Creationists, please provide evidence

[Pegg]

First off, speciation has been directly observed on numerous occasions and is fully testable.

A clear example of what is believed to be speciation in action are 'Darwins Finches' It was believed by Darwin himself that the finches on the Galapagos islands had evolved into new species, hence why some had larger beaks and some smaller, and later researches also felt they were evidence of speciation.
These finches were found to be changing when the environment changed. After only one year of drought, finches that had slightly bigger beaks survived more than those with smaller beaks. And because biologists categorize them primarily by the size and shape of the beaks they believed that the changes proved speciation in action.

But now this is where it gets interesting. Peter Grant was the original researcher in the 70's who studied the finches...he went back in the late 80's and his findings were as he wrote in an article in the Nature journal in 1987 that they had seen a reversal in the direction of selection. What they thought were becoming new species of finch, actually weren't. And further to that they also found that some of the different 'species' were actually interbreeding with other 'species' and producing viable offspring.

What some have concluded from the study of the finches is that they were not producing new species at all...they were simply adapting to their environment.

Secondly, 40 years? Really? You do realise that 40 years is NOTHING when considering evolutionary time? We're talking hundreds upon hundreds of millions of years here...

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig of the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany has written about the intensive mutation breeding experiments that went on from the 30's thru to the 70's when researchers from around the world gave up trying.

And yet, you have not answered my question. What is the MECHANISM that in a genus stops it from changing beyond a certain point?

if we take the example of the mutation experiments, they repeatedly found that the number of new mutants steadily declined, while the same type of mutants regularly appeared. Lönnig deduced from this phenomenon the “law of recurrent variation” which is that genetically properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations and that the gene sequence will reach its limit so that no more variation occurs.

 

[tumbleweed41]

But Pegg, do you have any scientific evidence in support of Biblical Creationism?

Or are you going to continue with your weak attacks on Biological Evolution?

 

[jonman122]

i don't think she has any, or has ever had any

 

[newhope101]

[quote=tumbleweed41;2155850]Not surprising. In the past year at least three threads have been started for Creationists to provide ANY scientific evidence in support of Biblical Creationism. All have yeilded zero results. Although there have been plenty of discredited attacks on Biological Evolution.[/quote]

Creationists have provided plenty of evidence and when evolutionsists can't refute the quoted research some resort to petty belittling, like tumbleweed...a sure sign of frustration.

What part of the completed species genomic data indicating ancestry to an individual or two do you not understand or wish to ignore?

For example, I see no refute to my previous info re so called 'examples of speciation". You lot post this evidence, then when it's refuted you cry that creationists just like to poke holes in ToE. It is much easier to hide behind smart rectal remarks and side points, than to actually support your so called evidence by refuting mine. I know why you do not refute the research. Obviously because you cannot adequately do so.

I see many of you picking on side points rather than addressing real issues in recent data. Alternatively many of you reject any research that shakes the status quo. Those of you that have done so rest assured, it has been noted.

To those evolutionists that actually know how to debate..Thanks.

 

[newhope101]

Quote: tumbleweed41But Pegg, do you have any scientific evidence in support of Biblical Creationism?
Or are you going to continue with your weak attacks on Biological Evolution?

Pegg, I think you have done a great job. It seems when evolutionists post their evidence to refute a creationist perspective, creationists are not supposed to refute their evidence or else we're not playing the game, apparently. I think evolutionists are allowed to rip creationist evidence to pieces but creationists are not to return same. That's an interesting way to debate. Evolvedyet should have put that in his thread rules.

Then again if I were a solid evolutionist I would be mighty unhappy with the amount of holes there is in ToE and I would not like that fact being constantly pointed out to me.

The info I posted re primates showing similar adaptive genes to human adaptations is interesting. I think it won't be long before this chromosome similarity thing that is held as such strong evidence for human evolution is exposed for what it really is, nothing at all.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Nice rant Newhope.

So where is the evidence that you have that supports Biblical Creationism?
(You know, like the OP asks for.)

 

[Pegg]

It has and it has been observed numerous times. Really. In our lifetime.
Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events
Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is also false.

a Great Dane and a Malteese Terrier have speciated too, they cannot interbreed and produce offspring but they are still dogs.

