...Continued

There is overwhelmingly strong evidence that supports evolution – more than you or I even know about because we haven't studied it.

<<I never attempted to ‘mock’ evolution...>>

Then why do you treat it with such contempt?

<<You tried to summarise what I said about historical investigations, again comparing evolution to gravity...>>

You've made yourself perfectly clear. But all this does is show your misconceptions about what exactly evolution is, and your ignorance to what we've observed.

So, my point there still stands.

<<As distinct from things that we can test and observe occurring in the present (e.g. Gravity)...>>

...and microevolution, and speciation...

<<...we cannot test an explanation for what happened in the past (evolution).>>

But evolution is still happening, and many elements of it are testable. I think you need to re-read my response to you.

<<We don’t see evolution happening in the present...>>

Yes, we do. See above.

<<...and don’t have any good reason to presume it happened in the distant past (given we have no preference for a materialistic or atheistic type explanation).>>

Then how do you explain all the evidence? Again, there is far more evidence than you and I are aware of, or even know about. It would take us years to study it all.

If you are going to claim that the evidence for evolution (and an old Earth for that matter) are just based on one particular way of interpreting the data, then the onus is on you to demonstrate why by suggesting another way of interpreting it that makes sense. But you can't because the majority of the evidence is irrefutable; hence why http://www.creationontheweb.com is so relatively brief. They really have nothing at all. You can disprove them completely using Google!

If you are going to continue this ludicrous point about interpretations, then explain to me why the points made at the following two links are wrong...

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA230.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA230_1.html

...they're a lot better than the deceitful trickery of quote mining, aren't they?

Here's a challenge...

Try responding to me without using any of the tactical trickery so frequently used by Creationists.

AJ,
“I clearly proved my point.” “So, my point still stands.” You’ve been talking about ‘your point’ for a while now, but I honestly don’t know what your point is. If it’s creationists differ in their views from evolutionists, I agree. If it’s creationists are being illogical in differing from evolutionists, I disagree. Unless you can state ‘your point’ properly, I won’t have any chance of agreeing or otherwise.

Regarding the evidence, mostly it is “not disputed by anyone – not even Creationists.” True, most evidence is not disputed, only their implications and interpretations. Creationists don’t dispute the gaps in the fossil record that Davidf recently reminded us of. They just suggest that such gaps may go beyond the usual evolutionist rationalisations, and point to real distinctions between different types of living things.

What are the observations (the evidence)? As Davidf said, we do see species disappearing (extinctions). We see speciation (adaptation, which I agreed was evident many posts ago). Certain changes are evident. What is not evident is the type of (upward, even minimal) changes that may eventually allow protozoa to become a pelican, or a fish to become a philosopher.

From information theory, we observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information. In the changes evident with adaptation, we don’t see the types of additions required within the coding of the genome to develop new structures.

But guys, I’ve already spoken about these things above (30th December) and I fear we’re about to go around the block again.

As for your latest challenge, those links simply talk about the nature of evidence and interpretation. We’ve been discussing these for a while, and there’s nothing new there. This link gives a good overview of that kind of stuff:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830

Davidf is placing much confidence in the accuracy of radioactive dating methods. These are internally inconsistent and depend on various assumptions. The only sure way (logically) to measure elapsed time is to do so while time is elapsing. Not to discourage enquiry, I say this just to point out that unverifiable parameters (preconceptions) are being assumed.

AJ,
I agree that in repeating ourselves the discussion becomes pointless.

Your complaint about debate trickery is unfounded. If you were playing chess, and you had trouble dealing with a knight fork on c7, or you’ve lost your queen to a discovered attack on the d-file, to accuse your opponent of tricky tactics is giving him a compliment.

I don’t see what is wrong with quoting people if what they say helps throw light on the situation.

The timing of what the prof said pre-WWII was significant, for it demonstrates how society was keen to believe in something other than special creation decades before the mountains of evidence (that you speak about) appeared. It is curious that evolution is even less firmly believed now, after decades of compiling evidence, than in 1929 when the prof said it (or at least in the 1950s when hardly anyone questioned evolution).

Why do I treat evolution with such contempt? I’m glad you ask.

A frog turning into a prince by a princess’ kiss is stuff of fairly tales. But then I’m expected to swallow the story that an amphibian turned into a mammal, many eons ago, by a process that no one has ever seen or can demonstrate or even properly explain, simply because a majority of people believe it, while I’m continually reminded of the story’s ‘factual’ nature.

Though it’s an adult’s fairy tale, it’s not harmless. Davidf recently pointed out certain sentiment within European Christianity that contributed to the Jewish holocaust during WWII. Such animosity toward the Jewish race ought to have no place within the church. Likewise, we see the dangers of other mischievous philosophies. We can’t deny the influence of evolutionary theory on Hitler’s Germany, and their belief in the Aryan (more highly evolved) race, or eugenics that became active in several countries around that time. Overall, evolution is used in rationally justifying atheism and as well as other anti-Christian philosophies and practices.

