Creationists, please provide evidence

[tumbleweed41]

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.

Let me put it to you this way...you cannot provide evidence of Biblical Creationism because you have none. I cannot get you to accept the hard science that supports Biological Evolution because you ignore it.

Yup, stalemate...

 

[evolved yet?]

Evidence for Evolution:
The Lessons of Evolution: How do we know evolution happens?

 

[Noaidi]

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.

Further to JarOfThoughts response to you, it is worth noting that Bapteste also said: "We understand evolution pretty well - it's just that it is more complex than Darwin imagined. The tree [of life model] isn't the only pattern."

None of the biologists in the article are saying that evolution is being shown to be wrong in light of new evidence from genetic and molecular research. Instead, they are calling for a revision of a model which has been around for 150 years. The 'Tree of Life' idea is simply that - an idea, and an idea that is subject to revision like any other. The basic premise of evolution still stands.

 

[newhope101]

Then your articles speaks about arch, microraptor. Researchers have shown the same confusion over micro raptor as Archaeopteryx
ScienceDaily (Jan. 26, 2010) — A joint team from the University of Kansas and Northeastern University in China says that it has settled the long-standing question of how bird flight began
A debate involving the KU scientists, recently documented by the PBS program "NOVA," had flared over the question of whether evidence supported the theory that animals developed flight as ground dwellers, as a majority of paleontologists had asserted. But Martin and Burnham argue that flight originated above, in the trees. Such animals would have been gliders. The researchers say that fossils of the hawk-sized microraptor shore up their theory.

Research also identifies that feathers originated for display rather than flight. There is no fossil evidence that illustrates this display plumage evolving. There is research that suggests these creatures could not fly. If these creatures could be DNA tested I'm sure there would be no connection between dinos and birds.

This article below demontrates that despite their best efforts to connect the bird to the dinosaurs, there is conflicting evidence. As moch of the genomic data does not support many proposed lineages, likewise will be the case for these, so called dino-bird intermediatries.

I'll make the point that this research below and other similar findings demonstate that paleantologists have no intermediatry evidence at all. It's about time the scientific community fessed up.
Ancient Birds Flew On All-Fours

ScienceDaily (Sep. 22, 2006) — The earliest known ancestor of modern-day birds took to the skies by gliding from trees using primitive feathered wings on their arms and legs, according to new research by a University of Calgary paleontologist.

In a paper published in the journal Paleobiology, Department of Biological Sciences PhD student Nick Longrich challenges the idea that birds began flying by taking off from the ground while running and shows that the dinosaur-like bird Archaeopteryx soared using wing-like feathers on all of its limbs.
"The discussions about the origins of avian flight have been dominated by the so-called 'ground up' and 'trees down' hypotheses," Longrich said. "This paper puts forward some of the strongest evidence yet that birds descended from arboreal parachuters and gliders, similar to modern flying squirrels."

If you design something well, why continue to reinvent it. This argument of why would a creator make things look alike is rather a silly argument. I ask, why not? The octopussy statement is a ridiculous statement of mocking rather than a scientific statement.

As for the remainder of the article, I have posted info of 'natural selection' that refutes most of the remaining info in the article.

This article is very outdated. It was painful and lengthy to refute. It's time researchers fessed up. At the moment the data posted in the article, when researched, tend to support creative theory. Do you have any evidence for ToE that lines up with current data?

 

[newhope101]

None of the biologists in the article are saying that evolution is being shown to be wrong in light of new evidence from genetic and molecular research. Instead, they are calling for a revision of a model which has been around for 150 years. The 'Tree of Life' idea is simply that - an idea, and an idea that is subject to revision like any other. The basic premise of evolution still stands.


True, but the same thing can be said for creationist thinking...just because there are some bugs and seeming inconsistencies, doesn't mean it is not valid.

The major problem for me is why are creationists viewed as uneducated because they cannot come up with all the answeres when likewise ToE does not have all the answers either.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you design something well, why continue to reinvent it. This argument of why would a creator make things look alike is rather a silly argument. I ask, why not? The octopussy statement is a ridiculous statement of mocking rather than a scientific statement.

So, your argument is basically "why not"? That's not an argument.

Evolution provides a concise and well-evidenced explanation of why certain animals display morphological similarities. Your "why not?" explanation explains nothing.

As for the remainder of the article, I have limited space. (3)Tiktaalic we all know was not an intermediate as there were already tetrapod footprint around suggesting Tik was not the first to walk on land.

That's a non-sequitur. How does the tiktaalik not being the first land-dwelling creature make it not an intermediate? That's like saying your grandmother couldn't of been your grandmother because you had ancestors before she was born.

This type of evidence appears convincing at first to the lay person. One would assume researchers can tell the difference and easily make the links. However, The limbs of a cat and dog appear similar but one did not evolve from another.

No, but they did share a common mammalian ancestor, which would explain the similarity in morphology.

Although seemingly convincing one cannot escape noticing that genomic data does not support the lineages that paleantologists proposed. These researchers, as your article identifies, arranged the lineages according to bone features and how they changed and evolved. Genomics does not support these lineages. (1)This fact therefore leads one to understand that morphological similarities are not the evidence for ancestry. You may also look up Afrotheria in wiki another example of genomic data not supporting the initial proposed decent.

