Creationists, please provide evidence

[tumbleweed41]

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.

Really? Who wrote this book?

(BYW, if you are talking about Mitochondrial Eve, she is just the earliest female that all of mankind can trace it's roots to, not the actual original ancestor.)

 

[Autodidact]

Did I not refer you to the Book that describes HOW God created living things?
If you're looking for step by step instructions, you are asking for something scientists are unable to fully explain or understand for 'simple' single cell organisms. God explaining HOW he created life to us, would be like a scientist trying to explain how to manufacture an electron microscope to a 3 year old. (Isaiah 55:8,9)
We can, however, see the intelligence, nay, genius, and skill in the form and function of living things. This manifest design genius cannot be explained by the ToE. By way of contrast, Antony Flew, an avowed atheist for 50 years, after a study of DNA, began to express a belief that some intelligence must have been at work in the creation of life. When asked if his new thinking might prove unpopular among scientists, Flew reportedly responded: "That's too bad. My whole life has been guided by the principle... [to] follow the evidence wherever it leads." (quote from The Origin of Life - Five Questions Worth Asking)

What I'm looking for is YOUR explanation for what YOU believe. I don't want to impose my interpretation on you, I want YOU to tell us what YOU believe.

Is your belief that God magically poofed two of each "kind" into existence? If so, when, where and what is a "kind," in your view?

 

[newhope101]

But newhope: you lied to us. Over and over. You told us you're an agnostic; you're not. You told us you understood and accepted ToE; you don't. You told us you're not a Young Earth Creationist (YEC). You are. You told me that you accept that the evidence supports ToE. Now you deny it. When someone lies and lies, I call them a liar. What do you call it?

I have an idea why, too, but I'm waiting to hear from you first. Why did you present yourself as an agnostic who accepted ToE, when in fact you're a YEC who denies it?

You are a child. I have made a couple of replies in evolutionist mode, but I get bored. It is not challenging at all to rip religionists apart. Especially the average person that hasn't done biology. There is no buzz in that at all for me. I am nit a sick puppy like many here. Creationists are the minority by far.

Didn't you do debating at school. The unpopular stance was always the more fun. Besides, I am happy to blow the creationist trumpet. As an agnostic I feel there is evidence supportive of both views. I have said this over and over and over but you appear to really be stuck on it.

Many Christians and other faiths accept ToE. It has little to do with agnosticism.

If you would read my posts I do not claim young earth only young humans.

I think you are incredibly immature.

 

[tumbleweed41]

If you would read my posts I do not claim young earth only young humans.

Those actualy familiar with Anthropology and Biology would disagree with you.

 

[Autodidact]

You are a child. I have made a couple of replies in evolutionist mode, but I get bored. It is not challenging at all to rip religionists apart. Especially the average person that hasn't done biology. There is no buzz in that at all for me. I am nit a sick puppy like many here. Creationists are the minority by far.

Didn't you do debating at school. The unpopular stance was always the more fun. Besides, I am happy to blow the creationist trumpet. As an agnostic I feel there is evidence supportive of both views. I have said this over and over and over but you appear to really be stuck on it.

Many Christians and other faiths accept ToE. It has little to do with agnosticism.

If you would read my posts I do not claim young earth only young humans.

I think you are incredibly immature.

Can you discuss the issues without resorting to personal insults? Thanks.

I'm confused. What is your position? Young Earth Creationism? Old Earth Creationism? Or do you accept science? Are you Christian or agnostic?

 

[tumbleweed41]

You are a child. I have made a couple of replies in evolutionist mode, but I get bored. It is not challenging at all to rip religionists apart. Especially the average person that hasn't done biology. There is no buzz in that at all for me. I am nit a sick puppy like many here. Creationists are the minority by far.

Didn't you do debating at school. The unpopular stance was always the more fun. Besides, I am happy to blow the creationist trumpet. As an agnostic I feel there is evidence supportive of both views. I have said this over and over and over but you appear to really be stuck on it.

Many Christians and other faiths accept ToE. It has little to do with agnosticism.

If you would read my posts I do not claim young earth only young humans.

I think you are incredibly immature.

Refusing to take an actual stance because it is "more fun"?
This is a sign of maturity?

 

[Wotan]

Can you discuss the issues without resorting to personal insults? Thanks.

I'm confused. What is your position? Young Earth Creationism? Old Earth Creationism? Or do you accept science? Are you Christian or agnostic?

How about TROLL?

 

[newhope101]

O.K. so for example the family muridae, containing mice rats and gerbils would all be one kind? Is that right?

And for another example, there are about 280 different kinds of beetles? Is that correct?

btw, if a "kind" is a family, why not just use the word "family?"

Pegg, do you agree that a "kind" is a biological family?

Hey..I'm going to find it difficult to defend the ridiculous categorization of life. many resarchers also have problems with it. Anyway using the current system I'd say God probably created weevils. These I believe are asexual. Whether God made 1 or 1000 is a question for research. These creatures are a part of an ecological system and would have been created to perform such and then adapt.

