Why do you believe in Creationism or Evolution?

[emmy27sf]

so why do u believe in evolution or creationism???

[harmonium]

You and your lists, how funny.

You wanted proof that there are many creation scientists at major universities and you got it. Can you not handle that? It's hard being wrong isn't it.

So they decided that although the number of people on each side doesn't really matter, they decided to play ball and have a nice little bit of fun with Project Steve, which includes names of various scientists who think that evolution is generally correct, who happened to be named some permutation of Steve.

Unlike you, I didn't ask you for lists of people. And this definitely isn't about numbers. I asked for evidence to back up your original claims. You still haven't given it. Obviously you've got nothing.

Fails the criteria. It makes no determinations over any critical aspects of Creationism.

Are you serious? Do you not understand what that research was about? It is specifically related to Michael's research into irreducible complexity. Michael Behe is one of the leading scientists investigating this theory which is completely original. Do some research on the theory and you will find that it it definitely meets your criteria.

[nikolayevich]

If I understand his post the way it reads, there's quite a difference between the list of scientists Harmonium pointed to, and the subsequent retort with the link to "Project Steve".

The first was a link to show that in fact, there are numerous scientists with PhD's from reputable universities who doubt evolution, as it was questioned by ENIGMA. Actually, there was an assertion that they could not have been accredited through the same universities as other prominent scientists. So we have seen a simple response to the question- a list of reputable scientists from reputable schools.

The reply was to show Project Steve, which is really a mockery by the "National Center for Science Education" (a euphemism, for a group obsessed with the propagation of evolution above all other learning) of creationists. The simplest way to describe Project Steve is really to say its purpose is to outnumber creationists, to say that though there be doubters among scientists, evolution has a stronger hold in the community. They're certainly correct but it's a shame to use this kind of tactic in honest discussion and debate among the "community". If they don't agree with us, no problem, but to show how many more of them there are?

It's groups like the NCSE that allows us to truly point out the lengths that these beacons of evolutionism will go to, in an effort to stem criticism of the overall theory. They don't simply use science to disprove us, they use ad hominem attacks, they use "we're more abundant" arguments.

Question for the evolutionists: Is it necessary to use this kind of tactic?

Why is it that if evolution is so obviously true, this is what one resorts to? (not speaking of ENIGMA but of groups like the NCSE who inform individuals like ENIGMA and schools nationwide with constitutionally empty arguments).

Any philosophy class could point out the flawed logic when resorting to this kind of move.

It should be noted that the initial reason for the Intelligent Design/Creationist lists was to show that there exist scientists who question the veracity of evolution. It was not an attempt to show that there were a comparable number of ID/Creationist scientists.

[bernee51]

Question for the evolutionists: Is it necessary to use this kind of tactic?

not really...the whole question of evolution vs creation is a furphy.

Creationsists will attempt to 'prove' creation' because it will, by default, prove a creator. They have more to lose than an atheist evolutionist - i.e their god.

When it comes down to ... will the hungry be fed or the naked clothed, it matters not one iota who wins this puerile (and unwinable - at least for the foreseeable future) argument.

[Jose]

It's groups like the NCSE that allows us to truly point out the lengths that these beacons of evolutionism will go to, in an effort to stem criticism of the overall theory. They don't simply use science to disprove us, they use ad hominem attacks, they use "we're more abundant" arguments.

Question for the evolutionists: Is it necessary to use this kind of tactic?

Well, it's an interesting thing. According to the NCSE, Project Steve was invented as a tongue in cheek (i. e. funny, not serious) effort to show that lists of names really don't matter. I think that, just as the list of Steves doesn't inform us about evolution or creation, the list of creationist scientists also fails to inform us. This kind of tactic--presenting lists of names to imply that "the other side" is wrong--is unworthy of either side.

The real issue is not who believes what, but what is the evidence? The problem with evolutionists is that they go out into the world and study it. They try to make sense of what they find. When things don't make sense according to existing explanations, they keep looking for more data that can help fit the puzzle together. As more data are accumulated, they refine their explanation, to take into account the new, as well as the older, information. This is based on observations of God's creation.

There are a great many scientists who are not biologists. There are a great many biologists who study topics other than evolution. For many of these scientists, it matters little to their scientific work how, or even whether, evolution works. If they were raised with the biblical creation story as part of their lives, then there is no reason for them to review their belief, and to put in the hard work that it takes to evaluate the data and decide for themselves what explanation seems most reasonable.

