Creationists, please provide evidence

[jarofthoughts]

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.

Wait... Does that mean that you believe in Plate Tectonics?

 

[jarofthoughts]

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

You claimed that "kind" was the same as Genus. But according to your current definition the Larus argentatus smithsonianus and the Larus fuscus heuglini are not the same kind (Both these are different species of seagulls for the record). But they are of the same Genus.
So, how does it work then?
Is it Genus or is it that they can interbreed and produce offspring?
And if so, does the offspring have to be consistently fertile?

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.

Alright. I have a question though. How does the Mammoth and the Moeritherium fit into all this?

 

[Noaidi]

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.

I think you may be confusing ridges with bridges. A ridge, geologically, forms when two plates are pulled apart and is highly volcanic (think of Iceland on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge), so it is unlikely that ridges would be used as crossing points. This is where land bridges come in.

Do you have any examples of land bridges that would allow such a rapid global spread of animals emerging from the ark?

 

[McBell]

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.

So, are YOU gonna present any evidence for creation?

 

[rusra02]

I am sorry, but I have to ask how can the idea of creationism be taken seriously anymore? Has it not been proven wrong in two fold:

1) The bible is wrong about the age of the Earth.
2) It was also wrong about the Earth being the center of the Universe.

If there was a god who created all we know and have in this Universe, would it not know when and where it was created when passing along his words to prophets?

To me, I need no more evidence or thoughts from the religous groups. these are the things they believe, and we know for a fact to be wrong. Creationism at this point is impossible.

If the bible is wrong to tell us where we came from, how can we trust it to tell us where we are going?

1. The Bible is not wrong about the age of the Earth, since it gives no age for the earth. Your statement is, in fact, wrong.

2. Nowhere does the Bible state the earth is the center of the universe. Your second statement is, in fact, also wrong.

Therefore, the premise(s) for your disbelief are without foundation. You may have to rethink this...(Psalm 10:4)

 

[David M]

The fact that a cabbage and radish are able to hybridize I might conclude that they are of the same genesis 'kind' and so like other genesis kinds, they can interbreed...perhaps not naturally, but with intervention its possible.

Which would put an end to the creationist claim that adaption within a kind cannot lead to large changes in morphology.

Cabbages and Radishes are the same kind and yet humans and chimps are not?

and let me just say that if the descent of common ancestory of all living things were true, then you would think that all organisms should be able to crossbreed...but they cannot. So if the cabbage and radish can be crossbred, perhaps they are the same kind afterall.

Why would you think this, common ancestry implies no such thing.

 

[jonman122]

1. The Bible is not wrong about the age of the Earth, since it gives no age for the earth. Your statement is, in fact, wrong.

2. Nowhere does the Bible state the earth is the center of the universe. Your second statement is, in fact, also wrong.

Therefore, the premise(s) for your disbelief are without foundation. You may have to rethink this...(Psalm 10:4)

you mean you didnt notice the 30 christians in this thread saying that the bible does in fact have those dates in them, and does say those things? The entire premise for religion is without foundation... you may have to rethink that.

 

[rusra02]

Note: page 58 and we still don't have a hypothesis from any of our creationist friends. I wonder why that is?

You have but you choose to ignore them.

Hypothesis: Life comes only from life, except for the ultimate source. (Psalm 36:9) Proof: All living things come from other living things. Conclusion: There is no evidence life spontaneously poofed into existence. Oh, wait, evolutionists don't want to get into how life came about (not relevant or too embarrassing?)

Hypothesis: A super intelligent Person is responsible for life. Proof: Design requires a designer. (Hebrews 3:4) Design is evident in all creation. Conclusion: An intelligent Designer is responsible for life, not chance or environmental factors.

Hypothesis: Animals and plants reproduce within the boundaries of their specific kind. (Genesis 1:24) Proof: Reasonable people acknowledge there are limits to which animals and plants can successfully be interbred. Conclusion: the Bible is correct in stating animals and plants do not evolve into new 'kinds'.

There are many other proofs for creation and against evolution, including what the fossil record really reveals, versus what ToE advocates claim it reveals.

Feel free to begin the attack...

 

[Pegg]

Wait... Does that mean that you believe in Plate Tectonics?

do I believe in plate tectonics?
Did i say i didnt believe in plate tectonics?

 

[jonman122]

You have but you choose to ignore them.

Hypothesis: Life comes only from life, except for the ultimate source. (Psalm 36:9) Proof: All living things come from other living things. Conclusion: There is no evidence life spontaneously poofed into existence. Oh, wait, evolutionists don't want to get into how life came about (not relevant or too embarrassing?)

Hypothesis: A super intelligent Person is responsible for life. Proof: Design requires a designer. (Hebrews 3:4) Design is evident in all creation. Conclusion: An intelligent Designer is responsible for life, not chance or environmental factors.

Hypothesis: Animals and plants reproduce within the boundaries of their specific kind. (Genesis 1:24) Proof: Reasonable people acknowledge there are limits to which animals and plants can successfully be interbred. Conclusion: the Bible is correct in stating animals and plants do not evolve into new 'kinds'.

There are many other proofs for creation and against evolution, including what the fossil record really reveals, versus what ToE advocates claim it reveals.

Feel free to begin the attack...

attack commenced:

none of those are proof... at all. it's just saying "this is proof because i think it is!" that doesn't constitute scientific hypothesis.

attack finished.

