69 replies to this topic

[hooberus]

Admin3 NOTE: I am granting special debating rules on this subject. As long as it stays civil, we will discuss the issue at hand. It can go into what ever direction as long talk origins stays the main focus.


It has been my experience that Talk Origins is regarded by many as some sort of "objective" source for information on the subject of origins. The site even claims to be "Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy". Its is a relatively lengthy site and is frequently used in online debates in order to provide answers to creationst claims etc.

The true origins site deals with some of the claims on the talk origins site. I would also like to list some errors / overt bias /dogmatism that I have found. If anyone else has any others please list them.

Example # 1

http://www.talkorigi...CA/CA510_1.html

Claim CA510.1:
Problems with evolution are evidence for creationism.
Response:
This claim assumes that creation and evolution are the only two possible models, which is very false.


Even if the two-model idea were true, problems with one model do not imply that the other model is true. Another alternative is that another as-yet unknown model is correct.

Responding to the two Talk Origins statements:

"This claim assumes that creation and evolution are the only two possible models, which is very false."

My comment: All origins models (including the linked to ones) can be listed under creation/ evolution (or some combination thereof). So problems with evolution are evidence for some type creation (or perhaps some combination of creation with some type of evolution). For example if naturalistic explanations for an object are falsified then this is evidence for non-naturalistic origins.


"Even if the two-model idea were true, problems with one model do not imply that the other model is true. Another alternative is that another as-yet unknown model is correct."

This is a logical fallacy for if the two-model idea is true then there cannot by definition be "another alternative"!

It should also be noted that evolutionists themselves frequently use a "two model" approach ie: evidence againsit one naturalistsic evolutionary hypothesis (ie: lack of fossil evidence for gradualism) is used as evidence for another supposeldy naturalistic evoltionary hypothesis (ie: "punctuated equilibria") despite the obvious alterative of creation. See also ReMine "Biotic Message"


Finally with reasoning like this Talk Origins arcticle it makes me wonder if the Talk Origins crowd would ever accept creation (even if hypothetically evolution were somhow falsified).

[hooberus]

http://www.talkorigi...c/CA/CA211.html

Claim CA211:
Any fact can be fit into the theory of evolution. Therefore, evolution is not falsifiable and is not a proper scientific theory.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 6-7.
Response:
There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:
a static fossil record;
true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs);
a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
observations of organisms being created.


This claim, coming from creationists, is absurd, since almost all creationism is nothing more than (unsubstantiated) claims that evolution has been falsified.

Responding to the Talk Origins statements:

"a static fossil record;" - a static fossil record would not falsify evolution. Evolutionists would simply claim evidence from other methods (ie: similarities of living creatures) and would propose that evolution took place in times previous to the formation of the visible fossil record (similar to what they already do with the cambrian phyla). This would also explain the lack of transitional fossils.


"true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs);" -so called "true chimeras" would not falsify evolution, evoltionists would in fact probably use chimeras as evidence of evolution:such as evolution by: 1). common descent (humans and horses share a common ancestor- the centaur) 2). atavisms (the fish tail on the mermaid is a genetic throwback), and 3). especially transposition evolution. Furthermore creatures such as mermaids and centaurs would be used by evolutionists as evidence against Biblical creationism "Did Adam catch eve from the sea?" "Did Adam have hoofs"?

"a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;" - Such a hypothetical "mechanism" would not falsify evolution. evolutionists would simply 1). Claim that the whatever small amount accumulated could be sufficient to account for evolution. For example in resonse to Haldane style calculations which limit the accumulated amount of beneficial mutations one talk-origins liked arcticle says: "Although 1,667 substitutions may seem like a low number, it may be sufficient to explain the differences between humans and their ancestors of 10 million years ago." 2). Or evolutionistrs could simply claim that such a mechanism was not in operation in the past, etc. 3). Claim that evolution proceeds by a different (possibly unknown) manner than mutations.

Finally evolutionists with their common statements like: "Evolution is a fact, howver the mechanisms of evolution are theory" are able to erected a firewall between the falsification of evolution and the falsification of all proposed mechanisms including "mechanisms that would prevent meachanisms from accumulationg."

"observations of organisms being created" - Since virtually all creationists belive that the creation was a past event, this leaves evolution very "safe" from such a claimed falsifiction test. However, even if such a thing did occurr evolutionists could simply claim that since the evidence for evolution is overwhelming that the creator was simply copying the results of evolution.