ENIGMA wrote:

Fails the criteria. It makes no determinations over any critical aspects of Creationism.


Are you serious? Do you not understand what that research was about? It is specifically related to Michael's research into irreducible complexity. Michael Behe is one of the leading scientists investigating this theory which is completely original. Do some research on the theory and you will find that it it definitely meets your criteria.

The trouble with the concept of irreducible complexity (IC) is that it looks for things that have not been explained, and uses the lack of scientific explanation to infer the work of God. This may be research--looking into all of the aspects of life, and determining which are well explained by evolutionary theory--but it's fundamental goal is to find places that science has not yet penetrated. Once these places have been found, we are at the point where observation and experimentation should take over. Michael Behe stops short of this, suggesting instead a theological explanation.

An unfortunate aspect of the presentation of the IC concept is that it creates scenarios that would not occur during evolution, as it is currently understood. Of what use is half an eye? A complex system, the IC concept claims, would fail if any part were missing. Therefore, the concept goes on, the complex system must have arisen in one piece, fully designed.

There is ample evidence from numerous evolutionary studies that evolution does not work by sudden creation of complex systems, but rather by the development of primitive systems that are elaborated upon over the years. Simple light receptors that are not eyes are the forerunners of eyes, but Behe doesn't mention them. They are far less than "half" of an eye, but they serve a function. There are eyes without lenses, that cannot focus an image. They, too, serve a function. By augmenting pre-existing structures, evolution manages to create the complex systems that we might call "irreducibly complex" if we didn't have enough data to know otherwise.

Evolution can also do what Behe says should be of no use. Animals that take up residence in caves where there is no light often accumulate mutations that produce "half an eye" or otherwise prevent the development of functional eyes. Maybe this is proof that "half an eye" doesn't function, but it is also an example of evolution at work. Where eyes are not needed, there is no selection against mutations that damage them.

While the IC concept may be the newest research endeavor in the Creation investigations, it retains a common feature of earlier arguments--if we cannot explain X fully by evolutionary theory, and if we don't know all of the evolutionary steps that gave rise to X, then the evolution of X is not proven, and the Creation or Design of X must be true.

Thus, even Behe's arguments, in the end, lead to a leap of Faith without data. Evolutionary investigations, however, lead to a *human* effort to understand data. When the explanations are published, they are published with the data, and the readers are implicitly asked to re-evaluate the data and determine whether the interpretation is reasonable. Anyone may challenge the interpretation, but to supplant that interpretation with their own interpretation, they must supply additional evidence. It is not sufficient to supply a lack of evidence.

So, to come back to the topic of this thread, I accept evolution as a well-supported theory of the ways that life has changed on Earth over time. When I examine the data, particularly with regard to DNA mutation and organismal competition, I find that I simply cannot pretend that evolution fails to occur. With respect to Creation, however, I am uncertain which of the Holy Books to follow, or whether I should believe in one of the religions for which the Word was not written into a Book that all followers should read. There are too many choices. When faced with a plethora of choices, I conclude that the thing to do is look at Creation itself, and see what it can tell me.[/i]

[nikolayevich]

Question for the evolutionists: Is it necessary to use this kind of tactic?

not really...the whole question of evolution vs creation is a furphy.

So why do you think that the NCSE disagrees with you? By that I mean, why do they believe it is necessary to use these approaches to debate? They are certainly large enough and well funded enough to have better argumentation. After all, many leading scientists are a part of the NCSE.

Creationsists will attempt to 'prove' creation' because it will, by default, prove a creator. They have more to lose than an atheist evolutionist - i.e their god.

Atheist evolutionists do have much to lose though. If the creationist is correct, they would lose the position of living however they like without consequence.

We keep hearing this kind of argument throughout the forum- that atheists/agnostics have nothing to prove because they don't need to disprove the theist's belief that there is a God. That atheists/agnostics are more objective (this is at least implied) because they don't have something to lose.

The problem, as has been said, is that you do have to prove that evolution is true when saying that creation is not. It's meaningless besides, as claiming impugnity never makes something so or not so. And as for whether or not someone has something to lose, you enter the psychology of why someone believes what he believes, which is a totally separate realm from what we're discussing here. This really boils down to holding oneself in a position of greater enlightenment over his opponent. It really has no bearing on the problems at hand.

If looking at the problem from the debate perspective, one can see quite easily that there are two world views presented, each with many items of belief. Those are what we challenge. We challenge that non-life became life through naturalistic processes. We challenge that speciation accounts for the enormous variability of creatures in the world. These are the challenges. Defend your perspective, not your reasonability.

When it comes down to ... will the hungry be fed or the naked clothed, it matters not one iota who wins this puerile (and unwinable - at least for the foreseeable future) argument.

But it does matter, and isn't a childish debate just because you say so. It's the difference between humans having great value (which is exactly why so many Christian organizations try to feed the hungry and clothe the naked- because they don't believe that the destiny of the weaker is simply to be eliminated by natural selection, but rather to be cherished and cared for), or humans being just another animal group with nowhere to go but the ground. How can that be of no consequence? You don't have to believe what I do to see that if what I believe is true, origin and destiny are important. On the other hand, the fact that evolution is so important in school curricula today, surely shows us that people do care about origins. It doesn't matter what side you're on. People want to know how.

Evolution is the answer to a question: How did we get here by naturalistic means, without appealing to the miraculous?

It is not the result of a long, arduous, unbiased approach to simply, "how did we get here?" It is important to recognize that even Darwin did not simply begin by being puzzled by the things he saw in the world as contrasted to the Christian view. He had many preconceived notions about the world which challenged the Biblical position before he first set sail.

All I'm really trying to say is that we must all recognize that no matter how great or small our bias may be, we ALL have biases, and preconceived notions of the universe. To say that the creationist simply reasons circularly then dismiss anything he submits ignores one's own biases toward origins. One may say he/she approached it without any preference and therefore was less biased, but the same can be said of either side. Many former evolutionists came to believe in deficiencies with the theory before coming to a belief in a designer. All of the biased / unbiased assertions can be flipped. To ignore it is simply to ignore one's own maxims and absolutes. I "hear" that many evolutionists do not hold so firmly to their beliefs, but when tried, evolutionists look just the same as creationists in their holding of beliefs. Why? Because we are all human.

Therefore, the argument should not be about who's more "objective" or who's less "dogmatic" but to evidence and questions.

One point to make here, is that all of us creationists were taught the same evolutionary theory as evolutionists, from a young age. Not all of you were taught the details of creation to the same extent, simply because it isn't required teaching. I will not use this to say that in fact we're not as biased, because I believe that we are as biased as you all. What it does mean though, is that many of us are quite well versed in evolution. Christian scientists can't pass through any syllabus without studying it and even understanding it to an instructor's specifications. It means that we are not just "misunderstanding" the evolutionary arguments (although I certainly won't pretend to understand every evolutionist's assertions). But the point is, with knowledge of evolutionary teaching, we rather disagree with major parts of the theory. It seems that evolutionists sometimes have this perspective that creationists are ignorant of evolution. I submit that every day in colleges worldwide, students who don't believe in evolution receive top marks in their required study of evolution.

I believe the same would be true if evolutionists studied creation- that they would understand it as it is taught and if examined could apply the various tenets of the theory. This is all just to say, we're all in the same boat. We all need to examine the ground on which we stand.

[ST88]

The framework behind the evolutionists’ interpretation is naturalism—it is assumed that things made themselves, that no divine intervention has happened, and that God has not revealed to us knowledge about the past. Just because some Christians and Jews have found common ground doesn't take away from the fact that the original intention of evolutionary theory was to explain the origin of life in a completely naturalistic way. That is a bias as evidenced by a quote from D.M.S. Watson, a leading biologist in his day:

"Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."

This would be an acceptable argument if there was some kind of church of evolutionary theory. The "naturalism" you speak of is only diametrically opposed to the idea of God because you think it is. This non-evolution God is not the only view of Christianity that is out there, it is only for Creationists.

Your Watson quote is specious.
1) The quote is taken out of context from a discussion of the viability of the "transmutation of the species" theory.
2) Even if we could accept the quote out of context, as presented, it is an opinion of the researcher.
3) The only thing it actually refutes is Creationism.
4) Evolution/natural selection was not developed as an alternative to the Biblical account, it was developed to deal with the evidence.

A single source? Ideas and thoughts about God come from all different cultures all throughout the earth and spans thousands of years. Where is the single source in that? The bible itself is not a single source but 66 books written by about 40 different authors over about 1500 years.

