(In response to this story on Christian News Network which incorrectly labels a synapsid as a mammal: https://christiannews.net/2018/12/04/discovery-of-giant-synapsid-fossil-in-poland-throws-a-wrench-in-evolutionary-expectations-for-triassic-layers/ )

edwitness:
"Note that these ancestors of mammals possesed both mammalian and reptilian characteristics and confirm evolution. These creatures were not mammals."
This is a worldview statement. Not a scientific one.
Because for those whose worldview includes a Creator, this evidence does not speak of evolution. But instead proves they have a common designer. The Creator who made all that has been made who is introduced to us in Genesis.

Richard Forrest:
Nonsense. It's a scientific one which has nothing to do with "worldview".
It's a statement made in the light of the evidence.

edwitness:
Wrong. As shown the evidence only reveals to us that the animal lived. The rest of the beliefs the evolutionist comes to are from his worldview. Not the scientific method.

Richard Forrest:
The evidence also shows that it's a synapsid and not a mammal. It also shows that it lived in the Triassic period. That is what has been established by applying to the scientific method to the evidence.
You don't get to redefine what is and what is not science because the findings of science contradict your shoddy religious dogma. That is downright dishonest.

edwitness:
What is dishonest is saying that the scientific method is whatever you need it to be to make what is not evidence for your worldview become evidence. The scientific method is observable and repeatable. Without that it's just speculation. And in your case it is speculation built on a designer-less worldview.

Richard Forrest:
I'm sure that others will see the irony here. You are asserting that saying the scientific method is whatever you need it to be is dishonest, and in the same post attempting to redefine the scientific method because it contradicts your religious dogma.
Get an education. There are numerous sources out there which explain the scientific method in detail. Creationist sources are not reliable when it comes to how science is defined.
You are making yourself look both ridiculous and dishonest. If you are so deluded that you think that such an exhibition will convince anyone to join your cause, I pity you.

edwitness:
"Creationist sources are not reliable when it comes to how science is defined."
Really? They went to the same schools and received the same degrees in science that all the evolutionists went to. They know science as well, and I would contend better, than evolutionists. In fact, most of them at one time believed in evolution. But, because the evidence was not there to support it, as all the evolution scientists I gave the quotes from admitted, they rejected the lie that is evolution for the truth that the Creator God made all that has been made. Just as the evidence supports.
The irony here is that you reject the scientific method because it does not support your worldview. While claiming that while I am appealing to the scientific method, that is for our conclusions to be both observable and repeatable, I am doing this.
Unless you can observe evolution and repeat it through testing it can not be considered scientific. Which means it is a belief system built on a worldview that rejects the notion of a designer.

Richard Forrest:
Well, as we have observed evolution - using the term in the sense for which it was coined by the people who coined it - ?in action in the natural world and replicate it in the laboratory, it qualifies as science even by your incorrect definition.
As for creationists knowing science better than "evolutionists", if that were the case why do they lie about science - as Purdom has done in the article in referring to the Triassic synapsid as a mammal? Or do you not care if creationists lie provided they tell you what you want to hear.
Oh, and by the way: very, very few creationists have any qualifications in evolutionary biology, and the very small number who do reject the science on the basis of their religious beliefs. not the evidence.
Science does not reject the notion of a designer. It does not accept assertions not supported by evidence. None of the supposed evidence for a designer stands up to empirical scrutiny.

edwitness:
"Well, as we have observed evolution..."
But, that's just it. No one has ever observed evolution. No one has ever seen a lizard lay an egg and a bird fly out. Just as no one has ever observed a cat over millions of years change into a dog. Because it does not happen.
"Science does not reject the notion of a designer. It does not accept assertions not supported by evidence."
Real science is observable. Therefore evolution can not be considered Science. So it is evolution, and not science, that rejects the evidence that points to a designer. The Creator, Jesus Christ.
For example, no one doubts the monument at Mt. Rushmore is the work of an intelligent designer, yet much greater design and laws in the universe are overlooked, or disregarded, by people who believe that evolution produced everything in existence, with no intelligence or design behind it.
This makes no sense.
History tells us Gutzon Borglum was the designer of the Mount Rushmore National Memorial; the Bible tells us God is the Designer of the universe, and man was made (designed) in his image (Genesis 1:26).

Richard Forrest:
"But, that's just it. No one has ever observed evolution."
Well, the scientists who study the subject can refer to numerous observed instance of evolution in action. What do you know that they don't?
"No one has ever seen a lizard lay an egg and a bird fly out. Just as no one has ever observed a cat over millions of years change into a dog. Because it does not happen."
Quite so, and if it did it would utterly falsify evolutionary theory. I suggest that you educate yourself in the subject to that you don't make a fool of yourself by displaying such utter ignorance of what you are writing about.

edwitness:
Punctuated equilibrium, one of the novel ideas evolutionists have come to because they are constantly trying to put fingers in the dike as new archeaological finds refute old thinking, states just that.
So maybe it is you that needs to research your religion so you can see just how foolish it is. And how foolish you are to believe it.

Richard Forrest:
"Punctuated equilibrium, one of the novel ideas evolutionists have come to because they are constantly trying to put fingers in the dike as new archeaological finds refute old thinking, states just that."
You are once again demonstrating only utter ignorance! Try reading Gould's account of the theory he formulated with Eldridge rather than relying on creationist sources. Oh and by the way: it's palaeontologists who work on the fossil record, not archaeologists.
Perhaps you should take your own advice and do some research into the nature of evolution. Not that you will, because your religious beliefs are so fragile that you need to maintain ignorance.

edwitness:
Punctuated equilibrium means exactly what I have stated. If you are going to be dishonest about your own beliefs then what is the point of continuing this conversation? The goal posts are set. It is for you to show evidence for the touchdown you believe your scientists have made. And for me to show you how they have not.
My job is easy. Because all the evidence supports it.

Richard Forrest:
"Punctuated equilibrium means exactly what I have stated."
Not according to Gould and Eldridge who formulated the theory. You can find their original paper on the internet. Try reading it. If you do - and I can confidently say that you won't - you'll find that the creationist sources from which you gleaned your caricature of that theory are at best ignorant, at worst lying. But of course you won't because your religious dogma demands ignorance of its adherents.
As for research into the nature of evolution: I have carried out original research and published in scientific journals. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that I know more about the subject than you do.