Creationists, please provide evidence

[jonman122]

we have evidence, solid evidence from rocks and fossils and tools and carvings and buildings and huge LISTS of things, that prove that human beings were around for much longer than 6000 years, or even 20 000 years. I don't know where youre getting your info but it is very very wrong.

 

[Autodidact]

well what else is there?

either we were created or we evolved.

Nope. First, these are not opposites. It's entirely possible that we were created and we evolved. Second, if ToE is incorrect, then it is also quite plausible that some other scientific theory would explain the great variety of species.

What you don't get is that science and religion are quite separate from each other. Religion isn't about science, and vice versa. Evolution does not deny the existence of God any more than any other scientific theory.

 

[Autodidact]

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

I read science. By scientists. What do you read?

 

[Autodidact]

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

Well, you keep saying ToE denies the existence of God. It doesn't. You keep saying that ToE fails to explain the origin of life. Why would it, when it's not about that? You keep saying the facts don't support it. This is simply wrong, and I would be happy to show you that in a separate thread.

Meanwhile, your whole hypothesis rests on something called a "kind," which you still haven't made clear what it is. That is, you've told us, but you tell us contrary things.

I still don't know whether you believe new species emerge, or not.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

First of all, you're being lied to. You never read any of these articles, or you would know they say nothing of the kind. Neither Michael Rose nor Eric Bapteste has rejected the common ancestor of all living things, or ToE. They are trying to explain some new developments in the structure of the Tree of Life, not chop it down.

Second, it's obvious you have no idea what the controversy is, what the new developments are, or how they do not challenge ToE in any way.

What the article is talking about is the very, very base of the tree, what you might call the roots, before the division into cells with and without cell walls, and billions of years before there was such a thing as a plant or an animals. It has nothing to do with the Biblical account, as you would have known had you actually read it.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Really, so you've read Rose's scientific articles?

 

[Autodidact]

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?

What is "creative theory?" Until we know, how can you know whether the data supports it or not?

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Plate tectonics isn't evolution. It's geology, basic geology. Do you reject geology as well? Do you reject all science?

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Wrong.

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.

Yup. Isn't that exciting? Fully formed feathers on a reptile. It's a wonderful example of a transitional species.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

No, you're wrong. The fundamental division is by species, which is basically ability-to-breed.

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

They don't.

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.

Please stop lying. At this point you should be ashamed of yourself.

I'll tell you what. If you can find me a Biology text that states that God does not exist, I will convert to your religion. Deal? If you can't, will you please stop spreading this lie?

You really damage your religion's image when you go around telling lies in its name. It makes a very bad impression.

 

[Autodidact]

Considering the ToE is founded on the basis of life arising by chance, then at some point DNA had to have formed undirected.

No, it doesn't, and saying is so is plain, outright lying. Every time you do it I lose more respect for you. I really hate lying and liars, and it's starting to upset me that you persist in doing it.

I know this is abiogenesis again, but the ToE needs a starting point otherwise its impossible.

Yes it does, but we don't have to know what it is. You can magically poof living thing # 1. Then ToE comes into play.

Please, Pegg, we can't get anywhere if no one ever learns anything, and I have to say the same things over and over. If you doubt me, look it up. They are two entirely different things.

It's around this point that there are only two options: Either you're a deliberate liar, or you're unable to grasp new information. Which is it?

 

[Pegg]

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

actually there is

The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “The average depth of all the seas has been estimated at 3,790 metres (12,430 feet), a figure considerably larger than that of the average elevation of the land above the sea level, which is 840 metres (2,760 feet). If the average depth is multiplied by its respective surface area, the volume of the World Ocean is 11 times the volume of the land above sea level.”

 

[jonman122]

actually there is

The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “The average depth of all the seas has been estimated at 3,790 metres (12,430 feet), a figure considerably larger than that of the average elevation of the land above the sea level, which is 840 metres (2,760 feet). If the average depth is multiplied by its respective surface area, the volume of the World Ocean is 11 times the volume of the land above sea level.”

and the water is in the oceans, so you'd need to increase the amount of water by an insane amount to have it cover the planet. listen, if the water is in the ocean, how can it cover the earths surface? wouldnt we be underwater right now?? there is enough water that if the ocean floor suddenly came to surface level then yes we would be underwater entirely, but right now it is most certainly staying where it is.

that is why no, there is not enough water.

and to autodidact, you can't reason with a Jehovah's witness, it's like trying to reason with a rock. The WTSociety tells them what to think, and they will follow it zealously until the end or until they realize how absolutely crazy it is to follow a few guys that sit in a building in new york and write magazines they claim are inspired by god.

