[Flipside]

hehehehe Possibly they just wanted to join in on the side of the Creationists, I don't have a problem with that, and they haven't said anything inflammatory.

[jpheu]

If your going to claim evedentary evidence for proof you must follow evedentary rules.  Number one being it isn't true until evidence prooves it to be true.  Number two is if the evidence can be explained in a different plausable way then the proof is not there. Thus we are left with two fully plausable answers to the proof and then we make a decision by faith.

[Flipside]

Indeed, but the evidence for creationism has neither been revised nor reviewed to 2000 years, and aspects of it have already been disproved.

Evolution is constantly revised and enhanced as our knowledge grows, if we are wrong, then we accept thoes mistakes and move on with new knowledge. Personally, I'm for looking forward to the future for my answers, not dredging up the litany of the past.

[jpheu]

Originally posted by Zarax
There's something strange going on here...
I smell trolls incoming.
Look at the posters and number of posts...
Some of them are joining here just to get into this discussion.
It would be better if the admins takes a look at this.

Admin won't have a problem with it.  The more that join and post the more advertising dollar they can charge.

[jpheu]

Flipside,
Can you share how creationism has been disproved?

[Flipside]

The main one that springs to mind is dolphins and whales which have to come up to breath. It strongly suggests that, at least for a time, these animals did not dwell in their current medium. I can't see God giving a 40m long aquatic mammal the ability to drown as some kind of a joke, so evidence suggests these things had lungs for a reason.

[übermetroid]

I was thinking about evolution the other day....  I really wish we never out grew our tails...  

[Flipside]

Theres still a little stumpy bit left, as nature reminds you every time you sit on a wooden chair too hard

[übermetroid]

yea, but it is a little hard to hang from trees or to whip people with just a stub.  

[Flipside]

You obviously have a far more enjoyable private life than I do

[Janos]

Originally posted by jpheu
Janos,
"We do see animals in transitional phases, but it's not that simple as you think. Sugargliders and flying squirrels and most notably the fishes that live partially on dry land."

How are those transitional?  Flying Squirrels, for example, have some aspects of squirrel and others of other creatures, but why assume they are transitional?  They haven't transitioned in known history and they should if your going to hold to a slow evolution.  You have the same precocieved notions as the scientist.

Argh.

"Transitional" means "evolving into something different". Flying squirrels and stuff are maybe becoming airborne as in bats. Their ancestors were not gliding, so yes, they have changed their form - EVOLVED - in history. Transitional change is not something which happens over several decades.
And of course what do YOU mean as transitional? Some kind of weird half-flying abomination? You should maybe elaborate your points rather than beg for question. Also, you seem to have little understandment of evolutionary process while you stubbornly - and sometimes biologically falsely - try to attack said theory (notorious "rats for bats", for example).

And of course I have the same attitude as scientists. Evolution is a theory, it has been proved, it's as close to fact as one can get and using Occam's Razor we can nicely leave any metaphysical beings and ID crap out of equation.

[Janos]

Originally posted by jpheu
Flipside,
Can you share how creationism has been disproved?

It hasn't been proved at all, you know. You could just look at the entire talk.origins archive for proof of evolution, on the other hand. You can't hold unproven myths as a viable substitute for scientifically proved theories.

[jpheu]

Flip,
Yes, evidence might suggest it but it dosn't disprove.  Let me give you an example of a disprove.  The sun shrinks it has been at a constant rate ever since we knew it and could measure it.  If the earth is billions of years old, or even millions, adding back the suns mass it looses  per year the Earth and even Jupiter would have been within the sun.  It's hard for dinosaurs to live walking on a 3,000 degree rock.

Uber,
I could use a tail, or better yet a trunk. It would be better to be able to grab things with it.

[vyper]

Oh for the love of....

[Flipside]

Yes, but it's also been proved that a star goes through periods of growth as well. Remember 'since we have been measuring' is a phenominally small expanse of the suns life, you are taking measurements in creationist timescales and applying them at evolutionary timescales, if you see what I mean?

It depends on the particular materials the Sun is fusing at the time, in it's Early and Later life, it burns a lot hotter, and thus expands, at the moment it is at 'Yellow Dwarf' phase, which is a quiescent burning period billions of years long.

[jpheu]

Janos,
Flip said that Creationism has been disproved I just asked for a when and where.

Secondly, the term "transitional"  implies evolution.  If your going to hold to a evedentary evidence you must first say it isn't true instead of assuming it is.
I only used rats to bats because it was brought up earlier.  You can do the same with any jump from species to different species.
I know plenty about evolution.  It isn't that hard.  Like you said ocam's razor. Both theories are pretty simple.  
P.s. Ocam was a monk.

[Flipside]

I actually would be interested to find out what the outcome would be if both Evolution and Creationism were put through the same test, with the same rules, both required to provide 'proof' of their claims.

[Janos]

Originally posted by jpheu
Janos,
Flip said that Creationism has been disproved I just asked for a when and where.

Secondly, the term "transitional"  implies evolution.  If your going to hold to a evedentary evidence you must first say it isn't true instead of assuming it is.

[/b]
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Are you high?

I only used rats to bats because it was brought up earlier.  You can do the same with any jump from species to different species.
I know plenty about evolution.  It isn't that hard.  Like you said ocam's razor. Both theories are pretty simple.  
P.s. Ocam was a monk. [/B]

But you still ignored the fact that rats are rodents. They are not closely related to bat, which are insectivores, like shrew and hedgehogs.

[jpheu]

Flip,
You have made a couple of leaps in your statements.  First, what we know about stars is very new and still the theory stage (of course that is what it will always be)  Second, you sliped when you said "...particular materials the Sun is fusing at the time."  The sun dosn't change the material it is fusing.  Third, you just stated that "...at the moment it is at 'Yellow Dwarf' phase, which is a quiescent burning period billions of years long." Which supports that the sun has remained at a constant rate of shrinking.

I was using that as an example of a disproof.  It does have it's flaws.  The main one being assuming a constant rate of decay.  But, ultimately we are left with no proof for either creation or evolution and then our left to a choice of belief.  We can choose to believe evolution or creation.

[Black Wolf]

It's impossible to disprove creationism, because science is in the business of evidence and proof, not disproof. Science has stacked up thousands of little pieces of information that support evolution and an old earth, from many  different sources, and practically none that support a 6 day creation 6000 years ago. Thus, evolution is incredibly more likely, so much more likely that it has, to all intents and purposes, been proven (though in pure scientific terms, nothing is ever proven). If, therefore, we accept that evolution and old earth theories have been proven, then by default young earth Creationism has been displaced and disproven.