[hooberus]

Similar to the above this Talk Origins arcticle claims:

http://www.talkorigi...c/CB/CB901.html

Claim CB901:
No case of macroevolution has ever been documented.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 2000 (Jan.). Strong Delusion. Back to Genesis 133: a.
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 6.
Response:
We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.

The claim: "If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution" is ridiculous. Evolutionsts would use it as "evidence" for rapid evolution scenarios (ie: "hopeful monster"; "massive genetic rearrangement" etc.), and as reasons for the general lack of transitional fossils.

[hooberus]

http://www.talkorigi...c/CA/CA040.html

Claim CA040:
In fairness, creation and evolution deserve equal time in science classes.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 197-198.
Response:
The teaching of creationism does not belong in science classes because creationism has no science to teach. It is based on personal religious belief, not on evidence. For the most part, creationism can fit with anything we find, making it unscientific. Where creation models do make specific predictions that can be tested against evidence, they fail the tests. Asking for equal time is asking for nonscience to be taught in science classes.

"For the most part, creationism can fit with anything we find, making it unscientific." - And evolution isn't able to fit with anyhing we find ? (see above posts).

[hooberus]

http://www.talkorigi...c/CA/CA040.html

Equal time would mean teaching


other versions of creationism from other denominations of Christianity (including young-earth, old-earth, day-age, gap theory, geocentrism, and flat earth). All have equal basis for being taught, since they are all based on exactly the same Bible. All are mutually incompatible (DYG 2000; Watchtower 1985, 186; Morris 1984, 215-247).


other versions of scientific creationism from other religions. Claims have been made for Muslim, Hindu, and Native American versions of creationism.

The only legal precedent favoring creationism in the United States in the last fifty years was an Interior Department decision finding, on the basis of native creation and flood myths, that 9400-year-old Kennewick Man was associated with present-day Native American tribes (Chatters 2001, 266).


