Creationists, please provide evidence

[rusra02]

One more time:

Buildings cannot be compared to organic systems. Because buildings are not subject to:

- Replication
- Variation
- Selection

Ergo, they cannot evolve. Please indicate that organic systems must have come about by an intelligent direction and cannot have come about by the accumulation of incrementally beneficial changes. The stage is yours.

Oh, one more thing. Take a crack at explaining atavisms from a Creationist perspective.

Of course they can be compared. A building doesn't build itself. It requires a builder. The smallest cell is far more complex than the biggest building on earth.
Design requires a designer. Architecture requires an architect. A window requires a carpenter.

As to replication, variation, and selection, they do not prove one animal or plant evolves into another. People replicate and certainly have variation, but they all appear to have a common ancestor. Scientists have intentionallyu mutated fruit flies but have never succeeded in producing anything other than a fruit fly. Variety is the spice of life, as they say, not proof of the ToE.

 

[DeitySlayer]

A building doesn't build itself. It requires a builder. The smallest cell is far more complex than the biggest building on earth. Design requires a designer. Architecture requires an architect. A window requires a carpenter.

Of course. But you have not yet shown that nature must be a design.

 

[Noaidi]

Design requires a designer. Architecture requires an architect. A window requires a carpenter.

Ever looked at the structure of a perfectly formed crystal? Exquisite in its detail and the precision of its molecular arrangement. No design there at all. All natural.

Please provide the evidence for your assertion that Nature is designed. Claiming it is so does not make it so!

 

[rusra02]

For the millionth time, ToE makes no assertions about whether there is a maker or not. In fact, as I've told you many times, we can assume there is one.

How many other evolutionists are willing to admit that God started life (I assume you mean God when you say maker and not an alien race, as some ToE proponents claim)?

No scientist has ever asserted, as part of ToE, that anything poofed into existence. In fact, isn't it your position that something poofed into existence, precisely two of each "kind" of creature?

No, the Bible says that God created each kind, not that it happened by chance.

And anyone who actually learns what ToE is would understand that it does not assert that anything other than mutations happened by chance.

Before criticizing ToE, you might want to learn what it is. Just a suggestion.

Your condescending attitude is typical of Evolutionists when their theory is criticized.
I do not believe your claim that evolutionists ascribe the universe to God. And dodging the question of how life began by calling it abiogenesis doesn't let the ToE off the hook (at least not thinking people's hook.) The very name suggests that life arose from non-living things, and is the foundation upon which the theory of evolution rests. That foundation is really no foundation at all. Then ToE proponents build upon the sand by stating mutations create new species. Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig stated "Mutations cannot transform an original species.. into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability." (Quote from Was Life Created?)

EVIDENCE. NOT PROOF, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE EVIDENCE.

First, your subject is not evolution but abiogenesis. Second, the evidence is contained in the thousands of published reports of experiments and studies, none of which you have ever read. And as long as you don't read them, or read about them, you can continue to deny it exists.

See my comments above, please.

 

[rusra02]

Ever looked at the structure of a perfectly formed crystal? Exquisite in its detail and the precision of its molecular arrangement. No design there at all. All natural.

Please provide the evidence for your assertion that Nature is designed. Claiming it is so does not make it so!

Because it is natural, you assume it was not designed? All natural things happen... naturally? Really? Is that what you are saying?

 

[rusra02]

Of course. But you have not yet shown that nature must be a design.

Show me that a house must be designed.

 

[Noaidi]

Because it is natural, you assume it was not designed? All natural things happen... naturally? Really? Is that what you are saying?

Yes. Exactly.

Regarding the crystal, you can take a solution of, let's say copper sulphate. Allow it to evaporate and crystallise. Isolate a crystal and watch it grow into a large crystal. This happens in nature inside geodes, and all crystals should show an internal structure that is geometrically perfect. It all depends on the strength and types of inter-molecular bonds.

No designer required.

 

[evolved yet?]

See my comments above, please.

Kenneth Miller is a christian evolutionist, also 3/4 of all christians accept evolution. Evolution is not chance and is not simultaneous poofing either. You must learn evolution is not abiogenesis want abiogenesis to be debated, then start a new thread. I have still to see evidence for your position.

 

[Venatoris]

Kenneth Miller is a christian evolutionist, also 3/4 of all christians accept evolution. Evolution is not chance and is not simultaneous poofing either. You must learn evolution is not abiogenesis want abiogenesis to be debated, then start a new thread. I have still to see evidence for your position.

The Vatican, and by proxy the entire Roman Catholic church, accepts evolution to be true. Although, I think a few people missed the memo.

