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.
I was talking about the reason I made the "creation scientist" remark in the first place. Scroll up to post 46676 where you said:
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.
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.
In none of those cases did you show that those scientists believed that God made the universe exactly as written in Genesis. Just because they believe in God does not mean they believe that Genesis 1 and 2 are literal history. Do you have quotes from them that say they do?
Did I make claims of such experiments done in respect to creation? Can you quote me where I did so?
The implication from post #46676 that there are scientists who challenge the theory of evolution, is that a real challenge is being mounted. In science, a real challenge to a theory is executed by doing experiments to disprove that theory. Are these challengers doing any?
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!
First, experiments and research are about producing evidence not proof. Proofs are for math...science is about producing a preponderance of evidence.
Second, you seem to want one experiment that "proves" it all. There is no theory that has one experiment that provides evidence for all of what that theory states.
However...multiple lines of evidence for evolution include:
Genetics: Errors in the DNA that are in the exact same place in the strings for closely related species. Chimps and humans have an error in the exact same place in their DNA to prevent them from making their own Vitamin C. Changes made by viruses in the DNA occur in exactly the same places in humans and chimps.
Fossils: Predictions have been made as to where a particular type of fossil should be found in the geologic strata. In every case that type of fossil was found in the layer predicted. Tiktaalik, a transitional between fish and amphibian was discovered using that prediction method.
Zoology: Ring Species are organisms from the same species that are split into varieties usually by environmental semi-isolation. The varieties close to each other can interbreed but the varieties on either end of the chain cannot or will not even when placed in close proximity. They have changed so much from each other that they don't recognize each other as the same species. This is an indication of how speciation can occur in nature.
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.
Dr. Morris is a hydraulics engineer. The books of his that I read were full of supposition and showed a significant lack of knowledge about the evidence for evolution. His books
Scientific Creationism, and
The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth were some of the works by creationists that made me realize that the interpretation of Genesis as literal history was not correct. Both him and Hovind caused my belief in Young Earth Creationism to collapse.
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.
I have looked them up. The videos, for the most part, appeal to the emotional side of people who know little about science and want their ears tickled so they can feel comfortable about their beliefs. Much evidence is ignored or misapplied so badly that real experts in geology, physics, and biology find it difficult to believe that these are not purposeful deceptions.
So, maybe you can come up with something that has been done and does not ignore the evidence.
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?
Then you don't believe that creation scientists have done any experiments to provide evidence for their hypothesis?
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!
There is no "proof" only evidence.
I provided examples above. It would take time to track down the actual experiments/research involved but I will do it if you like. As I said before, each research project only provides pieces of evidence in support of the theory, not all of 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?
I would expect a description of the research, what was found as positive evidence of Young Earth Creation, and hopefully some reference to the research or author.
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 look for it, but
this is what I have so far.
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.
Probably because you don't know that theories are not proven, just supported by evidence from research and experimentation.
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?
They all don't appear in the same level of the geologic column so even if they were created as distinct creatures, they would have had to be created in different millenia. Trilobites before rabbits, dinos before horses...etc. If they were all created at the same time, like Genesis says, they why are they not fossilized together? A simple survey of the fossil record shows that it doesn't support your interpretation of Genesis.
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?
The debate is about Young Earth Creation vs evolution. What was the point of bringing up those scientists if they don't support either point of view?
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 fact that simpler creatures are the only ones in earlier sediments IS evidence that all creatures were not created at the same time in their final form. No bunnies mixed in with pre-Cambrian fossils.
In the Cambrian, more complex creatures formed but they are all sea creatures. Where are the bunnies, dinos, humans and horses? That is evidence that sea creatures existed first.
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!
Why should they not be "fully formed" even if they evolved? What part of evolution claims that creatures would not be "fully formed"? Please be specific.
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?[/quote]A transition between the creature(s) that produced them and the creature(s) they produced.
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!
Yet RAZD produced a bat fossil that was not the same as bats today and you ignored it.
Rabbits: Try
hereor
herefrogs: See
thisThe 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.
Obviously the transitional creatures provide previously by RAZD and others
Which particular fossils in the
horse evolution description is not a transitional and why is it not a transitional?
Dinohippus: What particular problem do you have with this?
Maybe it's a problem with Merychippus or Parahippus?
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 tactics
You have been shown fossils of animals that have traits of two different animals...but you want more. Do you need pictures of the fossils for every transition from single-cell to tiger or will you simply say "there are gaps so it must not have happened". You know the fossil record is not so complete that this can be done. The fossil record does show that certain groups of creatures showed up in the timeline at certain times. The earliest creatures were simplest and the complexity increased and time went on....to a point. Then the complexity remained consistent while body plans changed. That's what the fossil record shows. No bunnies in the pre-Cambrian. You told me to look up what you claim. I did and found it to be incomplete, lacking in supporting evidence, and sometimes misleading and deceptive. Show me where this assessment of the fossil record is in error.
Nowhere have I attacked the sciences of physics and geology.
You claim that the Earth and Universe are only 6000 years old. Geology says the earth is 4.2 billion years old. Physics says that the universe is around 13 billion years old. You say they are wrong. How is that not attacking their ability to do science.
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
I have tried enlightening but those post are simply ignored in favor of my posts where I get defensive.
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?
If I told you that you don't know what your doing in your job even though I don't work in your field of study and cannot even do any of the tasks you perform, wouldn't you feel I was out of line?
Perhaps you don't feel that way. Maybe you wouldn't mind it if I just criticized every conclusion you came to in your job. Maybe you would take my criticism to heart and believe as I do, even though all your training, research and experience show you that my conclusions are incorrect. Somehow I doubt it.