Wiki
Family tree of placental mammals according to molecular phylogenetics
Molecular phylogenetics uses features of organisms' genes to work out family trees in much the same way as paleontologists do with features of fossils — if two organisms' genes are more similar to each other than to those of a third organism, the two organisms are more closely related to each other than to the third.
Molecular phylogeneticists have proposed a family tree that is very different from the one with which paleontologists are familiar. Like paleontologists, molecular phylogeneticists have different ideas about various details, but here is a typical family tree according to molecular phylogenetics:[56][57] Note that the diagram shown here omits extinct groups, as one cannot extract DNA from fossils.
Nevertheless these proposals have been controversial. Paleontologists naturally insist that fossil evidence must take priority over deductions from samples of the DNA of modern animals. More surprisingly, these new family trees have been criticised by other molecular phylogeneticists, sometimes quite harshly

Wiki. Afrotheria,

Please give examples where genomics do not support the notion that morphological similarities are evidence for ancestry.

Also, provide a more accurate source. You got your information from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals

 

[Skwim]

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

If he used "kind" then he would have indeed used it before Haeckle. But so what? What's your point.

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.

Absolutely. In the mind of creationists the uniqueness of humans suffers immensely if he is but a result of evolution, placing him on par with worms and wombats. Their vanity dictates that mankind retain its position as top dog. Never mind that man has so much else going for him---brains and a special relationship with a god---to suggest his origins are on par with the ox of the field somehow diminishes his stature. Creationists are driven to elevate man just as high as possible, and anything that prevents this is automatically the enemy, which must be stopped at all costs, even if it entails purposeful deception and lies.

It's a truly sad conceit.

 

[evolved yet?]

None of the biologists in the article are saying that evolution is being shown to be wrong in light of new evidence from genetic and molecular research. Instead, they are calling for a revision of a model which has been around for 150 years. The 'Tree of Life' idea is simply that - an idea, and an idea that is subject to revision like any other. The basic premise of evolution still stands.


True, but the same thing can be said for creationist thinking...just because there are some bugs and seeming inconsistencies, doesn't mean it is not valid.

The major problem for me is why are creationists viewed as uneducated because they cannot come up with all the answeres when likewise ToE does not have all the answers either.

I have posted a response to your earlier unedited critique on my website.

 

[jonman122]

True, but the same thing can be said for creationist thinking...just because there are some bugs and seeming inconsistencies, doesn't mean it is not valid.

yes it does, the creationist argument is "god did it" which has literally no substance.

 

[Pegg]

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

so while you readily say that when it comes to changes in DNA, natural selection may not be the only cause, but here you say the only way seashells get on the tops of mountains is plate tectonics

This is exactly what evolutionists do...they will only accept whatever fits the theory because they are more concerned with proving the ToE rather then accepting all possibilities.

 

[jonman122]

so while you readily say that when it comes to changes in DNA, natural selection may not be the only cause, but here you say the only way seashells get on the tops of mountains is plate tectonics

This is exactly what evolutionists do...they will only accept whatever fits the theory because they are more concerned with proving the ToE rather then accepting all possibilities.

are you trying to say that god put seashells at the top of mountains? or that the already-disproved-in-this-thread-by-me-and-others flood put seashells at the top of mountains? :\

 

[jarofthoughts]

so while you readily say that when it comes to changes in DNA, natural selection may not be the only cause,

I haven't said anything of the kind.
Natural selection can only work upon changes that are already present and the in effect "decides" which are best suited to their environment.

but here you say the only way seashells get on the tops of mountains is plate tectonics

Well, I suppose you could carry them up there if you really want to, but there is no doubt that plate tectonics have, over hundreds of millions of years, shifted the surface of the Earth so that what was once seabed can now be a part of a mountain range.

This is exactly what evolutionists do...they will only accept whatever fits the theory because they are more concerned with proving the ToE rather then accepting all possibilities.

I accept all possibilities that have evidence to support them.
So far Creationism has zip, despite us asking for it over and over again...

 

[jonman122]

I accept all possibilities that have evidence to support them.
So far Creationism has zip, despite us asking for it over and over again...

see, this is what ALL creationists do, they just ignore all the evidence and then come out and say "god did it" over and over again and somehow they think that the more they say it the truer it gets.

 

[evolved yet?]

Please give us the evidence, stop giving us Red Herrings and debunked myths.

 

[Pegg]

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

isnt that where evolution was supposed to begin....or are you claiming that life began as more complex organisms?

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."

all this quote does is tell us that the original tree of life, which included ALL life, now does not include bacteria.

If thats the case then a problem arises as to how complex life arose on its own dont you think? Im sure you know how the Endosymbiotic thoery goes. Life began as simple bacteria and that bacteria absorbed other cells leading to complex life forms.

So now this quote is saying otherwise and thus we must have had multiple origins for life....just as genesis states - the different kinds were created meaning we have multiple origins for life. Interesting how when we analyze the facts, it keeps pointing back to creation.

