Evolution v Creationism

[Don Corleone]

The thing is, we are clearly different from other species. I'm not saying this means we could not have evolved, but I think the differences are just too extreme to reconcile with evolution. Although on the other hand the scientific evidence apparently points otherwise.

But at the same time, we do things that animals do not. For example, we show restraint. It does not matter what % of our DNA they share, from gorillas to dogs to salmon they all act 100% on their desires/instincts. Gorillas jump about shreiking when they feel like it, animals mate when they feel like it, you get those birds that stuff their faces with maggots until they are too fat to fly and just die. But people are different, we act on much more than instinct. Of course its all a matter of degree. But then, how do you explain restraint in the evolutionary model? Human society is the polar opposite of the natural, wild life, and yet we are the only species which practice it. And this is not a matter of degree, you either live in such a society or you do not. Of course, some animals have their herds and whatnot, but even then they live purely base, instinctual lives. Us humans have always been doing the opposite, we are always coming up with ideologies which fight against this sort of existence. It doesn't have to be religious either, look at stoicism for example.

This is one thing which appears to seperate us from the animals, just as much from our 'close relatives' as much as any other creature.

Actually, I'd argue in many ways, primates and ceteceans show a remarkable amount of restraint and other "human" characteristics. I'm not that well versed on the latest in developmental intelligence studies, but I do know that toothed whales in particular have shown remarkable reasoning powers and human-like emotional responses. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn that their intelligence is on par with ours, just that they don't have the same social constructs that we do (now that really is a hypothesis, I don't believer there's any hard data indicating toothed whales have human-level intelligence.... YET).

[Kadagar_AV]

Wait a second...

The very BASIS of this discussion is utterly stupid. There IS no "evolution vs creationism".

One is a scientific theory, the other is a belief based on faith.

Just by bringing this UP, by responding to it as if creationism in any way had scientific claims means it's a lost battle.

Intellectual people must never try to meet creationism on an equal footing, as there is no equal footing.

This discussion might aswell be: "The stars, are they made of teapots?"

Why even respond?


Rhyfelwyr, just take a biology class, or so some related searches. The facts are all out there.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Kadagar:

Were you trying to assert that the argument is insoluble as the two points of view are predicated on entirely different systems for establishing the criteria to assess argumentation, or were you seeking to dismiss one of those belief systems as "stupid?"

Be careful sir, how you answer. The former is a legitmate concern relevant to argumentation in general. The latter would be offensive and might be construed as a personal attack.

[Ronin]

One is a scientific theory, the other is a belief based on faith.

If you say this 3 times in front of your bathroom mirror I´m pretty sure you can summon Navarros

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well I have self-authenticating knowledge that God, specifically the Christian God exists. Nobody has to believe that, to you it can be just as silly as believing there is an elf on your shoulder, but you can never disprove such claims.

So that is the framework from which I view things. I don't take that view just because I think God exists, but because I know. Debating whether or not that is possible is something else entirely.

Actually, I'd argue in many ways, primates and ceteceans show a remarkable amount of restraint and other "human" characteristics. I'm not that well versed on the latest in developmental intelligence studies, but I do know that toothed whales in particular have shown remarkable reasoning powers and human-like emotional responses. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn that their intelligence is on par with ours, just that they don't have the same social constructs that we do (now that really is a hypothesis, I don't believer there's any hard data indicating toothed whales have human-level intelligence.... YET).

That's interesting, but intelligence is not something that can seperate us from other species, since they all have it to some degree. But do these whales actually show human characterstics such as a rejection of the 'natural' way of life? Humans are the only creatures which I think actually show disdain for the natural world, and seperate themselves from it in search of the spiritual, as if we were not made for this world.

[CBR]

Why is social restraint not partly instinct too? Any herd animal would be split between its individual needs and the needs of the group and therefore not much different than humans. Chimps can figure out to live in a small tribe and yet hunt and kill chimps from other tribes. It's hardly that different from hunter-gatherers in say New Guinea.

Monkeys jumping up and shrieking is part of their communication. It looks silly to you perhaps but works for them.

I have yet to see any birds stuffing themselves the way you describe. I would have expected to see many dead birds in the garden if that was normal behavior. With the increasing levels of obesity in the world one could question just how good we are at restraining ourselves when it comes to tasty foods.


