Is Evolutionist Disparagement of Creationism Justified?

Faith - I would be quite interested to see even a single piece of scientific evidence refuting evolution or supporting creationism/ID that can only be defeated by prejudice. Pick something and we'll discuss it - you can point out where and how our counterarguments are prejudicial rather than scientific, and we can discuss that also. This statement gets to the heart of the problem. It isn't "science" that is prejudiced, it is anyone who claims to KNOW a conclusion is true without any evidence and then seeks to find evidence to support that conclusion - while conveniently ignoring any evidence that refutes it.This is why "Creation Science" cannot be real science. Since you know the scientific method, you know that the conclusion doesn't come first in science.You seem to be offended at accusations that Creationism is not science - hopefully you realize that it is also offensive to claim that entire scientific community is either too close-minded or too dishonest to acknowledge piles of evidence from Creationist sources.Again - I'd like to see the ignored evidence you repeatedly mentioned. I'd be delighted to be that one honest scientist that reveals the truth of Creation through real scientific evidence.

Darwin proposed a theory based on observations of evidence of the natural world. That theory has been tested countless times and has only been confirmed, and not refuted. At no point did Darwin say "I KNOW the TRUTH, and here is some evidence." The theory was presented in very tentative language.This is quite different from "Creation Scientists", who claim "I KNOW the TRUTH" without natural evidence, and then pick and choose to present evidence they think supports their "TRUTH", while ignoring that which refutes it. That is unscientific and EXACTLY what you propose: Hopefully you realize that the Theory of Evolution does not even begin to "refute the Bible", since it says nothing of the supernatural world. The Theory of Evolution says nothing of God, and does not exclude the possibility of God.Since you threw a rather major insult at the entire legitimate scientific community by stating we either hide or ignore evidence, mounds of it which are available at creationist websites, I'll ask again:Would you please provide one such piece of scientific evidence the supports Creationism or refutes Evolution? We can give you a counter-argument, so that you show it is an argument from prejudice rather than a legitimate one.

This immediately makes me think of the old "missing transitional fossils" creationist argument. Funny how creationist "evidence" is often what they see as an absence of evidence for something - as in, "where ever there seems to be a gap in evidence, insert God."Truthfully I am no geologist, and don't immediately understand what you mean by "missing layers." If I recall in another thread you were arguing that the existence of layers refuted old-earth geology. Erosion would have wiped them out.Which is it? The absence of layers? Or the presence of layers?If you really want to get into Flood-theory-fun, explain to NosyNed how all of the fossils were ordered geologically by the Flood... he's been waiting for someone to do that for some time now. It seems to me that you have evidence that you think is against a geological hypothesis (not the biological theory of evolution). How is this evidence against another theory evidence for your theory? Hopefully you realize that scientific theories aren't confirmed by refuting other theories. No, the analogy fails rather completely.I say this because of the simple fact that if the Theory of Evolution is refuted, science will move on (and so would have Darwin, if he were alive to witness it.)This is quite different from the creationist view that evidence-that-doesn't-fit-the-conclusion-must-be-wrong. As in: and: You don't seem to require any evidence, and seem to simply "know" that evidence you don't like is wrong - thus I'm not sure why you are trying to making evidence-based arguments.You seemed to get upset when someone else brought this up. You are obviously a very articulate person, so I assume you believe arguments that you make repeatedly.(Also, I hope you read and appreciate Schraf's message #105 in this thread, specifically the latter half. You seem to be disparaging science for being thorough, detail-oriented, logical, and well - scientific...)

I think an important facet of many issues creos have here is denial (or at least stubbornness) regarding errors.This occurred a few times above in this thread, where Faith got upset that people took Faith's comments on face-value, as exactly what they stated. Despite Faith's articulate writing, he/she was reduced to "yelling" "that's-not-what-I-meant", and "everyone-here-intentionally-misconstrues-my-arguments".Perhaps it comes from the conclusion-first/evidence-later Creationist mindset, which generally reveals itself in the forum as haphazard speculation by creos without evidence, often with attempts to cherry-pick evidence later. When they are slammed for lack of evidence, or ignoring solid evidence against their speculation, they all too often respond with denial and/or stubbornness.I feel this is what happened with Mike the Wiz, right before he left, in the Animal Intelligence thread. He was given several avenues to argue, but insisted on pounding away at his first single concept, despite being repeatedly given mounds of documented evidence (and simple logic) against this concept. He seemed to simple ignore and derise the evidence, and fell into a stubborn spiral of repetitive ambiguous posts supporting his thoroughly refuted concept.Evos are much more likely to admit error (or at least revise their position) in the same situation.

I agree.Unfortunately it seems to me that when evos try to explain their view of science they are accused by creos of lying and playing word games - I can't count how many times I've seen the "science proves things" argument and explanation go absolutely nowhere, except to perhaps further divide the two sides.However, I would argue that generally the creo "view of what science is" (how it proceeds and is practiced) is inaccurate. Such misconception isn't something that I can agree-to-disagree about...

Faith, at least before you seemed to be trying to use a modicum of evidence. Now you seem to have fallen in a trap of absurd speculations that will get you absolutely nowhere in a scientific discussion. Meant as a bit of advice.(Also, you may want to check out one of the Fossil Sorting threads, it may be helpful for you to get some background and avoid the usual fallacies.)

Quite frankly faith, you've descended into the ludicrous with these sorts of arguments.Let me get this straight. Birds are in geologic layers above layers containing dinosaurs because birds were perching directly on the dinosaurs when they were hit by the flood waters?So ALL dinosaurs move to high ground before the flood, and ALL birds perch on dinosaurs as the flood begins. When hit by the massive flood, ALL dinosaurs remain upright as they drown, are washed about, and sink into the sediment. Throughout ALL of this ALL of the birds hold a death grip on the highest point of the dinosaurs, so that they ALL settle into the sediment on top of the dinosaurs. If you really are not kidding about this line of speculation you've just lost some of my respect for your thoughtfulness.You should rethink this idea. It is anything but reasonable, and if these are the ridiculous speculations you must undertake to defend creationism, then perhaps the "disparagement" of the thread title is justified.

Why is the influence of the Devil "the nuttiest", while a God-induced global flood for which we have no evidence in any field of study (biology, geology, history, art, etc.) appears to you as perfectly sane and reasonable possibility?