I don't know where to start with this.

1) "all cultures throughout the earth" is clearly not true. The Judeo-Christian God was revealed only to the peoples of Judea. That it spread from there is not relevant because the "revealing" (?) was only done to these people.
2) The "thousands of years" figure is misleading because subsequent thought was based on the ideas from only one source.
3) For hundreds of years, the Church treated the Bible as a single source, so the literature and ideas that arose from it during this time can be considered as rising out of a single source.
4) You seem to be admitting that the Bible is not the Word of God, but in fact was only written by the hand of man. If you do not buy into this single source theory then you must accept that God had nothing to do with writing the Bible, because God can be considered to be the single source.

Science has a history of bad ideas and theories sticking around long after they were dis-proven. The thing that you are forgetting is the pride that people have in their own ideas, sometimes it is so great that it blinds people to facts that would discredit them. Science can never be completely objective because people are never completely objective and science is a very human effort.

and

"At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don’t usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals, they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position."

I do not dispute this. There are researchers out there who will fake their data, skew their results, misinterpret previous studies, and come to illogical conclusions. We are all human, after all. There is also no practicable way to keep ourselves from being human when we act as experimenters or researchers. This is why we can't rely on just one study from just one person to make correct conclusions about something.

One of the greatest philosopher-scientists of all time, Aristotle, was wrong about a lot of things. Darwin had some wacky ideas that were later proved false. Many supposedly reputable scientists used to believe in spontaneous generation and an earth-centric solar system and cold fusion and healthy tobacco, etc. But this is why we need replicable studies. Science doesn't operate by decree or opinion, it operates by independent verification. If one researcher comes to a wrong conclusion based on faulty experimental procedures, it will eventually be exposed. The check on this process is that everyone has different motivations, so the biases are controlled for when enough studies are done.

That these ideas stick around long after they have been disproven is not a failure of science, as you seem to imply, it is a failure of information transfer. Blame the media, if you like. An idea can be so attractive that people refuse to believe evidence against it. Take the example of the Atkins diet. It is simply bad science, but so many people believe that it works because of cheery anecdotal evidence and because the menu is so tasty (It also plays into the "everything you've ever been told is wrong" paranoia of authority that so many people seem to have).

And I still disagree with you. The fact is that until you get a time machine you will never be able to prove that evolution is responsible for all life. You weren't there, and thus you will never know. You can think you know because all the evidence makes it look like that probably happened that way. However, ultimately it does come down to a question of faith. You need to take a step of faith to believe in anything that you are not able to experience directly. And none of us will be able to experience it directly because it apparently takes millions of years to happen.

Although abiogenesis is not a part of this argument, I see where you're coming from, I really do. You see both God and abiogenesis as unknowable and so you come to the conclusion that both must have equal scientific weight. It's a very tempting way to think, but it just doesn't work this way. God is unknowable not because we don't have a time machine or a heaven transport device -- God is unknowable because in the definition of God is the transcendence of materiality, i.e., science and logic do not apply to God.

I do not need to take a "step of faith" as you call it in order to keep evolution as a working theory. It is the best theory we have that fits the evidence. Faith is irrelevant. I do not have "faith" in evolution, I just think it's true. The difference here is in world-view. If I had "faith" in evolution, I would not need evidence in order to make me believe in it. But I do need evidence. I am a skeptic about everything. When presented with evidence, I don't find myself asking, "How does this fit in with evolution?" I find myself asking, "How the heck can this be explained?" So far, evolution has been the best answer.

[Jose]

nikolayevich wrote:

Atheist evolutionists do have much to lose though. If the creationist is correct, they would lose the position of living however they like without consequence.

I hear this kind of statement from time to time, and I never understand it. What is the reason for saying this? I live my life by a very strong moral code, which prevents me from doing a great many things. Many creationists that I know live "however they like" also. We all seem to like to live pretty much the same way. As I see it, evolutionists stand to lose only a particular explanation for the descent of organisms. But that's OK--we're always having our ideas changed by new data, so this would just be more of the same. Maybe we need a separate thread for this topic, because it seems that it may be fairly complicated.

nikolayevich wrote:

If looking at the problem from the debate perspective, one can see quite easily that there are two world views presented, each with many items of belief. Those are what we challenge. We challenge that non-life became life through naturalistic processes. We challenge that speciation accounts for the enormous variability of creatures in the world. These are the challenges. Defend your perspective, not your reasonability.