CBR

[Rhyfelwyr]

Us folk take the restraint thing way beyond any sort of use for resource management, to the point that it becomes plain unhealthy.

Also I agree people can become consumed in this world and become like animals but almost all our major belief systems have been about rising above that.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I have yet to see any birds stuffing themselves the way you describe. I would have expected to see many dead birds in the garden if that was normal behavior. With the increasing levels of obesity in the world one could question just how good we are at restraining ourselves when it comes to tasty foods.


CBR

Seems like any birds prone to that activity would have died out long ago. Anyway, birds have pretty fast metabolisms and burn a ton of energy. They eat throughout the day I believe.

We seek out tasty foods because they are fattening and fatter used to equal more likely to survive. Current abundance of food and sedentary lifestyle results in mass obesity. One wonders if it will correct itself eventually?

This is a side note, I lost track of what you were talking about with that other guy.

[Reenk Roink]

I'd really love to hear what demarcates evolution from creationism so you can say that one is a science and the other isn't.

To Rhyfelwyr, if you want to learn about evolution in a detailed way, first take a general biology class and then pick up a copy of Futuyama's Evolution. Though you might want to take a class on evolution that uses that book (hard to get through). Will tell you all you need to know about principles and mechanics in general (unless you want to know the specifics of a certain organism's evolution).

[Rhyfelwyr]

There is just too much stuff in this world to learn about... history, philosophy, theology, biology, anthropology, politics... ugh. I'm starting to wonder how anyone can ever give a meaningful opinion on anything except their specialised subject.

The thing is they all tie together in a person's worldview so its hard to focus on one and know you might be missing something important in the other.

Like I used to say to my classmates when they talked about political stuff at school - "do you have a degree in economics?, and if not then maybe you should stop giving opinions and accept that other people know better". I would make a really inspiring teacher wouldn't I?

[Kadagar_AV]

Seamus Fermanagh, I claimed the topic was stupid, not the OP. You can never compare science and belief, and by doing so you fool lesser intellects into believing there is actually a serious debate about it, where there are none.



Rhyfelwyr, you know god exists, fair enough. Some people are equally sure aliens exist, or ghosts, or dragons or...

That is why we have science, science is not about what you believe, or even KNOW. Science is about what you can prove, and have others repeat the same experiments and come to the same conclusion based on the facts at hand.

So, you know God exists? Good for you! However, if you want to bring your own personal belief, or knowledge as you think of it, into a scientific discussion, you will have to accept to take the discussion on scientifical terms. IE, what you know is 100% worthless to others unless you can prove it (again, from a scientific perspective).

Well I have self-authenticating knowledge that God, specifically the Christian God exists. Nobody has to believe that, to you it can be just as silly as believing there is an elf on your shoulder, but you can never disprove such claims.

SCIENCE has no interest in disproving God. It is followers of religion who have to scientificly prove gods existance, if they want to bring him into scientifical matters. Or, in this example, scientificly prove there was a creator. Untill you can do that, there is no debate creationism vs evolution, as you bring a football to a hockey game.



Reenk Roink,

I'd really love to hear what demarcates evolution from creationism so you can say that one is a science and the other isn't.

Creationism is ATTACKING a theory, evolution IS a theory. Creationism in itself has no theoretical value if you substract a creator, and as that is not scientifical proven, creationism can't be called a theory.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That is why we have science, science is not about what you believe, or even KNOW. Science is about what you can prove,

Prove that the world around you exists and is not an illusion please.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm not trying to prove creationism I'm just asking how strong the evidence for evolution is. In my head at least, its creationism v evolution, since creatonism is what I believe from a basic reading of the Bible, but I could think again if the evidence against it was overwhelming.

[Jolt]

Evolution? Creationism? Nonsense! It is obvious that human beings descended from the British islands, which proves the superiority of their race!

[rasoforos]

There must have been like 50 of these posts the past 7 years...if not more.

So I ll sit this one out because the dread of deja-vu is overwhelming.

P.S I have prehensile toes...

[Kadagar_AV]

Prove that the world around you exists and is not an illusion please.

Impossible as that leaves to few factors to work with.



Rhyfelwyr,

I'm not trying to prove creationism I'm just asking how strong the evidence for evolution is. In my head at least, its creationism v evolution, since creatonism is what I believe from a basic reading of the Bible, but I could think again if the evidence against it was overwhelming.

