[Colossus]

Thanks to Mens Rea for the idea--and yes he's probably right that this will degenerate into a name calling bout and in fact gain us nothing, but here goes.

Here is the challege to creationists of the board (evolutionists, please refrain from comments until the creationists have been given the chance to say their piece).

Lets begin with this very simple assumption: Evolution does not exist.

Evolution, for all intents and purposes, has never existed, and by extension, the various biological fields that arose from it have not existed either.

Now being that we don't know how life developed, since no theory as of yet has been developed to explain the phenomenon, someone desires to promote Creationism as an explantation for the development (or lack thereof) of life on this planet.

Someone wishes to propose Creationism as a scientific theory. Science, still being science, needs to see evidence for its existence.

This is the challenge: Creationists give evidence for creationism.

Since the Theory of Evolution does not exists it should not even be brought into our discussions--not even mentioned! From here on out Creationism is to be tested to see if it will stand on its own.

[Colossus]

Just to give Creationists a hand and a starting point so it isn't overly random, here is what you should begin with.

Start by defining the theory you are attempting to defend in specific.

Next, make sure that your theory explains existing data. Ensure that this theory will be able to predict future events. The theory must be logical enough to ensure a nonbiased third party would arrive at the same conclusions. This theory must be falisfiable. (If you didn't notice these are the five criteria of scientific methodology, minus the last one. I exempted this from the last one because Creationism by its nature is not a logical path leading from the data to the result, not vice-versa.)

[lizard1]

As we are starting with the assumption that evolution does not exist, it would be fair to assume that we were created as there is no other possible explanation to explain it.

I win.
End of thread.

[InternetHero]

As much as I do not want to support "Creationism" you could certainly present evidence for it.

Say the "Big Bang Theory" which happens to follow a very dramatic Biblical view of creation... and they have their own science and evidence to defend these things.

So if they want to teach "Creationism" in Kansas schools or whever... they can knock themsevles out. That's their right, if you don't like it move ECT.

I think personally that parts of evolution are absolutley true (Common Sense, even) but that other parts of the theory are very flawed and almost unlogical.

[Colossus]

Originally Posted by lizard1

As we are starting with the assumption that evolution does not exist, it would be fair to assume that we were created as there is no other possible explanation to explain it.

I win.
End of thread.

Wow, I don't think I can handle your brilliance.

Anyhow, back to reality. You did not define your theory, nor did you attempt to make your theory adhere to scientific methodology. Now go home and actually think for a little bit.
I said for the purposes of this argument evolution did not exist. Meaning one is not to use the falsification of evolution as a support for creationism. But--you have gone and done that exact thing. Congradualtions.

[Colossus]

Originally Posted by InternetHero

As much as I do not want to support "Creationism" you could certainly present evidence for it.

Say the "Big Bang Theory" which happens to follow a very dramatic Biblical view of creation... and they have their own science and evidence to defend these things.

So if they want to teach "Creationism" in Kansas schools or whever... they can knock themsevles out. That's their right, if you don't like it move ECT.

I think personally that parts of evolution are absolutley true (Common Sense, even) but that other parts of the theory are very flawed and almost unlogical.

You didn't present evidence or a definition of creationism. Remember, not dicsussing flaws in evolution, but the support of creationism.

[InternetHero]

Originally Posted by Colossus

You didn't present evidence or a definition of creationism. Remember, not dicsussing flaws in evolution, but the support of creationism.

I made one point, it just wasn't a very good, sound point.

I'm definately no all-star in defending creationism.

[lizard1]

The trouble with this task is that it will bring up all the same points as before. Any peice of evidence that you would normally use as solid evidence for evolution can be viewed differently to support creation. So if I start giving evidence like an evolutionist would, you would find yourself saying exactly what I do. "That does not prove a thing!" Or "No, that is evidence for evolution, not creation".

I have to add, I am a bit confused as to your views. You give the impression that you are a solid evolutionist and in no way believe in creation. But I know you are a catholic who believes that Jesus is God. So you must believe in God (the creator), so why ask for evidence of creation.
Also, being a catholic, I assume you know your Bible failry well. Romans 1:18 onwards.

Also, I have a theory. It goes something like this:

Genesis 1

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

[Colossus]

Originally Posted by lizard1

The trouble with this task is that it will bring up all the same points as before. Any peice of evidence that you would normally use as solid evidence for evolution can be viewed differently to support creation. So if I start giving evidence like an evolutionist would, you would find yourself saying exactly what I do. "That does not prove a thing!" Or "No, that is evidence for evolution, not creation".

I have to add, I am a bit confused as to your views. You give the impression that you are a solid evolutionist and in no way believe in creation. But I know you are a catholic who believes that Jesus is God. So you must believe in God (the creator), so why ask for evidence of creation.
Also, being a catholic, I assume you know your Bible failry well. Romans 1:18 onwards.

Also, I have a theory. It goes something like this:

Genesis 1

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

You know, you can keep talking about how I'm going to shoot down your evidence, or you could actually try and present some yourself. I promise I will not say "This is evidence for evoiution not creation" though because I'm not discussing evolution.

Thank you for at least beginning a theory. Now perhaps you can expand it to include the criteria of scientific methodology.

Don't hijack this thread. If you have a question about my beliefs, start a new thread or PM me.

[sarevok]

Here's Penn and Teller's thoughts on creationism
http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...&search=Search