Creationists, please provide evidence

[newhope101]

Pegg quote:As this has never been demonstrated in a simulated environment, then its highly unlikely that it began on its own.

Agree. However, no doubt someone will waffle on about buiding blocks and lab protiens or making synthetic life using a living cell (Hello!!!)

With all the knowledge scientists have you'd think they'd have created some sort of replicating and sustaninable life form by now out of good old building block material. They can mimic every force in nature yet in a controlled environment they cannot achieve life from non life. Against the odds it 'magically' happened in an uncontrolled environment. It's no different a leap of faith than so called biblical miracles. The evolutionsists current answer to how did life start from non life is 'it just did'. Now where have I heard that level of evidence ridiculed??

Scientists can take genes from different species and exchange them into another species and they work and are expressed just as well. They have so many techniques and advances yet this holy grail elludes them.

There are many theories as to how the first living cell came together and kicked off yet scientists can make none of them work.

One can only summize based on this fact that something or someone that knows more than we must have interceded.

 

[Krok]

The problem here is there are too many morons making stupid comments that do not add to the debate. Being personally insulting isn't clever.

:yes: It really doesn't help to try and have a reasonable conversation with a proven liar who is also a fruitloop.

 

[Autodidact]

the bible tells us that God created plant, land animals, sea animals and flying animals 'according to their kinds'

What specifies a genesis 'kind' is its breeding capability. If two animals can interbreed successfully then they are the same 'kind' (this is different to sciences current definition of species) What separates 'kinds' is the barrier which prevents different 'kinds' from interbreeding...although size can also prevent interbreeding, its not the barrier im referring to here. So within a genesis kind there can be great variety... in current scientific terms its called a 'genus'. For example, the large cats all form a genus and within that genus there is a large variety of 'species.

O.K., so do you agree with they hypothesis I set forth for you? If not, what part do you disagree with?

I must say you're the first YEC I've seen who committed to genus. O.K. then you would agree that Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo neanderthalis, homo floriensis and so forth are all the same kind?

Did you know that the definition of species is a single breeding population? In other words, you defined "kind" as being equivalent to species and then said a "kind" was a genus. That is to say, you contradicted yourself.

Further, most creationists give examples that correspond better to family, such as cat, dog and so forth. Creationwiki says:
Thus the created kind corresponds roughly to the family level of taxonomic classification, and possibly even the order with the notable exception of humanity wherein the genus is representative.[4]


Here's the Bible:



Lev 11:15 Every raven 06158 after his kind 04327;
Lev 11:16 And the owl 01323 03284, and the night hawk 08464, and the cuckow 07828, and the hawk 05322 after his kind 04327,
Lev 11:19 And the stork 02624, the heron 0601 after her kind 04327, and the lapwing 01744, and the bat 05847.
Lev 11:22 [Even] these of them ye may eat 0398 ; the locust 0697 after his kind 04327, and the bald locust 05556 after his kind 04327, and the beetle 02728 after his kind 04327, and the grasshopper 02284 after his kind 04327.
Lev 11:29 These also [shall be] unclean 02931 unto you among the creeping things 08318 that creep 08317 upon the earth 0776; the weasel 02467, and the mouse 05909, and the tortoise 06632 after his kind 04327,
Deu 14:13 And the glede 07201, and the kite 0344, and the vulture 01772 after his kind 04327,
Deu 14:14 And every raven 06158 after his kind 04327,
Deu 14:15 And the owl 01323 03284, and the night hawk 08464, and the cuckow 07828, and the hawk 05322 after his kind 04327,
Deu 14:18 And the stork 02624, and the heron 0601 after her kind 04327, and the lapwing 01744, and the bat 05847.



Sounds like, for example, the hawk and the nighthawk are two different kinds. The heron and the stork are two different kinds. Sounds pretty close to species.


There are 400 species in the frog genus Pristimantis. That's just one of several frog genera. So your assertion would be that we have observed around two new species of Pristimantis frogs alone every century?