Show me that a house must be designed.

Show me two houses that can create a third, completely unique house without the help of a designer. Reproduction is required for evolution, so the house analogy doesn't work.

 

[fantome profane]

Show me that a house must be designed.

Sure, we know that a house has been designed because we can speak to those people who designed it. We can talk to those people who followed the blueprints and built the house. We can see houses being built.

Compare this to a wild flower for example. Wild flowers are not constructed; there are no blueprints for flowers. No one that we can talk to will tell us that they decided that this petal should go here, and the stem should go there. There are no construction workers who followed the design and put the flower together.

We can see that housed are designed and wild flowers are not.

 

[Venatoris]

Sure, we know that a house has been designed because we can speak to those people who designed it. We can talk to those people who followed the blueprints and built the house. We can see housed being built.

Compare this to a wild flower for example. Wild flowers are not constructed; there are no blueprints for flowers. No one that we can talk to will tell us that they decided that this petal should go here, and the stem should go there. There are no construction workers who followed the design and put the flower together.

We can see that housed are designed and wild flowers are not.

And for that matter, things in nature can be severely flawed without experiencing a catastrophic failure.

 

[Gunfingers]

Show me two houses that can create a third, completely unique house without the help of a designer. Reproduction is required for evolution, so the house analogy doesn't work.

You, sir, have given me an idea for a new kind of porn!

 

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

For the millionth time, ToE makes no assertions about whether there is a maker or not. In fact, as I've told you many times, we can assume there is one.

How many other evolutionists are willing to admit that God started life (I assume you mean God when you say maker and not an alien race, as some ToE proponents claim)?

For the purposes of this discussion, we can all assume that God created all things, living and non-living, on earth and throughout the universe. It will not have any bearing or cause any change in ToE or any other scientific theory, all of which are compatible with that idea. So, in short: all.

You seem to be making the common ignorant error of confusing ToE, a scientific theory, with atheism, a philosophy. They are quite separate.

No scientist has ever asserted, as part of ToE, that anything poofed into existence. In fact, isn't it your position that something poofed into existence, precisely two of each "kind" of creature?

No, the Bible says that God created each kind, not that it happened by chance.

Chance doesn't enter into it. Again, we are all agreeing that God created everything. *Is already tired of repeating herself.* HOW. HOW. HOW. NOT WHO. HOW. How did God create these "kinds," (whatever they may be.) Before you can look for evidence, you first have to state your hypothesis. According to you, how did God create these "kinds." And btw, what is a "kind?"

And anyone who actually learns what ToE is would understand that it does not assert that anything other than mutations happened by chance.

Before criticizing ToE, you might want to learn what it is. Just a suggestion.

Your condescending attitude is typical of Evolutionists when their theory is criticized.

Yes, it's so condescending to expect you to actually learn what ToE is before you criticize it. We should welcome completely uninformed and confused criticism because...why?

I do not believe your claim that evolutionists ascribe the universe to God.

It doesn't matter. Science is nuetral regarding the existence of God. NUETRAL. (add this to the list of things I wish I never had to explain again.) ToE is true whether or not God created all things, so let's just agree that He did and get on with figuring out how. How do you think He did it?

And dodging the question of how life began by calling it abiogenesis doesn't let the ToE off the hook (at least not thinking people's hook.)

Science doesn't dodge this question; scientists are studying it as we speak. It's just that, unlike ToE, we haven't solved it yet. We're still working on it. It's not settled. ToE is. That's huge, and we should appreciate that.

The very name suggests that life arose from non-living things, and is the foundation upon which the theory of evolution rests.

You're just wrong. It doesn't matter how life first came into existence, ToE is still correct. Tell you what. For the purpose of this thread, let's all assume that God magically poofed the first living cell into existence, O.K.? Now, ToE is correct, and explains everything that happened after that.

That foundation is really no foundation at all.

Nor is it the foundation.

Then ToE proponents build upon the sand by stating mutations create new species.

ToE doesnt state that. Again, you'll never be able to effectively critique ToE without learning what it says. There's no way around it. Sorry.

Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig stated "Mutations cannot transform an original species.. into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability." (Quote from Was Life Created?)

That right, they can't. And ToE is correct. How can this be? Well, you'd have to find out what ToE says, wouldn't you. Are you interested?

Would you like to learn how to use the quote function? It's customary.

 

[Autodidact]

Because it is natural, you assume it was not designed? All natural things happen... naturally? Really? Is that what you are saying?

Was this designed?

 

[jarofthoughts]

There is evidence evolution didn't happen.

Show it, don't tell us.

You can't say that this world happened by chance.

