Talk:Fairness demands evolution and creation be given equal time (Talk.Origins)

Elaborate
Isn't that what evolutionists claim evolution does? Fit all the evidence? And isn't that one reason they give for it being scientific? PrometheusX303 18:51, 8 May 2006 (GMT)


 * No. They claim that it does fit all the evidence, not that it necessarily can.  And occasionally they do claim that there are certain things that would invalidate it (but usually they are unrealistic things).  Of course, despite their claims, it does seem as if it is so flexible that it can explain anything.  Philip J. Rayment 09:35, 9 May 2006 (GMT)

What? We haven't been attacked and ridiculed yet? Coud've fooled me! PrometheusX303 19:07, 8 May 2006 (GMT)


 * Me too! Philip J. Rayment 09:35, 9 May 2006 (GMT)

So is T.O admitting that an evolutionist monopoly in the science class is unfair? PrometheusX303 19:07, 8 May 2006 (GMT)


 * That deserves a mention in the article. Philip J. Rayment 09:35, 9 May 2006 (GMT)

You say (I've cut out quite a bit, but I thinks I've retained the essential thought, if not please correct me):

"The fact that dogs breed dogs and bacteria breed bacteria . . . is evidence for creation science which says that variation is limited to biblical kinds. . . . This is one way in which observable evidence can be interpreted as being against the theory of evolution."

Two points:

1. Anything I know about the theory of evolution would predict that "dogs breed dogs and bacteria breed bacteria," so how can this be "interpreted as being against the theory of evolution"?

2. How do you define kinds. Are cats and cougars, lions and tigers the same kind? Are dogs, wolves and coyotes the same kind? Are chimps, bonobos and humans the same kind?

--Drlindberg 17:46, 6 November 2006 (EST)

First, thank you for asking questions in a more appropriate tone. Second, the point of this response wasn't exactly to 'refute' evolution but to demonstrate that creationism should get a fair hearing. As for the quote, he was merely supporting his primary point:

"The claim that creationism has no science to teach is incorrect and slanderous" Further on, which is something that you left out he stated:

"Evolution has to rely on the unobserved and unobservable past to say that one sort of living organism changed into another (something that has never been observed), indicating that variation is unlimited (or much less limited). Because such a grand-scale phenomenon is unobservable, it is less scientific. This is one way in which observable evidence can be interpreted as being against the theory of evolution."

The theory of evolution, if defined as a change is rather uncontroversial and isn't subject to debate. What creationists are doing is working with what is observable.

The Created kinds is right here on CreationWiki. Be sue to check the sources as well for a more in-depth explanation. Creationists are researching on this in a Baraminology Study Group.--Gil 00:11, 27 January 2007 (EST)