Creo vs Evo...proof accepted?

Question

Hi creo scientist here, I will ask this question again as i never end up with a testable hypothesis i can work on and present for people

What proof would could an evolutionist be presented with to make them evolution may not be true.

I ask this question as the burden of proof rests on the creation scientist shoulders.

So we should not hassle you, unitl we have something to show you

As we belive that dino's existed post flood, and slowly died out pre flood

our hypothesis is:

If we were able to present a lizard, that grew to the size of lets say a velocoraptor, by subjecting it to pre-flood world conditions, would you accept that as partial evidence for dino's co-existing with man, and that dino's were still around not so long ago

also if we could present you with dragon flies, like the ones you claim are 300 million years old, they types with wing spans over 20 inches by subjecting them to a biosphere based on old world conditions

would that be counted as credible evidence?

Good, i will start by radio dating the tracks at the paluxy river, and offer the findings to other non creo organisations

also i shall radio date the mayan clay pots whioch show the mayans riding stegasaurus dinosaurs.

Interestingly enoguh they draw them with discs that scientists only figured only 20 years ago what the skin of the stegasaurus probably looked like,

amazing isn't it

thanks

Ok what i mean is that

if exposing them to conditions which we beleive them to be either 6000 years ago or 600 mkillion years ago, i beleive i can get lizards and dragon flies to an unbeleivable size.

Not back to dinosaur and giant dragon fly forms
but to a size that would make them truly immense giants amongst other breeds of today

my theory adds, by exposing them and creating giants under such a short amount of time e.g. 6 months, and not needing millions of years of mutation and evolution to create giants of that size, one might conclude that any creature under these conditions may become a giant, and they shrunk as a removal of these condtions, and not due to millions of years.

Essentially i am trying to show to conduct an experiment to say you don't need millions of year for lizards to become giant 'dino like creatures' and even for mamals to become giants either

and how a catastrophe theory removing these conditons could ensure shrikage
i

if conducted on a scientific basis, would it have any weight

thats what i would like to know, could scientists from everywhere poke and my findings and say hmmmmmm

and not just say it's drivel, i could make a giant lizard in 2 minutes, chuck it away

thanks

Answer 1

I think I may be a bit confused on this. But I'll try to answer as best as I can.

First of all - the one big thing about science is that there is no "proof", only evidence that suggests that something is happening. That's a good thing.

Second of all - there is slow evolution and fast evolution. (Note, I'm hugely simplifying things). Insects can develop pesticide resistance in only two years. That's fast evolution. Bacteria and viruses can evolve even faster than that. That's why we will always get the cold and flu - because they have evolved a way around our immune systems.
The shorter the generation time, the faster the evolution. So, we evolve slower than insects and bacteria because our DNA doesn't replicate as quickly as those organisms, we live longer and we don't make as many offspring.

But that doesn't mean that it can take 6 months to create a new species. Speciation is slow evolution. Besides, scientists can't even agree as to what a species is...

Thirdly - The project that you propose (subjecting animals to different environmental conditions) won't work. Raising a dog in the snow won't mean that it's babies will be giant snow-dogs. And then bringing them back to wherever they came from wont make their babies small.

Forthly - Humans could not have coexisted with dinosaurs. The niche for large dominant animal was taken by the dinos - there was no room for humans.

Lastly - I think this is the discussion that you want. If somehow you created a new species within 6 months, wrote a paper that provides extensive detail of how you did it and what results you have and that paper got published in a journal then it will get scientists thinking. Many scientists will argue that your research sucks and will poke holes at it. That's what scientists do, and the world is better for it. If other scientists are able to repeat your experiments then that will add more weight to your data. And as a result, the theory of evolution will be rewritten (again).
But I think the theory of evolution is well and truely established. It will get rewritten again and again as we learn new things but it will always be there.

Answer 2

Neither of those presentations would be credible evidence of a six-day creation event that occurred 6,000 years ago. The size of a lizard doesn't make it a dinosaur. Alligators are exceptionally large reptiles; they're larger than some of the dinosaurs that died out. Unlike the dinosaurs that died out, however, the alligator was able to survive. Modern alligators don't prove that anything except that alligators were successful where other dinosaurs were not.

