I repeat, did I make such a specific claim? For me this was about creation scientists, whether they hold to the old earth believe or young earth.

The evolution theory, as I pointed out, is not a prerequisite for studying or contributing to science. Evidentally creation scientists are also capable scientists in many different fields. I've repeated this a few times now. And yes, I was talking about those that believe in God and creation.

A repetition of an example LIST of some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation Did you read the list I gave earlier properly?

In case you didn't, or you skim over this list of names repeating to me that I've given you nothing to show scientists who believe in creation - here is an example of a young earth creationist scientist. This is what you have asked for, so here it is! One hopes that you'll be satisfied, but one is not holding her breath!

If you want more, seek them out yourself. The list is provided. I sure hope I don't have to keep going in circles over this.



This is what happens when your own demands get turned around! Let us not forget it was you who set down the requests for experiments/evidence in respect to creation (when I made no such claim). Probably wise to avoid doing this in future if you're unable to come up to the expectations you lay down for others in regards to origins



God created the earth to bring forth an abundance of foods containing all the nutrients required (including vitamin C) - Is it really an error if we require getting it from the foods He has given for us? One person's interpretation of something being an error, maybe far from the truth if we look at things differently.

Degradation of food quality from spraying/early picking (to increase shelf life), lack of soil quality etc has significantly altered and reduced the quality of the food and nutrient content. However, it appears that even then, scurvy is relatively rare, unless there is serious deprivation or a condition that depletes vitamins or prevents proper absorption. Vitamin C is contained in many foods.

Many reasons to give thanks to God and be reminded that we rely upon Him and His creation for our enjoyment, our sustainance and continued survival. Did we have this inability to produce vitamin C from the beginning, and if so, did we lose it? Or did we never have it? and how can we test for something like that?

Did we lose our ability to make vitamin C? If so, how does this fit in with evolution when surely a gain of information is what is usually proposed and how would this be of benefit to our survival, let alone evolution?

How did we survive and continue to reproduce and endure our evolution, unless the foods containing vitamin C were there from the beginning as it's been proven we require it? Or did the foods evolve too and in just the right way, at just the right time, with just the right stuff to fit in with our evolutionary needs? One must ask the same also of the soil content for the plants/trees? It's interesting to me that all appears to work together and complement the other for all plants and creatures to survive and be sustained which continues to confirm an intelligent and caring Creator.

Surely similar traits between man and ape could just as easily = common designer? How does what you've proposed here cancel out creation Linear? Are you aware of the significant differences between apes and humans? And if they are not significant, how do you justify the fact they are treated as mere animals, rather than close relatives?



Creationists do not dispute changes taking place within kinds. Variation/adaption is observable (horizontal changes - microevolution) - but the extent of this is debatable in respect to one kind of animal becoming another (vertical - macroevolution). Again, no such scenario has been observed.

It's amusing how insistent evolutionists are regarding the myriad of transitional forms, but when it comes to actual evidence? Watch the retreat and contradictions:

Video of evolutionists "answering" the question of transitional forms

Take a look at this example what they consider to be evidence for evolution.



Which ones did you look up and what were the problems? you seem very certain that they set out to tickle ears and appeal to our emotions and comfort zones, how so? You criticised Kent Hovind's claims in "lies in textbooks". But when asked for specifics/example, I had no answer from you.

So let's start with him. Here is his video - so how about focussing on what he's discussing, instead of attempting to find ways of putting his character or credentials down as has so often been done on here by evolutionists. How about pointing out where he's wrong and why? List them if you wish and then give the explanation and point us to the evidence that you have that proves Kent Hovind is incorrect.



OK, what evidence is there that supports the theory that complex fully formed creatures evolved from simplicity? Please provide it.



What examples did you provide showing simple life on earth becoming fully formed? I read your post again to make sure. Where did I miss it? Links to assumptions on transitional forms, pieces of fossil, a cartoon in relation to it and the usual painted scenarios has nothing to do with what I had requested. You continue to show us fully formed creatures, regardless of what you wish us to believe about them - you continue to prove my point - they keep proving themselves as full creative forms, no stages from a long process from simplistic life forms.



Whatever layers these fossils were buried in, is not what was discussed here and has little to do with the point I made in respect to the theory of evolution of our origins - explain why there are fully formed/distinct creatures, if all life on earth evolved from simplicity?

