Creationists, please provide evidence

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If God created humans one would expect to find genomic evidence of 2 ancestors in all sexually replicating creatures. I have already posted info from various genome projects that find exactly that, just as predicted. Humans included. That evidence along with the flaws in radiometric and genomic dating (evidence already posted), is excellent evidence of creation.

If God created asexual creatures one would predict that genome mapping would indicate lineage to an individual creature. It does. Evidence already provided.

If God created all creatures at the same time, then not only would we have 2 ancestors for every species, but 2 original ancestors for every species... all living at the same time for every species (or "kind", if that's your thing). Is this borne out by your genomic evidence?

If God created life one would predict that humans cannot create life. Just as predicted, despite all the advances in science this holy grail escapes them, as predicted.

You never answered my question on this before: this implies that if humans one day create life, then we could conclude that God did not originally create life. Do you agree?

If God created the first kind of every creature and gave them huge array of genetic diversity to multiply and fill the earth one would predict scientists would have a great deal of trouble linking the lineages. As predicted they do. Fossil evidence does not line up with phylogenic data. Evidence has been provided.

If, as you say,"If God created the first kind of every creature and gave them huge array of genetic diversity to multiply and fill the earth", then the fossil evidence would look like this:

- no fossils at all to start
- suddenly, fossils of all "kinds" appearing simultaneously
- the number of species in all "kinds" increasing over time from this starting point

Does the fossil evidence line up with this?

If God created all life one would expect to see some proof that the creation was created by one mind. We share high percentages of genes with the most simplest creatures. Gods signature is throughout his creation as predicted. Evidence previously provided.

As I said before, genetic commonality is also a prediction of evolutionary theory.

If God created every 'kind' using the same template for life one could predict many creatures may have useless genes that God did not wish to express. We do, as predicted. The sponge and other evidence provided.

As I said before, this is an after-the-fact prediction. There's nothing inherent in creationism that would expect anyone to predict "junk" DNA. You're making an excuse after the fact, not a prediction.

Finally if creation was true one may predict the evidence would speak for itself and fit simply into some creative model. It does.

Again: what model?

If one kind evolved into another kind one would expect the evidence to speak for itself and simply fit in with ToE models. They do not.

No, they do. There are very well-documented lineages that cross the divides between "kinds" as laid out in the Bible.

 

[newhope101]

Autodidact quote:HOW. HOW. HOW. NOT WHO, HOW.

You area an ardent believer in ToE. Yet you obviously don't care about how, seeing as you've swallowed the dino-bird disaster.

God is privvy to a range of abilities that non spiritual beings are incapable of understanding at present. You can barely use any of your evidence anymore yet you have faith in ToE. All creatures are a range of elements rearranged.

God took the elements and rearranged them to form a creature then activated it with 'the breath of life'. That's on par with ToE assertion that life just poofed into existence , which you believe, similarly without proof.

So if your ToE theory is any more valid than mine, refute it and make jest as no doubt you will. Only remember the fool you try make of me is your own vivid reflection.

So, can you quit squarking? Lets just accept that neither side of the debate can prove how life came into existence and go from there. OR are you going to continue to prattle on degrading creationists for not being able to prove got instantly made the creation when you are unable to prove that life can errupt from non living matter, also.

What's the go Autodidact? Why do try to make creationists are the only ones without this answer?

You are going to harp on this point because you know that once we've moved past it none of your claims or evidence will stand up.

If creationists inability to prove poofing into existence means we have no hypothesis, then darls, neither have you.

 

[PolyHedral]

God is privvy to a range of abilities that non spiritual beings are incapable of understanding at present.

Then explain them to us. I suspect the combined education of the entire board is better than yours alone. Belief does not magically give you an intelligence upgrade. (You'd have a lot more followers if it did!)

God took the elements and rearranged them to form a creature then activated it with 'the breath of life'. That's on par with ToE assertion that life just poofed into existence , which you believe, similarly without proof.

Oooooh, so not only are you misrepresenting ToE, you're also baselessly asserting the existence of a "breath of life". Keep going, I almost have a full house. (Not with that card, though)

 

[Autodidact]

Is this your hypothesis:

God took the elements and rearranged them to form a creature then activated it with 'the breath of life'.

Can you get any more specific with that? What creature(s)? When? What would it have looked like had I been standing there? Where did this happen? Thanks.

 

[newhope101]

If God created all creatures at the same time, then not only would we have 2 ancestors for every species, but 2 original ancestors for every species... all living at the same time for every species (or "kind", if that's your thing). Is this borne out by your genomic evidence?

Can you please look back through the thread and see what 'kind' means to a creationist. In short your species are nothing more than names for various adaptations. God only had to create a couple of wolves to get all the canine creature, a few plants, to get all the plants, a couple of birds to get all the birds. And YES this is borne from the evidence. How many times is one expected to post it.