Here are some things you would have to do to give evidence I would accept:

1. Prove that carbon dating doesn't work. Have your research independently verified by several non-religious research institutions.

2. Provide evidence that actively supports creationism, and is scientifically testable. And no, the Bible is not scientific proof of anything.

3. Show me proof that the earth is 6,000 years old.

4. Give proof that the recorded migrations of human beings during the last ice age happened less than 6,000 years ago, instead of the 10,000+ years that research has shown. Oh, and show us that the prehistoric humans hunted dinosaurs, not woolly mammoths and buffalo.

5. Explain EXACTLY what "old world" conditions are, and how you can be sure of these things.

6. Learn the definition of science, and explain it back to us.

7. Use proper grammar and punctuation. Nobody will take you seriously if you can't even construct a proper sentence or capitalize the words at the beginnings of your sentences.

Cheers,
A Real Scientist.

Answer 3

First off, there's no such thing as proof in science. There's plenty of evidence for evolution, but no scientist will ever say that it is fact. This extends into all areas of science. If you look through journal papers, you'll almost never see a definite statement. Conclusions are presented as "This experiment shows that [blank]" or "The evidence supports [blank]" There are two reasons for this: First, since, in science, ideas are build upon other ideas, it is difficult to say something with absolute certainty. Second, it helps isolate the scientist from his or her ego. If a conclusion is shown to be incorrect, there's no problem if it was presented as "The evidence suggests [blank]." Whereas if it were originally a definite statement, it would be more of a personal issue to the scientist.

As for re-evolving a lizard into a dinosaur, that probably wouldn't work, at least not the way presented here. I assume that you mean that if you took a lizard and put it in a box containing conditions identical to the prehistoric world, that it would turn into a dinosaur. This is a complete misinterpretation of the theory of evolution. To our knowledge no creature has ever turned into another creature, (i.e. a prehistoric ape never turned into a human, nor did one ever give birth to a human).

If you placed a sustainable population of lizards in conditions identical to the conditions on earth 100 million years ago, you would probably see evolutionary changes in the lizard *population* after a very, very long time (on the order of hundreds of thousands of years), assuming that modern lizards could even survive in those conditions.

Even then, you might not get dinosaurs, because they likely didn't evolve from a species identical to modern lizards. In other words, you wouldn't have the same endpoint, because you would have a different starting point. As an analogy, imagine if I gave you directions to my house. I'd say start on Smith St., take two rights, then the third left, second house on the right. Now imagine if you started on Hill St. and took two rights, then the third left, and went to the second house on the right. It would be very unlikely that you would end up at my house. Not impossible, but very unlikely.

Evolution is random process. Random mutations that turn out to be beneficial get passed on. Just because the conditions are identical doesn't mean that there would be identical results. Given a very long time, populations (not individuals, but the population as a while) would evolve. It might not be noticeable, and it would probably be very unpredictable, but it would happen.

Before looking too hard for evidence, I recommend that you read up on the actual scientific explanation and evidence behind evolution, rather than the creationist spin on it.

Answer 4

No That would not be credible. Mainly you would be going on guess work for those condtions. Also those same conditions you claim are pre-flood can also be explained from the Evolutionary side as existing 300 million years ago.
If you want to confront Evolutionist on thier level you will,have to find human remains or dinosaur remains dating from the same period in time as each other and use their science to date them. That would be the proof needed. Subjecting animals to conditions that can be said to exist by both sides will not work. you need to use thier side to prove them right or wrong

Answer 5

Are they not evidence for evolution? God did the creation in 6 days. No more new species. Unless you can prove that your giant dragonfly has exactly the same DNA as a modern species, you are only proving evolution.

Answer 6

I'll admit that I'm trully torn on this issue. While physical evidence can usually sway me on most issues, this is really a question of faith. So you are attempting to get me to question my faith by presenting physical evidence. However, by definition my faith cannot be proved or disproved by physical evidence. So Would your example be "counted as credible evidence"? Yes. But I don't think I would be able to question my faith regardless of what evidence you provided.

Answer 7

Creation scientist? An oxymoron if ever I heard one.

Answer 8

I'm so confused.