There are various discussions on this forum in respect to the burying of fossils in different layers - and we've been through this in respect to the flood. But this is not what was asked. The discussions in regards to that can be read on other thread.

Thank you for going to the trouble of providing a link to the "feathers on feet" (in respect to dinosaur to bird). And as discussed in another thread - evenso, this still does not give evidence of dinosaurs evolving into birds. One only has to take a read of the experiments done. How is it, that millions of years fails to give them what they're after, when they're forced instead to play around with injections of retinoic acid? As though an experiment in a lab can prove what nature has failed to show us? Let me know when they can a reptile into a bird! Nature sure hasn't achieved it!



It's interesting that you state this, because when fossils were displayed on here showing creatures existing around the sametime period as their supposed missing links - you then gave another explanation, which contradicted earlier claims of the order of evolution in the fossil record. How does one state evidence in the order of evolution shown on the fossil record, to then giving some other explanations in the face of missing links/transitionals existing alongside their earlier/later forms? How do you reconcile one belief with the other if the order of evolution is proven by the fossil record? Or did they all decide to die in the right order and then bury themselves in specific layers, even though they lived around the sametime period

In the case of a catastrophic flood (and I believe there was), is not surprising that some maybe buried earlier and deeper than others.

Let's say Linear, if you were right and that all life evolved from simple life - do you think marine fossils are evidence of this? If so, would you provide fossil proof of the stages of evolution that show marine/simple life becoming fully formed creatures? It should be easy if there is order in the fossil record and the stages of those incredible evolutionary steps, should be clear cut and unmistakable. Millions of years should make it pretty easy.



This is incorrect. I did not ignore it. Different species of bats and fossil picture/s were provided by myself proving bats have always been bats (as far as we've witnessed). The bat fossil RAZD gave did nothing to disprove creation and simply highlights again that all animals reproduce after their own kind. Bats come from bats regardless. Once again, the attempt to state this is proof for evolution is highly debatable. Proof of variation and different species? yes. Outside of this is based on mere assumptions of our past.

Your first link on rabbits was for me, as a layperson very confusing. I did have trouble understanding the scientific terminology. This makes it difficult for me to respond properly to a link that may as well be, for the most part, written in another language. If you can understand it clearly enough, perhaps you can break it down for dumbies

However, if I'm correct that size changes have been discussed as proof of evolution, then I haven't missed much. As we have have talked about before, creationists do not dispute adaption/variation, nor the results of climate change. What we have disputed is that one kind of animal has become another as a result of any of these things.

The second link provided a picture of some animal that could well be related to the rabbit or similar species. What can be gained, at least from our perspective from this?


Look at some of the statements:


There are creatures today which could be classified as "rabbit-like" or other species of rabbit. Related does not = transitional. Extinct should not automatically = earlier transitional form. It is the evolutionists who have labelled them as such.


So they admit here that they think it's from the rabbit family.


Yes, like hares. Could very well be related. Hard to judge, having not observed it in its environment.


So it's gone from an earlier rabbit to "rabbit-like". So in other words, they don't know if it's an earlier rabbit, or simply "rabbit-like" or really another species.


Note how they say "very complete"? Assuming that it could be otherwise? Yet.....it's evolving regardless. It amazes me how complete all these forms are, even though we are expected to believe they are underwent a process of evolution to reach "completeness".


A bold assumption considering their earlier uncertainty as to what exact classification it comes under - early rabbit? Or rabbit-like? Or below "squirrel-like" traits.


Further uncertainty. Why then such bold assumptions? Now they're comparing this creature to squirrels because certain traits they believe don't match up. Did squirrels and rabbits evolve from a common ancestor and this is it? Notice they don't actually know, haven't observed it in life, seem uncertain, yet make a bold assumption regardless?

I'll provide a picture of a modern animal who clearly resembles a rabbit, but certainly appears to have traits that are not identical:


This in no way proves it as an earlier transitional form and since it's a modern photograph, why would it? However, had it died and become extinct? It's anybody guess as to what catagory it would be placed under according to evolution!

