Lamden writes:
The reason I think this discussion is so important , is because I have seen far too much irrelevance from both sides of the c/e debate.
I'd love to see some examples of what you would consider "irrelevance" from the scientific side of the debate.
Lamden writes:
In order for evolution to win this debate, or at least this arm of it , they don't need to prove that evolution happened.
First of all, science isn't about proving anything. Science is about coming up with the best explanations for the evidence we have to date. Science never proves despite what you might hear from the popular media.
Second, science has already won the debate, over 100 years ago. There is no scientific debate to win. All the evidence supports the ToE, none of the evidence supports creationism in any of its guises. We don't need to know the specifics of every step along the way, nor do we need a mathematical calculation to establish the possibility of something that all the evidence shows actually happened.
I strongly suspect you have some unstated, ulterior motive for your questions.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung