Creationists, please provide evidence

[rusra02]

So what?


Nice, purposeful misquote, that is, leaving out the qualifying context.

Here's the whole thing.

"The Complexity of the mechanisms required for the functioning of a living cell is so large that simultaneous emergence by chance seems impossible. Most scientists now believe that life originated in a number of smaller and probabilistically likelier steps. Instead of being one big chance like event, life might actually be an accretion of a series of events emerging at different moments in time."
​

I did not misquote the author, who is an evolutionist. The point he made and that I quoted, and you apparently choose to ignore, is the COMPLEXITY of the mechanisms in living cells is indicative of design and engineering genious that no scientist can duplicate or even fully understand. That these mechanisms occurred by chance seems impossible to him. An evolutionist that would argue vehemently that a ball point pen cannot poof into existence without a maker will blithely assert that mechanisms in living things poofed into existence.

Anyone who studies an 8th grade science textbook regarding the structure of cells will understand why such complexity seems impossible to have happened by chance.

His further statement regarding the theory that life evolved in a number of steps is simply a way to explain how the impossible complexity occurred, without any proof that this could happen, much less did happen.

 

[Noaidi]

I did not misquote the author, who is an evolutionist. The point he made and that I quoted, and you apparently choose to ignore, is the COMPLEXITY of the mechanisms in living cells is indicative of design and engineering genious that no scientist can duplicate or even fully understand. That these mechanisms occurred by chance seems impossible to him. .

Just because science does not yet have all the answers, this does not equate to 'goddidit'.

Here, we are looking for positive evidence for creationist arguments, not highlighting the limits of science.

 

[Wotan]

I did not misquote the author, who is an evolutionist. The point he made and that I quoted, and you apparently choose to ignore, is the COMPLEXITY of the mechanisms in living cells is indicative of design and engineering genious that no scientist can duplicate or even fully understand. That these mechanisms occurred by chance seems impossible to him. An evolutionist that would argue vehemently that a ball point pen cannot poof into existence without a maker will blithely assert that mechanisms in living things poofed into existence.

Anyone who studies an 8th grade science textbook regarding the structure of cells will understand why such complexity seems impossible to have happened by chance.

His further statement regarding the theory that life evolved in a number of steps is simply a way to explain how the impossible complexity occurred, without any proof that this could happen, much less did happen.

Son, that entire line of reasoning is "I don't understand how it happened. Neither does anybody else. GodDidIt."

The SAME argument was made about smallpox, cancer, brain malfunctions, lightening, tides, wind, etc, etc, etc,. It is an argument from ignorance - a logical fallacy. Remove the ignorance and the entire thing falls.

NOW about that EVIDENCE for your invisible fairy god-father and his magic wand . . . .?

 

[Atomist]

Microbiologist Michael J Behe wrote in the NY Times of 2/7/2005 regarding the intelligence evident in nature: "The strong appearance of design allows a disarmingly simple argument: If it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then absent compelling argument to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it's a duck. Design should not be overlooked simply because it's so obvious."

Michael Behe's argument for creationism is that simply "life is too complex to arise out of random chance and mutation" so basically it's an argument from ignorance. Furthermore, Behe accepts mainstream science with respect to evolution but just postulates that there needs to be a god there to help move things along.
See: theistic evolution.

 

[evolved yet?]

Michael Behe's argument for creationism is that simply "life is too complex to arise out of random chance and mutation" so basically it's an argument from ignorance. Furthermore, Behe accepts mainstream science with respect to evolution but just postulates that there needs to be a god there to help move things along.
See: theistic evolution.

Intelligent design has two forms, well known progressive creationism is the idea of continuos creation and guided theistic evolution.

 

[evolved yet?]

I did not misquote the author, who is an evolutionist. The point he made and that I quoted, and you apparently choose to ignore, is the COMPLEXITY of the mechanisms in living cells is indicative of design and engineering genious that no scientist can duplicate or even fully understand. That these mechanisms occurred by chance seems impossible to him.

