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!
Thanks for the list.
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.
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
I ask you to name an experiment/research that provides positive
evidence for 6-day creation and you ask me to provide an experiment/research that provides all the evidence for evolution from single-celled to animals we see today. I see that as differing degrees of requests, yet you feel as if they are on equal footing.
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.
God created the earth to bring forth an abundance of foods containing all the nutrients required (including vitamin C)...(snip) - 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.
Obviously you didn't get the point that the lack of ability to produce our own Vitamin C is caused by a mutation of our DNA in exactly the same place as in chimps. Guinea pigs also cannot produce their own Vitamin C but that is due to a different mutation on their DNA.
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?
Your question implies that humans were here from the beginning. Assuming that, then we may not have ever had that ability and neither did chimps and God made the same spot in our DNA have the exact same "problem" so neither species could make their own Vitamin C.
OR...God could have made us "perfect" such that we (humans and chimps) could make our own Vitamin C, then changed both human and chimp DNA in exactly the same way at the Fall, however He changed the guinea pig DNA differently even though the same change would have done the trick.
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?
Evolution does not require a "gain of information", just change.
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.
The existence of a Creator that ensured the interrelationships in the web of life, does not eliminate evolution.
Surely similar traits between man and ape could just as easily = common designer?
A common designer that decided to give the guinea pig the same problem but with a different change in the same section of the DNA. Why would He do that?
How does what you've proposed here cancel out creation Linear?
How does what you proposed, common Designer, cancel out evolution?
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?
Social distinctions by humans caused us to treat them as "mere" animals.
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.
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.
The changes resulted in the two varieties of animal that won't interbreed anymore. Effectively they are 2 different species now. Even if they live in the same location, they can not share traits between populations so variation within one group will not spread to the other group and they will continue, over time, to become more different.
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.
First, he calls any statement in the textbook a lie if it disagrees with his interpretation of geology or biology.
He misrepresents the meaning of geological uniformatism. We had a whole thread on why Hovind's strange interpretation of how the Grand Canyon formed and it was shown that Hovind did not even come close to accounting for all the data that was know about the canyon.
He misrepresents quotes from
Charles Lyell's book. You can check it out yourself, pages 30, 197, and 302.
He implies that John Woodmorappe is an evolutionist when he is a rather famous creationist.
He quotes Niles Eldridge out of context so it looks like he agrees that fossil dating is circular reasoning. In reality, the index fossils are used because, through trial and error, the fossils were shown to always be in layers of sediment between igneous layers of certain dates (radiometric dating methods). These index fossils are then used to help determine the method used to perform the radiometric dating. Of course Hovind doesn't mention that because it would make his case weaker.
Lobe finned fish: Sure there are lobe finned fish now. However, the ones in the fossil record are not exactly the same as the living ones. The differences are used to determine the times of burial. "A fish is a fish is a fish" seems to be Hovind's entire argument here. Unfortunately, a coalanth swimming around now is not the same morphologically as a coalanth in the fossil record.
Who is he kidding with this? Just because Hovind thinks that evolution is a lie and the mainstream science determination of the age of the earth is a lie, doesn't make them untrue and certainly doesn't mean the reiteration of that mainstream science determination is a lie.
Based on the purposeful misrepresentations that Hovind put into this video, calling the information in the textbooks "lies" is the pot calling the kettle black.
Your denial that the fossils I provided are transitionals and your claim that there are no fossils that show a transition between species/phyla is disputed by Dr Kurt Wise in a paper from 1995. You might remember him from your list. See
here where he agrees that stratomorphic intermediate species exist in the record in layers between species (reptiles to mammals..etc) and are good evidence for evolution.
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".
There are other ways of looking at the evidence, true. However, just saying "that's not a transitional because I say so", isn't really considered a scientific challenge. Perhaps if you provided some more explanation of why a particular fossil doesn't represent a transitional then maybe someone would consider your "nuh-uh" to be more valid.
Circle-of-Life Forums - Welcome