The evidence for evolution is strong enough for it to be seen as the only plausible theory.

However, why ask this question on a forum dedicated to a game? Sure there is where you get the best answer?

BBC and others have had some great programs lately, just watch them, judge for yourself.

[Rhyfelwyr]

However, why ask this question on a forum dedicated to a game? Sure there is where you get the best answer?

This place is generally pretty good for getting level-headed responses. If I posted it on the Christian sites I use I would get very unreliable stuff, if I posted on the TWC or somewhere I would just get flamed.

I'm trying to find that Darwin series from the BBC on google video...

[Reenk Roink]

Creationism is ATTACKING a theory, evolution IS a theory. Creationism in itself has no theoretical value if you substract a creator, and as that is not scientifical proven, creationism can't be called a theory.

Creationism makes many claims. If it came about as an attack on a theory then so be it, but it makes plenty of claims about the world.

Creationism depends on the metaphysical basis of a creator yes, but evolution depends on its own metaphysical assumptions These don't change the fact that both make positive claims.

[Kadagar_AV]

Creationism makes many claims. If it came about as an attack on a theory then so be it, but it makes plenty of claims about the world.

Creationism depends on the metaphysical basis of a creator yes, but evolution depends on its own metaphysical assumptions These don't change the fact that both make positive claims.

No, see, there is where you are wrong.

creationism, as you say, is dependant on a X-factor. If you remove the creator from creationism, nothing is left. And again, as this creator is not proven to exist creationism fails from a scientific viewpoint.

Evolution on the other hand is NOT based on a X-factor. A deeply believing christian can himself repeat all the experiments, one evidence leading to another.

That is science strenght, the same results WILL show no matter if it is a christian, atheist, buddhist, daoist, muslim or whatever who repeats the experiments.



As an example, my personal belief or knowledge tells me mind reading exists, as I have witnessed things in my life that lead me, personally, to this conclusion. I can try to convince you too. However, I would NEVER say it's scientificly proven that mind reading exists just because I think/know so, as I can't have you repeat the same things I have been through.

It does not mean I am unsure about mind reading, it just means I can not prove it scientificly.

In my example, I believe science one day will reach the same conclusion I did, that mind reading to in fact exist.

And if YOU are sure God exists, then why oppose science? IF God exists, i am sure science will come to that conclusion sooner or later. As it seems today though, there is no evidence of a God, or a creator.

Did this make it more clear?

[Kadagar_AV]

This place is generally pretty good for getting level-headed responses. If I posted it on the Christian sites I use I would get very unreliable stuff, if I posted on the TWC or somewhere I would just get flamed.

I'm trying to find that Darwin series from the BBC on google video...

Problem here is, none of us (I believe) is qualified to explain this to you.

This means that a failure to make you believe in evolution is due to OUR inability to explain the theory correctly, not because of the theory itself.

Get my point?

[Hax]

So, don't tell me religious people never change their views, I will see what the Darwinist side has to offer, and I will consider if theistic evolution is possible (won't be becoming atheist though, sorry guys ).

Theistic evolution is possible. My father is a devout Muslim and is a biologist who accepts the theory of evolution.

/getsoutofthread

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Evolution on the other hand is NOT based on a X-factor. A deeply believing christian can himself repeat all the experiments, one evidence leading to another.

Impossible as that leaves to few factors to work with.

[Lemur]

In fairness, biological evolution is a testable, disprovable theory. After over a hundred years of challenges and tests, it's still standing. All of modern biology is based on it. Reject evolution, and you might want to reject its products, such as antibiotics and most forms of modern medicine.

Creationism, on the other hand, is based on faith, and thus untestable. You cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not the Creator made the world ten thousand years ago.

So yeah, although Kadgar has been a little ... forceful ... in his arguments, the man has a point. You cannot hold a legitimate debate between creationism and evolution, since they operate in entirely different spheres. It's like saying let's have a debate between physics and oil painting, or a footrace between thermodynamics and communion. Although evolution and creationism address the same issue ("Where did all of this stuff come from?") they are playing by entirely different rules.

[Jolt]

Creationism makes many claims. If it came about as an attack on a theory then so be it, but it makes plenty of claims about the world.

Creationism depends on the metaphysical basis of a creator yes, but evolution depends on its own metaphysical assumptions These don't change the fact that both make positive claims.

