Evolution and Creationism both have equal value and scientific evidence to support them.

[tumbleweed41]

Example of one previously given to explain my 50:50 position, evolution and creationism cancel each other out, both have equal value and scientific evidence to support them.

I have left out the posters name to avoid "calling out" another member.
But I would like to know if anyone who agrees with this statement would care to provide the scientific "Creationist" evidence that is equal to the evidence supporting the ToE.

Anyone?

[Seyorni]

Creationism isn't science at all, it's magic. What's more, it says nothing about the mechanisms of change, (if it aknowledges change at all). It's mostly just an assertion of agency.
Evolution, on the other hand, says nothing about an agent and merely deals with the mechanisms of change.

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Well that statement is obviously ridiculous and really isn't even worth taking seriously.

Science attempts to explain the facts with theory. Or, in other words, a conclusion is reached only AFTER the data is interpreted, and the conclusion itself is always left open to further scrutiny through falsifiability. Scientific method has left evolution as the most likely theory to fit the wide array of data across many different scientific disciplines, and though it is falsifiable in many different ways, has yet to be falsified despite millions and millions of manhours of research attempting to do just that.

Creationism works in reverse of science, attempting to explain a theory with the facts. Creationism begins with a conclusion and tries to figure out how to arrange the facts to fit it. Since the facts don't fit, many must be omitted or altered. It doesn't matter anyway because the conclusion is foregone.

Creationism is anti-science.

[Wotan]

There is no such evidence. There IS an interperation of scientific evidence that sees evidence of intelligent design and from that interperation the fact of a designer is deduced.

[Jose Fly]

Originally Posted by Wotan

There is no such evidence. There IS an interperation of scientific evidence that sees evidence of intelligent design and from that interperation the fact of a designer is deduced.

And there IS an interpretation of scientific evidence that sees evidence of a geocentric solar system and from that the fact of a heliocentric universe is deduced.

But then, not all interpretations are equally valid, are they?

[Wotan]

"But then, not all interpretations are equally valid, are they?"

Not at all. As any reader of Pop Science can attest. Or Haldane's remark, "We have been so damn sure of so many things that were just not so."

So we depend on the quantity and quality of evidence. And are always ready to abandon prior views when they can be shown to be fallacious.

And THAT is the real difference. Creation science (an oxymoron as others have noted) CS assumes what it wants to prove is true. It casts about for evidence that will support its assumptions. It ignores contradictory evidence or "interpreters" it light of its prior assumptions. What it can never do is admit to error.

As proclaimed at the AIG website.

Real science invites error and grows from confronting it.

[Draka]

Whoever said that is ridiculous...that statement is ridiculous. There is no such thing as scientific evidence for creationism. Anyone who really thinks there is has been so deluded and is beyond using reason and thought that they wouldn't be able to tell that a baseball bat is a hard object even if you hit them upside the head with it. Not that it would do any damage...except to maybe the bat.

[Man of Faith]

This has been explained countless times, but I have 5 minutes so I will try again. There isn't two sets of scientific evidence, one for evolutionists and one for creationists. There is only one set of scientific evidences, which is data, and both the evolutionists and creationists examine the same data and come to different conclusions based of their worldviews, meaning their starting points. Evolutionst's starting point is evolution, creationists starting point is creation.

Let my give an example of how the same data can be used for both sides. Look in the mirror and you will see a living being sometimes called a human, which can be broken down into scientific data but as a whole there you in the mirror. With the starting point that Darwinism is true a person could say that they are an ape came about by natural processes. I don't do that I start with creation as my starting point so I see a special being created in God's image.

[tumbleweed41]

Originally Posted by Man of Faith

This has been explained countless times, but I have 5 minutes so I will try again. There isn't two sets of scientific evidence, one for evolutionists and one for creationists. There is only one set of scientific evidences, which is data, and both the evolutionists and creationists examine the same data and come to different conclusions based of their worldviews, meaning their starting points. Evolutionst's starting point is evolution, creationists starting point is creation.

Let my give an example of how the same data can be used for both sides. Look in the mirror and you will see a living being sometimes called a human, which can be broken down into scientific data but as a whole there you in the mirror. With the starting point that Darwinism is true a person could say that they are an ape came about by natural processes. I don't do that I start with creation as my starting point so I see a special being created in God's image.

Sorry, the only "worldview" used by science is based on natural laws.
When Creationist insert supernatural into science, it no longer remains science, but is instead converted to a pseudoscience based on preconceived Biblical and supernatural means instead of natural laws.

One of the main differences being, biology does not start with a "Darwinistic" world view, it starts with the scientific method that continually and repeatedly confirms the Theory of Evolution.
Creationism, on the other hand, starts with the premise of supernatural creation, and ignores standard scientific method in favor of cherry picking data that, instead of confirming Creationism, attempts to cast doubt on the ToE.

Creationist, like ManOfFaith, imagine a "Darwinistic" world view in science only because that is how they themselves corrupt science, by taking a preconceived notion and attempting to fit the data around it.

[Mr Cheese]

science does not deal with truth though..it just deals with models of the truth
people in these kind of discussions tend to forget that

however, this does not make creationism any more valid