And like the example I gave above, Darwins finches have speciated, but they are still finches.

 

[jarofthoughts]

A clear example of what is believed to be speciation in action are 'Darwins Finches' It was believed by Darwin himself that the finches on the Galapagos islands had evolved into new species, hence why some had larger beaks and some smaller, and later researches also felt they were evidence of speciation.

Darwin was wrong about a lot of things, the most profound being the medium of heredity, but that is irrelevant. Evolutionary biology has come a long way in the last 150 years and speciation has been directly observed. I'll be happy to provide examples if need be.

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig of the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany has written about the intensive mutation breeding experiments that went on from the 30's thru to the 70's when researchers from around the world gave up trying.

I don't mean to be harsh but it appears as if Lönning is a Creationist who pushed his personal beliefs through the official channels of the Max Planck Institute.

Quote (http://www.evolution-creationism.us/jehovah_witnesses.html): "It seems that the "law of recurrent variation" is not a genuine law of science at all! It traces back to Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a geneticist at the prestigious Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding in Germany. It appears that Lönnig was censored for using the official Max Planck Institute website to advance his personal belief in Intelligent Design. Given his Internet "crusade" for ID, it is not surprising that he authored a paper around 2002 claiming that natural selection cannot give rise to new species. Far from being supported by a scientific law, that view is rejected by the vast majority of biologists."

And while he has written several books, none of this research has been published in peer-reviewed journals, not to mention that his "law" is refuted on a regular basis through the observed appearance of new species.

 

[jarofthoughts]

a Great Dane and a Malteese Terrier have speciated too, they cannot interbreed and produce offspring but they are still dogs.

Genetically there is nothing stopping them from interbreeding, although sheer size is an issue in some cases of breeds of dogs. And since they would genetically produce consistently fertile offspring they are still the same species.
In other words, different breeds of dogs are not different species.

 

[Pegg]

I suspect that is has to do with their faith in their beliefs being so weak that they actually fear starting down that particular slippery slope.

No, those christians are the ones who actually say they believe God used evolution in the creation of life

 

[Pegg]

No, your theory involves God producing mega- to gigatonnes of water and then making it vanish again. Physics does not allow in anything approaching reasonable circumstances.

the water didnt vanish...its still here in the seas.

and before you say, the earth always had seas.... the seas were a lot lower in past times as is proven by the large river beds that extend deep down into the sea floors.

 

[Pegg]

Please don't stick to the idea of creationism simply because it is written in a centuries-old book. Critically evaluate what it is saying, and compare it to what we currently know.

i would say the same thing about the ToE

look at the facts before believing every word they tell you. The scientific facts and the theory are not meshing very well together at all.

 

[jonman122]

the water didnt vanish...its still here in the seas.

and before you say, the earth always had seas.... the seas were a lot lower in past times as is proven by the large river beds that extend deep down into the sea floors.

so then why isn't the earth completely underwater still? that still makes no sense.

 

[Arav]

so then why isn't the earth completely underwater still? that still makes no sense.

I agree. The whole water cycle in nature clearly shows us that if some thousand years ago there was a worldwide flood, everything would still be flooded. The Earths water cycle is very efficient and recycles just about every bit of water not consumed by life.

 

[Pegg]

I don't feel threatened. I just don't like wasting my time.
So when I realized that you do not actually take into account the refutations that I and others posted in relation to your arguments earlier in the tread, which by the way often did not have anything at all to do with the subject we were discussing, and instead proceeded to post huge blocks of text, sometimes taken completely out of context, I saw no reason to continue.

I see you are doing exactly the same thing though.

I and Newhope have posted science articles and comments by scientists which you have simply ignored and gone on with your own evidence.

The problem here is that we each look at the facts which back up our own world view and this is why the discussion goes around and around in circles. I look at what science actually shows in reality and see that it is not in harmony with the ToE and for that reason I reject the ToE.

You look at the ToE as an explanation for the existence of life and dont see the reality of science hence why you keep believing the Theory and not the Facts.

 

[Pegg]

But Pegg, do you have any scientific evidence in support of Biblical Creationism?