There is no problem for me if they 'poofed', as you call it, into beetles, as Toe alledges.

Wiki
As with many other small mammals, the evolution of the murids is not well known, as few fossils survive. They probably evolved from hamster-like animals in tropical Asia some time in the early Miocene, and to have only subsequently produced species capable of surviving in cooler climes. They have become especially common worldwide during the Holocene, as a result of hitching a ride with human migrations[2].

I'd say the first creation would have been a hampster type animal, again with the proven and unnecessary realm of genetic diversity to adapt. It appears from the few fossils found and use of the word 'probably',that researchers would only be guessing the evolutionary relationships anyway. I also note a migratory view in line with perhaps having been created in a geographical area multiplying and filling the earth.

Genomic studies show all life forms have great genetic diversity. Indeed they had to have this genetic diversity so that God could control how the genes were expressed or turned on or off. If they evolved, organisms only require what is needed to survive and reproduce with some ability to adapt. However the reason a sponge has nerve cells when totally unnecessary is because all creation carries the same blueprint for life as Gods signature. Likewise the creatures you used as examples. I'd expect they also will share many genes with humans just like trichoplax.

 

[tumbleweed41]

There is no problem for me if they 'poofed', as you call it, into beetles, as Toe alledges.

The Theory of Evolution alleges no such thing.
I am sure you are aware that the greatest attribute a true debater can have is to actually be informed about the subject they are discussing.

 

[PolyHedral]

Anyway using the current system I'd say God probably created weevils.

So 60,000 species came about from a single group of individuals, in less than 6000 years?

 

[Autodidact]

Hey..I'm going to find it difficult to defend the ridiculous categorization of life. many resarchers also have problems with it. Anyway using the current system I'd say God probably created weevils. These I believe are asexual. Whether God made 1 or 1000 is a question for research. These creatures are a part of an ecological system and would have been created to perform such and then adapt.

There is no problem for me if they 'poofed', as you call it, into beetles, as Toe alledges.

Wiki
As with many other small mammals, the evolution of the murids is not well known, as few fossils survive. They probably evolved from hamster-like animals in tropical Asia some time in the early Miocene, and to have only subsequently produced species capable of surviving in cooler climes. They have become especially common worldwide during the Holocene, as a result of hitching a ride with human migrations[2].

I'd say the first creation would have been a hampster type animal, again with the proven and unnecessary realm of genetic diversity to adapt. It appears from the few fossils found and use of the word 'probably',that researchers would only be guessing the evolutionary relationships anyway. I also note a migratory view in line with perhaps having been created in a geographical area multiplying and filling the earth.

Genomic studies show all life forms have great genetic diversity. Indeed they had to have this genetic diversity so that God could control how the genes were expressed or turned on or off. If they evolved, organisms only require what is needed to survive and reproduce with some ability to adapt. However the reason a sponge has nerve cells when totally unnecessary is because all creation carries the same blueprint for life as Gods signature. Likewise the creatures you used as examples. I'd expect they also will share many genes with humans just like trichoplax.

Pardon?

Is that a yes, muridae are a single "kind"?
And there are around 280 "kinds" of beetles? Would you agree or disagree with that?

After objecting that I had mischaracterized your hypothesis, you never explained how. Which part do you disagree with? The 6000 year part? The flood?

Are you saying that you're just pretending to be a creationist now, and do not believe anything you're saying? Isn't that what a troll is?

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

So 60,000 species came about from a single group of individuals, in less than 6000 years?

Don't forget that the entire earth was destroyed in a global flood 1600 years after genesis, giving us only 4400 years in which to do that.

 

[Gunfingers]

See, i was on board for 6000 years, but when you take it down to 4400 it becomes clear that it's impossible.

 

[Autodidact]

You are a child. I have made a couple of replies in evolutionist mode, but I get bored. It is not challenging at all to rip religionists apart. Especially the average person that hasn't done biology. There is no buzz in that at all for me. I am nit a sick puppy like many here. Creationists are the minority by far.

Didn't you do debating at school. The unpopular stance was always the more fun. Besides, I am happy to blow the creationist trumpet. As an agnostic I feel there is evidence supportive of both views. I have said this over and over and over but you appear to really be stuck on it.

Many Christians and other faiths accept ToE. It has little to do with agnosticism.

If you would read my posts I do not claim young earth only young humans.

I think you are incredibly immature.

Yes, I can understand why you might get upset when you have been caught out in your lies.

 

[evolved yet?]

If you would read my posts I do not claim young earth only young humans.

What about the part on all animals being traced to ancestors.

 

[newhope101]

Pardon?

Is that a yes, muridae are a single "kind"?
And there are around 280 "kinds" of beetles? Would you agree or disagree with that?

After objecting that I had mischaracterized your hypothesis, you never explained how. Which part do you disagree with? The 6000 year part? The flood?