creation traditions from other religions and cultures, including, but not limited to, the Aaragon, Abenaki, Acoma, Ainu, Aleut, Amunge, Angevin, Anishinabek, Anvik-Shageluk, Apache, Arapaho, Ararapivka, Arikara, Armenian, Arrernte, Ashkenazim, Assiniboine, Athabascan, Athena, Aztec, Babylonian, Balinese, Bannock, Bantu, Basque, Blackfoot, Blood, Bosnian, Breton, Brul, Bundjalung, Burns Paiute, Caddo, Cahuilla, Catalan, Cayuga, Cayuse, Celt, Chehalis, Chelan, Cherokee, Chewella, Cheyenne, Chickasaw, Chinook, Chippewa, Chirachaua, Choctaw, Chukchi, Coeur d'Alene, Columbia River, Colville, Comanche, Congolese, Concow, Coquille, Cow Creek, Cowlitz, Cree, Creek, Croat, Crow, Crow Creek, Cumbres, Curonian, Cushite, Cut Head, Da'an, Devon, Dihai-Kutchin, Diyari, Dogon, Duwamish, Egyptian, Elwha, Eritrean, Eskimo, Esrolvuli, Eta, Even, Evenk, Flathead, Fijian, Fox, Fuegan, Gaul, Gooniyandi, Gond, Govi Basin Mongolian, Grand Ronde, Gros Ventre, Haida, Han, Haranding, Havasupai, Hendriki, Heortling, Hidatsa, Hindi, Hmong, HoChunk, Hoh, Hoopa, Hopi, Hunkpapa, Hutu, Ik-kil-lin, Inca, Innu, Intsi Dindjich, Inuit, Iroquois, Isleta, Itchali, Itelemen, It-ka-lya-ruin, Itkpe'lit, Itku'dlin, Jicarilla Apache, Jotvingian, Kaiyuhkhotana, Kalapuya, Kalispel, Kamchandal, Kansa, Karuk, Katshikotin, Kaurna, Kaw, Kazahk, Ketschetnaer, Khanti, Khoi-San, Khymer, Kickapoo, Kiowa, Kirghiz, Kitchin-Kutchin, Klamath, Knaiakhotana, K'nyaw, Koch-Rajbongshi, Kolshina, Kono, Kootenai, Koyukukhotana, !Kung, Kurd, La Jolla, Lac Courte D'Oreille, Lac Du Flambeau, Laguna, Lake, Lakota, Lao, Latgalian, Leech Lake Chippewa, Lemmi, Lower Brul, Lower Yanktonai, Lowland Lummi, Lummi, Malawi, Makah, Mandan, Maori, Maricopan, Martinez, Mayan, Mazatec, Mednofski, Menominee, Meryam Mir, Mesa Grande, Mescalero Apache, Metlakatla, Miniconjou, Mission, Moallalla, Modoc, Mohawk, Mojave, Morongo, Muckleshoot, Murrinh-Patha, Nadruvian, Nagorno-Karabakh, Na-Kotchpo-tschig-Kouttchin, Nambe, Namib, Natche'-Kutehin, Navajo, Nes Pelem, Neyetse-kutchi, Nez Perce, Ngiyampaa, Nisqualli, Nnatsit-Kutchin, Nomelackie, Nooksack, Norman, Norse, Northern Cheyenne, Nyungar, Oglala, Ogorvalte, Ojibway, Okanagon, Okinawan, Olmec, Omaha, Oneida, Onondaga, Ordovices, Orlanthi, Osage, Osetto, O-til'-tin, Otoe, Paakantyi, Paiute, Pala Mission, Papago, Pawnee, Pazyryk, Pechango, Penan, Piegan, Pima, Pitt River, Ponca, Potowatomie, Prussian, Pueblo, Puyallup, Qiang, Quileute, Quinault, Red Cliff Chippewa, Red Lake Chippewa, Redwood, Rincon, Sac, Saisiyat, Sakuddeis, Salish, Salt River, Samish, Samoan, Samogitian, San Carlos Apache, San Idlefonso, San Juan, San Poil, Santa Clara, Sartar, Sauk-Suiattle, Selonian, Semigolian, Seminole, Senecan, Sephardim, Serano, Serb, Shasta, Shawnee, Shiite, Shinnecock, Shoalwater Bay, Shoshone, Sikh, Siletz, Silures, Sinhalese, Sioux, Siskiyou, Sisseton, Siuslaw, Skalvian, S'Klallam, Skokomish, Skyomish, Slovene, Snohomish, Snoqualmie, Soboba, Southern Cheyenne, Spokane, Squaxin Island, Steilacoom, Stillaquamish, Stockbridge, Sunni, Suquamish, Swinomish, Tadjik, Takhayuna, Tala, Talastari, Tamil, Tanaina, Taos, Tarim, Tasman, Tatar, Tesuque, Tlingit, Toltec, Tpe-ttckie-dhidie-Kouttchin, Tranjik-Kutchin, Truk, Tukkutih-Kutchin, Tulalip, Tungus, Turtle Mountain, Tuscarora, Turk, Turkmen, Tutsi, Ugalakmiut, Uintah, Umatilla, Umpqua, Uncompagre, U-nung'un, Upper Skagit, Ute, Uzbek, Vietnamese, Viking, Vunta-Kutchin, Wahpeton, Walla Walla, Wasco, Wembawemba, White Mountain Apache, Wichita, Wik-ungkan, Winnebago, Wiradjuri, Wylackie, Xhosa, Yahi, Yakama, Yakima, Yakut, Yanamamo, Yankton Sioux, Yellowknife, Yindjibarnd, Youkon Louchioux, Yukaghir, Yukonikhotana, Yullit, Yuma, Zjen-ta-Kouttchin, and Zulu. (from Leipzig, n.d.)

This talk origns arcticle is basically implying that if we teach one "creation account" that therefore we need to teach all of them. The problem is that most major creationist organzations do not even favor the required teaching of a specific creation account in public schools, but instead specific scientific evidence for creation (ie: design in living things, systematic gaps between living organisms, systematic gaps between fossil organisms, genetic code information) or at least problems with evolution along with "positive evidence for evolution".

[Modulous]

"This claim assumes that creation and evolution are the only two possible models, which is very false."

My comment: All origins models (including the linked to ones) can be listed under creation/ evolution (or some combination thereof). So problems with evolution are evidence for some type creation (or perhaps some combination of creation with some type of evolution). For example if naturalistic explanations for an object are falsified then this is evidence for non-naturalistic origins.

The point you miss is that evolution isn't necessarily the only naturalistic explanation. If all naturalistic explanations are falsified then, yes, a supernaturalistic explanation is to be sought. However, evidence against evolution is not evidence for supernaturalism...you have to provide evidence against naturalism to do that.

It should also be noted that evolutionists themselves frequently use a "two model" approach ie: evidence againsit one naturalistsic evolutionary hypothesis (ie: lack of fossil evidence for gradualism) is used as evidence for another supposeldy naturalistic evoltionary hypothesis (ie: "punctuated equilibria") despite the obvious alterative of creation. See also ReMine "Biotic Message"
Finally with reasoning like this Talk Origins arcticle it makes me wonder if the Talk Origins crowd would ever accept creation (even if hypothetically evolution were somhow falsified).