If you read any grade 8 textbook on evolution you would understand evolution does not happen by chance! You did so misquote the author as Skwim just showed, the next line says it says that it must have happened through continuos evolutionary steps.

 

[Skwim]

I did not misquote the author, who is an evolutionist.

Sure you did. You made it look like Popa endorsed the notion you reiterate below:

The point he made and that I quoted, and you apparently choose to ignore, is the COMPLEXITY of the mechanisms in living cells is indicative of design and engineering genious that no scientist can duplicate or even fully understand.

Which isn't what he meant at all. Popa clearly indicated that simultaneous emergence by chance seems impossible. The very clear difference here, which you chose to ignore for you own convenience, is between the actual inability of X and its seemingly inability. "Can" and "seems to" are not synonymous concepts. NOR does he address the inability to fully understand it, as you claim.

That these mechanisms occurred by chance seems impossible to him.

Nope, only their simultaneous emergence, which he then elucidates by explaining "Most scientists now believe that life originated in a number of smaller and probabilistically likelier steps." So the seeming impossibility of simultaneous emergence--- NOT "these mechanisms"--- Is effectively dealt with by positing a number of smaller and probabilistically likelier steps.

His further statement regarding the theory that life evolved in a number of steps is simply a way to explain how the impossible complexity occurred, without any proof that this could happen, much less did happen.

And, of course, that "impossible complexity" is a figment of your own poor reading and not something Popa said.

Anyone who studies 8th grade English will understand why such deliberate misreading deserves nothing more than a F-.

 

[rusra02]

Son, that entire line of reasoning is "I don't understand how it happened. Neither does anybody else. GodDidIt."

The SAME argument was made about smallpox, cancer, brain malfunctions, lightening, tides, wind, etc, etc, etc,. It is an argument from ignorance - a logical fallacy. Remove the ignorance and the entire thing falls.

NOW about that EVIDENCE for your invisible fairy god-father and his magic wand . . . .?

The evidence for a builder is the house he built. But I see some ToE advocates don't want to be bothered by the evidence for God. (Hebrews 13:4) Still, we have this pesky creation all around us that should be difficult to ignore. Let's pretend it all just ... happened...yeah, that's it...

 

[Noaidi]

The evidence for a builder is the house he built. But I see some ToE advocates don't want to be bothered by the evidence for God. (Hebrews 13:4) Still, we have this pesky creation all around us that should be difficult to ignore. Let's pretend it all just ... happened...yeah, that's it...

"The evidence for a builder is the house he built."
You are using an analogy. That is not evidence.

Regarding the presentation of 'creation' itself as evidence doesn't work either. You are making an assertion that is not backed up (goddidit). Substitute your god with any other mythical being can make just as much (non)sense.

Come on, rusra02. Give us some verifiable evidence that is available to anyone, not just the faithful.

 

[DeitySlayer]

The evidence for a builder is the house he built. But I see some ToE advocates don't want to be bothered by the evidence for God. (Hebrews 13:4) Still, we have this pesky creation all around us that should be difficult to ignore. Let's pretend it all just ... happened...yeah, that's it...

One more time:

Buildings cannot be compared to organic systems. Because buildings are not subject to:

- Replication
- Variation
- Selection

Ergo, they cannot evolve. Please indicate that organic systems must have come about by an intelligent direction and cannot have come about by the accumulation of incrementally beneficial changes. The stage is yours.

Oh, one more thing. Take a crack at explaining atavisms from a Creationist perspective.

 

[evolved yet?]

Still know positive evidence incept a dembski(or dumbski) argument.

 

[evolved yet?]

Oh, one more thing. Take a crack at explaining atavisms from a Creationist perspective.

Danmac already was destroyed when he tried to attack atavisms rusra02 will not do any better.