You never answered my question on this before: this implies that if humans one day create life, then we could conclude that God did not originally create life. Do you agree?

Yes, and making life using a living cell to begin with is NOT creating life.


If, as you say,"If God created the first kind of every creature and gave them huge array of genetic diversity to multiply and fill the earth", then the fossil evidence would look like this:

- no fossils at all to start
- suddenly, fossils of all "kinds" appearing simultaneously
- the number of species in all "kinds" increasing over time from this starting point

Does the fossil evidence line up with this?

Absolutely!

As I said before, genetic commonality is also a prediction of evolutionary theory.
Not anymore. Get a new biology book. Look at my recent post that points out a bird wing has the same Hox-11 gene in its' first finger that is more similar to a mouse and consistent with comparative morphology (Science Daily "gene expression in alligators suggests birds have thunbs")

As I said before, this is an after-the-fact prediction. There's nothing inherent in creationism that would expect anyone to predict "junk" DNA. You're making an excuse after the fact, not a prediction.


Again: what model?

ToE no longer has a valid model either yet you still consider it 'proven'. You have no bases to your point.


No, they do. There are very well-documented lineages that cross the divides between "kinds" as laid out in the Bible.

Did you read my post at all? These well documented lineages are crap!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can you please look back through the thread and see what 'kind' means to a creationist. In short your species are nothing more than names for various adaptations. God only had to create a couple of wolves to get all the canine creature, a few plants, to get all the plants, a couple of birds to get all the birds. And YES this is borne from the evidence. How many times is one expected to post it.

Okay - what evidence? Can you show me the genomic evidence that shows that all "kinds" appeared at the exact same time?

Yes, and making life using a living cell to begin with is NOT creating life.

Okay - just establishing that you do realize the implications of what you're suggesting. Thanks.

Absolutely!

Great - can you show this to me, please? Remember what you agreed to: a fossil record that shows first no life at all, followed by the appearance of the original forms of all "kinds" all at once, and then branching out of new species with those "kinds" over time.

I'd like to see it, since it's contradicted by the fossil record that I've seen.

Not anymore. Get a new biology book. Look at my recent post that points out a bird wing has the same Hox-11 gene in its' first finger that is more similar to a mouse and consistent with comparative morphology (Science Daily "gene expression in alligators suggests birds have thunbs")

How exactly do you think that this contradicts what I said?

Did you read my post at all? These well documented lineages are crap!

I read it; I just don't take your word for it. I trust your assessment of science about as far as I can comfortably throw you. Meanwhile, I trust the mountains of evidence for the opposite of what you claim quite a bit.

 

[newhope101]

Is this your hypothesis:


Can you get any more specific with that? What creature(s)? When? What would it have looked like had I been standing there? Where did this happen? Thanks.

Ignorance is what this line of questioning alludes to. I refer yet again and again and again to the dino-bird dilemma. You no longer have a valid line of evolution from lizard to bird. Are you falling apart? I doubt it. So can you expain this evolutionary line to me in light of the recent research? No you CANNOT. Yet you are prepared to vilify others that similarly cannot. If scientists were asking the right questions creationists would likely have more answers.

If your dino to bird theory is now proven as being incorrect. Then all the dating your fancy scientists and researchers have that lined up the transitional morphology and the fossil evidence must also be incorrect. What a wolloping tale it was. Yet up untill these recent findings this is one of the lines of evidence you have used as undeniable, uncontested proof. You had fossils, you had dates and now you have a mess. Watch how the dating will be recalibrated to line up with this new research. How can anyone be so gullable?


So I can be about as specific as you at this stage. Would you like to explain to me how a bird morphed into a teeth barring dino or lizard? If you cannot then why do you expect more from creationists that have not got a myriad of researchers working on it? Can't explain yourself then you have the hide to vilify others.

Requesting such definitive answers of creationism illustrates that evolutionists are indeed hypocrites first and foremost!

 

[PolyHedral]

Would you like to explain to me how a bird morphed into a teeth barring dino or lizard?

I can't, since I am not a biologist, but is there a reason this can't happen? The fossils might not show it, since not everything fossilizes.

 

[Wirey]

This thread is deader than a dead thing on National Dead Day on Planet Dead.


Dead.

That's a disturbingly accurate description of my love life.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Notice how Newhope seems to be stuck on the supposed scientific controversy surrounding Archaeopteryx?
My hope, not so new, is that one day Newhope will learn the applications of the scientific method, and all that that entails, rather than focusing on the lengthy copy/paste jobs that do absolutely nothing to support a scientific "theory" of creationism.
One can only hope....

