Creationists, please provide evidence

[xkatz]

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???

Well of course... 50,000 years ago, humans did not real languages so to speak, so they had no need for a writing system. Also, people were illiterate back then so writing would of been useless anyways.

 

[Autodidact]

Let's do some examples. Take wombats. There are three living species. All of them live in Australia, which is thousands of miles away from the Middle East and across several oceans. They move extremely slowly, and are not aquatic. So how on earth did they get from the Mid-East to Australia?

Do we see fossils of wombats between the mid-east and Australia?

And while we're at it, why are all the fossils of the slow-moving, land-dwelling, burrowing wombat found in higher, younger rock layers than the flying pterodactal?

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Writing is a human invention. Someone had to invent it at some point. It appears to have been invented about 5500 years ago. Why not?

 

[Pegg]

Creationists. It's not simple, 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.

and as i've stated, I dont have a problem with that at all.

What I have a problem with is when they start saying that from one animal arose a completely new animal...such as a bird turned into a dinosaur

or from the horse came the hippopotamus

or from apes came humans

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.

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

and this is what I object to. Now there may not be the word 'abiogenesis' but by telling us that everything descended from ONE COMMON ANCESTOR, then it is claiming that all life came from one source... and yet current researchers have stated (as quoted earlier) that the genetic evidence is that there were several sources of life...not one.

This has been stated for quite some time now btw. In 1978 Professor Dr. A. E. Wilder Smith wrote: “A number of mostly young authorities have become convinced in recent years that biogenesis, the origin of life, was not monophyletic (all living things derived from a single cell), but rather polyphyletic (from many sources). Therefore there are authorities today who no longer believe that all species derived by means of transformism from one original cell. They do not believe that all species had a common biological ancestral tree with a single root for all forms of life.”

 

[Pegg]

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?

no,

again you have included 'species' in there

a genesis kind is a genus...and according to current bioligcal definitions, there are many species within one genus.

So of the different 'genus' that Noah would have taken onto the ark, they are still here today (unless a whole genus has gone extinct of course)

What I would say is that all the genus of animals alive today, were the same that Noah took on the ark.

 

[tumbleweed41]

i defined about 10 pages ago

a genesis 'kind' is not a 'species'

it is a genus

So, human "kind' includes...
H. antecessor, H. cepranensis, H. erectus, H. ergaster, H. floresiensis, H. gautengensis, H. georgicus, H. habilis, H. heidelbergensis, H. neanderthalensis, H. rhodesiensis, H. rudolfensis, H. sapiens idaltu and H. sapiens sapiens .

And dog "kind" includes...
The Side-striped Jackal (Canis adustus), Canis apolloniensis, Armbruster's Wolf (Canis armbrusteri), Golden jackal (Canis aureus), Canis cedazoensis, Dire Wolf, (Canis dirus), Canis edwardii (Edward's wolf), Canis ferox, Coyote(Canis latrans), Canis lepophagus, Red Wolf (Canis lupus rufus), Grey Wolves and all domestic dogs (Canis lupus) and the Ethiopian wolf (Canis simensis).

Making all wolves, jackals, coyotes, dogs and dingos all the same "kind".

So, was their only one pair of dog "kind" roughly four thousand years ago that came off the Ark, multiplied, and became so genetically diversified and widespread in that short time as to give us todays diversified genera?

I guess the Loxodonta and Elephas, being two separate genera, are two separate "Biblical Kinds". Getting a little crowded on that Ark.

Speaking of crowded. Do you have any idea how many animal genera their are?
(Hint, 10,564. How big was that Ark again?)

 

[Pegg]

Writing is a human invention. Someone had to invent it at some point. It appears to have been invented about 5500 years ago. Why not?

why not?

because the brain capacity of modern humans (us) includes areas of brain function specifically for language

to claim that any modern humans lived without language is pure speculation and opinion.

 

[tumbleweed41]

or from the horse came the hippopotamus

or from apes came humans

Disclaimer on Creationist Misinformation...

Nowhere in Biological Evolution did a Horse evolve from a Hippopotamus, nor did Apes evolve from Humans.
If this were found to be so, the entire Theory of Evolution would fall apart.