The original 'tree of life' presented by Darwin (and others) theorises that all creatures can be traced back to one root of the tree. However, the current scientific evidence points to several origins for all life on earth rather then a single root.

And what evidence might that be?

Now this is in harmony with Genesis because therein we find the description that God created the first of 'each kind' and from that point, those created 'kinds' went forth and multiplied. That mulitplication does not rule out the emergence of new varieties of the original creature developing. We only have to look at how crossbreeding can produce new varieties of horse or dog or cat or cow to understand that, biologically, its not impossible for new and different varieties to develop.

What's the difference between a "variety" and a "kind?"

So thats how God did it. He created the first of the base pairs and from there they multiplied and developed to form a number of varieties of the same kind. Scientists call this the 'cambrian explosion' which is the period when major divisions of animal life show up in the fossil record in a relatively short time frame.[/quote] No, they don't. The Cambrian explosion of science took place 530 million years ago and took about 80 million years. The creatures that emerged at that time included trilobites and spiny slugs, not cats or birds.

This does not tell me how, it tells me what. I'm guessing that for you also the how is magic poofing? Is that right? There was an empty space, then suddenly there appears two full grown elephants? Is that your how? Did this all happen in a garden in Iraq 6000 years ago?

 

[Autodidact]

without a foundation for the ToE to sit upon, its bound to fall.

It has a firm foundation. It's called evidence.

With all scientific evidence pointing to life arising only from pre-existing life, then its a huge leap of faith to believe in a spontaneous generation of life on this planet.

Start a thread. It has nothing to do with this one.

I'm getting old, campers. I can hardly bear to repeat the same obvious facts over and over for each new crop of creationists.

 

[Pegg]

Not genus; you pretty much just gave the biological definition for a species.

So a kind is a species?

A kind is an animal with the ability to breed with another. If they can breed successfully, they are the same kind.

Scientists classify all living things in 7 ways. For a horse this would be as follows:
Kingdom - Animalia
phylum - Chordatat
class - Mammalia
order - Perissodactyla
family - Equidae
genus - Equus
species - Caballus

but a genesis kind would stop at 'family' in the above list and would include the extant horses such as donkeys and zebras.

What evidence?

evidence for several origins of life comes from the fairly new scientific view known as 'monophyly'

"monophyletic group (= monophylum): In a hierarchical system of descent, an ancestor (stem-species) and all of his descendants (descendant species) together form a closed community of descent that is called a monophyletic group (sensu HENNIG; = holophyletic group sensu ASHLOCK) or monophylum. Monophyletic groups can be discovered (not defined!) by synapomorphies. The term monophyly is always referring to groups of hierarchically reproducing entities (species) and consequently can not be applied to (or within) a single biospecies or even to a single organism..."

The original idea was that all creatures descended from one common ancestor, but that view has had to be changed because research does not agree with the original view.

(I will get back to your other points shortly)

 

[Autodidact]

A kind is an animal with the ability to breed with another. If they can breed successfully, they are the same kind.

O.K., that is the biological definition of species. So a kind is a species then?

Scientists classify all living things in 7 ways. For a horse this would be as follows:
Kingdom - Animalia
phylum - Chordatat
class - Mammalia
order - Perissodactyla
family - Equidae
genus - Equus
species - Caballus

but a genesis kind would stop at 'family' in the above list and would include the extant horses such as donkeys and zebras.

Now you're saying family? Which is it, family, genus or species?

evidence for several origins of life comes from the fairly new scientific view known as 'monophyly'

"monophyletic group (= monophylum): In a hierarchical system of descent, an ancestor (stem-species) and all of his descendants (descendant species) together form a closed community of descent that is called a monophyletic group (sensu HENNIG; = holophyletic group sensu ASHLOCK) or monophylum. Monophyletic groups can be discovered (not defined!) by synapomorphies. The term monophyly is always referring to groups of hierarchically reproducing entities (species) and consequently can not be applied to (or within) a single biospecies or even to a single organism..."

This is not evidence, it's a definition of a biological term that is very important to the Theory of Evolution (ToE). It does not contradict or undermine ToE in any way.