What about the Chinchilla? Had this animal been extinct before observation - would it have been classified as an earlier transitional form and of whom? It apparently is a rodent. Seems to me that the rabbit above (or rabbit like animal) has a pretty similar tail. This rodent, is larger than a ground squirrel with fur so soft and beautiful that is popular in the fur trade! As we can see there are many varities of animals and many different species of those animals existing today. I imagine it was no different in the past and extinction does not make an animal an earlier transitional form.


How can one possibly accept the evolutionary assumptions of our past as evidence? and should any creature be subject to such? Even the experts are uncertain in their "Certainty"! So there is no obligation to swallow everything that is proposed.

Linear, you get annoyed when we question evolution, yet it is no wonder we do and should. Check this out also:



Once again, we continue to find fully formed fossils, regardless of whatever labels of "transition" they pin on them.

If you check out the fossils, they have remained much the same. Barring species that may have become extinct that we are unable to observe properly. I think this is a clear fossil example of an ancient rabbit fossil.

Still very much a rabbit. Different species of rabbits or different species altogether should not be automatically assumed and placed into a scenario of evolution. Yet they are, because those doing so already believe this about our origins.







Which is my point that evolution scientists/geologists etc have and do disagree, even when they're looking at the same thing! Contradictions/disagreements exist and continue, yet if we ask questions or challenge? We're insulting them and calling them liars according to you Linear.

Next link on "frog evolution" is yet more of the same assumptions, with yet another animated picture.


They've already given it a name "Frogamanda", the assumption is proposed already that it's transitional. Take a look at the scenario they have given for this one. Again, any species that hasn't been observed, is automatically fitted into an evolutionary scenario, because of shared traits - but notice how they all find them fully formed and obviously functional? Where have we observed any kind of animal on its way to becoming another? Except the ones they dig up and pin labels on!

But evenso, if we take a look at the actual fossils themselves without manipulated scenarios and animated pictures, reality tells us the same story that we see today:


125 million year old Salamander no real different to modern day salamanders.



144-206 million year old frog.

Once again proving that they existed as frogs and salamanders then, as they do to this day. So the creature they are supposing as an earlier ancestor/transitional (without the fossil evidence to show for it accept the usual cartoon), is possibly simply another species - but then again, when one has already decided evolution happened, then can one really consider otherwise? Certainly any creature discovered sharing similar traits will be slotted into such a scenario if one already believes it, there really is no room for considering otherwise. Yet one could do similar to certain creatures today that do indeed share similar traits to others. Yet they exist right alongside one another and show no sign of ever having evolved, or "evolving". Had they become extinct? You can be sure they'd be on the evolutionary hall of fame as a transitional/earlier form.



I have certainly been told alot, but as for substance? That's been lacking. Unless your idea of evidence are assumptions, cartoons and incomplete fossils or fragments and a scenario that we're supposed to buy into. We've discussed the supposed transitionals and it is assumed one evolved into the other in spite of evidence to the contrary or lack of evidence as being "clear cut". I've been given charts/drawings/scenarios but very little else. I have also provided photographic fossil proof of many existing around the same time period many times on this forum. You go from claiming transitionals can exist around the sametime as their earlier and later counterparts to then claiming the order of evolution is in the fossil record. Contradictions abound and it's no problem, because evolution provides its followers with the means to jump from one explanation to another at will.

Yet, it should not be too difficult for you to provide the evidence for the stages of evolution from simple to fully formed creatures, which in abundance if the earth is billions of years old. Even marine life then is much the same as it is today.

Where is your proof that life on earth evolved from simplicity and if you want us to believe it all evolved from marine life? Then can you provide proof in the ordered fossil record showing this took place. Why should we allow assumptions to be accepted as evidence?



Had you the evidence to enlighten, perhaps you'd cease accusing people of calling you and those you believe in "liars". Until then, I don't expect much of a change.



There are areas of science that appear to be uncertain and even disputed amongst scientists themselves. We have every right to challenge theories/proposals/assumptions - particularly when they are up continually for further investigation and theories continue to change. As I've said, not all scientists believe in evolution and there are other ways of looking at "evidence".

Unless of course you have already decided in your mind that these theories are indisputable and should not be up for challenge. If you don't find it a problem disputing/arguing Genesis, which is God's holy word - why do you find it a problem that we are questioning mere men? Are they infallible? Do you think placing guilt trips on people for daring to ask questions and request evidence to back up evolutionary claims is honest?