Help with Creationism vs Darwinism

[Sugar_Ray]

PhilVaz:

I reject the notion that men like Colson and Johnson should be disregarded because they are not scientists. They are serious and capable men and like all men they should not accept what is spoon fed to them by “experts” but can and should apply their own analysis to the facts and draw their own conclusion. I find their conclusions based on the evidence they provide compelling.

Your list of suggested resources are interesting and I may read them but I find your decree that they are the only acceptable books on the topic along with your breezy disregard for men like Colson and Johnson and Strobel revealing.

I also disagree with the notion that the only case for creation is to punch holes in Darwin. They are two separate theories and each should be judged on it’s own merits. I find evolution wanting but fault no one for accepting it. On the other hand I cannot see how any impartial person could support spontaneous generation in view of the mind boggling complexity of us and our surroundings.

I am of the opinion that many in the scientific community support not just evolution but spontaneous generation because they reject the idea of a creator God who will someday judge them. On this very topic Biologist George Wald of Harvard, winner of a Nobel Prize, has said **“I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution”. **

Wald simply cannot accept a God, so he instead embraces that which he knows to be false.He is not alone in the scinetific community.

 

[Orogeny]

Sugar Ray:

PhilVaz:

Your list of suggested resources are interesting and I may read them but I find your decree that they are the only acceptable books on the topic along with your breezy disregard for men like Colson and Johnson and Strobel revealing.

Maybe that is why he put a smiley face at the end of that paragraph?

I also disagree with the notion that the only case for creation is to punch holes in Darwin. They are two separate theories and each should be judged on it’s own merits.

Creationism is not a scientific theory, it is a theological position. Theological positions are not scientific. Show me how it would be possible for a scientific experiment to test God.

I find evolution wanting but fault no one for accepting it. On the other hand I cannot see how any impartial person could support spontaneous generation in view of the mind boggling complexity of us and our surroundings.

Whether or not we find it hard to believe, there may be a natural explaination for the beginning of life.

I am of the opinion that many in the scientific community support not just evolution but spontaneous generation because they reject the idea of a creator God who will someday judge them.

That may be, but that only makes a statement about some scientists, not about the science.

On this very topic Biologist George Wald of Harvard, winner of a Nobel Prize, has said **“I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution”. **

Regardless of that statement (assuming it is accurately attibuted), his opinion is not shared by many scientists who are also Christians. That statement is nothing other than his opinion and not a scientific statement.

Wald simply cannot accept a God, so he instead embraces that which he knows to be false.He is not alone in the scinetific community.

He doesn’t know it to be false. By the way, what is the citation for that quote?

Peace

Tim

 

[The_Barbarian]

I reject the notion that men like Colson and Johnson should be disregarded because they are not scientists.

They should be disregarded because they don’t know what they are talking about.

They are serious and capable men

That is very debatable. In “Darwin on Trial”, Johnson says that he sees peacocks having long tailfeathers (which make them easy to catch and be eaten alive by leopards) as “God just being whimsical.”

and like all men they should not accept what is spoon fed to them by “experts” but can and should apply their own analysis to the facts and draw their own conclusion.

Suppose a surgeon left it up to you how or if he was to do surgery, dropping a textbook and a pile of studies on your lap. Good idea? No?

I find their conclusions based on the evidence they provide compelling.[/qulote]

Perhaps we would, too. Why not tell us what it is?

I also disagree with the notion that the only case for creation is to punch holes in Darwin. They are two separate theories and each should be judged on it’s own merits. I find evolution wanting but fault no one for accepting it. On the other hand I cannot see how any impartial person could support spontaneous generation in view of the mind boggling complexity of us and our surroundings.

This is a good example of what we are talking about. Spontaneous generation is not part of Darwinian theory. In fact, it is contrary to Darwinian theory.