Excellent point. We should defend the perspective, with the assumption that all of us are equally reasonable.

There are two world views presented, and, indeed, each has many items of belief. My understanding is that the Creationist view believes that some creator (different creators for different religions, but probably the biblical creator in this forum) created life as it is today, or nearly as it is today. The evolutionist view believes that processes that we can see and measure here and now on Earth are unlikely to have been significantly different in the past. That is, gravity was gravity. The speed of light was the speed of light. The rate of radioactive decay was the rate of radioactive decay. Creationists sometimes suggest that the belief in natural processes is unfounded, inasmuch as God could have changed them at will. This is true. It is also true that God could have created everything 10 minutes ago, with each of us carrying the memories that we have. It is hard to discount the possibilities of an all-powerful deity.

But, by that same token, it is hard to study the all-powerful deity. So, we choose to study His work, and ask what clues he left for us. We make assumptions about the constancy of natural laws, but we make our assumptions clear. If the assumptions are wrong, and the laws of physics were completely different 10,000 years ago, then we will develop an incorrect explanation for the history of the earth. Until there is evidence that the laws of physics were different, however, we accept our assumptions because they are the ones that, at present, are most reasonable.

So, do we "believe" that life arose from non-life through naturalistic means? No. But, within the framework of the assumptions within which science works, this is the current best explanation for the data that we now have. There are many excellent scientists studying this question--but, we all admit, it is a difficult problem. The clues are left in the rocks, and in the left-over bits and pieces that still remain in living things. As more of the clues are found and put together, we'll gain a better understanding. But, this is not "belief." It is merely putting together the clues God left us, since God Himself is beyond our knowledge.

Do we believe that speciation accounts for the enormous variability of creatures in the world? No. However, we do accept the notion that evolutionary mechanisms do account for this. (Speciation can't account for it, of course, since "speciation" is merely the formation of a new species. Diversity includes not only the variety of species, but the diversity within species. This is a semantic quibble, but relevant.)

DNA sequence data provide significant support for evolutionary mechanisms accounting for diversity. It is a fact upon which we can all agree (I think) that DNA mutates. Errors in replication, damage by radiation, chemical damage--all of these cause changes in DNA sequence. This cannot be prevented by any means we know. An assumption is that this has been a feature of DNA since it first appeared.

Since mutations happen, some individual organisms, whether plant, animal, or microbe, will have changes in their characteristics. Some lead to poor survival, and a few lead to better ability to compete with others in the particular environment the organism lives in. As a result, genetic change occurs over time.

Do we "believe" this? We might as well, since it has been documented numerous times.

To go from one particular set of characterisitics to another simply requires enough generations to accumulate enough changes in the DNA.

To discuss this in further detail would go beyond the scope of this discussion, but could easily be done in another thread. I imagine that there are already many posts that provide some of the evidence. Suffice it to say that it is reasonable to conclude that yes, the current diversity of living things can have arisen through evolutionary means.

nikolayevich wrote:

One point to make here, is that all of us creationists were taught the same evolutionary theory as evolutionists, from a young age. Not all of you were taught the details of creation to the same extent, simply because it isn't required teaching. ... But the point is, with knowledge of evolutionary teaching, we rather disagree with major parts of the theory. It seems that evolutionists sometimes have this perspective that creationists are ignorant of evolution. I submit that every day in colleges worldwide, students who don't believe in evolution receive top marks in their required study of evolution.

I accept this logic fully. Indeed, some (well, at least 2) of my own students have said things like "I've enjoyed learning all of this evolution stuff, because it's fun. Of course, we know it doesn't work that way. God did it." Such students can, indeed, earn top marks, even though they are not convinced by the teaching. It is one thing to learn material, and quite another thing to have that learning replace one's previous understanding. It is well known that people hold new information in their brain for some time, and hold their previous understanding as well, and only choose which to commit to long term memory after a considerable period of time.

It is also the case that we do not do a good job of teaching what is understood of evolution. Most of the arguments against evolution are remarkably similar to, if not unchanged from, those that were first voiced in Darwin's day. You'd think, if we were teaching our understanding clearly, that some of these arguments would have diminished. Many times, these arguments have been refuted with ample evidence, and yet the arguments remain.

