(my answers are in bold).
I'll have a look at your link about Mr. Flew. I don't think that his deism is all that relevant to the creation/evolution debate, but I found it interesting that he was being used in that way.
I think it is very relevant, he's one of the leading evolutionists and has been for years. This is a major breakthrough if it causes people to consider intelligence/design as well as their other theories. I don't think pterosaurs are all that relevant either. Scorpions and crocodiles have existed since before the dinosaurs and you don't see scientists trying to hide them under a carpet. Yes I think many creatures remain to be discovered, though the obviously fake pictures that have been posted here are . . . well, let's say they lighten things up.
They'd have a few problems hiding them under the carpet, they're too common and well known for those games <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Are the pictures really fake linda?...I can't be certain..can you? OK, missing link. Old terminology, no longer used by scientists. All forms are transitional forms because evolution is an ongoing process. More fossils are found all the time and more pieces of the jigsaw are filled in. It's a fortuitous set of circumstances in which a body is fossilised, and preserved, and found, but nevertheless the pieces keep coming in. I've documented a series of transitional fossils for whales elsewhere in this forum, if Russ hasn't decided to delete it yet. There's a good number of them for hominids as well. The problem is that a creationist can always look at two transitionals and say " where's the one in between." When one is found, they want what's in between it and the others. Infinite regression. Presumably you also look at homo erectus and say it's an ape, and at a neanderthal and say it's a human, yes? Or how else would you classify those?
Missing link, old terminology same old story. Transitional forms? so now it's the old "well it happened so slowly we can't really observe it" (the other one was punctuated equilibrium, happening so fast we were unable to see it). Just give me an example of an animal that hasn't always been or looked as it does today. Every fossil of any animal you see today, no matter how old has not shown to be anything else,....other than what we see today...where is the mystery? The ape to man creatures would never hold up in a court of law. Even by evolutionists. The differences with Neanderthals are still in the range of modern humans, despite claims that attempt to prove otherwise. Like the horse theory. For your examples about how dating is wrong, be it radioisotope dating or dating of rock formations, can you please give links or some other kind of verifiable evidence? You've made quite a number of assertions but I see no proof for them here. I've seen similar claims on creationist websites and when they actually do give enough verifiable detail, they've turned out to have the facts wrong.
Which facts did they get wrong? If Dr. Gary Parker is an ex evolutionist, presumably he is a creationist. I don't doubt that he is caricaturing other "evolutionists" he knew. BTW I don't like the term "evolutionist." It's only creationists who tend to use it because attaching "-ist" to it makes it sound like a religious dogma itself. I repeat, I feel no "need" to "believe." I make my decisions based on the evidence, which does not require me to claim that conspiracies exist amongst scientists or that most of what they tell us is wrong, or that the physical evidence which I've seen and touched myself is all hoaxes. I know a few scientists. They are intelligent people who themselves are not hoaxers, and frankly it's impossible for them to do what they do and be completely fooled somehow. I don't think Russ wants to look up Glenn Morton
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm but maybe you will. He was a creationist petroleum engineer who saw the Bible as literal fact, and had great difficulty reconciling this with what he observed in his day-to-day work. He's found some interesting ways of joining the two together in his mind, but it required leaving young-earthism behind.
Oh ok, so I can't use missing link and I've got to stop using "evolutionist" now too....do you think you could get a wee bit less precious in me using apparently "outdated" terms describing much the same thing? So you've seen evidence in the flesh? What is it? I've touched just one of many sulfur balls gathered from the areas of ancient Sodom and Gommorah, not quite what you'd get to see anywhere else. Was able to still light them Thank you for the link, I'll look into it and have a read. Open mindedness is appreciated and where the evidence leads is the key. I'm not entirely sure where others stand on this issue here because they haven't clarified by saying how old they think the earth is. Do you think it's about 6000 years old? And if so, maybe you can address some points about the supposed Biblical flood?
Yes, I personally do believe in a young earth. What points would you like me to address re the flood? I personally believe that it occured around 4000 years ago.....I believe the account in the bible for sure. I also know that there are many cultures around the world who haven't even read a bible, but share a very similar (almost identical) account of a man, a boat, and animals and the rest of mankind being wiped out. In fact, there is MUCH to be said for "so called" legends, particularly when they are shared all over the world in differing cultures.....our ancestory/history speaks volumes from people that really were there! [b]Re the link you gave me to the long age theory of the earth? It's interesting.....but so are the short age earth theories and which one do I find more compelling? It's fine for this guy to feel that the evidence he comes up with forces him to reassess some of his ideas IF in fact he's gotten his facts straight. Because I've heard the opposite of scientists still hanging onto the long earth theory and finding they had to change their view based on what they were finding. Surely it's a case of interpretation of the evidences? God spoke and it was....he admits that to an extent, but I wonder how much power and might he's giving over to the elements, rather than the creator. Jesus was able to quiet the storms in an instant just by giving the word, having complete dominion over the earth and the sea.....Whether the creator took six literal days to do this, or 6 thousand years, it's His business. Instant miracles are not above or outside his abilities or agenda. Unfortunately we too often try to fit God into the scope of our own limited intellect, especially if we find it just too hard to believe[b]
[b] I don't know about anybody else, but I am far from impressed by the inability of many degreed academics to express themselves simply. It's often a cover up for confusion, uncertainty, agendas and bias, which simplicity tends to unmask. Simplicity of expression is the ultimate act of intelligence, e.g. Einstein! Often the use of long words and impressive terminology is their way of dazzling the listener, whilst boosting the ego and covering up discrepancies and is a well used ploy. I always admire those who are highly intelligent and qualified who manage to break things down for the layperson without having to resort to pontificating. There are scientists on both sides of these debates who can fall into the same trap. No way are any of them infallible, but I admire their depth of learning, study and achievements in many areas.[b]