What about Viking Creationism? I'm sure they have some good claims too.

[Reenk Roink]

No, see, there is where you are wrong.

creationism, as you say, is dependant on a X-factor. If you remove the creator from creationism, nothing is left. And again, as this creator is not proven to exist creationism fails from a scientific viewpoint.

Evolution on the other hand is NOT based on a X-factor. A deeply believing christian can himself repeat all the experiments, one evidence leading to another.

That is science strenght, the same results WILL show no matter if it is a christian, atheist, buddhist, daoist, muslim or whatever who repeats the experiments.

I understand what you are trying to say Kadagar, if you do remove the metaphysical assumption of a creator, then creationism has the rug pulled from underneath it.

However, the X factor of evolution is pretty clear. Remove the metaphysical assumption of naturalism, and of evolutionary theory does not matter.

In fairness, biological evolution is a testable, disprovable theory. After over a hundred years of challenges and tests, it's still standing. All of modern biology is based on it. Reject evolution, and you might want to reject its products, such as antibiotics and most forms of modern medicine.

Creationism, on the other hand, is based on faith, and thus untestable. You cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not the Creator made the world ten thousand years ago.

So yeah, although Kadgar has been a little ... forceful ... in his arguments, the man has a point. You cannot hold a legitimate debate between creationism and evolution, since they operate in entirely different spheres. It's like saying let's have a debate between physics and oil painting, or a footrace between thermodynamics and communion. Although evolution and creationism address the same issue ("Where did all of this stuff come from?") they are playing by entirely different rules.

You have given a demarcation criterion: testability (also falsifiability). Good.

But then you apply in a really weird way. You essentially want to apply testability to the metaphysical assumptions that creationism rests on, instead of its empirical claims.

Let's be perfectly clear. When we say evolutionary theory is testable and falsifiable, we say that it is so because of claims it makes such as humans and apes evolved from some common ancestor. We don't apply the testability criterion to the metaphysical assumptions it holds such as naturalism or the commitment to an existence of a mind independent world.

Creationism (here used in the young earth sense we see here in America by certain Christian groups) makes many empirical claims. Claims about the age of the earth, the existence of an global flood, the cohabitation of certain species. All of these are fully testable and falsifiable (in fact some would say that they have been tested and falsified).

Making creationism out to be something that is not in the league of evolutionary theory is incorrect. In fact, I would think it would be better for proponents of evolutionary theory to actually admit that creationism operates at a very similar theoretical level as evolutionary theory, and state that the methods at that level lend more credence to the latter.

[Lemur]

When we say evolutionary theory is testable and falsifiable, we say that it is so because of claims it makes such as humans and apes evolved from some common ancestor.

Not exactly. Evolution is a process, not a description of the world. You can test the evolutionary process with a jar full of fruit flies. It's tested every day in pharmaceutical companies. It's the law of the land. If viruses were not capable of evolving, drug companies would be in very bad shape, indeed. One antibiotic would do us for the rest of eternity.

The notion that we emerged from a common ancestor with the great apes is a logical thought once you've accepted evolutionary theory, but the theory itself is pretty neutral on the subject. If it turned out that we evolved from, say, stingrays, evolutionary theory would be fine with that. Or if we uncovered evidence that homo sapien had been around much longer than previously thought, this would do nothing to discredit the theory,

We don't apply the testability criterion to the metaphysical assumptions it holds such as naturalism or the commitment to an existence of a mind independent world.

Um, because evolutionary theory makes no "commitment to an existence of a mind independent world," whatever that happens to mean. Evolutionary theory is neutral, in much the same way that gravitational theory is neutral. Understanding any of these theories isn't predicated on any particular worldview or religious/atheist positioning. Theism and scientific theory are perfectly compatible.

Creationism (here used in the young earth sense we see here in America by certain Christian groups) makes many empirical claims. Claims about the age of the earth, the existence of an global flood, the cohabitation of certain species. All of these are fully testable and falsifiable (in fact some would say that they have been tested and falsified).

I have never, ever seen a young Earth creationist respond to evidence that contradicts the young Earth claim. At least, not in print, and certainly not in a peer-reviewed environment.

Making creationism out to be something that is not in the league of evolutionary theory is incorrect.

Disagree. Discussions with young Earth creationists inevitably lead back to a holy text and faith, ares that a scientific theory cannot and does not attempt to compete. The two are incompatible.

