You did not answer my question. In the post to which I made the creation "scientist" reference, you stated:
evolutionary scientists are not the only scientists. There are creation scientists who challenge the claims of evolution scientists - even though the majority wins in regards to having the loudest voice, there is another voice and one in which has every right to be heard.
It would appear from Linear's perspective, that it is ok to challenge/dispute/question the claims of Creation scientists and Genesis, but almost blasphemy if one dares to challenge the claims of mainstream evolutionary scientists/biologists
Your quote of mine in response to your "creation scientists" reference is
incorrect. Instead, you used an earlier quote and suggested that was my reply. This is not what I had responded with at all.
Go back to page 21, use your scroll bar. Here is the post number:
#46759 That was how I responded to your quote of "creation scientists". Please be more accurate. It was in response to the context of your statement about scientists who challenge the theory of evolution, that I made the comment and asked about the experiments performed. You haven't answered the question at all.
You made a sweeping generalisation of "creation scientists". In response, I gave you a list showing scientists who hold to the creation belief and are indeed
scientists with credentials.
Did I make claims of such experiments done in respect to creation? Can you quote me where I did so? Since your so keen and if this is a requirement for a theory being taught - can you spell out the experiments that evolutionists have done that prove that all life arose from simple celled organisms? I'm unaware that any such experiments have been achieved from either side that can test such theories about origins! Please enlighten me!
I'm speaking of creation scientists that do not hold to the evolution viewpoint and obviously believe that observation points to creation, rather than evolution. E.g.
Henry M Morris as one such example.
Should you wish to find out more about their observations and why they believe as they do, please look them up yourself. There are enough websites, books etc, sources to discover creation scientist's beliefs about our world/origins. No excuse for not finding out yourself and Russ has enough video and other materials on this forum alone.
Yet you cannot point to any scientist's experiments that resulted in positive evidence of a young earth or instantaneous creation of all the life forms....which was the request. I don't have a problem with scientists or anyone else questioning evolution, but how about some of them doing at least one experiment to support their side.
You appear to be insinuating that I made claim to such experiments in the first place. If I did, I certainly don't recall doing so! Can you point me to where I have stated this? Has evolution done experiments in proving omeoba to creature/man and if so, what were/are they? If not, why not? Since you appear to feel very strongly on the matter in regards to proving a theory, perhaps you ought to set the example and present it!
If you cannot do so, why request that I provide such experiements for special creation (if they exist) and what would be expected by you?
Speaking of which:
I asked you once when you made the claim that scientists transferred feathers to the feet of a bird in an experiment and you failed to produce the evidence it ever happened, when I asked for it, you then accused me of calling you and them liars. Yet you ask others to give evidence of experiements they haven't even made claim to! I'll await the evidence for the experiments done by your side in respect to our origins - and perhaps then I'll understand what is expected from those who believe in special creation - personally I cannot see how on earth anybody can possibly do an experiement to prove a theory about our origins, but feel free to to provide a demonstration.
Experiments or not, one would still have to explain why observation of fossil evidences does not appear to back up simple life becoming complex through time, but rather abrupt appearance of creatures that show no such sign of simple beginnings. So how would this fit in I wonder?
Just to clarify to people, my comments here about creation scientists were to emphasize that not all scientists believe that observation of our world points to evolution, but rather special creation which is in contrast to the evolution theory. If you wish to find out why they believe this, you can delve deeper. There are websites/sources/books out there that do give other sides and ideas of our world other than the evolution viewpoint.
As above, it is the point of people using science (true science), without the evolution theory of origins/process.
I never said they couldn't. However, this doesn't support your creation scientist argument because they don't depend on the creation theory either. It's like saying that someone can repair an automobile without a pipe wrench when the subject of discussion was plumbing.
In what "creation argument" did I state the reliance upon this theory for science? If anything, I've made it clear that science is about study/knowledge and not reliant upon a theory! You really know how to twist things - is resorting to such tactics helpful to you in anyway?
Perhaps Russ and CTD maybe more up on this than I am in regards to young earth belief evidence/testing. But certainly evolution obviously did not impact their studies/contribution or their own beliefs.
They're scientists? What field of study?
Please read questions a bit more clearly, it might help you avoid pointless sarcastic snipes
A couple of problems here. You don't define what a transitional form should be but imply here that it is not "fully formed". Now you should have to explain what full form means in order to use it to refute the idea that there are no transitional forms.
You also say that the fossils suddenly appear in the record as if that means they were suddenly created fully formed. However, there is that sticky problem of where they show up in the fossil record. No bunnies in Cambrian deposits. No pollen from flowering plants in the Jurassic, or Cambrian.
Seems you are now attacking the sciences of physics and geology.
Here is where Linear frequently shifts the burden of proof. His idea is to get us (creationists) to
define something -I'd say the lack of
clear cut evidence for this theory explains why there is a preference for arguing definitions, shifting burdens of description, and burden of proof without ever really providing substance.
The sticky problem here Linear, is not WHERE they show up (as you have proposed) but the fact they DO show up without any evidence of arising from simple beginnings! The problem remains for your theory and neither time nor location appear to be helping.
The appearance of creatures fail to show any evidence of omeoba to animal/man regardless of where they are. So a host of animals abruptly appear with legs, claws, eyes,etc and you're asking me now to define "fully formed" - typical! Should anybody oblige you in your incessant requests of "definitions" of your choosing for for the bleeding obvious?
Define what is not
fully formed Linear. If these fossils are incomplete - (not fully formed) then what are they? Have they proven your evolution theory about origins of life arising from simplicity? Most fossils - however ancient, are consistently recognisable for what they are to this day! Take your pick, from rabbits, frogs, hyenas, tigers, goats!
The fossil record shows no evidence of simple life to complex. No evidence of incomplete to complete. Nothing at all to explain the sudden appearance of these creatures/fossils in respect to evolution. Nothing whatsoever to indicate they came from simple celled organisms. Since their appearance was abrupt and complete! Unless you find half and half creatures on their way to becoming something recognisable in the order of evolution proposed.
Repeated request. Show us evidence with reality photographs of the simple life that all these fossils arose from and the stages that show their gradual formation from such - let's see such a journey in fossil evidence. Let's see you give substance for your theory without resorting to argumentative avoidance tacticsNowhere have I attacked the sciences of physics and geology. I have simply requested you back up the evolutionary claims up with substance in regards to the fossils to display their beginnings in simplicity, to which you have been given the opportunity time and time again. Had you the substance, you'd delight in enlightening people I'm sure! Instead, you become defensive and accusatory when such requests are asked of you
How much longer do I (and I know others), as members of this forum, have to tolerate your defensive false accusations of apparent "attacks" against various fields of science that you decide we're attacking, simply because you fail to provide substance to back up claims? Whose problem is that?Well, the candid admission from the evolutionary biologist is indeed cause for concern. Denials in the face of the obvious may not be lying, but a difficulty in shifting a preconceived belief and indoctrination, and of course the motivation to keep ones position. Certainly it seems that they MUST attribute it to evolution, or they face real threat to their positions, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. Certainly, one is motivated to hold to such a theory!
Then it is OK for them to lie to keep their jobs?
Of course not. It's immoral - but it's amazing how people can justify a belief to themselves, even if observation shows them otherwise. If that is what the science field dictates, then they're required to teach it as told.