The original idea was that all creatures descended from one common ancestor, but that view has had to be changed because research does not agree with the original view.

What research?

You do know that the consensus of modern Biology is entirely based on ToE, right?

(I will get back to your other points shortly)

Great.

 

[newhope101]

Not genus; you pretty much just gave the biological definition for a species.

So a kind is a species?


What evidence?


Is it in harmony with Genesis? For this to be the case, you'd need more than just multiple original roots on the tree of life (or the "Creationist Orchard"). These roots would also have to match up with the "kinds" listed in Genesis. For instance, it does no good for your case if all vertebrates are branches of the same tree, for instance, even if there are many original points for life.

That mulitplication does not rule out the emergence of new varieties of the original creature developing. We only have to look at how crossbreeding can produce new varieties of horse or dog or cat or cow to understand that, biologically, its not impossible for new and different varieties to develop.


The "Cambrian Explosion" marks the point (well, millions of years, but a "point" in geologic time) when the major phyla first appear in the fossil record. It doesn't mark the beginning of all phyla, and it doesn't mark the beginning of all (or even most?) genuses, which is what you gave as the closest classification to the "kind".

__________________________________
For me Pegg, Kind can be anything that diverged from Eden. There must have been a reason God put such genetic diversity into the simplest life forms.

As for the the convoluted refute of 'kind' prior to the cambrian explosion with phyla suddenly appearing is a creationist point. How and why did it suddenly appear? Perhaps it was the beginning of another creative day. Fits well with creation given that God made sea creatures and plant life first. Now no one's going to say that there were animals before plant life are they???

The article below speaks to research that shows how using genomics to ascertain relationships between various species is woffle.

Evolutionists get themselves all confused talking about what a species is or isn't. Primarily different species cannot mate. However yes they can and your own science has prooved it. Subspecies can mate, wolves can mate with dogs, donkeys and horses, neanderthal and human. It all depends how you use the word species and subspecies or race. Species as a concept is not worth the ink used to write the word. It has been diluted so much to allow Toe to fit into the framework that the term 'different species' virtually means nothing. You could be talking about a cat and dog or wolf and dog, or spaniel and Great dane. As I said some scientists want to put a chimp in the homo line. While reseachers keep it vague and loose they can manipulate the terminology to suit.

In a nut shell, 9/10spenguin there is no biological definition of species. How many times do I have to refer to the species problem. Will you please go look it up at least in Wiki and get over this species/genus thing and how it applies to kinds. That's totally your confusion not ours. Species & genus are all concepts that try to explain what is seen and does it poorly. It depends what classification method you use and which researcher you want to believe. In some papers Homo neanderthalis is Homo sapiens neanderthalis. It appears, Scientists are themselves confused. Do I need to explain that also.

There is no problem for creationists fitting the evidence into the biblical creation account. In fact it all fits very nicely and without the resulting convoluted hypothesis to expalin the inconsistencies.

Here's some info you may find interesting. The sequences of microRNAs within each researched lineage were different from each other:

ScienceDaily (Oct. 2, 2008) — MicroRNAs, the tiny molecules that fine-tune gene expression, were first discovered in 1993. But it turns out they've been around for a billion years.
Evidence reported in Nature on October 1 by scientists in the lab of Whitehead Member and Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator David Bartel provides a window into the early evolution of these key regulators, placing their origin within the earliest of animal lineages. The research also suggests that microRNAs present early on have undergone extensive changes, which likely have altered their functions across various lineages.
"This is the first evidence that microRNAs were present within the earliest animal lineages and are not just characteristic of more complex animals," says Andrew Grimson, a postdoctoral fellow in Bartel's lab. Scientists knew that microRNAs existed within bilaterians, an evolutionary group that includes everything from worms to fruit flies to humans, he explains. "Remarkably, we discovered their presence within sponge, a member of the earliest diverging group of animals."
The scientists used high-throughput sequencing to probe samples from animals that diverged before the origin of bilaterian animals. The sponge (Amphimedon queenslandica) represents a group of animals that split off in evolution very early, whereas the starlet sea anemone (Nematostella vectensis) split off more recently.
The sequences of microRNAs within each lineage were different from each other, suggesting that microRNA functions are almost certainly very different in these different lineages. "In a relatively narrow spectrum of evolution microRNAs are often conserved," says Grimson. "But in a broader spectrum they have completely changed. This suggests that microRNA evolution is more flexible and may be evolving more rapidly than suspected."
Researchers also pinpointed piRNAs, another class of small RNAs, among these two species. Although less is known about piRNAs, they characteristically have longer sequences than microRNAs and are thought to dampen the activity of transposons—chunks of DNA that can move around the genome, causing mutations.
"It appears that both microRNAs and piRNAs have been available to shape gene expression throughout the evolution of animals and perhaps even helped to usher in the era of multicellular animal life," says Bartel.
David Bartel is a Member at Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, where his laboratory is located and all his research is conducted. He is also a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator and a professor of biology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