 

[koaaaaala1113]

There is evidence evolution didn't happen. You can't say that this world happened by chance. Everything here is too perfect. If you are an evolutionist you are saying This world formed out of nothing billions of years ago and it just happened to have a perfect atmosphere, in the perfect distance from the sun with a perfect environment suited for humans to dwell. It is like saying a building happened by chance, no body built it. It evolution was real, a bird would need time to evolve, correct? It does not happen overnight, for a bird to have a wing, it would need to go through the process to develop a wing stub which is useless, so why would it need half a wing. The theory of evolution is based on a selection of the most adaptable animals. Now give me proof that evolution did take place.

 

[David M]

There is evidence evolution didn't happen. You can't say that this world happened by chance.

No, science does not say things happen by chance, the say they happen as a result of natural mechanisms, these being observable and testable.

Everything here is too perfect. If you are an evolutionist you are saying This world formed out of nothing billions of years ago and it just happened to have a perfect atmosphere, in the perfect distance from the sun with a perfect environment suited for humans to dwell. It is like saying a building happened by chance, no body built it.

The world did not form out of nothing, it formed under natural mechanisms that are testable and observable, we see protoplanetary disks around other suns.

Puddle thinking, life is well adapted to the conditions on earth, not the other way around.

It evolution was real, a bird would need time to evolve, correct? It does not happen overnight, for a bird to have a wing, it would need to go through the process to develop a wing stub which is useless, so why would it need half a wing.

Wings are modified forelimbs in birds and mammals, no wing stubs involved. If you want to know the use of half a wing look at a flying squirrel.

The theory of evolution is based on a selection of the most adaptable animals. Now give me proof that evolution did take place.

Evolution has been observed in the lab and in the wild. Try learning somthing about evolution before you post any other ignorant blunders about it.

 

[Autodidact]

rusra: Before you can provide evidence for your hypothesis, you first need to state it. Could you state your hypothesis for us please? Then we can talk evidence. Thanks.

 

[Autodidact]

I did not misquote the author, who is an evolutionist. The point he made and that I quoted, and you apparently choose to ignore, is the COMPLEXITY of the mechanisms in living cells is indicative of design and engineering genious that no scientist can duplicate or even fully understand. That these mechanisms occurred by chance seems impossible to him. An evolutionist that would argue vehemently that a ball point pen cannot poof into existence without a maker will blithely assert that mechanisms in living things poofed into existence.

For the millionth time, ToE makes no assertions about whether there is a maker or not. In fact, as I've told you many times, we can assume there is one.

No scientist has ever asserted, as part of ToE, that anything poofed into existence. In fact, isn't it your position that something poofed into existence, precisely two of each "kind" of creature?

Anyone who studies an 8th grade science textbook regarding the structure of cells will understand why such complexity seems impossible to have happened by chance.

And anyone who actually learns what ToE is would understand that it does not assert that anything other than mutations happened by chance.

Before criticizing ToE, you might want to learn what it is. Just a suggestion.

His further statement regarding the theory that life evolved in a number of steps is simply a way to explain how the impossible complexity occurred, without any proof that this could happen, much less did happen.

EVIDENCE. NOT PROOF, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE EVIDENCE.

First, your subject is not evolution but abiogenesis. Second, the evidence is contained in the thousands of published reports of experiments and studies, none of which you have ever read. And as long as you don't read them, or read about them, you can continue to deny it exists.

 

[Autodidact]

The evidence for a builder is the house he built. But I see some ToE advocates don't want to be bothered by the evidence for God. (Hebrews 13:4) Still, we have this pesky creation all around us that should be difficult to ignore. Let's pretend it all just ... happened...yeah, that's it...

Please, for a moment, turn off the noise in your head and try to learn something.

Yes, fine, God made it. God made everything--clear? Now the question that science looks at is: how. God made every living thing on the planet, O.K.? ToE looks at the question: how did He do so?

What is your hypothesis for how God went about making every living thing?

I'm guessing magic poofing, am I right?

HOW. HOW. HOW. NOT WHO, HOW.

If creationists could grasp these two simple concepts:
Evidence, not proof.
How, not who.
It would save us all a lot of time and aggravation.

