Creationists, please provide evidence

[Pegg]

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

the point is that the ancients had their own way to describe/categorize animals and they spoke in the terms which reflected their descriptions

just because scientists today have different ways of categorizing animals does not mean that the bibles method is wrong.

Moses categorization of animals was their ability to 'interbreed' Accordingly, if an animal could interbreed, it was considered to be the same type of animal. Today scientists have divided animals up, not by their ability to breed, but by their features...however, look at the human race. We all look very different but are still the same stock.

Why is it so hard to accept that animals work in the same way?

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.

That may be your opinion but as i've stated earlier, its about recognizing Gods position...not our own.
Creationists give glory and praise to God for what he has created whereas evolution would have us believe that there is no God and we grew out of the mire.

Also take note of this bible scripture:
Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 “For there is an eventuality as respects the sons of mankind and an eventuality as respects the beast, and they have the same eventuality. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit [breath, margin], so that there is no superiority of the man over the beast, for everything is vanity. All are going to one place. They have all come to be from the dust, and they are all returning to the dust.”
Does that sound like the bible writer Solomon held the view that mankind are elevated above the rest of Gods creations?

 

[Autodidact]

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

I'm not assuming anything. I'm concluding, based on the evidence, that modern science is correct.

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?

It's how biologists classify us.

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

So apparently you think biologists are a bunch of morons? It's not just how we look, it's how we function, our DNA, and the definition of an ape--we meet it.

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

Only by lying creationists. Biologists know exactly what ToE is about.

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

Sorry, you lost me. What does this have to do with how we get new species from existing ones? That's what ToE is about.

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

You're mistaken. Abiogenesis is not the foundation of ToE. In fact, it has almost nothing to do with it. The main difference is that ToE is well-established, while abiogenesis is still being researched.

Let's do it this way. Let's assume that God magically poofed the first living thing into existence, O.K.? Now, ToE starts at that point, and is correct.

 

[Autodidact]

it puts us in the same category because modern biologists have used taxonomy as a marker for who is related to who, but it doesnt make their claims true and accurate. They've simply come up with a method which suits their preconceived idea of how they imagine evolution to work.

Since you know nothing about it, and many smart people have worked very hard for decades to figure it out, it's a bit arrogant of you to assume that they don't know what they're doing. What you describe happens to be the exact opposite of how science actually works.

To be honest, there are actually large differences in the DNA separating apes and monkeys from humans, not small ones. New research has found large deletions and insertions throughout the chromosome... so DNA does not provide evidence of similarity at all.

Only around 98%.

it always comes back to this with evolutionists...whenever they are questioned about how the first forms of life magically evolved, they backout by stating that evolution has nothing to do with how life began

Because it doesn't. I'm going to assume that you're an honest person, and the only reason you don't know this is ignorance. If you want to argue about ToE, I strongly suggest that you start by learning what it is--and what it isn't. Until you do, you're arguing against something else altogether. And I'm sure you'll agree that's not effective.

I'm guessing you've never studied any evolutionary Biology at all, am I right?

yet the theory itself says that all have come from the same stock...that a tree of life can be drawn which can trace where all the different creatures have come from, each one coming from a previous one until you get right back to that point of how did the first one come about and then they go back to ...well evolution has nothing to do with that

Exactly.

This is why evolution can be torn down so quickly...without a firm foundation, it cannot be proven to be true.

It has an extremely firm foundation, which has nothing to do with the origin of the first living thing. Its foundation is the evidence that supports it.

"I have a theory that my car needs new brakes."
"Do you know who manufactured the brakes? In what factory? By what method? Then how can you have a theory about whether you need new ones or not? Until you figure out what company supplied the brake components to what factory, we cannot determine whether or not you need new brakes."

 

[Autodidact]

Genesis 7:1-3 - "After that Jehovah said to Noah: “Go, you and all your household, into the ark, because you are the one I have seen to be righteous before me among this generation. Of every clean beast you must take to yourself by sevens, the sire and its mate; and of every beast that is not clean just two, the sire and its mate; also of the flying creatures of the heavens by sevens, male and female, to preserve offspring alive on the surface of the entire earth."
To those who deny the existence of God, nothing is possible. Jehovah has raised people dead four days back to life. That, from man's standpoint, is not possible. He is the creator of life and can certainly preserve it as he did Noah, his family, and the animals in the ark. Thereafter, Jehovah could control the spread of man and animals across the earth.

rusra: Once you get into the realm of magic, anything is possible, and there's no way to learn about it. You are free to believe this myth if it makes you happy. Just don't confuse it with science.