[Kadagar_AV]

Reenk Roink, well put but it doesn't hold up.

However, the X factor of evolution is pretty clear. Remove the metaphysical assumption of naturalism, and of evolutionary theory does not matter.

You need to elaborate on this one.

What do you mean with "remove the metaphysical assumption of naturalism?"

But then you apply in a really weird way. You essentially want to apply testability to the metaphysical assumptions that creationism rests on, instead of its empirical claims.

Well, if empirical claims was valid, you would have to convert to Buddhism, as they have more followers than the Christian religion... They can't all be wrong, can they?

So either accept that empirical evidence isn't worth anything in these questions OR agree to have a debate only based on empirical claims. Looks dark indeed for christianity either way.

Let's be perfectly clear. When we say evolutionary theory is testable and falsifiable, we say that it is so because of claims it makes such as humans and apes evolved from some common ancestor. We don't apply the testability criterion to the metaphysical assumptions it holds such as naturalism or the commitment to an existence of a mind independent world.

That wasnt perfectly clear in my book, can you explain it so a swede understands?

what is "naturalism?" last I studied naturalism was a style of writing who popped up in the 19th century, Russia had the most known writers in this genre...

Creationism (here used in the young earth sense we see here in America by certain Christian groups) makes many empirical claims. Claims about the age of the earth, the existence of an global flood, the cohabitation of certain species. All of these are fully testable and falsifiable (in fact some would say that they have been tested and falsified).

Again, empirical data is meaningless if we talk about science. You can object to that, but you can't object to it AND still want a scientific debate.

So there was a global flood? I agree, however, it's a LONG leap of faith to automaticly believe it was caused by a "God".

So the bible was right about the flood? Whopdido, stories about the great flood exists in many cultures unrelated to the bible.

Making creationism out to be something that is not in the league of evolutionary theory is incorrect.

Wrong, you already agreed that if you remove the scientificly unproved god from creationism nothing remains. Again, please do have your fath, endorse it, but dont mix it up with science.

In fact, I would think it would be better for proponents of evolutionary theory to actually admit that creationism operates at a very similar theoretical level as evolutionary theory, and state that the methods at that level lend more credence to the latter.

Would you also agree that Einstein worked at a similar theoretical level as, say, an Imam?

Or did I get you wrong?

[Reenk Roink]

Yeah, the macro evolutionary claims are extrapolations. Take micro evolutionary claims as the one that are testable. The point is that the claims it makes are testable.

You said that "you cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not the Creator made the world ten thousand years ago."

This is a critique of the metaphysical underpinnings of creationism, not of its empirical claims.

It is akin to saying "you cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not their exists an actual world outside of our sensory perception that actually corroborates to it" or that "you cannot devise an empirical test to see whether or not all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws" which underpin evolutionary theory.

Um, because evolutionary theory makes no "commitment to an existence of a mind independent world," whatever that happens to mean. Evolutionary theory is neutral, in much the same way that gravitational theory is neutral. Understanding any of these theories isn't predicated on any particular worldview or religious/atheist positioning.

Yes it does...

One must accept the metaphysical views that I have mentioned above, to accept conclusions about evolutionary theory (or gravitational theory).

I have never, ever seen a young Earth creationist respond to evidence that contradicts the young Earth claim. At least, not in print, and certainly not in a peer-reviewed environment.

Not only do (young earth) creationists engage in much polemic and respond to evolution, they actually revise their theories quite a bit. Just take a look at the creationist literature at the turn of the 20th century and compare with today. They are constantly making attempts to revise and refine their theories.

Disagree. Discussions with young Earth creationists inevitably lead back to a holy text and faith, ares that a scientific theory cannot and does not attempt to compete. The two are incompatible.

They are incompatible, sure.

But creationism makes empirical claims that are both testable and falsifiable just like evolutionary theory does.

The age of the earth is a testable and falsifiable claim. Ditto the cohabitation of certain species. Ditto the existence of a global flood. And so on...

In this vein they are exactly alike.

[Reenk Roink]

Reenk Roink, well put but it doesn't hold up.



You need to elaborate on this one.

What do you mean with "remove the metaphysical assumption of naturalism?"




Well, if empirical claims was valid, you would have to convert to Buddhism, as they have more followers than the Christian religion... They can't all be wrong, can they?