I am of the opinion that many in the scientific community support not just evolution but spontaneous generation because they reject the idea of a creator God who will someday judge them. On this very topic Biologist George Wald of Harvard, winner of a Nobel Prize, has said “I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution”.

Strange. “Spontaneous generation” is the notion that complex metazoans can be created by rotting organic material. Perhaps Wald was thinking of abiogenesis. The field is not one in which Wald, a biochemist, is familiar.

Wald simply cannot accept a God, so he instead embraces that which he knows to be false.

Think of him as sort of the flip side of Phillip Johnson, who cannot bear to think that atheists can be scientists, so he wants to inject God into scientific method.

Realistically, scientists who have studied the question of abiogenesis consider the question to be open, although the evidence has been increasingly pointing toward a natural origin of life.

 

[PhilVaz]

Barb << That is very debatable. In “Darwin on Trial”, Johnson says that he sees peacocks having long tailfeathers (which make them easy to catch and be eaten alive by leopards) as “God just being whimsical.” >>

Another claim in that book is that paleontologists think whales evolved from rodents. For those interested in a strong reply to P. Johnson’s scientific claims, see the above book by Kenneth Miller Finding Darwin’s God, also this book: Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins (1999). Great book, Lamoureux is an evangelical Christian evolutionary creationist and knows his stuff (Ph.D. in biology, Ph.D. in theology), also several contributors in that book. Johnson takes a licking but keeps on ticking, like Paley’s watch.

I do recommend P. Johnson’s talks though, he is an entertaining speaker. Download some of his lectures from Veritas Forum here, along with many other wonderful speakers.

Phil P

 

[PeterK]

Roy,

I am doing a rash thing by replying without having read all the posts.

I don’t think you have to avoid this discussion as offered above.

The some people just accept evolution, de facto, forgetting that it is still just a theory. They posture evolution as if it’s a given, and have creationists as the ones needing to explain things.

Well, for me, there are three HUGE holes in the evolution theory that could use some proving.

Hole number one: The Beginning. Evolutionists work around the uncaused-cause/prime-mover/design-designer questions posed by philosophy with *‘eternal substance.’ *Substance, not God, has always existed. Then a Big-Bang gets all this substance moving.

Substance has always existed, somehow a big bang sets this stuff in motion, and the wheels of evolution start turning. Meanwhile, all the perceived order inherent in the universe is really chaos misinterpreted as order. Really? Got any proof?

Hole number two: Life. Basically, how does inorganic matter become organic matter? Lots of theories, no proof. But be assured, it happened chaotically, by chance. It wasn’t planned.

Hole number three: Moral People. What** really** sets man apart from the animals and exposes him as a person with a soul is a realization of right and wrong. People make moral decisions, animal don’t. Animals don’t know right and wrong. They possibly know the path of least resistance from the path of higher resistance, but they do not decide between a right course of action and a wrong course of action. Animals do not experience guilt as a result of a wrong decision. It is the evolutionist’s burden to prove they do.

The theory of evolution is very weak regarding these three areas. Have your evolutionist friend speak to these particular three areas.

I, personally, can accept some evolution in my understanding of creationism, but the three holes mentioned above, for me, show where the divine entered in and created something that, otherwise, would not have existed. This keeps me solidly in the creationist camp.

…and don’t confuse scientists with secular evolutionists. Creationism is not an affront to science, it is an affront to those who use science to erase God.

agape,

Peter Kleine

 

[wanerious]

roymckenzie:

I am looking for a general way to with proof show where creation is at least as scientific as evolution and makes a more logical argument.

Well, as an advisor wisely told me some time ago in grad school, “it’s hard to prove something that isn’t true. Really hard.”

