Creationists, please provide evidence

[The_Evelyonian]

let me put it this way... if biological evolution can be proved impossible, then the only other answer is creation.

Are you familiar with the term "false dichotomy"?

 

[Pegg]

Are you familiar with the term "false dichotomy"?

well what else is there?

either we were created or we evolved.

 

[McBell]

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

Problem here is that evolution has nothing to with the creation of life.

So, when are you going to present evidence for creation?

I mean all this horse **** you're flinging in your desperate attempt at diverting the topic is quite amusing, but completely off topic.

 

[McBell]

The scientific facts and the theory are not meshing very well together at all.

Now you are merely telling bold faced lies.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

well what else is there?

either we were created or we evolved.

CA510: Two models.

 

[McBell]

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.

Yes, but the problem is that creationists do not let facts, truth, etc. interfere with their beliefs.

In fact, if you read the whole thread you can clearly note that creationists do not present any of their alleged mass amounts of evidence for creation, they spend all their time in their sad attempt at diverting the topic.

 

[McBell]

well what else is there?

either we were created or we evolved.

Wow.
This post alone shows just how ignorant you really are about evolution.

 

[Pegg]

Now you are merely telling bold faced lies.

if that is what you think then you must be very selective in what you read when it comes to ToE and current research

 

[McBell]

if that is what you think then you must be very selective in what you read when it comes to ToE and current research

No, that is what has been shown time and again in this thread.
That you have been reduced to bold faced lies.

 

[Pegg]

No, that is what has been shown time and again in this thread.
That you have been reduced to bold faced lies.

well how about you point out the 'lies' so as to give me an opportunity to defend myself

 

[McBell]

well how about you point out the 'lies' so as to give me an opportunity to defend myself

I quoted one in post #484.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

if that is what you think then you must be very selective in what you read when it comes to ToE and current research

May I ask where you get your information on the theory of evolution and the current research?

 

[Pegg]

Now you are merely telling bold faced lies.

Ok well let me expound a little on what I mean.

We are told by the ToE that we have all descended from a common ancestor and all life comes from a common origin. Yet with research into genetics, it has been discovered that life actually has several origins and this has led to a new idea of 'Monophyly' Research in 2009 was presented in New Scientist magazine of Jan 24 pages 37-39 with a quote from a biologist Michael Rose who said: "The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. Whats less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change" and another quote from an evolutionary scientist, Eric Bapteste says about the tree of life: "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality"

So when I say that the ToE and the facts are not meshing well, this is an example of how it doesnt mesh well together. Either all things evolved from the first living thing or, as the evidence is suggesting, there were numerous starting points...which is in harmony with the creation account in the bible btw.

 

[Pegg]

May I ask where you get your information on the theory of evolution and the current research?

as you can see in my posts, i can provide the details of where we get our information from. We certainly dont make it up, we go to the sources for information. Any brochures or books that the WT print with regard to current scientific articles are well researched by the writing committee and the references to where the information comes from is provided.

 

[newhope101]

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.

I haven't read the work by Lonnig. I'll look it up. It is so true that any data that appears to support creation would be quickly stiffled. I have to say that the latest research so supports creation and speaks for itself. I think I'll have to reconsider my agnostic stance. You have assisted. Thanks. It's sad to see researchers use multiple hypothesis to twist what can be plainly seen. However many ToE scientists agree that the current tree of life is misleading. I feel it's only a matter of time where the obvious will no longer be able to be ignored.

It appears the Darwinian cornerstone, natural selection, is also being debated by some researchers.
Natural Selection Not The Only Process That Drives Evolution?

ScienceDaily (Jan. 28, 2009) — Why have some of our genes evolved rapidly? It is widely believed that Darwinian natural selection is responsible, but research led by a group at Uppsala University, suggests that a separate neutral (nonadaptive) process has made a significant contribution to human evolution.
http://www.religiousforums.com/articles/n/natural_selection.htm

Their results have been published January 27 in the journal PLoS Biology.
The researchers identified fast evolving human genes by comparing our genome with those of other primates. However, surprisingly, the patterns of molecular evolution in many of the genes they found did not contain signals of natural selection. Instead, their evidence suggests that a separate process known as BGC (biased gene conversion) has speeded up the rate of evolution in certain genes. This process increases the rate at which certain mutations spread through a population, regardless of whether they are beneficial or harmful.
"The research not only increases our understanding of human evolution, but also suggests that many techniques used by evolutionary biologists to detect selection may be flawed," says Matthew Webster of the Department of Medical Biochemistry and Microbiology at Uppsala University.
BGC is thought to be strongest in regions of high recombination, and can cause harmful mutations can spread through populations. The results lead to the provocative hypothesis that, rather than being the result of Darwinian selection for new adaptations, many of the genetic changes leading to human-specific characters may be the result of the fixation of harmful mutations. This contrasts the traditional Darwinistic view that they are the result of natural selection in favour of adaptive mutations.