So either accept that empirical evidence isn't worth anything in these questions OR agree to have a debate only based on empirical claims. Looks dark indeed for christianity either way.




That wasnt perfectly clear in my book, can you explain it so a swede understands?

what is "naturalism?" last I studied naturalism was a style of writing who popped up in the 19th century, Russia had the most known writers in this genre...



Again, empirical data is meaningless if we talk about science. You can object to that, but you can't object to it AND still want a scientific debate.

So there was a global flood? I agree, however, it's a LONG leap of faith to automaticly believe it was caused by a "God".

So the bible was right about the flood? Whopdido, stories about the great flood exists in many cultures unrelated to the bible.



Wrong, you already agreed that if you remove the scientificly unproved god from creationism nothing remains. Again, please do have your fath, endorse it, but dont mix it up with science.




Would you also agree that Einstein worked at a similar theoretical level as, say, an Imam?

Or did I get you wrong?

Naturalism is the claim that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.

I don't really see how the rest of the post is really pertinent to the discussion (don't care about whether or not a global flood took place, other bronze age or earlier flood stories, Einstein or Imams).

My position is that there is really no way to draw a line between evolutionary theory and creationism saying one is a science and operates at this theoretical level and creationism operates in another.

I gave the many examples of testable and falsifiable claims that creationism makes to rebut the idea that testability and falsification are demarcation criteria for science.

I took issue with the way Lemur used testability by applying it to a metaphysical underpinning of creationism. He should apply it to the empirical claims that it makes.

Because when we discuss evolutionary theory, we consider it testable and falsifiable because its empirical claims are such, not its metaphysical assumptions.

[Kadagar_AV]

Naturalism is the claim that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.

No, that is only one version of what naturalism means in the intellectual society.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

nat⋅u⋅ral⋅ism   /ˈnætʃərəˌlɪzəm, ˈnætʃrə-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [nach-er-uh-liz-uhm, nach-ruh-] Show IPA
–noun 1. Literature. a. a manner or technique of treating subject matter that presents, through volume of detail, a deterministic view of human life and actions.
b. a deterministic theory of writing in which it is held that a writer should adopt an objective view toward the material written about, be free of preconceived ideas as to form and content, and represent with clinical accuracy and frankness the details of life. Compare realism (def. 4b).
c. a representation of natural appearances or natural patterns of speech, manner, etc., in a work of fiction.
d. the depiction of the physical environment, esp. landscape or the rural environment.

2. (in a work of art) treatment of forms, colors, space, etc., as they appear or might appear in nature. Compare idealism (def. 4), realism (def. 3a).
3. action arising from or based on natural instincts and desires alone.
4. Philosophy. a. the view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual.
b. the belief that all phenomena are covered by laws of science and that all teleological explanations are therefore without value.

5. Theology. a. the doctrine that all religious truth is derived from a study of natural processes and not from revelation.
b. the doctrine that natural religion is sufficient for salvation.

6. adherence or attachment to what is natural.

I don't really see how the rest of the post is really pertinent to the discussion (don't care about whether or not a global flood took place, other bronze age or earlier flood stories, Einstein or Imams).

If you do not see how it makes sence... I somehat feel forced to question your ability to comprehend.
Jury is still out on that one.

My position is that there is really no way to draw a line between evolutionary theory and creationism saying one is a science and operates at this theoretical level and creationism operates in another.

Again, that probably says more about you than the topic at hand. If you can not tell the difference between the arguments "the bible says it is so" and "scientific research says it is so"... Then I struggle to see a way to convince you.

I gave the many examples of testable and falsifiable claims that creationism makes to rebut the idea that testability and falsification are demarcation criteria for science.

Please do elaborate on this one...

I took issue with the way Lemur used testability by applying it to a metaphysical underpinning of creationism. He should apply it to the empirical claims that it makes.

Must I again explain that empirical data has nothing to do with science of this level - what so ever.

Because when we discuss evolutionary theory, we consider it testable and falsifiable because its empirical claims are such, not its metaphysical assumptions.

Are you even aware of what empirical means?

For maybe the fifth (?) time, empirical data is NOT, again: NOT worth a damn.

If we were giving in to empirical data, we would still have forests filled with trolls and goblins. We have advanced a bit since then, haven't we?

*with "we" I mean "me"*