 

[McBell]

without a foundation for the ToE to sit upon, its bound to fall.

With all scientific evidence pointing to life arising only from pre-existing life, then its a huge leap of faith to believe in a spontaneous generation of life on this planet.

See, this is where you seriously fail.
Is god life or not life?
If god is life and life HAS to arise from pre-existing life then what life arose god?
If god is not life then god could not have arisen life.

Interesting how you just destroyed your own foundation.

 

[newhope101]

Krok quote:It really doesn't help to try and have a reasonable conversation with a proven liar who is also a fruitloop.
That’s a cheap pointless unsubstantiated shot. Shut up. Are you 10 years old? Do I call you a liar because you cannot explain abiogenesis. Grow up..
　
Quote Autodidact: Now you're saying family? Which is it, family, genus or species?
Peg, looking at the horse example I’d say the trouble starts with
ORDER and above.
Wiki - Perissodactyl
The odd-toed ungulates are browsing and grazing mammals such as horses, tapirs and rhinoceroses whose hooves each feature an odd number of toes. The middle toe on each hoof is also usually larger than its neighbors. Together, odd-toed ungulates form the order Perissodactyla (perissos abundant/excessive + daktulos toes).
They are relatively large and, unlike the ruminant even-toed ungulates (artiodactyls), they have relatively simple stomachs. This is because they are hindgut fermenters, digesting plant cellulose in their intestines rather than in one or more stomachs.
　
Equidae-Family is the first sign of an actual animal in any of the categories. Same as Rhinocerotidae. The Order speaks to morphological things like toes and digestion. This assumes that any species feature evolved only once, which is clearly not the case in relation to vertebrae studies and nervous systems.
With humans prior to homo is homonids and that kind of descriptor that speaks to features and assumes non human primates do not show morphology connected to upright walking.
I’d say kind refers to Family.

 

[Noaidi]

Originally Posted by newhope101
ToE has no theory other than we came from chimps.

Why do you insist that this is what ToE proposes? This nonsense is continually trotted out by creationists and continually refuted by proponents of ToE.

Please - cite a reference where science claims we evolved from chimps.

Still awaiting that reference.....

 

[Venatoris]

Still awaiting that reference.....

Don't hold your breath. A response would require working knowledge of elementary school science.

 

[Pegg]

YECs in this thread, including those claiming to be agnostics:

Does this sum up your hypothesis? If not, please correct anything that does not match:

Around 6000 years ago, God magically poofed two of each "kind" of animal into existence, as well as all of the plants. ...

Is that all correct?

No.

6,036 years ago was when God created Adam. The bible's chronology gives us 6,036 years of mankinds history....it does not include the creation of the earth and all life on the planet.

 

[Venatoris]

No.

6,036 years ago was when God created Adam. The bible's chronology gives us 6,036 years of mankinds history....it does not include the creation of the earth and all life on the planet.

A timeline would be appreciated in the interest of clarity. Creation of the earth/adam and eve/plants and animals/the flood and anything else you think is important to mention.