Actually, no. There isn't evidence against gradualism, there is just a lack of evidence for it...which is to be expected given the number of fossils we have found compared to the number of creatures which have ever lived. This isn't evidence for punctuated equilibrium, but it does mean that that model is also correct. In short, there is not enough evidence to discern between the two models. The 'obvious alternative' of creation isn't that obvious really. There is no evidence for it at all, whilst there is evidence for some sort of evolution - the specifics of which we cannot yet discern.

As said above, if evolution was falsified I'm sure some, but not all, people would come to accept some kind of creationism, though they probably wouldn't generally accept any one creation story until positive evidence was put forward. Alternatively, if evolution was falsified there may be another naturalistic theory on its heels instead.

[Modulous]

http://www.talkorigi...c/CA/CA211.html
Responding to the Talk Origins statements:

"a static fossil record;" - a static fossil record would not falsify evolution. Evolutionists would simply claim evidence from other methods (ie: similarities of living creatures) and would propose that evolution took place in times previous to the formation of the visible fossil record (similar to what they already do with the cambrian phyla). This would also explain the lack of transitional fossils.

That would be totally crazy. First - I doubt evolution would have even been proposed had the fossil record been static. Second - according to current models on the age of the earth, there wouldn't have been enough time for all the biodiversity to come about so soon...baby earth wasn't a nice place to be according to the boffins.

"true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs);" -so called "true chimeras" would not falsify evolution, evoltionists would in fact probably use chimeras as evidence of evolution:such as evolution by: 1). common descent (humans and horses share a common ancestor- the centaur) 2). atavisms (the fish tail on the mermaid is a genetic throwback), and 3). especially transposition evolution. Furthermore creatures such as mermaids and centaurs would be used by evolutionists as evidence against Biblical creationism "Did Adam catch eve from the sea?" "Did Adam have hoofs"?

Whilst a mermaid might be a concievable atavism, a centaur would not. The horse and human common ancestor would have looked like neither, rather than both.

"a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;" - Such a hypothetical "mechanism" would not falsify evolution. evolutionists would simply 1). Claim that the whatever small amount accumulated could be sufficient to account for evolution. For example in resonse to Haldane style calculations which limit the accumulated amount of beneficial mutations one talk-origins liked arcticle says: "Although 1,667 substitutions may seem like a low number, it may be sufficient to explain the differences between humans and their ancestors of 10 million years ago." 2). Or evolutionistrs could simply claim that such a mechanism was not in operation in the past, etc. 3). Claim that evolution proceeds by a different (possibly unknown) manner than mutations.

If a mechanism was found that actually prevented mutations from accumulating evolution would dead.

1) It would be impossible to say that 'whatever small amount accumulated could be sufficient...' because a mechanism prevents accumulation.

2) It depends on the nature of the mechanism found really. There would have to be some evidence that the mechanism is integral to the workings of DNA for example. If that was the case it could not be explained away.

3) Evolution is in essence descent with modification its true. However, neo-Darwinism would be blown out of the water since that requires random mutations with natural selection. Before this different manner could be proposed, it would need to be defined and demonstrated.

Finally evolutionists with their common statements like: "Evolution is a fact, howver the mechanisms of evolution are theory" are able to erected a firewall between the falsification of evolution and the falsification of all proposed mechanisms including "mechanisms that would prevent meachanisms from accumulationg."

Not true. That creatures have changed through time is as close to a fact as we are likely to get. You can try to falsify this fact but it would require a lot of work and involve falsifying a heck of a lot of science, which has yet to be done. You can, for instance, falsify neo-Darwinism by demonstrating mutations are not the key to evolution. To falsify that animals haven't changed through time you'd need either to find examples of modern creatures in strata millions/billions of years old or demonstrate a working model of how they have formed themselves in that manner without the need for change, whilst at the same time falsifying geology and cosmology.

Not easy? Well, I think we can agree, if a theory is true it cannot be falsified. So yeah, it might not be easy for a reason.

"observations of organisms being created" - Since virtually all creationists belive that the creation was a past event, this leaves evolution very "safe" from such a claimed falsifiction test. However, even if such a thing did occurr evolutionists could simply claim that since the evidence for evolution is overwhelming that the creator was simply copying the results of evolution.

It might not have been your definition of creator that created anything, so it does not leave evolution safe. Whatever supernatural entity created organisms, if he were to do it again, then evolution would be in bother. It might not falsify evolution per se, but it would weaken it, and it would certainly depose naturalism.

