News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Hi Bex,



And yet it is what's happening here, because there isn't an iota of evidence under discussion in your post. If you believe that creationism is true and evolution is false, then you are not going to build a strong case by saying what amounts to "I don't believe it happened" and "I don't personally find the evidence convincing." This is not how you falsify a theory. Evolution and an old earth easily explain things like varves and transitional fossils, several examples of which you have been shown. How does creationism explain them?



It is a theory because it explains what we observe. Every time a new fossil is found or a rock layer is dated, evolution and "old earth" are tested. What's more, I would have thought that the presence here of LinearAQ, who is both a devout Christian and an evolutionist, shows that theism and acceptance of an old earth and evolution don't have to be a problem. What's more, he says that he's fine with the idea that God did design everything, and that evolution could well be part of his design. Why not?



This is what I am referring to when I talk about dismissing the evidence. You were presented with a series of hominid skulls which are classically transitional in nature. You were also presented with 3 different ways in which several of them had been dated. Instead of explaining how and why those skulls must be delineated as ape or human, and instead of explaining why the dating methods are wrong, you are here in this thread saying we were "quibbling." The fact of the matter is that you had nothing to say about the evidence there, and want to say here that it either doesn't exist or that it's just an inconvenient "quibble." A good scientist doesn't overturn a theory by ignoring bits he or she doesn't like. You can't just sweep evidence of objective reality under the rug if you are honestly in pusuit of the truth.



They're welcome to challenge, but they need to do it in a scientifically rigorous way. Much of the creationist "evidence" presented here has been from people who either know little about science, or who actually have scientific degrees and are still getting their scientific facts and methodology wrong even though they should know better. Which raises the question of what their motives are and whether they do indeed know better.



. . . that scientists occasionally make mistakes. Nebraska Man was never hailed as an important find and quickly sank without a trace. Even when Piltdown Man was gaining acceptance, there were still dissenting voices who recognised it for what it was. These are two examples and creationists seldom fail to bring them up because there aren't many, if any, others to refer to. This is another example of the creationist reasoning that takes one fact and generalises it to fit the entire rest of the body of evidence. You can see it when one of them finds one example of catastrophic flooding in one locality and says, "This proves there was a worldwide flood." You never know, there might just be a few million layers of distinctive varves in the vicinity too.



Did you look at the links here from RAZD? Horse evolution and foraminifera spring to mind. Look at the evidence there yourself. If anyone ever wanted to see examples of transitional fossils right the way through the evolution of a species, there they are. Please explain: a) How this is "bias and assumptions" and b) If you do not consider these to be transitional, then what is your definition of transitional? Or are you a creationist who, no matter what you are shown, will say "I need to see what's in between", ad infinitum, because you never will actually accept that a fossil can be transitional no matter how much evidence there is that this is the case?



This has also been explained to you. If the daughter population is isolated from the parent population, then this can easily be the case. If the daughter population fills a slightly different ecological niche than the parent population, then this can easily be the case. You might be interested in looking at ring species, which I have linked to before; they are an interesting example of gradual isolation in action.



I really don't know where this bizarre idea came from. Should we go back and discuss the hominid fossils which you and CTD refused to comment on at first? They're unusually complete specimens. Almost the entire skeleton of Turkana boy was found.



You presumably haven't heard of paleomagnetic dating, and you didn't pay attention to the posts in which I discussed how two hominid fossils were dated. We're hearing this pre-programmed PRATT instead.



In all seriousness, I have never felt cornered here about anything. If you feel I did not address something she said, please remind me of what it was and I will do so. I stopped my chelating agents at that point and was very ill. I thought you'd know what that was like and I didn't expect to be accused of bluffing about it here. But I'd be very keen to set the record straight on anything I might have missed.

By the way, I did not ask RAZD to come back. You don't know what's been happening with him either. We all have things that happen in our lives apart from talking on this forum. LinearAQ was up front enough to share some with us -- if he hadn't I expect I'd be accused of asking him to come back as well. You won't be surprised to hear that I am glad they are here, though, because their areas of expertise are obviously different from mine. I read the links they post here and I enjoy learning from them.



What I would like is for us to remember that this is a forum where we freely choose to participate. You've been shown that theism and evolution can co-exist but if you choose to believe that accepting an old earth and evolution means death to everything in your world, then I think that needs to be kept in mind while talking here. It's bound to be upsetting if you equate your faith with the literal truth of the Bible and perceive this as being constantly under attack. In fact if this is the case for anyone here, I would suggest that this isn't the place for you, because it will be an unpleasant experience; I am here because I enjoy an intellectual debate, not because I want to see anyone suffer.

I don't expect you to answer every post, Bex. What I do expect is that for someone who wants creationism accepted as science, evidence will be provided for this, and also that evidence for evolution will be addressed and shown to be wrong in a scientifically rigorous way. If the evidence from the natural world presented here is consistently ignored or waved away, then it doesn't say much for the scientific nature of creationism.