You ought to feel skeptical that, using the methods of science, you can overturn at least a hundred years of observations, theories, and conclusions by tens of thousands of (frankly) smart people who have devoted their professional lives to study just what you’re curious about. It is probable that any rather simplistic hypothesis has already been evaluated and, for good reason, discarded already, perhaps many times over. Instead of walking in with a foregone conclusion, if you’re really interested, is to spend the requisite number of years training yourself so that you are equipped to deal with the subtleties with some authority. I would imagine similarly that Church apologists get a little tired every time some teenager/college student going through their agnostic or atheistic phase spouts off simplistic models of good/evil that have been dealt with hundreds of years ago. I do applaud your reading Dawkins, though. What do you find unsatisfying of his arguments?

 

[wanerious]

Sugar Ray:

PhilVaz:

I reject the notion that men like Colson and Johnson should be disregarded because they are not scientists. They are serious and capable men and like all men they should not accept what is spoon fed to them by “experts” but can and should apply their own analysis to the facts and draw their own conclusion.

You’re right. We ought not disregard them out of hand, but should examine their arguments, even though we be rightly skeptical at their lack of authority and credentials in the field. This has been done. The reason their ideas have gained no traction in biological circles is not because they are “outsiders”, but because their ideas have no scientific merit. Their “analyses” and “conclusions” are necessarily overly simple and inaccurate, since they are not themselves biologists. We tread into dangerous waters when we try to preach to specialists.

I find their conclusions based on the evidence they provide compelling.

I’m not trying to put you down, but I’m not surprised that a non-biologist finds the simple arguments of other non-biologists compelling. They are written to appeal to non-specialists, not to try to win over the real authorities, since they fail in that respect.

On the other hand I cannot see how any impartial person could support spontaneous generation in view of the mind boggling complexity of us and our surroundings.

The universe is not limited by our current ability to understand it. Complex it certainly is, but perhaps understandable to some further extent.

 

[wanerious]

PeterK:

Hole number one: The Beginning. Evolutionists work around the uncaused-cause/prime-mover/design-designer questions posed by philosophy with *‘eternal substance.’ *Substance, not God, has always existed. Then a Big-Bang gets all this substance moving.

The origin of the Big Bang does not fall into the domain of evolutinary theory (or really, even Big Bang theory, since it just deals with what comes after the initial expansion). Not a problem!

Hole number two: Life. Basically, how does inorganic matter become organic matter? Lots of theories, no proof. But be assured, it happened chaotically, by chance. It wasn’t planned.

No, this is formally called abiogenesis. Again, not in the domain of evolutionary models.

Hole number three: Moral People. What** really** sets man apart from the animals and exposes him as a person with a soul is a realization of right and wrong. People make moral decisions, animal don’t. Animals don’t know right and wrong. They possibly know the path of least resistance from the path of higher resistance, but they do not decide between a right course of action and a wrong course of action. Animals do not experience guilt as a result of a wrong decision. It is the evolutionist’s burden to prove they do.

No, they certainly do not. This is a philosophical, and perhaps psychological, question. Since evolutionary models are concerned with genetic changes from generation to generation, this is not going to be realistically addressed until we have some genetic model of behavior.

These are three really interesting questions, but quite outside of any evolutionary models. Explaining the relative interrelatedness of present and extinct organisms is the lion’s share of evolutionary work.

 

[PeterK]

wanerious,

Thanks for the reply.

I was speaking in very general terms. For me, when Darwinism vs. Creationism conversations come up, my impression is that the term Darwinism (or evolutionism) is expanded beyond it’s strict or primary definition. This is probably due to the fact that the term is paired up against the term Creationism - which of course is a very all inclusive term. Evolutionism or Darwinism then becomes the equivalent all inclusive term for the atheist explanation of all origins.

Most people I encounter would understand the ‘theory of evolution’ or *‘Darwinism’ *in this broader context, as being the process of how existence arrived at where it is today from the first atom, apart from any godly initiative.

I got the impression that Roy’s antagonist was using the term in this broader application and not just caught up with ‘species to species’ evolution. So I just followed.

BTW, is there a proper all inclusive one term that is the atheist or secular equivalent to “creationism?” I can’t think of one at the moment.