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Ignorance is what this line of questioning alludes to. I refer yet again and again and again to the dino-bird dilemma. You no longer have a valid line of evolution from lizard to bird. Are you falling apart? I doubt it. So can you expain this evolutionary line to me in light of the recent research? No you CANNOT. Yet you are prepared to vilify others that similarly cannot. If scientists were asking the right questions creationists would likely have more answers.

If your dino to bird theory is now proven as being incorrect. Then all the dating your fancy scientists and researchers have that lined up the transitional morphology and the fossil evidence must also be incorrect. What a wolloping tale it was. Yet up untill these recent findings this is one of the lines of evidence you have used as undeniable, uncontested proof. You had fossils, you had dates and now you have a mess. Watch how the dating will be recalibrated to line up with this new research. How can anyone be so gullable?


So I can be about as specific as you at this stage. Would you like to explain to me how a bird morphed into a teeth barring dino or lizard? If you cannot then why do you expect more from creationists that have not got a myriad of researchers working on it? Can't explain yourself then you have the hide to vilify others.

Requesting such definitive answers of creationism illustrates that evolutionists are indeed hypocrites first and foremost!

Typical creationist. Rather than respond to the question, you just spew bile all over the place.

Take a look at what you've written here. Does any of it sound even the slightest bit constructive? It's pathetic.

 

[MW0082]

Ignorance is what this line of questioning alludes to. I refer yet again and again and again to the dino-bird dilemma. You no longer have a valid line of evolution from lizard to bird. Are you falling apart? I doubt it. So can you expain this evolutionary line to me in light of the recent research? No you CANNOT. Yet you are prepared to vilify others that similarly cannot. If scientists were asking the right questions creationists would likely have more answers.

If your dino to bird theory is now proven as being incorrect. Then all the dating your fancy scientists and researchers have that lined up the transitional morphology and the fossil evidence must also be incorrect. What a wolloping tale it was. Yet up untill these recent findings this is one of the lines of evidence you have used as undeniable, uncontested proof. You had fossils, you had dates and now you have a mess. Watch how the dating will be recalibrated to line up with this new research. How can anyone be so gullable?


So I can be about as specific as you at this stage. Would you like to explain to me how a bird morphed into a teeth barring dino or lizard? If you cannot then why do you expect more from creationists that have not got a myriad of researchers working on it? Can't explain yourself then you have the hide to vilify others.

Requesting such definitive answers of creationism illustrates that evolutionists are indeed hypocrites first and foremost!

Who said all evolutionists believed in the dino-bird theory? I mean it was what it was, a theory....

Still hold up more weight then an all knowing omnipotent force creating everything we have in 6 days. Not to mention it was wrong about where we came from and where we were even placed... I mean come on......

 

[Autodidact]

Ignorance is what this line of questioning alludes to. I refer yet again and again and again to the dino-bird dilemma. You no longer have a valid line of evolution from lizard to bird. Are you falling apart? I doubt it. So can you expain this evolutionary line to me in light of the recent research? No you CANNOT. Yet you are prepared to vilify others that similarly cannot. If scientists were asking the right questions creationists would likely have more answers.

If your dino to bird theory is now proven as being incorrect. Then all the dating your fancy scientists and researchers have that lined up the transitional morphology and the fossil evidence must also be incorrect. What a wolloping tale it was. Yet up untill these recent findings this is one of the lines of evidence you have used as undeniable, uncontested proof. You had fossils, you had dates and now you have a mess. Watch how the dating will be recalibrated to line up with this new research. How can anyone be so gullable?


So I can be about as specific as you at this stage. Would you like to explain to me how a bird morphed into a teeth barring dino or lizard? If you cannot then why do you expect more from creationists that have not got a myriad of researchers working on it? Can't explain yourself then you have the hide to vilify others.

Requesting such definitive answers of creationism illustrates that evolutionists are indeed hypocrites first and foremost!

Wow, asking you to set out a hypothesis seems to really upset you. Pehaps this isn't a suitable thread for you.

I will be happy to discuss evolution with you at great length in a thread on that subject. This one is about your hypothesis and your evidence.

So you consider asking you to actually state your hypothesis, in a thread asking for evidence of it, to be vilifying you? That's so interesting.

So are you refusing to lay out your hypothesis in any detail? It's just magic poofing of an unknown number of an unknown category of things at an unknown time in an unknown place by taking the elements, whatever they may be, and rearranging them in an unknown way, presumably magic, then breathing the breath of life into them? Is that an accurate and complete statement of the mechanism by which you believe God created the various species of organisms on earth?

 

[Pegg]

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.

so if modern humans (us) have been around for 50,000 years, explain why our written records only began in the 4th millenium bc

does it not seem the slightest bit odd to you that the thing which sets us apart from all other creatures is our advanced language ability....and yet, we only learnt to write things down 6,000 odd years ago?

