Rusty has been leaving comments in response to various entries here, but there are two issues that I’d like to move up here to the top so they don’t get lost and solicit a direct answer on.
1. Transitional Forms
Rusty has repeatedly declared that there are no transitional forms in the fossil record. I have pointed out that I think this demand is a disingenuous one (not just from him, but from creationists in general) because they would deny the transitional nature of ANY fossil no matter what it showed by either demanding that it show transition in a trait that is not preserved by fossils, or claiming that just because it looks like a transition a fossil can’t prove that it was one. Therefore, I think it is disingenuous to demand that one be given a fossil that shows what one has already decided a fossil can’t show. So I’ll ask this question again and hope for a direct answer:
Is there any evidence that a fossil or series of fossils could contain that you would regard as showing that that creature was transitional between two taxa? If the answer is yes, please spell out what it would be.
2. The testability of creationism
In a comment on a post below, Rusty said:
The Creation Model (in a scientifically testable form) is still in its infancy, and requests for valid predictions are well within your scientific rights. It is clear that Ed doesn’t consider any of the predictions I’ve presented so far as valid. I am not a scientist, but there are scientists at work in developing this model – precisely for the concerns that Ed raises with regards to scientific testability. They have presented early forms of that model on secular universities and have received favorable responses. So perhaps the difficulty here is that Im simply not explaining the model very well.
I’m not really interested in claims of “positive receptions at secular universities”, I’m interested in actual substance. I have taken the position throughout this discussion that a model that can explain anything in fact explains nothing. That’s not just my position, of course, it is one of the central ideas of the scientific method. Testability requires falsifiability. So I will once again ask this question and hope to get a direct answer:
Can you name any set of data that could possibly falsify this “testable creation model”? Is there any way that the evidence could appear that could not be explained by creationism as attributable to the whim of God? I have named numerous ways in which evolution could be falsified, none of which have been denied. But my question, which is a very reasonable one, has gone unanswered.