Thanks for all the clarifications.

agape
Peter Kleine

 

[mlchance]

BillP:

Yes, pretty much. Darwinian Evolution by Natural Selection is as close to a settled “fact” as exists in science. The concept is backed by mountains of evidence. The mechanism of natural selection has been observed and replicated in laboratories all over the world for over 100 years.

Natural selection is not evolution. Natural selection can be readily observed. Evolution - the change of one species into another species over time due to essentially random mutation - has not been observed. It has only been speculated. Likewise, evolution - the origin of living organisms from nonliving matter - has not only not been observed, it also contradicts one of the basic tenets of biology: life comes only from life.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[wanerious]

PeterK:

Evolutionism or Darwinism then becomes the equivalent all inclusive term for the atheist explanation of all origins.

Ah, ok. As long as we have our terms straight. But this isn’t the classic “Evolution” as practiced by scientists. Origins, to scientists in all fields, is still a great mystery.

Most people I encounter would understand the ‘theory of evolution’ or *‘Darwinism’ *in this broader context, as being the process of how existence arrived at where it is today from the first atom, apart from any godly initiative.

I agree, but this is part of the problem. The general public ought to be educated as to what the theory actually is, as opposed to how it is presented infomally

BTW, is there a proper all inclusive one term that is the atheist or secular equivalent to “creationism?” I can’t think of one at the moment.

I don’t think there is one, except maybe “science” (not to be a wise guy, really). A good scientific theory concerning the development of laws and matter from origins up to now is pretty much what scientists (in the collective sense) in all fields are trying to do, except they tend to work on little pieces of it, since it’s such a hard problem.

 

[wanerious]

mlchance:

Natural selection is not evolution. Natural selection can be readily observed. Evolution - the change of one species into another species over time due to essentially random mutation - has not been observed. It has only been speculated. Likewise, evolution - the origin of living organisms from nonliving matter - has not only not been observed, it also contradicts one of the basic tenets of biology: life comes only from life.

You can appropriate your own definitions all you want, but natural selection is evolution (coupled with the observed fact that offspring are genetically different from their parents — this random mutation you stipulate). Groups of organisms change through time, and our present classification of extinct animals into species is more a selection effect due to the relative rarity of fossilized remains than a hard and fast encyclopedia of all organisms that ever existed. That no species has evolved into others would come as a great shock to professional scientists. When instances of just this are presented, say on the talkorigins.org site, how are we to take your contradictory assertions above the published works? No one has ever observed an electron, either. Our model of their existence is likewise “speculative”. But the evidence is pretty good, no?

 

[thistle]

I see now that a few posters are also debating what evolution is.
What evolution is it that John Paul II said has been proven. Extract below from my earlier post:

Poupard and others at the news conference were asked about the religion-science debate raging in the United States over evolution and “intelligent design.”

Intelligent design’s supporters argue that natural selection, an element of evolutionary theory, cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms.

**Monsignor Gianfranco Basti, director of the Vatican project STOQ, or Science, Theology and Ontological Quest, reaffirmed John Paul’s 1996 statement that evolution was “more than just a hypothesis.”

“A hypothesis asks whether something is true or false,” he said. “(Evolution) is more than a hypothesis because there is proof.”**

 

[mlchance]

wanerious:

…natural selection is evolution (coupled with the observed fact that offspring are genetically different from their parents — this random mutation you stipulate).

No, natural selection, the idea that a species changes over time to adapt to its environment, isn’t evolution, meaning the gradual change of one species into another different species over time via random mutation.

wanerious:

Groups of organisms change through time…

Admittedly, but they do not change from one species into another species. Nor do living organisms evolve from nonliving matter.

wanerious:

…and our present classification of extinct animals into species is more a selection effect due to the relative rarity of fossilized remains than a hard and fast encyclopedia of all organisms that ever existed.