No Evolutionary Biologist claims that Evolution is based on chance.^
Also, define "world".

Everything here is too perfect.

Like the human eye you mean? The one with the blind-spot that we have to hallucinate to make up for?

If you are an evolutionist you are saying This world formed out of nothing billions of years ago and it just happened to have a perfect atmosphere, in the perfect distance from the sun with a perfect environment suited for humans to dwell.

Now you are talking Cosmology, not Biology. Difference mate. Difference. Stick to the subject please. Also, we evolved to fit into this environment, not the other way around.

It is like saying a building happened by chance, no body built it.

A building is not alive. Hence, Evolution does not apply.

It evolution was real, a bird would need time to evolve, correct? It does not happen overnight, for a bird to have a wing, it would need to go through the process to develop a wing stub which is useless, so why would it need half a wing.

The old "what use is half an eye" nonsense...
Half any eye is about half as useful.
Half a wing is about half as useful.
Also, we have many instances in Evolution where an organ having one purpose originally has shifted to perform another purpose.

The theory of evolution is based on a selection of the most adaptable animals. Now give me proof that evolution did take place.

Mate, no offence, but it appears you have absolutely no idea what the Theory of Evolution is about.
I highly recommend educating yourself somewhat before you go off on a tangent like this.
Right now you're just embarrassing yourself. Sorry.

Now, how about some positive evidence that Creationism is correct?

 

[Autodidact]

rusra: Let me help you focus your thoughts. Remember, science is about how things came to be. Science is not about whether or not God created everything, so we can just assume that. Let's start with bacteria, O.K.? We all agree that God created all the bacteria in the world. Under your hypothesis, HOW did He do so? Had we been there, what would we have observed?

[If you would like me to explain what ToE says about this, I am happy to do so. But this thread is about your view. This is a chance to tell us what you think happened, so we can look for evidence of that.]

 

[The_Evelyonian]

I'm afraid that attacks on the ToE and the argument from ignorance are all you're going to get.

I really wish that creationists would understand that if evolution were disproved tomorrow, creationism would still not get any more respect from the scientific community than it gets right now. The desire to disprove evolution seems to be based on a false dichotomy.

"If evolution is wrong, then creationism must be right."

Unfortunately for creationists, science doesn't work that way. 'Not-X, therefore Y' doesn't apply.

Creationists, without positive evidence for your belief, you won't even get your foot in the door. Trying to disprove evolution is a waste of time.

At the same time, appealing to ignorance doesn't work either. Simply saying that X is too complex to have evolved naturally doesn't make it so. Unless you can actually demonstrate that there is no possible way for a particular biological system to have evolved naturally then the assertion is worthless.

Now, the "every building had a builder" argument is a fine piece of flawed logic for a number of reasons. My two favorites being:

a) It's a false analogy. Buildings are not biological systems. As has already been pointed out, they are not subject to replication, variation, and selection. It's an irrelevant comparison.

b) It's a runaway metaphor. The long-hand of the argument is thus:

"Every building had a builder. Every painting had a painter. Every watch had a watch-maker. You would never look at a building, a painting, or a watch and just assume that these things happened by accident. No, the building is 100% proof that there was a builder. The painting is 100% proof that there was a painter. Likewise, creation is 100% proof that there was a creator."

Now, here's the problem with a runaway metaphor. You can't stop it there.
If we accept the initial premise of the metaphor as true (every building had a builder) then by extension every builder had a builder-maker, every painter had a painter-maker, and thus, every creator had a creator-maker. And it just keeps going ad infinitum.

You can't stop a runaway metaphor.

Disproving evolution, appealing to ignorance, and the builder argument are not evidence for creationism. If you are a creationist and you really want your position taken seriously by the scientific community then you're going to have to do better.

 

[Autodidact]

Maybe creationist logic goes like this:
X exists, therefore God must have created it.
But science posits an alternative explanation.
That explanation is wrong, therefore we can conclude that God must have created it.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

X exists, therefore God must have created it.
But science posits an alternative explanation.
That explanation does not appear in the Bible, therefore that explanation is wrong.
Hence, we can conclude that God must have created it.

This might be closer to it.

 

[Atomist]

X exists, therefore God must have created it.
But science posits an alternative explanation.
That explanation does not appear in the Bible, therefore that explanation is wrong.
Hence, we can conclude that God must have created it.

This might be closer to it.

More like
Premise 1) The bible is 100% true
Premise 2) Science (evolution, big bang, etc) disagrees the bible
Conclusion: Science (evolution, big bang, etc) is wrong.

Oh... and premise 1 can't be wrong according to (fundamentalist) Christians...