This has been stated for quite some time now btw. In 1978 Professor Dr. A. E. Wilder Smith wrote: “A number of mostly young authorities have become convinced in recent years that biogenesis, the origin of life, was not monophyletic (all living things derived from a single cell), but rather polyphyletic (from many sources). Therefore there are authorities today who no longer believe that all species derived by means of transformism from one original cell. They do not believe that all species had a common biological ancestral tree with a single root for all forms of life.”

Disclaimer on Creationist "Argument from Authority"...

Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith was a Chemist and Young Earth Creationist. Not a Biologist.
(He once published a book claiming the authenticity of the now thoroughly discredited "Paluxy Human/Dinosaur" footprints.)
Dr Smith is infamous for his many publications which relied on biological falsehoods and errors.

 

[tumbleweed41]

why not?

because the brain capacity of modern humans (us) includes areas of brain function specifically for language

to claim that any modern humans lived without language is pure speculation and opinion.

She did not say they had no language. She said they had no written language.
BTW, did you know the Cherokee had no written language until 1821?
By your logic, they did not exist before then....

 

[McBell]

I have no need to lie about anything.

Really?
Then why all the bold faced lies?

 

[McBell]

Im sorry, but I find that highly unlikely.

Well that clenches it then, now doesn't it?
I mean, if YOU find it highly unlikely then what is everyone else supposed to think?

Oh wait, your a confirmed liar.
How can anyone ever trust anything you have to say?

 

[Pegg]

Let's do some examples. Take wombats. There are three living species. All of them live in Australia, which is thousands of miles away from the Middle East and across several oceans. They move extremely slowly, and are not aquatic. So how on earth did they get from the Mid-East to Australia?

land ridges perhaps?
Oceanographers have found numerous land ridges connecting isolated land areas. There is the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and there could be other they have not found yet. But one thing they have found is that there was a huge South Pacific continent that took in Australia and many of the South Sea isles.... so migration along such paths is not impossible....just as it wasnt impossible for humans to migrate to isolated lands.

Do we see fossils of wombats between the mid-east and Australia?

possibly. Lack of evidence is not evidence in itself.

And while we're at it, why are all the fossils of the slow-moving, land-dwelling, burrowing wombat found in higher, younger rock layers than the flying pterodactal?

I dont know, why dont you tell me.

 

[Pegg]

So, human "kind' includes...
H. antecessor, H. cepranensis, H. erectus, H. ergaster, H. floresiensis, H. gautengensis, H. georgicus, H. habilis, H. heidelbergensis, H. neanderthalensis, H. rhodesiensis, H. rudolfensis, H. sapiens idaltu and H. sapiens sapiens .

No. The human 'kind' was a one off creation. Today a human 'kind' would be
African, Asian, Semitic, European ect ect ect

And dog "kind" includes...
The Side-striped Jackal (Canis adustus), Canis apolloniensis, Armbruster's Wolf (Canis armbrusteri), Golden jackal (Canis aureus), Canis cedazoensis, Dire Wolf, (Canis dirus), Canis edwardii (Edward's wolf), Canis ferox, Coyote(Canis latrans), Canis lepophagus, Red Wolf (Canis lupus rufus), Grey Wolves and all domestic dogs (Canis lupus) and the Ethiopian wolf (Canis simensis).

Making all wolves, jackals, coyotes, dogs and dingos all the same "kind".

If they can interbreed, yes they are the same kind. If they can produce offspring or hybrids, yes they are the same kind.

So, was their only one pair of dog "kind" roughly four thousand years ago that came off the Ark, multiplied, and became so genetically diversified and widespread in that short time as to give us todays diversified genera?

yes. Just as Evolution says they do.

I guess the Loxodonta and Elephas, being two separate genera, are two separate "Biblical Kinds". Getting a little crowded on that Ark.

You dont seem to get it.
The African bush elephant, African forest elephant and the Asian Elephant are the same kind. They are the only 3 species of elephant alive on earth today and they are the same kind.

The two elephants that Noah took on the ark were able to produce these 3 'species' (according to biologists definition of a species) of elephant because a genesis 'kind' is the ancestor of all three. They are an example of how genetics can produce a number of varieties within a genre.

 

[The Wizard]

The beliefs of a Creator have created conditions that caused someone to make a thread concerning it. Evidently, the beliefs of a Creator in and of itself affects and creates things regardless of what one wants to think. The omni-presence of belief just laughs... IMO.