That one extinct species in the fossil record evolved into a different species isn’t a demonstration. It is an inference drawn to conform to an a priori assumption.

wanerious:

No one has ever observed an electron, either.

The effects of electrons can be readily observed. Evolution - the change of one species into another gradually over time through random mutation - cannot be observed. It is essentially unfalsifiable, and, therefore, more a matter of dogma than of science.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Chris_W]

thistle:

I don’t see any conflict between the two. The Church recognises evolution but of course behind that is our creator.

There is conflict between the two, from the aspect of Original Sin and the Catholic requried belief that all of the human race came from an original pair.

Furthermore, I am not debating whether or not there are scientific truths contained in the theory of evolution. To say the Church agrees evolution “is more than just an hypothesis” is irrelevent. It may in fact be more than a mere hypothises. However, I reject the theory as a whole because I cannot reconcile the theory and Catholicism, nor have I encountered anyone yet who has been able to. Many people quote the things you’ve quoted, which are fine and good, but they do not say the Church approves of the theory of evolution, nor that the two can be reconciled.

To sum up. I see conflicts, so I reject the theory as a whole, even if parts of it may be true. Just like I reject Protestantism even though many parts of it are true. Evolution is not proven fact, and therefore I am free to reject it without violating reason…especially since I am free to consider all kinds of evidences, not just scientific.

My answer is not to debate evolution, but to give the OP a method of combatting his rude friend’s attack on his belief.

 

[Chris_W]

rossum:

Of course the theory of evolution is unprovable; all scientific theories are unprovable. The theory of gravity is unprovable, the theories of fluid dynamics are unprovable, the theory of electron flow in semiconductors is unprovable. Any scientific theory can only ever be the best explanation of the data we have available. It is always possible that new data will require the theory to be modified or replaced. The theory of evolution has a great deal of evidence in its favour and is the best explanation of the evidence we currently have.

Agreed. I do not reject gravity and other theories because they do not pose a problem that I cannot reconcile with the faith of which I am certain.

rossum:

I am saying that there is no scientific evidence that requires creationism.

It seems I agree with you on several points.

rossum:

To date there is no evidence that cannot be explained by evolution and can be explained by creationism.

That is a bold claim. I disagree, but regardless of that, what difference does that make? If what you say were true, at best it only makes the theory more plausible…it does not mean it is true.

rossum:

There are many alternatives. Some are:
1 The universe does not really exist, we just think it does, so creation and evolution are both moot.
2 The universe is a human mental construct and is unique to each different human being so each can be true for different people.

Hmmm. How could we think without existing? This is nonsense.

rossum:

3 The oscillating universe which has no beginning and no end so no creation is required.

This is disproven by the contingency argument. It cannot have just always existed.

rossum:

4 The universe is unknowable so all theories about it are false.
5 The correct theory has not yet been developed; both are false…

Neither of these are actually an alternative to evolution or creation since both merely indicate an inability to know fro certain.

rossum:

6 Creation by YHWH.
7 Creation by Allah.
8 Creation by Vishnu.
9 Creation by [insert god of choice here]…

How is this an alternative to creation or evolution?

rossum:

10 The universe was created last Thursday with all its apparent history in place…

Impossible because I know I existed prior to last thursday. See my answer to #1 & #2.

You have yet to pose another alternative to creation and/or evolution.

rossum:

Because creationism currently has no evidence to support it, many creationists rely on the false dichotomy between creationism and evolution. They try to pick holes in evolution and declare creationism the winner by default. This is not science because the only allowed default position in science is “we don’t know yet”. In order to support creationism the creationists are going to have to produce some positive evidence such as I outlined above.

But the OP is merely trying to refute the rash judgment of his friend. Why must the discussion necessarily include exclusivley scientific evidence? It does not need to. The scientific evidence cannot prove either position. My reasons for belief in creation is not the conclusion from examining only scientific evidence, but rather, ALL evidences.