 

[Autodidact]

I will readily accept that over time, the descendants of living things may change slightly but I woudlnt go so far as to believe in micro/macro evolution. The fossil record does not show a gradual accumulation of change leading to 'new creatures'...what it actually shows is that major groups of creatures appearing suddenly and remaining unchanged for vast periods of time until they disappear.

And I imagine that you've spent decades searching for and learning about the fossil record? You're extremely familiar with it? You know much more about it than mere paleontologists who have devoted their lives to studying it?

In fact you are completely and utterly mistaken about the fossil record. Choose a "kind" and I'll show it to you.

the changes im referring to is in the variety within a genus. An example being in us humans, we are one genus with an endless variety of different features giving us different races of people. That I can accept, but not the idea of completely new creatures coming into existence.

No, we're a species. You have no idea what these terms mean, do you?

What is a kind, a species, genus, family, or something else?

Its genetics and DNA which prevent this from happening. The small changes we see do not eventuate into new creatures...even 40 years of mutation experiments could not create new creatures. The changes in DNA get to a certain point and dont go any further such as in the example of hybrids. That is the fact and it proves that mircro evolution is NOT a fact.

So you're saying that new species never come into existence? Is that your assertion?

(1) If I cite you example of new species coming into existence, will you withdraw this claim?
(2) You realize you've completely contradicted yourself, right? According to you, God created some "kinds," which diverged rapidly into millions of different species, except you think that's impossible.

When you start contradicting yourself, it's a big hint that you're wrong.

 

[Autodidact]

all we have to do is look at scientific fact and it blows the ToE out of the water.

Since you have no idea what ToE is, or what the facts are that support it, how would you know?

I can confidently say this because mutations have not produced new species, natural selection has been shown to help animals adapt to their environment but it certainly has not created anything new, the fossil record shows large groups of animals who appear suddenly and stay virtually unchanged for long periods of time.
Yes we do get a large variety within each genus, but thats all it is...variety as a result of genetics.

Well everything you said is false. If I show that, will you change your mind? Because I hate to take the time if not. btw, you're contradicting yourself right in this paragraph.

Do new species come about via evolution, or don't they?

 

[Autodidact]

Oh you mean like fitting all the matter in the entire universe into a smaller than atomic size to explain the big bang. AND the resulting string theory and multidimentional world to validate the concept. Why do you not call this crap? Hawkins and his cronnies came up with this stuff and you have likely just swalled it. What does crap taste like?

Scientists appear to have proven 'magic' and the apparently physically impossible is indeed possible in todays science. Good on ya researchers. You have given creationists a great victory!

So basically, science sucks, scientists are idiots, science doesn't work at all? Is that right?

 

[McBell]

...the ToE has been construed in such a way that it is impossible to separate it from abiogenesis

Another bold faced lie.

You just can't help yourself, can you?

 

[Autodidact]

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.

You're completely wrong about what the Grants found. Where do you read this crap? I'm guessing you've read nothing that the Grants actually wrote, just some distorted report from a creationist source, am I right?

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.

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.

Lonnig's "law" has not been accepted by anyone except Professor Lonnig.

But again, are you saying that new species do not arise from existing ones? If so, you seem to be contradicting yourself and the evidence.

 

[Autodidact]

[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.

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.

Until you state your hypothesis, how can you have any idea whether a piece of evidence supports or refutes it?

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Wait, do new species arise, or don't they?

 

[Autodidact]

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

Why, did Jesus say different?

 

[Autodidact]

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.

There is not enough water on earth to cover all of it over the tops of the mountains. Fact.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

How do you know? You don't know what the theory is, and you don't know what the facts are.

 

[Autodidact]

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, now you're not being honest. You don't look at science, you don't even know what it is. You don't know what ToE is--you seem to think it's some kind of all-encompassing philosophy that denies the existence of God. You don't what the overwhelming evidence is that caused all of modern Biology to accept it over vociferous disputation. You haven't looked at the facts; you don't even know what they are. Someone has been lying to you about the fossil record, which is not even one of the key facts.

If you want to start a thread about ToE, I'm happy to do so. This one was for you to state your hypothesis, and then support it. You don't have one. Yet, for some reason, you deny one of the most important and well-supported theories in the history of science, because someone has been lying to you and telling you it's atheistic. It isn't. So why not catch up to 19th century progress in the life sciences?