[hooberus]

http://www.talkorigi...c/CA/CA042.html

Claim CA042:
Evolution does not need to be taught in science classes. The important parts of biology, such as how organisms function, how they are classified, and how they interact with one another, do not depend on evolution.
Response:
Biology without evolution is natural history, not biology. There is a great deal of important information in natural history that should be taught, but evolution is the unifying idea that ties it all together, allowing one not only to know the facts but to understand them and to know where the facts come from. Teaching biology without evolution would be like teaching chemistry without the periodic table of the elements.

The statement: "Biology without evolution is natural history, not biology." is nonsense.

Biology is the science of life/study of living things. Evolution is a supposed "natural history" "explanation" for the origin of the living things. Biology without evolution would be still be biology (the study of life). The fact that biology proceeded the modern theory of evolution, also shows this.

"There is a great deal of important information in natural history that should be taught, but evolution is the unifying idea that ties it all together, allowing one not only to know the facts but to understand them and to know where the facts come from."

Evolution is not the only "unifying idea" that ties life together, Life designed to testify to a common designer also would be unified (see for example the book "The Biotic Message"). However evolutionists seek to exclude this other unifying idea (despite the fact that common design is the only real alternative to common descent to account for similarities) and instead wish to indoctrinate students in only their "unifying idea" (which they present as a dogmatic fact to students). Why not teach both thus really "allowing one not only to know the facts but to understand them and to know where the facts come from." However if we are not going to teach both, then perhaps we should just stick to teaching biology itself without any hypothesis as to how the biological world came about.


"Teaching biology without evolution would be like teaching chemistry without the periodic table of the elements."

This is false. Chemical elements have observable properties (ie: number of protons, etc.) that allow us to form a periodic table from the study of extant elements. The observable properties in the biological world can also be observed from extant organisms independantly of hypothesis as to how those properties came about.

The Talk Origins arcticle compares the of issue of the teaching of an observed, extant set of data (the periodic table) with a the teaching of an unobserved process (macro-evolution), and implies that if the unobserved item (molecules to man evolution) is not taught that therefore this is the equivalent to the non-teaching of an observed item (element classification). This is fallacious.

[Modulous]

http://www.talkorigi...c/CA/CA040.html
... but instead specific scientific evidence for creation (ie: design in living things, systematic gaps between living organisms, systematic gaps between fossil organisms, genetic code information) or at least problems with evolution along with "positive evidence for evolution".

Intelligent Design has yet to make it past philosophy and into science just yet, so it shouldn't be taught in science class. Systematic gaps between fossils and living organsims isn't evidence for creation. Problems with evolution should be taught but not necessarily at high school. We do not teach problems with Newtonian physics at high school (at least not at mine), nor did we discuss the problems with Bohr's atom in Chemistry.

It is more important that potential future biologists learn the theory that dominates their field, than they learn of some of the technical objections to certain parts of it, that have yet to be proven yet anyway.

[hooberus]

The point you miss is that evolution isn't necessarily the only naturalistic explanation. If all naturalistic explanations are falsified then, yes, a supernaturalistic explanation is to be sought. However, evidence against evolution is not evidence for supernaturalism...you have to provide evidence against naturalism to do that.

Please give another naturalistic explanation besides "evolution"?

[Modulous]

http://www.talkorigi...c/CA/CA042.html


The statement: "Biology without evolution is natural history, not biology." is nonsense.

Biology is the science of life/study of living things.  Evolution is a supposed "natural history" "explanation" for the origin of the living things. Biology without evolution would be still be biology (the study of life). The fact that biology proceeded the modern theory of evolution, also shows this.

Biology requires understanding what life is and how life works. Life evolves, and this is a central theme in life, so not teaching this is bad news. Modern biology revolves around the theory: from medicine to botany.

[Modulous]

Please give another naturalistic explanation besides "evolution"?

A random quantum fluctuation, in accord with the principle that anything that is not strictly forbidden will happen, coalesced into all known life and matter as we know it 20 minutes ago.

[hooberus]

So are you saying that evidence against evolution is not evidence for creation because of the possiblity of a non-evolutionary naturalistic scenario such as: "A random quantum fluctuation, in accord with the principle that anything that is not strictly forbidden will happen, coalesced into all known life and matter as we know it 20 minutes ago." ?

[Modulous]

So are you saying that evidence against evolution is not evidence for creation because of the possiblity of a non-evolutionary naturalistic scenario such as: "A random quantum fluctuation, in accord with the principle that anything that is not strictly forbidden will happen, coalesced into all known life and matter as we know it 20 minutes ago." ?