I take this as evidence both of the strength of conviction of Creationists--not easily swayed, and requiring strong evidence to change views they strongly believe--and also as evidence that the things evolutionists see as "so obvious" just are not being communicated well. Unfortunately, there is so much information that supports evolution, from so many different fields, that it is exceptionally difficult to discuss more than a fraction of it in a reasonable time period. Questions will always remain if a topic is dealt with only partially.

harmonium wrote:

And I still disagree with you. The fact is that until you get a time machine you will never be able to prove that evolution is responsible for all life. You weren't there, and thus you will never know. You can think you know because all the evidence makes it look like that probably happened that way. However, ultimately it does come down to a question of faith. You need to take a step of faith to believe in anything that you are not able to experience directly. And none of us will be able to experience it directly because it apparently takes millions of years to happen.

Indeed, "all the evidence makes it look like that probably happened that way." But is it a question of faith, merely to accept the explanation of the evidence? As I have noted in other posts, eyewitness accounts are unreliable as well. Indeed, our state prosecutors will not take a case to court based only on eyewitness accounts. They require forensic evidence. In principle, this is the same thing as the question whether evolution requires an eyewitness to be considered reliable. If the courts prefer forensic evidence, and theory well-supported by observations, investigations, and data, then shouldn't we be willing to consider a similar reliance on observations, investigations, and data, when considering the history of life?

Certainly, we cannot experience all of evolution directly, but we can--and have--experienced enough examples to know that it works. If it works now, it is reasonable to think that it worked in the past.[/i]

[ENIGMA]

So they decided that although the number of people on each side doesn't really matter, they decided to play ball and have a nice little bit of fun with Project Steve, which includes names of various scientists who think that evolution is generally correct, who happened to be named some permutation of Steve.

Unlike you, I didn't ask you for lists of people. And this definitely isn't about numbers. I asked for evidence to back up your original claims. You still haven't given it. Obviously you've got nothing.

Ok, hold up. You've been mentioning something about an original claim made on my part ever since your response to the first post of mine that you have quoted. I'm quite curious what that is, since after looking through the contents of this thread I honestly haven't a bloody clue what you've been referring to, and considering that this is the only thread that you have posted in on the forum, I must inquire, to which claim of mine were you referring in your first response to me?

Fails the criteria. It makes no determinations over any critical aspects of Creationism.

Are you serious?

Yes, I typically use appropriate emoticons when I'm not.

Do you not understand what that research was about? It is specifically related to Michael's research into irreducible complexity. Michael Behe is one of the leading scientists investigating this theory which is completely original.

Yes, however the site which I was referred to certain molecules possibly being able to be used as structural elements inside of a micro-organism.
However, at no time during the blurb did it give any indication of what counts as a negative response to the hypothesis, namely what would show the hypothesis to be false.

Any hypothesis that is unable to be falsified by a certain experimental outcome (One example would be finding dinosaurs in the pre-cambrian rock strata for Evolutionary theory) is not a scientific hypothesis since there is no means in principle, were the hypothesis false, to disprove it.

Without such a negative result condition, a sum total of squat gets discovered meaning such "research" is equivalent to a grown-up playing with a sophisticated "My first chemistry set".

So, am I wrong or is there some means to demonstrate, in principle, the falsehood of creationism should it be false?

If there is, a google search doesn't seem to find it....

[bernee51]

So why do you think that the NCSE disagrees with you?

not sure, don't care - if I did I would write to them and ask. If you care , maybe you could write them and let me know what they say

Atheist evolutionists do have much to lose though. If the creationist is correct, they would lose the position of living however they like without consequence.

there is that lovely fallacy again - I guess it had to come up.
Why do you assume atheists live with no consequence?
The ultimate consequences are how I feel about myself and how I live my life.

'beforedeath' is much more important than the 'afterlife'

What's more, I have very high standards - much higher than the god of your bible (based on his track record)

And, for that matter, Jesus is not much of an example when it comes to how to live...

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)

"I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matthew 10:35-36)

If you do something wrong with your eye or hand, cut/pluck it off (Matthew 5:29-30, in a sexual context).

