I'm glad to see this became another creation Vs evolution debate.
/sarcasm.
Its like a coiled spring: just mention the two, or even one of them and the same old crap gets churned out over and over.
So, the purpose of this thread is to look at the difference in how creationists and scientists operate.
First off I just realised that this is one of the ideal environments for a creationist to look like they're making a good argument. There are no opportunities for scientists to present real evidence, no one has the time to make a thoroughly justified or refferenced case and the closest thing to a lab, field trip or time studying behaviour and ecosystems or fossils is posting links.
i.e. An internet forum is not a good place for science!
Creationists on the other hand can use all the normal tricks.
Lets have a look at a couple that have been used in this thread.
Argument from incredulity:
Any point that consists of "I dont see how..." "that doesnt makes sense to me" "Its inconcievable that". These are very common in the creationist repetoire and mean precisely nothing. It was inconcievable 200 years ago that the universe is 20 billion light years accross. Quantum mechanics still is inconcievable, and we wouldnt be having this discussion without it. Lots of things were or are inconcievable. Get over it.
The good old "Science is just a belief too". This is slight of hand. It seems true on shallow inspection because complete certainty is impossible in anything, so faith must be the basis for all thought and action. Its a semantics game to distract you from reasoning logically. Science demands evidence, faith by definition demands belief without evidence.
The 'evolution is not proven' card has been played (it always is). No its not. There I said it. However, the evidence for it is tremendous and evolution is the only valid explanation for our observations of life. There is NOTHING else going. "God did it" is not acceptable. How did god do it? Where did god come from? How did that happen? The proof that it fails to deliver is repeatable observation of speciation. Ironically its a prediction of evloution that speciation cannot happen the same way twice, and if we saw it it would be decent evidence for a guiding intelligence to evolution. The proof that it has is akin to weighing up the evidence in a trial and passing verdict. Juries dont demand that a defendant commit the crime again to pass a guilty verdict. Likewise if they dont re-offend that doesnt mean they're innocent! Rational judgements based on evidence in used there. The same is true of evolution.
Ad homenim attacks: the character of Proff Joe Bloggs has come under attack! My god, scientists are all smartypants and I dont like them so I dont have to listen to what they say!
The 'Scientists argue about evolution' lie. Yes, LIE. This falls under the method of persuation by telling porky pies method. Cladists argue about whether this species or that is realted to this or that where there isnt enough evidence to close the case. Geneticists argue about whether this gene could carry out that function as well as that one or not. And so on. Details. Scientists argue about the details. What frame to put the picture in. The actual validity of evolution itself is not debated by credible scientists. Only hacks with honorary degrees (the best of which are 3 whole months work) from unaccredited universities.
Silence.
The main way a creationist keeps their head clear of all these pesky bits of evidence is by ignoring or evading questions that are difficult for them to answer with the logic that they espouse. Flaws in organisms are particularly good. Lazy, incompetent God! There have been a few asked in this thread and the answers were either not there or not worth reading. If they had to admit infront of a crowd (internet debate or public in real time) that they dont have a straight up answer, they lose face. Creationsts need face: its crucial what with not having any evidence.
It has been good to read (about 2/3 of) a civilised disucssion though. Glad to see some of the more underhanded methods not coming up (attacking logics without providing evidence or alternatives, just complex and ambiguous language, emotional arguments: "Youre not DUMB are you?", moral arguments of their varous kinds [they go right down to ascociating evolution with nazism]). And thank christ there were no cleverly edited interviews, pamphlets, minimal scripture and no one blathering about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, walkmen 'evolving' into ipods or concordes being made out of scrap heaps by tornadoes