back with the catch-all "well I haven't seen any PROOF!!!"
Well, I have news for the creationist: there is no proof. None. It will never happen. And by "proof" I don't mean "proof of evolution". I mean proof. Period. There is none. For anything. At all. None for evolution, none for creation. We are fallible humans, after all, and it is impossible to know something for certain.
Given that there is no way anything can ever be proven, why do we even have a debate? If, as you imply when a demand for proof is your only argument, the purpose of a debate is to acquire proof, and proof is an impossibility, what are we even debating about?
Debates are about likelihood. Debates are about believability. Ultimately, debates are about convincing the human mind. The debate of this forum is intended to center around whether evolutionism or creationism is a more likely explanation of human origins. Not whether evolution or creationism can be aboslutely proven.
In these debates, evidence is invoked. Keep in mind that evidence is not proof. Evidence points in a direction, that is all. When enough evidence points to something, we realize that it is more likely.
Now, the thing about evidence is that it can point to several things at once. Creationists have brought up this point with their "interpretation" argument. But this is where science comes in. When we have enough evidence to point to something, we need to make sure we aren't just interpreting the evidence wrong. So we make predictions based on what we think the evidence points to. As in: "We think the evidence points to X. Well, if X, then we can logically predict that certain things will be true". Then we go searching for those certain things. If they aren't true, the theory is falsified. If they are true, then that is further evidence for X.
So you see, in science, "evidence" is more complicated than just being an issue of interpretation. The scientific method was devised specifically with the mimization of personal biases and interpretations in mind. This is why scientists develop theories, make predictions, and try to falsify their theories. If the theories withstand the tests, they gain more acceptance. If they don't, then they are modified according to the new findings (or in cases of extreme contradiction, the theories may be discarded altogether).
The theory of evolution happens to be very well-tested and refined over the past century. This is why evolution wins the debate. It is much, much more likely than creationism, as multitudes of evidence and successful predictions clearly show.
I hope this satisfies you Follower of Christ and JohnR7.
Well, I have news for the creationist: there is no proof. None. It will never happen. And by "proof" I don't mean "proof of evolution". I mean proof. Period. There is none. For anything. At all. None for evolution, none for creation. We are fallible humans, after all, and it is impossible to know something for certain.
Given that there is no way anything can ever be proven, why do we even have a debate? If, as you imply when a demand for proof is your only argument, the purpose of a debate is to acquire proof, and proof is an impossibility, what are we even debating about?
Debates are about likelihood. Debates are about believability. Ultimately, debates are about convincing the human mind. The debate of this forum is intended to center around whether evolutionism or creationism is a more likely explanation of human origins. Not whether evolution or creationism can be aboslutely proven.
In these debates, evidence is invoked. Keep in mind that evidence is not proof. Evidence points in a direction, that is all. When enough evidence points to something, we realize that it is more likely.
Now, the thing about evidence is that it can point to several things at once. Creationists have brought up this point with their "interpretation" argument. But this is where science comes in. When we have enough evidence to point to something, we need to make sure we aren't just interpreting the evidence wrong. So we make predictions based on what we think the evidence points to. As in: "We think the evidence points to X. Well, if X, then we can logically predict that certain things will be true". Then we go searching for those certain things. If they aren't true, the theory is falsified. If they are true, then that is further evidence for X.
So you see, in science, "evidence" is more complicated than just being an issue of interpretation. The scientific method was devised specifically with the mimization of personal biases and interpretations in mind. This is why scientists develop theories, make predictions, and try to falsify their theories. If the theories withstand the tests, they gain more acceptance. If they don't, then they are modified according to the new findings (or in cases of extreme contradiction, the theories may be discarded altogether).
The theory of evolution happens to be very well-tested and refined over the past century. This is why evolution wins the debate. It is much, much more likely than creationism, as multitudes of evidence and successful predictions clearly show.
I hope this satisfies you Follower of Christ and JohnR7.