Please try to bear it in mind; I get tired of repeating it. Thank you.

 

[Autodidact]

There is evidence evolution didn't happen.

First, the thread is not about whether evolution is correct, it is about your hypothesis, whatever it may be, and what evidence there is for it. Second, no, there isn't. You may want to think about what the words "evidence" and "evolution" mean.

You can't say that this world happened by chance.

What on earth does this have to do with evolution? Do you have any idea at all what the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is? Hint: It has nothing to do with how the world happened, and nothing to do with chance.

Everything here is too perfect. If you are an evolutionist you are saying This world formed out of nothing billions of years ago and it just happened to have a perfect atmosphere, in the perfect distance from the sun with a perfect environment suited for humans to dwell.

No, actually, that's astronomy. Evolution is Biology. Let me know if you are ever interested in learning what ToE actually says, because you're not even in the right category.

It is like saying a building happened by chance, no body built it.It evolution was real, a bird would need time to evolve, correct? It does not happen overnight, for a bird to have a wing, it would need to go through the process to develop a wing stub which is useless, so why would it need half a wing. The theory of evolution is based on a selection of the most adaptable animals. Now give me proof that evolution did take place.

1. We've had time, 4.56 billion years, to be precise.
2. This thread is not about evolution; it's about creationism. What is your hypothesis for how God made all the different species on earth?
3. EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE. NOT PROOF; EVIDENCE.
4. If you really want to review the many mountains of evidence supporting ToE, I will be happy to describe it to you, whether here or in a separate thread. As a matter of fact we have such a thread open right now. But I warn you--it will take many, many pages. I don't want to take the time unless you will read and try to understand it. Do you want to?

 

[DeitySlayer]

There is evidence evolution didn't happen.

Love to hear it.

You can't say that this world happened by chance. Everything here is too perfect. If you are an evolutionist you are saying This world formed out of nothing billions of years ago

That would be astronomy.

and it just happened to have a perfect atmosphere, in the perfect distance from the sun with a perfect environment suited for humans to dwell.

A well-observed trend in urbanization is that urban areas tend to spring up next to rivers. So we have a positive corellation between the presence of rivers and urban areas. What you are saying is the equivalent of saying that the river was designed for the urban area to be built there. It is entirely the other way around. The urban area is there because the river is there. The presence of the urban area is determined by the presence of the river; the river was not placed there for the urban area to grow around it. Similarly, humans evolved to suit this environment. The environment was not designed for us.

It is like saying a building happened by chance, no body built it

Buildings are not subject to the evolutionary mechanisms of replication, variation and selection, and thus cannot evolve. The comparison is therefore meaningless.

It evolution was real, a bird would need time to evolve, correct? It does not happen overnight, for a bird to have a wing, it would need to go through the process to develop a wing stub which is useless, so why would it need half a wing.

Raptor [dinosaurs] such as Velociraptor and Deinonychus were feathered. Wings were primarily developed for reasons other than flight, e.g. intimidation, 'show-off' for mating, insulation, etc. and were subsequently modified in purpose by environmental demands.

The theory of evolution is based on a selection of the most adaptable animals. Now give me proof that evolution did take place.

Protein functional redundancy, DNA functional redundancy, Transposons, Redundant pseudogenes, Endogenous retroviruses, Anatomical parahomology, Molecular parahomology, Anatomical convergence, Molecular convergence, Anatomical suboptimal function, Molecular suboptimal function, Nested hierarchies, Convergence of independent phylogenies, Transitional Forms, Anatomical Vestiges and Biogeography

Good day to you sir.

 

[Noaidi]

The desire to respond to creationist misconceptions of evolution on this thread is extremely tempting, but I feel it should be avoided. Creationists are more then happy to continually point out the 'flaws' in ToE because it means they don't have to provide any evidence for their belief. This thread will become just another 'let's discuss evolution' thread, of which there are a few already.

Let's stick to the premise of the OP. Let creationists provide us with their evidence and debate that.