 

[Pegg]

I don't know about you Pegg, but I think God created humans around 6,000 years ago. That radiometric dating has been given population values and other data that biases the dating. I have given examples previously. Kinds were made prior to humans also in the area called 'the garden of Eden", and then spread and filled the earth as the bible quotes.

Yes thats correct because the history of the descendants of Adam, the timespan of the years from the birth of Cain and thru all the generations mentioned in the bible record up to the birth of Christ, give us a clear picture of just over 4,000 years of human history.....then from Christ up until today is a further 2,000 odd years.

God created kinds in the garden of Eden and genomic testing supports there were one or two individuals traced, such as the wolf and sponge research I have posted. The ecological niche was made in Eden. From there all animals spread and adapted. Researchers need to research how many of each kind was initially made, one breeding pair or 100. It seems that only one pair of wolves were necessary.

I'm not convinced that Eden was the location where all the animals were initially located. I dont think it was necessary for God to do that and flying animals were created in 5th day... obviously before Eden was created. The bible account describes the creation of Eden toward the end of the 6th creative day, AFTER the creation of the land animals.

Life was made in the order the bible states. Tiktaalic was meant to be the first creature to crawl out of the sea onto land. Yet there were already tetrapod footprints around to that time. Again this info supports the bible account.

Yes, its amazing how evolutionists so easily side step that dilemma.

Genomic research also identifes that humans were in a geographical area and spead, or at least the out of Africa proponents are attempting to illustrate this.

I have a book called 'Origins of Mankind' (a science book, not produced by creationists) which has a whole section devoted to the genetic fact that all mankind can be traced back to one woman. Again, its amazing how easily they will skim over the implications of that finding.

 

[Krok]

Krok quote:It really doesn't help to try and have a reasonable conversation with a proven liar who is also a fruitloop.
That’s a cheap pointless unsubstantiated shot. Shut up. Are you 10 years old? Do I call you a liar because you cannot explain abiogenesis. Grow up..

No, I called you a liar because I'm old enough to know that it is a sin to lie and I know that you lied to us.

 

[Pegg]

A timeline would be appreciated in the interest of clarity. Creation of the earth/adam and eve/plants and animals/the flood and anything else you think is important to mention.

ok, you can use calculable events in the bible and trace all the way back to Adams creation.

From the creation of Adam in 4026 B.C.E.
to the birth of Seth 130 years
Then to the birth of Enosh 105 years
To the birth of Kenan 90 years
To the birth of Mahalalel 70 years
To the birth of Jared 65 years
To the birth of Enoch 162 years
To the birth of Methuselah 65 years
To the birth of Lamech 187 years
To the birth of Noah 182 years
To the start of the Flood 600 years
Total number of years 1,656 brings us to the year of the flood as
2370 B.C.E.
From the flood in 2370:
427yrs to the validating of the Abrahamic covenant 1943 B.C.E.
430 years to the Exodus from Egypt 1513 B.C.E.
479 years to the start of the temple construction 1034 B.C.E.
37 years to the division of the kingdom 997 B.C.E.
390 years to the desolation of Judah 607 B.C.E.
70 years to the return of the Jews from exile 537 B.C.E.
82 years to the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s walls 455 B.C.E
483 years to the baptism of Jesus 29 C.E.
1981 years to the present 2010 C.E. = 6,035 years


As i've provided no detail for the above events, Im happy to clarify any of them.

 

[Krok]

Life was made in the order the bible states. Tiktaalic was meant to be the first creature to crawl out of the sea onto land.....

Not true. Tiktaalik was the first fossil found that was a transitional between lobe-finned fish and tetrapods. Tiktaalik roseae: Home

Yet there were already tetrapod footprints around to that time. Again this info supports the bible account.

Ten million years older than Tiktaalik. How on earth does that “support” the bible account?

Yes, its amazing how evolutionists so easily side step that dilemma.

It’s amazing how YEC’s sidestep the 10 million year dilemma.

Genomic research also identifies that humans were in a geographical area and spead, or at least the out of Africa proponents are attempting to illustrate this.