 

[Pegg]

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 have no need to lie about anything.

In 1876 Haeckel mailed Darwin a copy of his recently published The History of Creation. Darwin wrote back thanking him but also viewed with caution Haeckel’s endorsement of spontaneous generation (Darwin 1887, Vol 3:180),
«My dear Häckel,—I thank you for the present of your book, and I am heartily glad to see its great success. You will do a wonderful amount of good in spreading the doctrine of Evolution, supporting it as you do by so many original observations. [...] I will at the same time send a paper which has interested me; it need not be returned. It contains a singular statement bearing on so-called Spontaneous Generation. I much wish that this latter question could be settled, but I see no prospect of it. If it could be proved true this would be most important to us

The above article from [url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2745620/]Pubmed Central[/URL] shows that there were numerous other evolutionists who were discussing 'spontaneous generation' as a part of evolution. German geologist Heinrich George Bronn who translated The Origin of Species in 1860 even added a chapter about how spontaneous generation fitted in with Darwin’s theory.

Richard Dawkins is another evolutionist who includes a description of how life began in his book 'The selfish gene' ...read up to page 15and you will be reading about how life began...abiogenesis...that amazing process that nobody saw and nobody can replicate but yet 'must have happened'


Now who is being dishonest? Evolutionists who claim that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution yet explain it at the outset of their books on evolution in order to provide a basis for how evolution began?

or creationists who cannot separate the two?

 

[Autodidact]

so if modern humans (us) have been around for 50,000 years, explain why our written records only began in the 4th millenium bc

Because writing had not yet been invented.

does it not seem the slightest bit odd to you that the thing which sets us apart from all other creatures is our advanced language ability....and yet, we only learnt to write things down 6,000 odd years ago?

No. We do have other cultural artifacts from long before that, however.

 

[Pegg]

Yes, it is amazing how long some people can evade and prevaricate. I'll go on about it as long as you insist on basing your position on the term, and you have failed to define it.

So, what is a kind?

i defined about 10 pages ago

a genesis 'kind' is not a 'species'

it is a genus

 

[Autodidact]

I have no need to lie about anything.

In 1876 Haeckel mailed Darwin a copy of his recently published The History of Creation. Darwin wrote back thanking him but also viewed with caution Haeckel’s endorsement of spontaneous generation (Darwin 1887, Vol 3:180),
«My dear Häckel,—I thank you for the present of your book, and I am heartily glad to see its great success. You will do a wonderful amount of good in spreading the doctrine of Evolution, supporting it as you do by so many original observations. [...] I will at the same time send a paper which has interested me; it need not be returned. It contains a singular statement bearing on so-called Spontaneous Generation. I much wish that this latter question could be settled, but I see no prospect of it. If it could be proved true this would be most important to us

The above article from Pubmed Central shows that there were numerous other evolutionists who were discussing 'spontaneous generation' as a part of evolution. German geologist Heinrich George Bronn who translated The Origin of Species in 1860 even added a chapter about how spontaneous generation fitted in with Darwin’s theory.

Richard Dawkins is another evolutionist who includes a description of how life began in his book 'The selfish gene' ...read up to page 15and you will be reading about how life began...abiogenesis...that amazing process that nobody saw and nobody can replicate but yet 'must have happened'


Now who is being dishonest? Evolutionists who claim that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution yet explain it at the outset of their books on evolution in order to provide a basis for how evolution began?

or creationists who cannot separate the two?

Creationists. It's not complicated, Pegg. Here is a definitive statement of the Theory of Evolution:

The Definition:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.


The Explanation:
Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. ...
The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.
Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.

[Berkeley]
As you can see, there is not a word in there about abiogenesis.


The Theory of Evolution explains the diversity of life, not its origin.

Anyone who tells you that ToE makes any claim about abiogenesis is lying to you. Apparently your church leaders lie to you. I'm sorry about that, but it's no reason for you to lie in turn. It's immoral, Pegg, stop doing it.

 

[Pegg]

Because writing had not yet been invented.


No. We do have other cultural artifacts from long before that, however.

so 50,000 odd years ago, humans displayed their creativity and appreciation of natural things by painting beautiful pictures...but none of them thought about writing???

Im sorry, but I find that highly unlikely.

 

[Autodidact]

i defined about 10 pages ago

a genesis 'kind' is not a 'species'

it is a genus

O.K., not a family. You did say genus, but you also said family, and then your definition sounded like species.

O.K. so according to you around 4000 years ago there were two of each genera somewhere in the Middle East, and all the species that we see on earth evolved from those genera in the last 4000 years, as well as all the extinct species, correct?