 

[Pegg]

Disclaimer on Creationist Misinformation...

Nowhere in Biological Evolution did a Horse evolve from a Hippopotamus, nor did Apes evolve from Humans.
If this were found to be so, the entire Theory of Evolution would fall apart.

yep fair enough, I should have said

when they say "from a crustacean (or a whale depending on who you listen to) came the hippopotamus"

Disclaimer on Creationist "Argument from Authority"...

Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith was a Chemist and Young Earth Creationist. Not a Biologist.
(He once published a book claiming the authenticity of the now thoroughly discredited "Paluxy Human/Dinosaur" footprints.)
Dr Smith is infamous for his many publications which relied on biological falsehoods and errors.

I dont know if he was a YEC, but so what if he was...his study of neo darwinism evolution led him to point out the same discrepancies that others have pointed out.

 

[Pegg]

She did not say they had no language. She said they had no written language.
BTW, did you know the Cherokee had no written language until 1821?
By your logic, they did not exist before then....

there are people around today who have never learnt to read and write...that doesnt prove that they are unable to read or write which is what is being suggested with regard to the earliest modern humans

 

[tumbleweed41]

yes. Just as Evolution says they do.

The rapid dispersant and speciation of todays genus canis in just about 4000 years would be counter to current Biological Evolutionary Theory.

If they can interbreed, yes they are the same kind. If they can produce offspring or hybrids, yes they are the same kind.

You dont seem to get it.
The African bush elephant, African forest elephant and the Asian Elephant are the same kind. They are the only 3 species of elephant alive on earth today and they are the same kind.

The two elephants that Noah took on the ark were able to produce these 3 'species' (according to biologists definition of a species) of elephant because a genesis 'kind' is the ancestor of all three. They are an example of how genetics can produce a number of varieties within a genre.

Oops. Loxodonta and Elephas cannot interbreed to produce viable offspring. By your very own definition, different kinds.

(The one successful interbreeding resulted in the calf living only ten days)

Much like Capra and Ovis, whose interbreeding often produce stillborns or short lived offspring. Or do you consider Goats and Sheep to be the same "kind"?

 

[tumbleweed41]

yep fair enough, I should have said

when they say "from a crustacean (or a whale depending on who you listen to) came the hippopotamus"

Nope. Still wrong.
Perhaps you should actually understand Biological Evolution before you comment on it.

I dont know if he was a YEC, but so what if he was...his study of neo darwinism evolution led him to point out the same discrepancies that others have pointed out.

As I said, any reputable biologist can point out this YEC chemists biological falsehoods and errors, and they have.

 

[tumbleweed41]

She did not say they had no language. She said they had no written language.
BTW, did you know the Cherokee had no written language until 1821?
By your logic, they did not exist before then....

there are people around today who have never learnt to read and write...that doesnt prove that they are unable to read or write which is what is being suggested with regard to the earliest modern humans

It is not that they did not learn to read or write, they had no written language.

 

[jarofthoughts]

or from the horse came the hippopotamus

The modern hippo did not came from the modern horse. They share a common ancestor.

or from apes came humans

We are still apes.

and this is what I object to. Now there may not be the word 'abiogenesis' but by telling us that everything descended from ONE COMMON ANCESTOR, then it is claiming that all life came from one source...

The evidence of DNA strongly suggests this to be the case, yes.

and yet current researchers have stated (as quoted earlier) that the genetic evidence is that there were several sources of life...not one.

And that quote has been shown to be taken out of context and wilfully misinterpreted. And even if it was within context and ONE biologist claimed this nonsense, that does not legitimate you claiming that "current researchers have stated" this.

Really, what is it with you creationists and misrepresentation?

This has been stated for quite some time now btw. In 1978 Professor Dr. A. E. Wilder Smith wrote: “A number of mostly young authorities have become convinced in recent years that biogenesis, the origin of life, was not monophyletic (all living things derived from a single cell), but rather polyphyletic (from many sources). Therefore there are authorities today who no longer believe that all species derived by means of transformism from one original cell. They do not believe that all species had a common biological ancestral tree with a single root for all forms of life.”

You mean the same Wilder Smith who was made a fool of for claiming that the footprints at Paluxy River was of humans and dinosaurs walking together? You know the find where certain of the specimen were found to have been fabricated...