Creationists, please provide evidence

[Autodidact]

Alright, Pegg, so to recap:

When did God create the living species, genera or families?

What did He create, are we at genera?

Where?

How? Am I right that it's magic poofing?

I'm trying to state your hypothesis, so we can look for evidence of it. Thanks.

 

[jonman122]

Well, if organisms didn't need to start from scratch that should have been enough time. Researchers speak about staged evolution where there is fast evolution followed by periods of little change. Toe requires these kinds of hypothesis to suit the fossils etc.

If Noak took a creature from each family group, they may have had the genetic diversity to start again.

no, the excessive inbreeding would have killed off each animal species that was saved, since there was only 2 of each animal. This has already been shown to be a problem with groups of up to 10 animals, let alone 2. They would have all died off

 

[Pegg]

Alright, Pegg, so to recap:

When did God create the living species, genera or families?

the third day was the beginning of plant life, the fifth day was when 'sea creatures' and 'flying creatures' were created. Then on the sixth day God created the 'land animals' ending finally with the two humans.

What did He create, are we at genera?

Moses used very broad terms when he said 'sea monsters, flying creatures and land animals' so its not possible from the bible account to name them individually.
However, considering they were given the command to 'go forth and multiply' it can rightly be assumed from that, that they were fully formed and functioning animals/creatures with that capability.

Where?

the bible doesnt provide such details as to where. But we can be pretty sure that the sea creatures were created in the seas and the land animals on the land lol. It may have been in multiple locations around the globe or it may have been from a central location... i dont really know.

How? Am I right that it's magic poofing?

The bible doesnt provide those details either. Genesis was never written for the purpose of teaching people about how God created life...only that he created it.

I think there is as much magic poofing going on when evolutionists say that life arose out of lifeless chemicals, as when we say that God created life.
We are beginning to understand how biological things are programmed ie DNA
We know that its that program which defines how a living creature will form and that genetics plays a role in how traits are passed on. It seems reasonable that God uses these, and other, complicated functions in the creation of life. Evolutionists would claim that these complicated processes simply come about by means of nature and nothing more even though they admit that the likelyhood of DNA forming on its own is virtually impossible.

Does it seem reasonable to conclude that something is impossible yet believe it anyway?

I'm trying to state your hypothesis, so we can look for evidence of it. Thanks.

everything is relative isnt it. What I see as evidence for creation, you may not. I think, rather then look for evidence, we should look at the facts and let them lead us to the conclusion.

 

[Pegg]

You think so do you. The rank of family was created by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel long before creationism reared its silly head. He also created the rank of phylum. Why not read up on issues you think about instead of just thinking about them? (Rhetorical question. Please do not reply.)

Ummm, I think Moses used a 'kind' to specify a breeding variety of animal LONG before Ernst Haeckel came along lol

 

[Noaidi]

Genesis was never written for the purpose of teaching people about how God created life...only that he created it.

So why do creationists insist on trying to give convoluted explanations that are so at odds with science? Why not just accept evolution?

 

[Pegg]

So why do creationists insist on trying to give convoluted explanations that are so at odds with science? Why not just accept evolution?

I guess they do so because evolution has determined that all things came into existence by natural means. And accepting evolution requires faith in things that cannot be proven...such as mankind descended from Apes

To believe in evolution also requires faith that life comes from nonliving matter or lifeless chemicals...something that science itself has shown to be impossible

 

[jarofthoughts]

I guess they do so because evolution has determined that all things came into existence by natural means. And accepting evolution requires faith in things that cannot be proven...such as mankind descended from Apes

To be accurate, we are still apes. And we have tons of evidence to back that claim up.

To believe in evolution also requires faith that life comes from nonliving matter or lifeless chemicals...something that science itself has shown to be impossible

You are, like most Creationists I've seen, getting the Theory of Evolution mixed up with Abiogenesis. ToE says NOTHING about where life came from in the first place and only deals with how it developed afterwards.

 

[Venatoris]

I guess they do so because evolution has determined that all things came into existence by natural means. And accepting evolution requires faith in things that cannot be proven...such as mankind descended from Apes

To believe in evolution also requires faith that life comes from nonliving matter or lifeless chemicals...something that science itself has shown to be impossible

No disrespect intended, I think the real reason creationists deny evolution is because it completely destroys the idea that human beings are superior to the rest of the animal kingdom in the eyes of God.

 

[Noaidi]

I guess they do so because evolution has determined that all things came into existence by natural means. And accepting evolution requires faith in things that cannot be proven...such as mankind descended from Apes

As JarOfThoughts said, we are still apes. And science is not trying to 'prove' anything. It provides the best current explanations based on the available evidence. And the best explanation we currently have is that we are a species of ape.

 

[Pegg]

To be accurate, we are still apes. And we have tons of evidence to back that claim up.

are you assuming its accurate because that is what evolutionists tell you?

Does our likeness mean that we are in the same genus as apes, or is that simply the result of how biologists have come to classify things?

Just because 2 creatures may look alike, does not mean they are of the same stock.

You are, like most Creationists I've seen, getting the Theory of Evolution mixed up with Abiogenesis. ToE says NOTHING about where life came from in the first place and only deals with how it developed afterwards.