 

[Chris_W]

To the O.P.:

As you can see from the posts so far in this thread, evolutionists will try most often to limit the conversation exclusively to what can be known through empirical scientific data. This results in arguments about which sources are credible and which are not, etc, etc.

By definition, science cannot address God. Therefore, since the belief in creation stems from belief in God, my advice is to ask the person why he feels science is the only method one can use to determine what it true and what is not true.

There is no reason to limit the discussion to science exclusively. And if it is allowed to be limited to that realm, in the end the best anyone can do is try to show that one position is more likely than another. Neither position can be proven conclusively via science.

Therefore, I recommend you try to encourage your friend to consider other methods of determining what is true and what is not…i.e. philosophy, reason, history, evidence of miracles that contradict what is scientifically known, etc.

 

[rossum]

Darwin’s book was called “On the Origin of Species”. It was not called “On the Origin of Species, Life, the Universe and Everything”. The theory of evolution does not cover everything in science; it says nothing about, for example, gravity or the behaviour of electrons in semiconductors. There are other theories to cover those areas.

PeterK:

Hole number one: The Beginning. Evolutionists work around the uncaused-cause/prime-mover/design-designer questions posed by philosophy with ‘eternal substance.’ Substance, not God, has always existed. Then a Big-Bang gets all this substance moving.

Scientific questions about the origin of the universe are covered by cosmology, not evolution. Your hole, is a hole in cosmology, not a hole in evolution. That is not a problem. There are indeed holes in cosmology, which is why cosmologists find the subject interesting - it is only in the holes that new discoveries can be made. Philosophical questions about the origin of the universe belong in philosophy, not in science.

PeterK:

Hole number two: Life. Basically, how does inorganic matter become organic matter? Lots of theories, no proof.

The origin of life is another area of science that is outside evoluiton, it is called abiogenesis. While there are obvious close links between abiogenesis and evolution they are separate theories. Abiogenesis is about how the first imperfect replicators originated. Evolution is about the subsequent development of those imperfect replicators. Your second hole is a hole in abiogenesis, not a hole in evolution. There are indeed holes in abiogenesis, it is much less well understood than evolution. See this webpage for a slightly out of date summary; abiogenesis is developing as holes are being filled.

You would do well to avoid making too much of the distinction between “organic” and “inorganic” matter. This tends to make people think that you are subject to the scientific error of vitalism, which has been long disproved. Both organic and inorganic matter are made out of exactly the same atoms - there is no difference. Inorganic matter, say oxygen gas, becomes organic matter by being breathed in and chemically combined with molecules inside living cells. When the cell dies it reverts to being inorganic matter. Is a crystal of sugar alive or dead? Is it organic or inorganic matter?

PeterK:

But be assured, it happened chaotically, by chance. It wasn’t planned.

Chemistry is not chance. If you burn hydrogen in oxygen then you will get water as the result. There is a great deal of chemistry in abiogenesis; chance has much less to do with it than you seem to think.

PeterK:

Hole number three: Moral People. What really sets man apart from the animals and exposes him as a person with a soul is a realization of right and wrong. People make moral decisions, animal don’t. Animals don’t know right and wrong. They possibly know the path of least resistance from the path of higher resistance, but they do not decide between a right course of action and a wrong course of action.

A soul is a theological entity; it is outside the boundary of evolution. Once again your hole is not a hole in evolution.

PeterK:

Animals do not experience guilt as a result of a wrong decision.

Have you ever owned a dog? Some dog owners say that their dog knows when it has done something wrong. Given that dogs evolved from wolves, which live in packs, then some sort of awareness of the social implications of actions would not be unexpected.

PeterK:

It is the evolutionist’s burden to prove they do.

Why? This is a question for theologians, not biologists. Since I am a Buddhist I do not believe in the existence of any sort of soul:“All entities are soulless”; when one understands this with wisdom,
then one is disgusted with suffering; this is the path to purity.

