Related to the post immediately before the one I linked, skeptic, this isn't a matter of creationists having gut feelings that evolution is false and 'evolutionists' having gut feelings that it is true. Or rather, while it certainly might be true that creationists base their conclusions on their gut feelings, evolutionary scientists (along with other people, like myself, who have studied the subject in some depth) most certainly do not. That's the equivalent of arguing that geologists base their conclusions on gut feelings. Or physicists. Or astronomers. Or other fields of science, for that matter. The reason you're calling out evolutionary scientists is because their conclusions directly contradict young earth creationism, and thus young earth creationists, who rely on their gut feelings on the matter, have to make it seem that evolutionary biology works the same way.
That is, quite simply, a false comparison. Imagine if astrologers took on astronomers with the same logic - they believe strongly that the stars a person was born under determine their future, and so they try to argue that astronomy isn't a science, but instead, an equally strong belief, and go from there to saying that astrology should be given equal time in the science classroom to astronomy. It would be more than a little bit ridiculous to take them seriously on that, and the same holds true for creationists who do the same thing with evolutionary theory.
Excellent post. I can see how dedicated you are to this subject.
I am curious about the evolutionary gap you mention, though. How do you know it will be explained by evolution? isn't that a presupposition that it is evolution?
No, it isn't. Or rather, if it is a presupposition, it is the same sort of "presupposition" that a person who doesn't know much about computers has when they press the power button on a computer and "presuppose" that it will turn on. There is no guarantee that a specific evolutionary 'gap' will ever be filled, but even if it wasn't, that wouldn't make evoutionary theory untrue, and it certainly wouldn't make creationism true.
Also, I have looked at the horse fossils but how do they know for sure they evolved? What if they were just another species that existed within the original kind? We know horses can form new horse species but they will never be anything other than a horse. We know speciation exists on the species level within the original kind, but we never saw speciation on the original kind level.
How do I know they evolved? Because we don't see the design/creation of organisms today. Nobody has ever observed it, for that matter. The only thing that even makes this claim that it happened is an apocryphal book which post-dated this supposed design/creation, and which only makes the claim in context of a creation myth which is no more believable
if you create a simulated world with nothing but horses, then you will only get different kinds of horse species to evolve. You will never see a bird or a kangaroo one day.
if you create a simulated world with nothing but birds, you will never get horses, sharks, etc etc etc. Think of any creature and imagine making a simulated world. You will never get another kind of animal other than the one you started with.
Actually, that's untrue. What is true that anything you get as a result of evolution will be genetically related to the original creatures, but it is a misnomer to say that if you start with a horse, you will never have anything but different kinds of horses.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/
- this is exactly the point that I'm trying to make. Not only that, but it shows exactly why "created kinds" doesn't make sense. It takes the three different domains of life (bacteria, bacteria-like Archaea, and eukaryotes), and calculates the odds of the genetic similarities between them coming from them being created kinds versus common descent. The probability that they would have evolved such similar DNA sequences if they were different "created kinds" is literally astronomical - 1 in 102680
EDIT: The odds of separate "created kinds" converging the way they do genetically makes the difference between the Planck length (around 10-35
) and the entire universe (around 1027
) seem gigantic by comparison.
That is the simplest way to explain why evolution just simply can't happen the way they say it does.
Sorry to say, but you didn't actually show that. You showed that you're still assuming that an organism has built-in limiters which prevent it from changing significantly, an assumption which is not backed up by anything in science, to the best of my knowledge.