In fact he's completely wrong. Can he be serious? Where are the moderators? Yet he even adds a a typical taunt:Creationist: The rules says I should not have to and you should not presentEvolutionist: In fact the rules state the exact
opposite:Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument.
Just one more thing you're completely wrong about.Rule 5 says:
Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.Perhaps I'm wrong and someone has offered some supporting discussion somewhere, but what I've seen is just the bare link put up over and over on this thread and a complete refusal to address anything at the link, insisting that the creationist address what's there.
I wasn't intending to get into that but it's kind of typical of EvC tactics so I'll leave it.
All I wanted to do was give a very brief answer of my own to that Talk Origins link.
As usual there is little evidence there that is any more evidence for evolution than it is for creation.
As usual all they are doing is elaborating the theory, not producing validation for it. They have no actual evidence for their claim that all these "evidences" are evidences, what they have is statistical probability models and logical deductions from some genetic observations, all of which amount to no more than the usual Observation + Hypothesis. They just go on multiplying hypotheses or elaborating the Theory. They have no smoking gun evidence, NONE.
Just a few points:
The five "transitionals" aren't transitionals at all, they are simply life forms that existed before the Flood that happen to have characteristics evolutionists think they can fit between other life forms. The transitionals that the theory of evolution has always required are not a few creatures here and there like this, but a blur of gradations that just about makes the whole idea of a species irrelevant. That is what Darwin understood should be the case if evolution were true, and it's what was generally understood until this recent attempt to make a very few striking fossil finds suffice. They don't. And anyway, again, the entire fossil record was created in the Flood and represents the amazing abundance and variety of living things in the pre-Flood world.
Anatomical vestiges , wings that don't fly, eyes --of the mole for instance-- that don't see very well, and so on, are easily accounted for by the creationist hypothesis of Genetic Entropy, the fact that the genome is deteriorating. The creatures that develop these features don't really "need " them so that they can survive without them, so they don't get weeded out. But there is no evidence for evolution in any of this.
The pseudogenes are another good example of Genetic Entropy, the deterioration of genetic functions. The similarities found in a few of these nonfunctioning genes between apes and humans are probably determined by the similar body structures. In any case we know we are not genetically related so some other explanation is needed.
In general, where evolution hypothesizes descent based on observations of slight structural differences -- or slight genetic differences -- creationism first needs to point out that the evidence for this is conjectural, merely elaboration of the Theory, then to go on to hypothesize similarity of design as the explanation.
Where the fossil record is the source of the observation creationism needs to point out that the best explanation for the fossils is the worldwide Flood, which of course makes all the geo timetable explanations null.
In general, where evolution points out anatomical or genetic deterioration creationists should agree, it IS deterioration, predicted by the law of entropy, which began with the Fall.
It's all observation + hypothesis, that's as far as either side can go with Scientific Method. What they are calling evidence is simply further conjecture.