(Dhammapada v279)
This is not a scientific question, but a religious one. Different scientists will have different answers to the question, depending on their individual beliefs.

rossum

 

[PeterK]

rossum,

Did you not see wanerious’s reply to my post (3 posts after my intitial post) and my response (the following post) regarding my use and the general understanding of the terms ‘theory of evolution’ and ‘Darwinism’?

Peter Kleine

 

[rossum]

Chris W:

If what you say were true, at best it only makes the theory more plausible…it does not mean it is true.

Just as a scientific theory can never be proven, so no scientific theory is ever “true”. Science is a way of getting ever closer to the truth about something. It may never actually get there, and if it does there is no way of telling that it has. As I said, all that a scienctific theory can provide is the best explanation of the available evidence. That is not “truth”, more like a very good and well tested rule of thumb.
Chris W:

rossum:

There are many alternatives. Some are:
1 The universe does not really exist, we just think it does, so creation and evolution are both moot.
2 The universe is a human mental construct and is unique to each different human being so each can be true for different people.

Hmmm. How could we think without existing? This is nonsense.

Just because you personally do not agree with an alternative does not mean that it is not a valid alternative. I personally do not accept creationism; that does not mean that creationism is not an alternative.
Chris W:

rossum:

3 The oscillating universe which has no beginning and no end so no creation is required.

This is disproven by the contingency argument. It cannot have just always existed.

Why not? If there is enough dark matter in the universe then gravitation will eventually draw everything back together into a Big Crunch. The resulting lump then explodes again in another Big Bang. The sequence of Big Bang followed by Big Crunch followed by another Big Bang can continue indefinitely.
Chris W:

rossum:

6 Creation by YHWH.
7 Creation by Allah.
8 Creation by Vishnu.
9 Creation by [insert god of choice here]…

How is this an alternative to creation or evolution?

Each religion has a different creation story. Since creationism is based at least in part on religious sources then each different religion has a different theory of creation. For example Christian Young Earth Creationism has a date of creation about six thousand years ago. Hindu creationism has the date of creation a very long time ago, either infinite or hundreds of thousands of billions of years ago. These must be different theories.
Chris W:

rossum:

10 The universe was created last Thursday with all its apparent history in place…

Impossible because I know I existed prior to last thursday.

All your memories of events before last Thursday were placed in your brain last Thursday as you were being created. All the evidence you may think you have of events before last Thursday was created last Thursday along with everything else: fossils, DNA sequences, Bible manuscripts and so on. Google for “Omphalism” for more.
Chris W:

You have yet to pose another alternative to creation and/or evolution.

I have posed many alternatives. Just because you don’t agree with them does not mean that they are not alternatives. I don’t agree with some of them myself, but they are still alternatives. The simplest alternative is “we don’t know yet”. As I said, this is the only allowed default position in science, though it could perhaps be modified to “we don’t know yet, but we are working on it”.
Chris W:

Why must the discussion necessarily include exclusivley scientific evidence?

Evolution is part of science, so it makes sense to use scientific evidence. If the OP wants to convince his office colleague then he is going to have to use evidence that his colleague accepts as authoritative. Most non-creationists will accept scientific evidence so it is probably best for the OP to start arguing on that basis. If the colleague accepts other evidence then that can also be used. Quoting Bible verses at a non-Christian is not a very effective debating tactic.
Chris W:

The scientific evidence cannot prove either position.

Science cannot “prove” any of its theories so it is useless to expect it to do so.
Chris W:

My reasons for belief in creation is not the conclusion from examining only scientific evidence, but rather, ALL evidences.

I am a Buddhist; am I allowed to use Buddhist scripture as evidence? Does Buddhist scripture have the same evidential value as Christian scripture? What about scriptures from other religions? Do we include Aquinas, Kant, Nagarjuna and other philosophers? Purely for practical reasons we need to limit the evidence otherwise we would never finish the preliminary reading before the start of any debate.

rossum