I have a book called 'Origins of Mankind' (a science book, not produced by creationists) which has a whole section devoted to the genetic fact that all mankind can be traced back to one woman. Again, its amazing how easily they will skim over the implications of that finding.

What’s even more amazing is to see how YEC’s skim over the fact that the same book gives the date of that woman as 200 000 years ago. I’ll also give you a hint, Pegg. The mtDNA refers to the most recent common matrilineal ancestor from whom all living humans descended. It doesn’t mean that it was the first woman. It’s also amazing that the y-chromosomal person of which all living humans descended and his female counterpart lived thousands of years apart. What’s also really amazing is that all the YEC’s just ignore these inconvenient facts.

 

[Venatoris]

ok, you can use calculable events in the bible and trace all the way back to Adams creation.

From the creation of Adam in 4026 B.C.E.
to the birth of Seth 130 years
Then to the birth of Enosh 105 years
To the birth of Kenan 90 years
To the birth of Mahalalel 70 years
To the birth of Jared 65 years
To the birth of Enoch 162 years
To the birth of Methuselah 65 years
To the birth of Lamech 187 years
To the birth of Noah 182 years
To the start of the Flood 600 years
Total number of years 1,656 brings us to the year of the flood as
2370 B.C.E.
From the flood in 2370:
427yrs to the validating of the Abrahamic covenant 1943 B.C.E.
430 years to the Exodus from Egypt 1513 B.C.E.
479 years to the start of the temple construction 1034 B.C.E.
37 years to the division of the kingdom 997 B.C.E.
390 years to the desolation of Judah 607 B.C.E.
70 years to the return of the Jews from exile 537 B.C.E.
82 years to the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s walls 455 B.C.E
483 years to the baptism of Jesus 29 C.E.
1981 years to the present 2010 C.E. = 6,035 years


As i've provided no detail for the above events, Im happy to clarify any of them.

Thanks for the comprehensive timeline, now we're getting somewhere. Is this a generally accepted timeline for creationists or is there some contention amongst creationists about the dates involved? You have given definitive dates that place the earth as being 6,035 years old + 6 days (God created Adam on the sixth day). Why do creationists state that the earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old when you have given me a specific year? What the respondants in this thread seem to be missing is that we are looking for specifics, not faith based generalizations. Can you give me an approximation of the number of "kinds" of animal Noah transported on the ark(assuming they are the basis for all life on earth currently)? Please be as specific as possible in the interest of taking this thread past idle banter and insults.

These questions are not meant to be sarcastic or insulting in any way. I am asking them in the spirit of full disclosure and genuine interest.

 

[Pegg]

It’s amazing how YEC’s sidestep the 10 million year dilemma.

not all christians believe in a young earth. Not all interpret the days mentioned in genesis as literal 24 hour days.

What’s even more amazing is to see how YEC’s skim over the fact that the same book gives the date of that woman as 200 000 years ago. I’ll also give you a hint, Pegg. The mtDNA refers to the most recent common matrilineal ancestor from whom all living humans descended. It doesn’t mean that it was the first woman.

it matters not how old they say she is....the point is that the finding is that all humans have descended from one ancestor just as the bible says we did.

It’s also amazing that the y-chromosomal person of which all living humans descended and his female counterpart lived thousands of years apart. What’s also really amazing is that all the YEC’s just ignore these inconvenient facts.

the way the data is interpreted by evolutionists may be inconvenient, but the data is in harmony with the bibles account of one man and one woman who started the human family.

 

[Krok]

not all christians believe in a young earth. Not all interpret the days mentioned in genesis as literal 24 hour days.it matters not how old they say she is....the point is that the finding is that all humans have descended from one ancestor just as the bible says we did. the way the data is interpreted by evolutionists may be inconvenient, but the data is in harmony with the bibles account of one man and one woman who started the human family.

So, what you're saying is that you only accept some science when it suits you, but reject the other science if it doesn't suit you? What happened to the "same data, different interpretation" slogan? I also strongly encourage you to do some reading on what mtDNA is. Hint: it is not what you think it is. Read a scientific source. Not a creationist strawman.