If you believe in creationism as written in the bible, try a web search on "Black squirrels" and UK.

Creationism holds that all species were created at the same time--hence the insistence that men and dinosaurs co-existed. This form of squirrel seems to be new. God have second thoughts?

Melek

Pardon my "aaa" reply, it was a mistake caused by a long absence period.

Aztek:

The Galileo comment wasn't my argument, it was a muse. And all you have told me is that there is a "solid base of evidence" to point towards evolution. Which still supports my "hunch" notion. Evidence, with a lack of proof. That takes something we call "faith", to believe.

The fact is, that I never brought up creationism at all, and we were already talking about evolution. So in your opinion I have already brought up a subject that "has a solid base of evidence". Now, lets get to the proof. So a lot of people believe it based on evidence..that's all you got? Where's my monkey men? Oh LUCY, that's right, your missing link...right?

Izzibeth:

You're a little off track. I never said science and hunch together. I said evolution and hunch. Talk about jumping to conclusions.

What you need to understand is that I don't believe evolution is, or should be involved with, science. That's my personal belief, so when I say "evolution is a hunch", I am NOT saying that science as a whole is a hunch. That IS ridiculous. And it's not really an assumption that people with knowledge make. I don't think people who say "Creationism is a simple belief and has no evidence supporting it" mean "All of science is a belief and has no merit or value". You learned how to debate in elementary school also I see, so we should do well together!

Slardibartfis:

Look, posting long posts doesn't make you look smarter. Shorten it up a bit bud. I've got a shorter post and I'm responding to 3 people!

Your whole rebuttal to my scenario is based around the assumption that "you won't work according to the basic scientific rules". And then you accuse me of "you have not conducted a scientific theory by looking at anecdotal stories". Who said anything about stories? I didn't say my scenario was based on stories, I said evidence! I didn't say I heard gossip and by that I formulated an opinion that I thought my wife was cheating on me. I said evidence! You're not even responding with what I said! That's not an argument to my scenario, that's making up your own scenario!

That's just saying, "I wouldn't trust your scientific skills." I can sum up a like rebuttal by saying "I don't trust evolutionists scientific skills"

__________________
"Just 1 presidency Per Household PLZ!"

"Hold on ma'am, the abortion is almost complete. I just have to count and make sure I got all the finger's and toes out of there."

RAPE is not a good reason to MURDER an innocent being.

Science has nothing to do with faith. Religion does. Science is purely common sense. You see evidence after evidence brought up to support a theory, in this case the theory of evolution, and due to innumberable studies and whatnot you come to the conclusion that, eventhough it's never gonna be 100% certain, it's certain enough to lend it the credibility it deserves.

You clearly disagree with the theory of evolution, and since this whole thread is about the theory of evolution and creationism, then the assumption that you are a proponent of creationism was only a logic conclusion.

The evidence lies not only in the studies of thousands of fossils but also DNA of present and past animals on this planet and more. I don't know what you want to tell me with Lucy and your monkey men. Monkeys alive nowadays evolved from animals from our past, just as humans evolved from animals of our past. You are looking at two different paths evolution has taken when comparing monkeys we see today with humans.

__________________

You talked about making a scientific theory. Studying a single person in order to develop a new scientific theory in the field of sociology is nearly for sure completely insufficient. I already mentioned that the extraction of facts has to do a lot with statistics and probability. Its getting a bit hard to do that with only one test person. Thats the sort of "study" edutainment shows on television like to make to come with some random conclusion which is totally fine, but it has nothing to do with science.

To do serious scientific work, you have to do double or triple blind field studies, no need to tell you that with just one test person that is impossible. In order to remain with a compact reply I dont go down further, but there are lots of other aspects and fundamental reasons why your attempt has little to do with scientific work and therefore hardly can lead to a sufficiently supported scientific theory.

We all know we could argue until we are blue in the face, and we still will disagree.