That is pretty much what I am saying, yes.

[hooberus]

So I guess then that evidence against the evolution of a Boeing 747 from a 737 is not also not evidence for creation because of the possibility of: "A random quantum fluctuation, in accord with the principle that anything that is not strictly forbidden will happen, coalesced into all known life and matter as we know it 20 minutes ago." ?

[Modulous]

So I guess then that evidence against the evolution of a Boeing 747 from a 737 is not also not evidence for creation because of the possibility of: "A random quantum fluctuation, in accord with the principle that anything that is not strictly forbidden will happen, coalesced into all known life and matter as we know it 20 minutes ago." ?

I'm not really sure what you mean. If you mean that that by my standards there is no evidence for the creation of a Boeing 747 then obviously you are wrong. There is clear evidence for the creation, in that we can meet the creators, see the blueprints, have the creation method explained to us, build one for ourselves and so on. The fact remains that the quantum fluctuation scenario is still a possibility, but first we would have to falsify the "It was created by Bob Turner's team" theory which has a heck of a lot of evidence for it, before we could even consider the quantum fluctuation scenario.

[hooberus]

I'm not really sure what you mean.

My point was not specifically the evidence for the creation of the 747 per se, but merely to show that your claim that evidence against the evolution of something is not evidence for creation because of the possibility of something like: "A random quantum fluctuation, in accord with the principle that anything that is not strictly forbidden will happen, coalesced into all known life and matter as we know it 20 minutes ago." is extreme to the point of being ridiculous in that virtually everyone would consider evidence against the evolution of a 747 to be evidence of creation, despite the "possibility" of your quantum fluctuation scenario.

[Modulous]

Then I think you missed my point somewhere. We know that 747s are created. We can meet Bob and talk about it. We can get qualifications and build one ourselves. The evidence that demonstrates it hasn't evolved is the evidence that it was created.

If a Creationist can provide compelling evidence that the Universe/Earth/life was created, then that would be evidence against evolution. However, evidence against evolution doesn't automatically point to Creation, since there may be other possibilities whch have more evidence for them than Creation. When Creation becomes the theory with the most evidence for it, then it gets accepted.

is extreme to the point of being ridiculous in that virtually everyone would consider evidence against the evolution of a 747 to be evidence of creation, despite the "possibility" of your quantum fluctuation scenario.

The reason being, that there is more evidence for 747 creation than for quantum fluctuations spontaneously forming it. While neither is impossible (there are no absolutes) we go with the theory with the most evidence.

[hooberus]

Then I think you missed my point somewhere.

And I think that you are still missing my point. I will try one more time. Suppose an object like the great pyramid is found by US astronatuts on Neptune. Wouldn't the evidence against it being a product of geological evolution (rocks don't usually stack that way!), be evidence of creation, or would we reject this as evidence because of the posibility of something like:"A random quantum fluctuation, in accord with the principle that anything that is not strictly forbidden will happen, coalesced into all known life and matter as we know it 20 minutes ago." ?

[Modulous]

And I think that you are still missing my point. I will try one more time. Suppose an object like the great pyramid is found by US astronatuts on Neptune. Wouldn't the evidence againt it being a product of geological evolution (rocks don't usually stack that way!), be evidence of creation, or would we reject this because of the posibility of something like:"A random quantum fluctuation, in accord with the principle that anything that is not strictly forbidden will happen, coalesced into all known life and matter as we know it 20 minutes ago." ?

We know pyramids can be created - we can demonstrate it. It would be reasonable to assume that the pyramids were created.

Essentially, what you are trying to drive towards here is a 'which is more likely' type argument. Unfortunately, we have more evidence that quantum fluctuations can form universes than we have that Supernatural beings can. So until we can get more evidence for the supernatural being (Which we have 0 evidence to date) than we have for quantum fluctuations (which we have very little evidence for) then we have to accept that quantum fluctuations is simply more likely. That said, quantum fluctuations isn't necessarily the only naturalistic explanation by the way. I just gave you one example as you requested. If evolution is falsified there would probably be a far more plausable naturalistic theory than QF that would follow it.

We go with whatever has the most positive evidence. There is no evidence of a creator. If you prove one theory wrong, then the theory with the most positive evidence is adopted (unless that is also falsified). Prove evolution wrong, and the next explanation is put in place...the only time that the next explanation is Creation is when creation has more positive evidence to support it than any other theory.