Quote Originally Posted by meatw4d
evolution doesn't prove that we all came from the same organism

it only proves that animals can adapt and change throughout history

evolution also cannot prove how life began

it's got just as many, if not more, holes as creationsim

/\ /\ This is exactly what the video was talking about. It's the main point, and the point that this threads opponents have been consistantly missing. More "Evolution is wrong here, here, and here, so creationism is valid"

Invalidating one theory does not validate the other, that is creating a false dilemma. Your personal, or humanity's collective knowledge, does not dictate the absolute truth. There may be explanaitons we haven't yet formed. Just because we couldn't at one time explain thunder, does not prove Thor is making it!
A large deal of the "discrediting" of evolution is based on a non-understanding of the theory.
This particular post cites "holes" by evolution not explaining abiogenesis. It's like saying the field of Neuro-Chemistry has holes because it doesn't explain the cause of lung cancer. They are different fields entirely.

But my main point here is that the premise of the video is being attacked by trying to poke holes in evolution, the very problem the video was citing.


When conducting scientific research to develope a theory, or maybe even a law, you do it as such:

Observation
Hypothesis
Data
Conclusion

Then develope a theory.


With Evolution:

Observation: Life is vast, complex, and varried.

Hypothesis: Species adapt to their environments by way of natural selection, changing over time, eventually splitting off into different species.

Data Collection: Observed natural selection, DNA similarities, fossil records, observable speciation (I can't name all because I'm not an expert in the field).

Conclusion: Based on collected data and their support for the hypothesis, natural selection does occure and create variations within species, and eventually new species.

Multiple conclusions, some of which become law, around the same field of study form the Theory of Evolution.


With Creationism:

Observation: Life is vast, complex, and varried.

Hypthesis: The complex nature of life must have been made by an intelligent designer.

Data Collection: ???

Conclusion: God did it!


The hypothesis fits, thereby we have the "theory" of intelligent design. A hypothesis is not sufficient to form a conclusion or corherent theory, there must be data collection to support it. This is why ID is not taught along side evolution, because *gasp* evolution is a real, valid scientific theory! ID is not.

Furthermore, evolution not having a complete explanation of this incredibly vast field does not invalidate the areas we do understand. Medicine has an inredibly long way to go yet, with so much we still can't explain, but that doesn't mean the polio vaccine doesn't work, seratonin isn't real, or the circulatory system is non existent.
Gandalf_The_Grey Reviewed by Gandalf_The_Grey on . The primary flaw in intelligent design This is what I've been saying all along, but I've yet to have a creationist even counter me on the issue. Creation "science" is entirely based on a false-dilema, with no actual empiracle evidence to back up these claims of an "intelligent designer". I encourage every person, creationist or otherwise, to watch this video and actually, seriously, consider the logic. This, right here, is why I get frustrated by people arguing that creationism and evolution are on equal grounds, as valid as the Rating: 5