Or are you going to continue with your weak attacks on Biological Evolution?

let me put it this way... if biological evolution can be proved impossible, then the only other answer is creation. The facts of science point more in the direction of creation for me because in order for there to be evolution (in the sense that the ToE states) then there must have been a spontaneous generation of life to start it off and seeing science cannot prove that this is even remotely possible, then I am not going to blindly accept such a theory.

You say you want evidence of creation and I say i want evidence of evolution... you cant give it to me and I cant give it to you so we are at a stale mate.

 

[Pegg]

Pegg, I think you have done a great job. It seems when evolutionists post their evidence to refute a creationist perspective, creationists are not supposed to refute their evidence or else we're not playing the game, apparently. I think evolutionists are allowed to rip creationist evidence to pieces but creationists are not to return same. That's an interesting way to debate. Evolvedyet should have put that in his thread rules.

thanks, and i enjoyed reading your many science journal quotes too...and the Y chromosome info was interesting. There is still so much to learn and the more they learn the greater the divide it seems.

Evolutionists seem to think that they have all the evidence they need but the facts of recent findings are really at odds with the ToE as many people are beginning to realize...especially the scientists & researchers themselves. its just unfortunate that when contrary findings are found, they fail to inform everyone...it seems they keep those findings behind closed doors and people have to come searching for it rather then it being readily available. (but then if they find something that appears to support the ToE they quickly send it out to the media and tell the world...very sneaky)

The info I posted re primates showing similar adaptive genes to human adaptations is interesting. I think it won't be long before this chromosome similarity thing that is held as such strong evidence for human evolution is exposed for what it really is, nothing at all.

I think the day will come when the ToE will be shown to be completely false. The work that is being done in genetics is slowly revealing it already so it wont be long now.

 

[Pegg]

Darwin was wrong about a lot of things, the most profound being the medium of heredity, but that is irrelevant. Evolutionary biology has come a long way in the last 150 years and speciation has been directly observed. I'll be happy to provide examples if need be.



I don't mean to be harsh but it appears as if Lönning is a Creationist who pushed his personal beliefs through the official channels of the Max Planck Institute.

Quote (http://www.evolution-creationism.us/jehovah_witnesses.html): "It seems that the "law of recurrent variation" is not a genuine law of science at all! It traces back to Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a geneticist at the prestigious Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding in Germany. It appears that Lönnig was censored for using the official Max Planck Institute website to advance his personal belief in Intelligent Design. Given his Internet "crusade" for ID, it is not surprising that he authored a paper around 2002 claiming that natural selection cannot give rise to new species. Far from being supported by a scientific law, that view is rejected by the vast majority of biologists."

And while he has written several books, none of this research has been published in peer-reviewed journals, not to mention that his "law" is refuted on a regular basis through the observed appearance of new species.

its not surprising that a scientist who rejects evolution would not get a fair hearing among evolutionists. So much for letting the scientific facts be the determining factor of the conclusions of research.

I applaud Lonnig for making the stand he makes. He's done the research and he has based his conclusion on the facts...that is what a scientist should do. Its just sad that scientists who do work by the scientific method are ridiculed and ignored by mainstream science.

 

[Pegg]

Genetically there is nothing stopping them from interbreeding, although sheer size is an issue in some cases of breeds of dogs. And since they would genetically produce consistently fertile offspring they are still the same species.
In other words, different breeds of dogs are not different species.

not according to how biologists classify a species.

In the book 'Why Evolution is true' by Coyne he speaks about dogs specifically as evidence of speciation. He made this comment: “If somehow the recognized breeds existed only as fossils, paleontol*ogists would consider them not one species but many—certainly more than the thirty-six species of wild dogs that live in nature today.”

So the many varieties of dogs are considered individual species according to biologists.

 

[Pegg]

so then why isn't the earth completely underwater still? that still makes no sense.

70 % of it is underwater

the land mass, which was originally one land mass as geologists state, broke apart and the relatively thin crust became depressed in some areas and elevated in others due to the terrific weight of the waters above. When the land mass rose up in areas, the waters drained down causing deeper depressions and this is why some areas of the ocean are actually deeper then the tallest mountains in the world.

it explains why there are seashells and fossilized remains of sea creatures at the tops of high mountains and in the sides of sandstone cliffs....it also explains how seashells lay scattered over vast tracks of outback deserts in australia.