Out of curiosity, I could return the question. What’s your beef with special creation?

Dan,

<<You’ve been talking about ‘your point’ for a while now, but I honestly don’t know what your point is.>>

Stop playing dumb.

It was claimed earlier that “Dawkinites” were just as “fundamentalist” about their beliefs as Creationists are. I said they weren't; you refuted it and didn't get anywhere.

<<If it’s creationists are being illogical in differing from evolutionists, I disagree.>>

Why? They have no evidence for their beliefs. They can't even find a way of interpreting the evidence to fit their beliefs.

<<What are the observations (the evidence)?>>

I've already explained that. When a speciation can occur to the point where two different groups of the one species can no longer reproduce together (and yes, we've observed that) there is nothing to say that they can't continue to change.

If you don't deny adaptation and speciation, then the onus is on you to explain what exactly occurs to stop species evolving to the point where they become two totally different species.

<<From information theory, we observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information...>>

Another Creationist misconception: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html

<<But guys, I’ve already spoken about these things above...>>

And what you said just showed a lack of understanding and knowledge of many things. That's why the others gave up – not because you actually had a point.

<<...those links simply talk about the nature of evidence and interpretation ... there’s nothing new there>>

Yes, but they put it into context; making your points about interpretation almost meaningless.

As for the link you provided, it contains more quote mining (you didn't even look at the link I provided before about that, did you?); not to mention the assumption that the old book of Genesis is actually accurate. They're forgetting that people of ancient times simply used a God to explain what they could explain. How do they know that Genesis is the right mythology?

<<These are internally inconsistent and depend on various assumptions...>>

Another Creationist half-truth and misconception: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CD

Continued...

...Continued

<<Your complaint about debate trickery is unfounded...>>

Wrong!

I've already mentioned quote mining. Although you're posts are mostly filled with strawman arguments.

Here's a good list of Creationist trickery (many of which you have used): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXMKPvWqgYk

<<I don’t see what is wrong with quoting people if what they say helps throw light on the situation.>>

The problem is that the quotes rarely “throw light” on the situation. Here's the link for you again: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/

<<...decades before the mountains of evidence (that you speak about) appeared.>>

The evidence didn't “appear”, it was always there; Yet none of it supports Creationism! Funny that.

<<It is curious that evolution is even less firmly believed now, after decades of compiling evidence>>

This is one of my favourite Creationist fallacies. It's mentioned in the YouTube link I provided, but here's a lot more on it:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/

<<Why do I treat evolution with such contempt? ...>>

Yes, you've made that clear. But it is nothing more than a strawman argument – another Creationist tactic.

<<Though it’s an adult’s fairy tale, it’s not harmless...>>

Another Creationist fallacy:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA001.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA001_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA002.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA002_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA002_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005_3.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA008.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA009.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA010.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA012.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA040.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA041.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA041_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA042.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA045.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH010.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH010_1.html

<<What’s your beef with special creation?>>

Well, There's no evidence for any of it; It's nothing more than 'studied ignorance'. I also find it deeply saddening that there are those out there who actually still take the bible literally after all we now know about the origins of both life and the Bible. But I'd have to say that the deceitfulness of the arguments of Creationists is what upsets me the most.

Anyway, I asked before that you try to post without using any tactical trickery, and you've failed miserably. Your last response was probably the most fallacy-filled response of yours yet.

Try again.

Dan,

Yet another example of my point (that you're pretending not to have yet undertood in order to create a sense of confusion – that other method of Creationist trickery) is Kurt Wise (I'm sure you know about him).

Kurt Wise knows there's enough evidence to prove that the world is billions of years old, yet he rejects all of it because of his fundamentalist, literal interpretation of the Bible – and for no other reason.

Consider this statement from Answersingenesis.com: “No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.” (http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith)

...Enough said.

Another point I'd like to make, is that your 'interpretation' argument is absurd when you apply the 'Court of Law' analogy to it that you were using earlier in this thread.

Considering how much evidence there is for evolution (much of it irrefutable), your point about interpretation is as silly as a guilty criminal filing for an appeal on the grounds that the evidence against him was flawed, because it was simply the interpretation of the police who investigated the crime (to which there were no witnesses).

Going by your logic, we should also disregard crimes in which there were no witnesses to, simply because the evidence relies on the interpretation of those who investigate it. This kind of logic this would be as dangerous to society as it would be to the study of biology, since everything we know about biology intertwines with evolution perfectly. To deny evolution would slow the progress of the discoveries of biological science.

If you want to continue this absurd justification for you beliefs, then please address some of the points made in the link I provided earlier (that you obviously didn't check) that points out the absurdity of creation science: http://au.youtube.com/results?search_query=Why+do+people+laugh+at+creationists&search_type=&search=Search

And remember... No Creationist trickery or fallacies...

On another point, I've been giving some thought to the compatibility of religion and evolution, and have come-up with another theory that the fundamentalists have failed to think of with all their literal interpretation of the Bible:

Continued...