Are you saying that you're just pretending to be a creationist now, and do not believe anything you're saying? Isn't that what a troll is?

I think you love me Autodidact, you're so focused on my religion. Would it help you sleep at night if I converted.

Evolutionists haven't got it worked out at all that's why anyone can rip it to shreds. Now you're asking for a solid creationist theory that you can take joy in ridiculing.

How can anyone use the biased dating methods to try to sort any dates for floods etc. However, what evidence researchers have uncovered supports a creation event.

You may not like this, and it may frustrate you, but that's it. thousands of researchers have not put a solid case for ToE. It's unlikely that clever little me will come up with one on the spot that's solid.

Did I not give you an answer to your all important beetle question? From the fossil evidence, or rather lack of, God may have even created beetles and weevils. Don't forget it is your own ToE that says these weevils poofed into a variety of beetles. That's not a propblem for creationists. The difference is the weevil did not branch from anything but was created. The lack of intermediates prior to weevils supports creation. Gee, I'm disapppointed. I thought you had a plan. Nope no plan just woffly questions that go nowhere.

Got anything else?

Now you mentioned flood. There's loads of evidence for a world flood, not only geologically but also in genetic bottlenecks. If you lot got your dating methods right it would be clearer to all.
World wide flood: World wide evidence.

Evidence 1Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents

We find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers that cover all the continents. For example, most of the rock layers in the walls of Grand Canyon (more than a mile above sea level) contain marine fossils. Fossilized shellfish are even found in the Himalayas.
Focus in: High & Dry Sea Creatures
Evidence 2 Rapid burial of plants and animals

We find extensive fossil “graveyards” and exquisitely preserved fossils. For example, billions of nautiloid fossils are found in a layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon. This layer was deposited catastrophically by a massive flow of sediment (mostly lime sand). The chalk and coal beds of Europe and the United States, and the fish, ichthyosaurs, insects, and other fossils all around the world, testify of catastrophic destruction and burial.
Focus in: The World’s a Graveyard
Evidence 3 Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas

We find rock layers that can be traced all the way across continents—even between continents—and physical features in those strata indicate they were deposited rapidly. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone and Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon can be traced across the entire United States, up into Canada, and even across the Atlantic Ocean to England. The chalk beds of England (the white cliffs of Dover) can be traced across Europe into the Middle East and are also found in the Midwest of the United States and in Western Australia. Inclined (sloping) layers within the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon are testimony to 10,000 cubic miles of sand being deposited by huge water currents within days.
Focus in: Transcontinental Rock Layers
Evidence 4 Sediment transported long distances

We find that the sediments in those widespread, rapidly deposited rock layers had to be eroded from distant sources and carried long distances by fast-moving water. For example, the sand for the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon (Arizona) had to be eroded and transported from the northern portion of what is now the United States and Canada. Furthermore, water current indicators (such as ripple marks) preserved in rock layers show that for “300 million years” water currents were consistently flowing from northeast to southwest across all of North and South America, which, of course, is only possible over weeks during a global Flood.
Focus in: Sand Transported Cross Country
Evidence 5 Rapid or no erosion between strata

We find evidence of rapid erosion, or even of no erosion, between rock layers. Flat, knife-edge boundaries between rock layers indicate continuous deposition of one layer after another, with no time for erosion. For example, there is no evidence of any “missing” millions of years (of erosion) in the flat boundary between two well-known layers of Grand Canyon—the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Formation. Another impressive example of flat boundaries at Grand Canyon is the Redwall Limestone and the strata beneath it.
Focus in: No Slow and Gradual Erosion
Evidence 6 Many strata laid down in rapid succession

Rocks do not normally bend; they break because they are hard and brittle. But in many places we find whole sequences of strata that were bent without fracturing, indicating that all the rock layers were rapidly deposited and folded while still wet and pliable before final hardening. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone in Grand Canyon is folded at a right angle (90°) without evidence of breaking. Yet this folding could only have occurred after the rest of the layers had been deposited, supposedly over “480 million years,” while the Tapeats Sandstone remained wet and pliable.

 

[tumbleweed41]

. Don't forget it is your own ToE that says these weevils poofed into a variety of beetles. .

Why do you insist on repeating this lie?
Please, learn something about Evolutionary Biology before making such ridiculous statements.

 

[newhope101]

What about the part on all animals being traced to ancestors.

Organisms still had to fill the earth and this would have taken a long time, probably more than a day. So organisms still go back a long way and have adapted, possibly many thousands of years. Using the recent example of weevils. They had to fill niches and adapt. That would take time. Even with creating organisms complete it took a long time to prepare the earth for human habitation.

 

[Autodidact]

newhope:

Do you agree or disagree that muridae are a kind?
Do you agree or disagree that there are about 280 kinds of beetles?

 

[PolyHedral]

. Don't forget it is your own ToE that says these weevils poofed into a variety of beetles. .

I suppose "poofed" is the right word if you happen to be Dr. Manhattan and are viewing at a timescale of tens of millions of years per second...