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.

yet Darwins theory (the theory that evolution is founded on) uses that tree of life as how to establish common descent. So really, that does not make me very confident in the 'tree of life' theory...or the 'common descent' theory for the reason that they are very much dependent on each other.

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!

again you are thinking in terms of evolution and not in terms of reality. The cambrian explosion shows a wide variety of life appearing over a short time...fully formed! There is no gradual progression of life from bacteria to fully formed animals seen in the fossil record. Deny it all you like but that is a fact. It points to the bibles account that sea creatures, plantlife, flying creatures and land animals were individually created.

 

[jonman122]

again you are thinking in terms of evolution and not in terms of reality. The cambrian explosion shows a wide variety of life appearing over a short time...fully formed! There is no gradual progression of life from bacteria to fully formed animals seen in the fossil record. Deny it all you like but that is a fact. It points to the bibles account that sea creatures, plantlife, flying creatures and land animals were individually created.

you know that short time you're talking about is 100 million years? facepalm.

 

[Autodidact]

I'm no botanist, i have no idea on the genetics of plants but let me just say that we are talking about animals, not plants.

The fact that a cabbage and radish are able to hybridize I might conclude that they are of the same genesis 'kind' and so like other genesis kinds, they can interbreed...perhaps not naturally, but with intervention its possible.

and let me just say that if the descent of common ancestory of all living things were true, then you would think that all organisms should be able to crossbreed...but they cannot. So if the cabbage and radish can be crossbred, perhaps they are the same kind afterall.

No, we are talking about all the organisms on earth, including plants, animals, slime molds, bacteria, the works.

Your logic does not follow. Why should having a common ancestry necessarily result in an ability to reproduce? The entire definition of speciation is that they are no longer able to reproduce.

 

[Pegg]

Evidence for Evolution:
The Lessons of Evolution: How do we know evolution happens?

I have to admire his tenacity, he's got a lot of information there but a bit behind the times on some things.

I noticed that he uses Archaeopteryx as an example of a transitional fossil. I think someone should inform the poor little kid that many scientists no longer view this as a transitional fossil between bird and reptile.

Its fossilized remains reveal perfectly formed feathers, Its wing and leg bones were thin and hollow like modern birds and it does not predate birds because fossils of other birds have been found in rocks of the same period. These findings are noted in a 1979 'Science' article by Alan Feduccia and harrison B Tordoff

Its a shame they got to him at such a young age but by the looks of it he'll make a great evolutionist.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Rather than Biblical terms, could you give this to me in common terms? About how long ago?

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.

So what I'm getting again is magic poofing, correct? That one moment there is nothing, and the next there are two giraffes standing there munching leaves, right?

But what I really meant was that you say God created "kinds," but I've seen species, genera and families all as possible equivalents to kinds. Which is it? Or is it something else?

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.

O.K. so you have no idea where. However, after the nonexistent flood, they would have all been in one place, correct?

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.

Well then what are we arguing about? I've said every way we know how that we all agree on that. Since ToE doesn't deny that, why not accept modern science?

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.

I think you suffer from the common set of misconceptions. You see "evolutionism" as some sort of philosophy, something like atheism + science. It isn't. It's a very specific, clear, limited scientific theory, analogous to say gravity. It has nothing whatsoever to say about the origin of life; that's an entirely separate subject.

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.

Y'know, even I lose my patience. How many times have I said that ToE says nothing of the kind? There is not such thing as an "evolutionist." The word you're looking for is "Biologist," or possibly "Atheist." We're not discussing atheism here; we're all agreeing that GOD CREATED ALL THINGS. GOD CREATED ALL THINGS. Please, I beg of you, please don't make me repeat this; I can hardly bear it. And Biologists say nothing of the kind. For the many Biologists who believe in and worship your God, science tells us HOW HOW HOW God did so. And no one with an ounce of sense has ever said that DNA forms on its own. What on earth are you talking about? Can we please get back to ToE? Thank you.

Since you keep saying that Genesis doesn't tell us how, why not use science to find out how? Don't you think science works?

Someone has lied to you, Pegg. They have told you that ToE denies that God created all things. It does nothing of the kind. It simply tells us how. And since you say the Bible does not, why not accept the scientific explanation?

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

Absolutely not. That's why geologists don't believe there has ever been a worldwide flood. It's impossible.

But what you are claiming ToE says has absolutely nothing to do with what it actually says. Some YECs have been lying to you. You should be angry at them. They think you're gullible.

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.

Science is all about evidence. Evidence is the heart and soul of science. No evidence; no science. Are you in favor of or opposed to science?

 

[Autodidact]

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

What you are saying has absolutely nothing to do with what ToE actually says. ToE does not say that anything came into existence by natural means. It simply, like all of science, only deals the natural. The supernatural is outside the scope of science, so ToE does not address it. The supernatural is religion. ToE is science. Two different things.

Second, nothing in science is proven. Science is about evidence, not proof.

Third, ToE does not assert anything whatsoever about the origin of life.

You've been lied to over and over. Where are you reading these lies? Have you ever taken a Biology course?