 

[Pegg]

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

I cant give you exact times because the hebrew word Moses used for 'day' can mean any length of time...it can be translated as an 'age' for example. So the way we understand it is this:

The earth was created 'in the beginning' along with the universe and was a part of the universe for millions/billions of years. Gen 1:1-2 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.2.Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep'

How long the earth existed as part of the universe, no one knows, but at some point, God turned his attention to the earth and began to prepare it for habitation. The first thing he did was to allow light to penetrate the atmosphere. This took a very long time, it wasnt instant as some think. The first 'day' was when God said 'Let there be light' The hebrew word being 'ohr' and it means light in general rather then a 'source' of light. It wasnt until the 4th day that the 'source' of that light could actually be seen in the sky. Thats when moses said that God 'created the great luminaries, the sun and moon' They became visible only on the 4th day, but the light from them had been slowly penetrating the atmosphere since the 1st day....this indicates that the atmosphere had thick cloud cover for a very long time before it finally cleared.

Each of the creative 'days' could have been millions of years in length. I think the scientific evidence gives us a pretty good idea of how long each of the creative days were. The only thing we can be absolutely sure of is that the man was created 6,036 years ago. The animals came long before him though.

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?

well the creation of the animals had to start somewhere. If you want to call it magic poofing you can....what is the alternative?

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?

for example, God created several wolves. Those wolves were one kind. They went forth and multiplied and so today we have hundreds of kinds of wolves otherwise known as dogs.

He also made several horses. They were another 'kind' and went forth and multiplied until eventually there were a larger variety of horse 'kinds'

it was the same with cats. He created several wild cats and they went forth and multiplied eventually bringing forth a larger variety of cats...all still the same kind.

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

Initially yes.
But so where humans, correct?

If humans have been able to circumnavigate the globe in 4,000 odd years, surely you dont doubt that the animals (many of whom have migratory instincts) could have done so. Animals are always on the move...Australia introduced brazillian cane toads into australia less then 100 years ago and they have spread rapidly in that time across vast distances and into other states.

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 do accept modern science....just not when it contradicts the reality. So for instance when evolutionists say "We have plenty of fossil evidence to show a transition from one form to a new form...or we can see how this bone is similar to that bone so it means these two creatures are related" I dont accept that because the opposite is in fact true. There is very little fossil evidence and there is not way to prove that one bone is linked with another...its merely 'opinion' which states such things.


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.

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.

Well without DNA there would have been no evolution to begin with. Considering the ToE is founded on the basis of life arising by chance, then at some point DNA had to have formed undirected. I know this is abiogenesis again, but the ToE needs a starting point otherwise its impossible.

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?

absolutely I do. But I dont think the ToE will ever admit that God created the first lifeforms. I certainly believe that, you seem to believe that....but science will never accept that.

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?

I am in favor of true science...not unproved and unsubstantiated theories such as " here is a bone of an ape, see how its similar to our bone...that means we descended from these apes" That is not proof, its speculation and opinion, nothing more.

 

[Autodidact]

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

This is twice wrong. It hasn't been proven impossible; quite the contrary, the evidence overwhelmingly supports it. Second, if it for some reason turned out to be false, science would then look for another naturalistic explanation, because that's what science is about. The mistake you are making is called "God of the Gaps." You're assuming that if science hasn't explained something, then God must have done it by magic. That doesn't work; it's very bad theology.

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.

This is completely, totally and utterly wrong, and demonstrated conclusively that you have not the slightest idea what ToE is. I wonder who has been handing you this baloney? Whomever, you really should be more responsible about spreading it around, because it's simply false.

Do me a favor. Spend ten minutes learning what ToE actually says, and then we'll start a thread to discuss it, O.K? *hint* You will not find the word "God" anywhere in it.

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.

But I can. I can give you pages and pages of it--if you want it.

The first step would be to get you to understand what ToE actually is. Are you game?

 

[Autodidact]

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.

This is so false it's a plain lie. Around 99.9% of Biologists accept ToE.

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)

What a load of bollocks. You don't know the first thing about how science works, do you?

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.

Well it sure as heck hasn't happened yet.

Again, do you think all Biologists are morons or liars?

 

[Autodidact]

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.

How do you know, have you read his work?

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Because you know so much more than all the world's biologists?