But just this one thought always occurs to me.
Is discrediting Creationism a necessary step for the future of Evolution?

I mean, Evolution is such a well known fact now, it can't be threatened a bit by Creationism now, Right? All the scientists who mean anything believe Evolution, just a few loose nuts who believe Creationism. Right?

__________________
"Just 1 presidency Per Household PLZ!"

"Hold on ma'am, the abortion is almost complete. I just have to count and make sure I got all the finger's and toes out of there."

RAPE is not a good reason to MURDER an innocent being.

[quote]And yet you would still be wrong. A Scientific Theory is a set of conclusions that may or may not change overtime as we develop more understanding, however the core issue of the Theory of Evolution (evolution itself) is not a theory. Evolution has more then enough evidence to support itself and no attempt by the religious to try to demote science into the status of a religion is going to change that.

Creationism has no credibility to begin with. It is something man made up and assumed to be true to describe the world around them. There is no evidence whatsoever that the universe was created.

How many people believe in creationism vs evolution is redundant. Science unlike religion is not a popularity contest where everyone comes up with a new idea and if everybody else likes it then it's incorporated into their beliefs. Think of it like history, it doesn't matter whether or not 40% of the American population thinks Saddam had something to do with 9/11 rest assured it won't be in our history books.

__________________
Proof of media bias? A mistake by the major networks they don't want you to know about. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media...als_04-24.html

By the way, I wanted to let it go, but I just have to add lol (i still want that question answered!)

Aztek:

Again, I was never saying SCIENCE was dealing with faith, I said EVOLUTION was. I don't believe evolution to be science, as with most people who don't believe it, so when I say EVOLUTION is believed by faith I'm NOT saying the same for science.

and Slartibartfas:

You're taking my scenario wrong. I AM NOT studying the person in that scenario, I am studying the many different forms of evidence I have gathered to come to the conclusion that my wife cheated on me. You're misrepresenting my scenario.

__________________
"Just 1 presidency Per Household PLZ!"

"Hold on ma'am, the abortion is almost complete. I just have to count and make sure I got all the finger's and toes out of there."

RAPE is not a good reason to MURDER an innocent being.

As I mentioned a couple of pages back, the notion that creationists have that they have found the answer to the problem hinders critical thinking and progress of humanity. If over 40% of people in a country say they believe in creationism eventhough there's really nothing to back it up, specially compared to the scores of findings that undermine evolution, then that basically means that 40% are pretty much incapable of progressing. Creationism is a rigid idea, evolution is not.

The theory of evolution - how ironic - evolved over time and will continue to evolve because of new findings that fill the gaps you call "missing links". As I said, there is a possibility that some day the theory of evolution might be disprooven, eventhough I find that scenario to be very unlikely, but noone claims that it somehow it has reached "the final stadium". Creationists do consider creationism "the final and ultimate stadium" and thus block any further "research" off.

Btw it is beyond me how the theory of evolution is any less scientific than the theory of gravity, but I don't think there's anything you can do to possibly make that belief of yours credible to me...

__________________

Its actually quite easy.
Publish a peer reviewed study that vaporizes the very basis the evolutionary theory stands on and it will shake and if following studies reproduce your result and dig deeper it can even fall and another different theory arise out of the ashes.
As far as I know such study does not exist so far.

In regards to Creationism, I am not aware of a single peer reviewed study that supports Creationism.

That makes perhaps a detective out of you but it his pretty little to do with science and clearly nothing at all with scientific theories.

Hey, just for anyone interested in it. There is a rather interesting article from 9th April in Nature named: "Evolution: Scandal! Sex-starved and still surviving"

Thats a very interesting read in fact. It shows a theory of how Bdelloid rotifers can survive already for millions of years without having ever any sex. Really cool stuff considering that those animals have some astonishing superpowers like surviving extreme drought or radiation (it needs 1000 Gray to make them infertile). Not to forget that they can resist pathogens others can't and eat them instead of getting killed.