"There's no way we could actually observe what we are proclaiming, so why do you creationists keep demanding proof?"
That's not it at all. The problem is that the only proof a creationist will accept is impossible to see in one lifetime, or even several. There's plenty of evidence out there, just none that a creationist can bring himself to accept.
"We're designing simulations to prove natural selection and random mutation. We have been very impressed with the results."
That's another misrepresentation of what's really happening. The experiments are designed to simulate what happens when the environment applies extreme selection pressures. Your response illustrates clearly that creationists will not accept any evidence short of direct observation in the field of their caricature of "macroevolution."
I'd like to actually form a blog post to speak to this, since I've heard the argument several times and have never heard it dealt with.
Be my guest, though I'm not sure what there is to argue about...
"There's no way we could
"There's no way we could actually observe what we are proclaiming, so why do you creationists keep demanding proof?"
That's not it at all. The problem is that the only proof a creationist will accept is impossible to see in one lifetime, or even several. There's plenty of evidence out there, just none that a creationist can bring himself to accept.
"We're designing simulations to prove natural selection and random mutation. We have been very impressed with the results."
That's another misrepresentation of what's really happening. The experiments are designed to simulate what happens when the environment applies extreme selection pressures. Your response illustrates clearly that creationists will not accept any evidence short of direct observation in the field of their caricature of "macroevolution."
I'd like to actually form a blog post to speak to this, since I've heard the argument several times and have never heard it dealt with.
Be my guest, though I'm not sure what there is to argue about...