Marrying a divorced woman is adultery. (Matthew 5:32)

Don't plan for the future. (Matthew 6:34)

Don't save money. (Matthew 6:19-20)

Don't become wealthy. (Mark 10:21-25)

Don't work to obtain food. (John 6:27)

Don't have sexual urges. (Matthew 5:28)

Make people want to persecute you. (Matthew 5:11)

Let everyone know you are better than the rest. (Matthew 5:13-16)

Take money from those who have no savings and give it to rich investors. (Luke 19:23-26)

If someone steals from you, don't try to get it back. (Luke 6:30)

If someone hits you, invite them to do it again. (Matthew 5:39)

That atheists/agnostics are more objective (this is at least implied) because they don't have something to lose.

I can only speak for myself...I am objective because I DO have a lot to lose - my self-respect for starters.

The problem, as has been said, is that you do have to prove that evolution is true when saying that creation is not.

I disagree - i just don't think it is an issue.

If you want to believe the creation story go ahead.

Can you sum up for me though exactly what is the direct, testable evidence for creation?

What...there is none???

It's the difference between humans having great value (which is exactly why so many Christian organizations try to feed the hungry and clothe the naked- because they don't believe that the destiny of the weaker is simply to be eliminated by natural selection, but rather to be cherished and cared for),

there we go again (the tacit ad hominem)...christians do not have a mortgage on compassion.

in fact, would it not be more humane to have compassion enough to try "to feed the hungry and clothe the naked" without the promise of some reward from the great sky daddy.

This is all just to say, we're all in the same boat. We all need to examine the ground on which we stand.

exactly...and the reason why I take my stand is not because creation or evolution are proven or not proven.

My ground is underpinned by non-belief in a creative deity. And it is from that that all else stems.

Simple as that.

[nikolayevich]

Plenty of New Testament quotes there... let's discuss those on a different thread... they're all relevant to debate but I think we'll get pretty off topic here.

Can you sum up for me though exactly what is the direct, testable evidence for creation?

There is no direct, testable evidence for origins of the universe. No matter your position.

You cannot directly test nor observe:
The Big Bang
Abiogenesis
Macroevolution

Until you can, I encourage you, and all our evolutionist friends to recognize that you do in fact believe something that requires intuition. Again, just like us. We both do our best to evaluate the sciences and explain them appropriately.

I really don't understand why it is so important to believe that your theory is just so and not requiring belief. It is falsifiable is it not?

You can submit all the documented experiments, all the observable data collected by various of the evolutionary realm. But I contend that by definition, the above are unobservable. Therefore, by way of reasoning that these are critical to the events of evolution, it is a formidable challenge, and can be stated that one may only find indirect confirmation of the theory.

Yes, there are countless tests and experimentation is endless in studying speciation but here we have no debate. In the classroom we were given the old "bait and switch" from micro to macro. The "this is thus, therefore thus", but we did not realize the philosophical flaws to the argument. Because one thing is so does not make another thing so.

Thus the belief factor.

It should be understood that often times, nine tenths of what an evolutionist puts forth is accepted by the creationist, because that much of it is science. For the tenth part, well, this of course involves interpretation of the data and leads us all to wildly different conclusions.

We should all make no mistake that there are words at the most critical parts of many theses which follow the language, "the authors believe..." or; "she has shown good evidence to support..." or; "it seems unlikely that there could be any other explanation for..."

The problem is that, while overstatement is generally a sort of sin in and of itself when putting forth new material, and so I appreciate the non-dogmatic ring of these parts, the statements are made at the appropriate timing with the text. What often stem from these are statements such as that which describe the unobservable. We don't always disagree with the statements. We also make these kinds of statements ourselves.

Please understand what I'm getting at. The point is that, while one can be surrounded with physics and chemistry, dreaming at night about formulae, explaining to children why the moon appears bigger tonight, or why the compass points North, it will never make that tenth part (or however large) of our assertions entirely objective.

I've mentioned previously that there are too many fields of science for one man or woman to study evolution exhaustively enough not to have to appeal to authority in confirmation of their beliefs. If you appeal to authority, you must have faith in that authority.

If you don't believe you appeal to authority, well, we have our work cut out for us.

This is all just to say, we're all in the same boat. We all need to examine the ground on which we stand.

exactly...and the reason why I take my stand is not because creation or evolution are proven or not proven.

My ground is underpinned by non-belief in a creative deity. And it is from that that all else stems.

Simple as that.

I appreciate your honesty about that. You understand your reasoning more than many others do.