 

[PolyHedral]

...No it's not. That article is saying that other things an also be responsible, on top of natural selection. It isn't trying to invalidate anything.

 

[jarofthoughts]

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.

I wasn't aware that I had skipped over any of your arguments, but I told Newhope clearly, several pages ago, not only that I saw no point in taking him seriously and why.

Also, here is a tip: Don't post articles. Post a quote and perhaps a link to the source. Then explain your argument in your own words. Pointing to a huge block of text and saying "A-ha! THIS proves I'm right!" is a terrible way of discussing anything.

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.

Really? So far you have been unable to show this.

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.

Hm that’s a good point, let me think for a bit..


Oh wait, my mistake! That’s absolute cow-poo!

 

[jarofthoughts]

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.

Heh... Yeah, of course, he is just a maverick scientist and he is the only one with the truth. Too bad the rest of the science community doesn't recognize this...
Or MAYBE, just MAYBE, his science doesn't hold up as well as you think it does. MAYBE, just MAYBE, that is the reason his science doesn't get published.

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.

No. They are not. All dog breeds are considered members of the species Canis lupus familiaris. However, in the wild two groups of animals are sometimes considered by biologists to be different species if some feature other than genetics prevents them from mating, for instance geographical features. Now, if we apply that to dog breeds such as the Great Dane and the Chihuahua it is clear that outside of a lab it is highly unlikely that they would be able to breed for practical reasons. So in that respect they COULD be considered different species, but as of yet, they are not.
But hey, if we decide to look at them as different species then that is actually an argument in favour of ToE. That would mean that we have yet another example of observed speciation.

However, what Coyne is referring to here is that in the absence of DNA mapping, which is impossible to do in relation to fossils that are millions of years old, we must be cautious when defining new species. And that is a point well made. But it is not the point that dog breeds are different species.

 

[jarofthoughts]

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.

I don't suppose you have heard of Plate Tectonics?

 

[jarofthoughts]

Ok well let me expound a little on what I mean.

We are told by the ToE that we have all descended from a common ancestor and all life comes from a common origin. Yet with research into genetics, it has been discovered that life actually has several origins and this has led to a new idea of 'Monophyly' Research in 2009 was presented in New Scientist magazine of Jan 24 pages 37-39 with a quote from a biologist Michael Rose who said: "The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. Whats less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change" and another quote from an evolutionary scientist, Eric Bapteste says about the tree of life: "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality"

Bapteste is here discussing the complicated process of heredity in Prokaryotic evolution, not Eukaryotes.

Quote from the article: "In multicellular eukaryotes, the molecular mechanisms and species-level population genetics of variation do indeed mainly cause a tree-like structure over time. In prokaryotes, they do not. Prokaryotic evolution and the tree of life are two different things, and we need to treat them as such, rather than extrapolating from macroscopic life to prokaryotes."

But this is not news. This has been accepted by biologists for quite some time now and knowing the mechanisms for Prokaryotes, which among other things involve direct transfer of DNA across different strains, the ordered tree of life becomes tangled. We know this. However, this does not indicate that the Theory of Common Descent is in any way threatened.

However, if we are to take your (faulty) argument to its conclusion that would mean that life had different origins, but that ALL of them were single celled creatures, not "kinds" of animals. So you are actually arguing against yourself here, but then again, if you did more than quote-mine off Creationist web-sites you would know this...

In other words: pwnd!

So when I say that the ToE and the facts are not meshing well, this is an example of how it doesnt mesh well together. Either all things evolved from the first living thing or, as the evidence is suggesting, there were numerous starting points...which is in harmony with the creation account in the bible btw.

As I've shown above the evidence suggests no such thing. And if you took the time to read the articles you quote instead of pulling quotes out of context you would know that.