 

[Dan4reason]

actually there is

The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “The average depth of all the seas has been estimated at 3,790 metres (12,430 feet), a figure considerably larger than that of the average elevation of the land above the sea level, which is 840 metres (2,760 feet). If the average depth is multiplied by its respective surface area, the volume of the World Ocean is 11 times the volume of the land above sea level.”

Here is a fact. There is more water total than land above sea level. That has nothing to do with it. You see, almost all the water is under sea level. It won't be able to reach the highest peaks.

If there was enough water the cover the highest peaks, the earth will be swamped right now assuming that there is the same amount of water now as then.

 

[Autodidact]

actually there is

The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “The average depth of all the seas has been estimated at 3,790 metres (12,430 feet), a figure considerably larger than that of the average elevation of the land above the sea level, which is 840 metres (2,760 feet). If the average depth is multiplied by its respective surface area, the volume of the World Ocean is 11 times the volume of the land above sea level.”

Yes but you have to increase it again by the distance of the land above sea level. What I mean is, yes, you could fit the highest mountains under the sea right now--that's true. But that's not where they are. You need to fill the oceans to their current depth, then add an additional 3 miles. There isn't enough water to do it. Fact.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

O.K., so you're willing to use science to figure out how old the world is, and you can accept that life goes back a few billions years, as long as God magically poofs people into existence exactly 6036 years ago, is that 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?

Evolution.

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.

I'm not looking for an example. I'm looking for a definition. Is it a species, a genus, a family, or something else? Haven't I asked you this question a few times? Why can't you just answer it?

Initially yes.

O.K. and this is somewhere in the mid-east, correct? So for example, there were two sloths, two penguins, two wombats, two whales, and so forth?

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.

I'm losing my patience. Science is agnostic toward God. Science takes no position on the existence of God. Science isn't about God. Why can't you understand that?

So ToE is exactly as atheist as gravity or heliocentrism. Whether the sun revolves around the earth or vice versa is the same whether you believe God set them in motion or not.

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.

Science isn't about proof, it's about evidence. And since you don't know what ToE is, or what the evidence for it is, how would you know?

 

[jonman122]

evolution is just as much of a fact as gravity or the fact that the earth is round. Don't tell me you think that the earth is flat, or that the universe revolves around the earth? because that would just be crazy. just as crazy as thinking evolution is wrong...

 

[jarofthoughts]

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

I'm getting the feeling that I'll be using the facepalm smiley a lot for the remainder of this tread. Yes, life began as simple single-celled organisms. Or rather, it would have started as replicating molecules, but it all depends on what you think of as "life".

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

What do you mean "now"? We have known for quite some time that the hereditary lines of bacteria is a tangled mess.

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.

Evolution contains somewhat more than Darwin's tree of life, and yes, I am familiar with endosymbiotic theory.

So now this quote is saying otherwise and thus we must have had multiple origins for life....

No. We do not. But as I said, even if that was the case, that would have to mean that ALL forms of life were created as single celled organisms and not in "kinds" which means that the Bible, again, is dead wrong.

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.

The article does not, in any way, suggest multiple origins for life.

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.

As the quote makes clear, the Phylogenetic tree very much stands when it comes to Eucaryotic creatures. The fact that Darwin did not have access to DNA mapping, which makes it possible for us to determine the relationship and hereditary lines of bacteria, is irrelevant. As mentioned before, if the best you can do is to point out that a scientist got a few things wrong 150 years ago, then you don't have much of an argument. I could easily point out several, much more serious items that Darwin also got wrong, but guess what... Science has moved forward since then and we have corrected those mistakes. And we are likely to correct more in the future. Science isn't a static thing (like religion) and it doesn't rely on the eternal infallibility of its prophets. In fact, it doesn't even have prophets.

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.

Precambrian Fossils

 

[tumbleweed41]

Pegg, et al...
Biological Evolution does not rest on the origin of life itself. It stands alone and does not care if life arose from the primordial ooze through natural methods (abiogenesis) or if God himself created the first biological organisms and gave them life.
Biological Evolutions concerns only the development of species from those first organisms, not where the organisms came from.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Plate tectonics wasn't developed to deal with some "problem" in evolution.

It was the product of geologists who weren't really concerned with biology at all, who looked at rocks and said to themselves "why is it that the geology of places like the Avalon Peninsula of Newfoundland is a better match for the geology of a continent on the other side of the Atlantic than it is for what it's attached to now? And when we look at the crystal structure of igneous rocks (which align with the Earth's magnetic field when they cool from molten to solid) why do some of them point to "north poles" where the actual North Pole could never have been? And why do earthquakes happen?"

When all this is put together, we get plate tectonics and all the implications that spring from it, including the idea that mountain ranges are places where the land has been driven upward by the horizontal motion of the plates (which, BTW, still happens at a measurable rate). This implies that what is now a mountain top might've once been underwater... and when we go to the tops of mountains, guess what we sometimes find: seashells! Just as predicted.