I know that they are two different subjects, but the ToE has been construed in such a way that it is impossible to separate it from abiogenesis

if everything came from something way back before there was anything, then nothing became something somehow

If they cannot get the foundation of the theory right, why should we take it seriously?

 

[Noaidi]

No disrespect intended, I think the real reason creationists deny evolution is because it completely destroys the idea that human beings are superior to the rest of the animal kingdom in the eyes of God.

I totally agree.

In fact, so does John Muir below...

 

[Pegg]

No disrespect intended, I think the real reason creationists deny evolution is because it completely destroys the idea that human beings are superior to the rest of the animal kingdom in the eyes of God.

I cant speak for all creationists, but for me it has nothing to do with our own superiority. It really comes down to sovereignty. God created us and deserves our respect for that reason. I see evolution as an attack on Gods creator-ship and for that reason alone I reject some aspects of evolution.

I say 'some' aspects because I dont think all the science is skewiff. I accept that there are changes in populations and that one parent pair can produce a wide variety of offspring leading to new species... but not new kinds/genus

 

[PolyHedral]

Just because 2 creatures may look alike, does not mean they are of the same stock.

Sharing around 98% genetic material might, though.

 

[jarofthoughts]

are you assuming its accurate because that is what evolutionists tell you?

Does our likeness mean that we are in the same genus as apes, or is that simply the result of how biologists have come to classify things?

Just because 2 creatures may look alike, does not mean they are of the same stock.

No, I am assuming that it is accurate based on the taxonomical traits that firmly puts us in the same category as chimps, bonobos, orangutans and gorillas, the remaining living species of apes. This is backed up not only by external and internal physical features but also by evidence provided by the mapping of DNA. Of course, "ape" is a human created term, but it is a term with clear definitions, and we are, unquestionably, apes.

I know that they are two different subjects, but the ToE has been construed in such a way that it is impossible to separate it from abiogenesis

This is a fallacy. For all evolution cares the first forms of life might as well have been seeded here by aliens, poofed into existence by some deity, or developed in geothermal vents below the sea. It doesn't matter at all as far as evolution on this planet is concerned.

if everything came from something way back before there was anything, then nothing became something somehow

And now you are onto Cosmology. ToE says nothing about how the universe was formed, and just for the record, Cosmology does NOT claim that it came from nothing.

If they cannot get the foundation of the theory right, why should we take it seriously?

I think you need to read up a bit on exactly what a scientific Theory really is before you make this claim.

 

[Pegg]

As JarOfThoughts said, we are still apes. And science is not trying to 'prove' anything. It provides the best current explanations based on the available evidence. And the best explanation we currently have is that we are a species of ape.

Why is that that best explanation?

In 2007 the journal 'Nature' published an article which made the point that with all the research done on human evolution, they still dont know when or how the human line actually emerged from the apes.

The fact is that human evolution from apes has been under constant debate and there is still no consensus on the issue other then "we descended from apes" ....where is the actual evidence???
There is none... so why do you say its the best explanation we have??

 

[jarofthoughts]

I cant speak for all creationists, but for me it has nothing to do with our own superiority. It really comes down to sovereignty. God created us and deserves our respect for that reason. I see evolution as an attack on Gods creator-ship and for that reason alone I reject some aspects of evolution.

But you have yet to establish that there even is a god, let alone that he created humans. You have no hypothesis. You have no evidence. You most certainly do not have a Scientific Theory. Therefore you are intellectually bankrupt.

I say 'some' aspects because I dont think all the science is skewiff. I accept that there are changes in populations and that one parent pair can produce a wide variety of offspring leading to new species... but not new kinds/genus

Alright. I'll play.
Since you apparently accept what Creationists call "micro-evolution" (this term has no meaning in evolutionary theory), explain to me what mechanism stops "micro-evolution" from becoming "macro-evolution". Seems obvious that small changes accumulated over a long enough period of time should result in major changes that in effect creates a new "kind.
So what stops this from happening?

 

[PolyHedral]

In 2007 the journal 'Nature' published an article which made the point that with all the research done on human evolution, they still dont know when or how the human line actually emerged from the apes.

This is exactly what would be expected. A discontinuity between species like that would break our understanding of evolution. If you work backwards through time, it is unreasonable to expect discreet species. Organism A might be a different species than organism B if they're separated by 500 million years, but asking where that species "begins" is almost nonsensical.

 

[Venatoris]

I cant speak for all creationists, but for me it has nothing to do with our own superiority. It really comes down to sovereignty. God created us and deserves our respect for that reason. I see evolution as an attack on Gods creator-ship and for that reason alone I reject some aspects of evolution.

I disagree, I think evolution gives far more credit to God's power, intelligence, and creativity than any creationist account I've heard. Which seems more impressive to you, pushing over 10 dominoes, one at a time, or pushing over one domino that sets off a chain reaction knocking over 5 billion dominoes?

 

[Pegg]

Sharing around 98% genetic material might, though.

98% sounds impressive and I could understand how some might conclude that we must be very closely related.

If there are two animals with 40 million differences in their DNA, what would we conclude from that?

 

[PolyHedral]

You know that human DNA contains billions of base pairs, right? A difference of 0.5% is minute.