 

[Pegg]

You claimed that "kind" was the same as Genus. But according to your current definition the Larus argentatus smithsonianus and the Larus fuscus heuglini are not the same kind (Both these are different species of seagulls for the record). But they are of the same Genus.
So, how does it work then?
Is it Genus or is it that they can interbreed and produce offspring?

just by looking at the two birds, I would say that they are a variety of seagull and therefore they are a variety within the same 'kind' (genus)
Biologists call them different species...but in terms of Genesis, they are actually a variety within one 'kind'

And if so, does the offspring have to be consistently fertile?

No, the offspring do not have to be consistently fertile for the reason that sometimes animals of the same 'kind' reach a genetic limit....such as a 'tigon' for example...they are a lion and tiger hybrid and can go no further because they have reached their genetic limit.

Alright. I have a question though. How does the Mammoth and the Moeritherium fit into all this?

the mammoth is a variety of elephant, recent dna testing links it with modern asian elephants, so in harmony with genesis I would say that it was just another variety of the elephant kind.

I dont know if the moeritherium is really an elephant...it looks more like a modern tapir....this is the part of evolution which really is quite speculative and unfounded and what I strongly object to. Opinion is not science.

 

[fantome profane]

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.

Have you heard of the Inca? The Inca had a massive empire, an incredible and complex civilization. And yet the Inca had no written language.

It is understandable that you would have difficulty imagining such a thing. The written word plays such a major role in our culture. But to assume that this must be the case universally is simply an example of ethnocentrism.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

just by looking at the two birds, I would say that they are a variety of seagull and therefore they are a variety within the same 'kind' (genus)
Biologists call them different species...but in terms of Genesis, they are actually a variety within one 'kind'

Then please explain what is the distinction between genus and "kind". If, apparently, you can tell just by looking this should hardly be a challenge.

No, the offspring do not have to be consistently fertile for the reason that sometimes animals of the same 'kind' reach a genetic limit....such as a 'tigon' for example...they are a lion and tiger hybrid and can go no further because they have reached their genetic limit.

Explain precisely what a "genetic limit" is and how it can be reached.

the mammoth is a variety of elephant, recent dna testing links it with modern asian elephants, so in harmony with genesis I would say that it was just another variety of the elephant kind.

Again, you've explained nothing of what actually defines a kind, you've just repeatedly stated that any animals that are similar must be the same "kind".

I dont know if the moeritherium is really an elephant...it looks more like a modern tapir....this is the part of evolution which really is quite speculative and unfounded and what I strongly object to. Opinion is not science.

What it "looks like" to you is of little to no relevance. Leave that up to the expert archaeologists and geologists who study the fossils.

 

[tumbleweed41]

2. Nowhere does the Bible state the earth is the center of the universe. Your second statement is, in fact, also wrong.

Actually, the Church has a history of interpreting the following verses as supporting a geocentric universe. While educated Christians today do not accept this, there is a historical basis for this mistaken belief.

Joshua 10:12-13
Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon." And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

Habakkuk 3:11
The sun and moon stood still in their habitation at the light of thine arrows as they sped, at the flash of thy glittering spear.

Psalms 19:4-6
yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs his course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat.

Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.

1 Chronicles 16:30
tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.

Psalms 93:1
The Lord reigns; he is robbed in majesty; the lord is robbed, he is girded with strength. Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.

Psalms 104:5
Thou didst set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be shaken.

 

[tumbleweed41]

You have but you choose to ignore them.

Hypothesis: Life comes only from life, except for the ultimate source. (Psalm 36:9) Proof: All living things come from other living things. Conclusion: There is no evidence life spontaneously poofed into existence. Oh, wait, evolutionists don't want to get into how life came about (not relevant or too embarrassing?)

Evidence of God "poofing" life into existence?
(BTW, Abiogenesis is not "poofing", it is a biochemical reaction.)

Hypothesis: A super intelligent Person is responsible for life. Proof: Design requires a designer. (Hebrews 3:4) Design is evident in all creation. Conclusion: An intelligent Designer is responsible for life, not chance or environmental factors.

Again, evidence of God "poofing" life into existence?
(All DNA evidence points to a common ancestor)

Hypothesis: Animals and plants reproduce within the boundaries of their specific kind. (Genesis 1:24) Proof: Reasonable people acknowledge there are limits to which animals and plants can successfully be interbred. Conclusion: the Bible is correct in stating animals and plants do not evolve into new 'kinds'.

Evolution does not endorse interbreeding as a contributing source to evolutionary change. Evolution is supported by changes in allele frequencies in a gene pool, not extra-species interbreeding.
(Misrepresenting the ToE does not support Creationism)

There are many other proofs for creation and against evolution, including what the fossil record really reveals, versus what ToE advocates claim it reveals.

Feel free to begin the attack...

Feel free to present actual evidence.

 

[jarofthoughts]

just by looking at the two birds, I would say that they are a variety of seagull and therefore they are a variety within the same 'kind' (genus)
Biologists call them different species...but in terms of Genesis, they are actually a variety within one 'kind'

So now you can tell by LOOKING at them?
But since they cannot interbreed that contradicts your earlier definition...
Could you please come up with a consistent definition please?

No, the offspring do not have to be consistently fertile for the reason that sometimes animals of the same 'kind' reach a genetic limit....such as a 'tigon' for example...they are a lion and tiger hybrid and can go no further because they have reached their genetic limit.

Right. So we have arrived at "cannot breed at all" for them to not be kinds, is that it?

I dont know if the moeritherium is really an elephant...it looks more like a modern tapir....this is the part of evolution which really is quite speculative and unfounded and what I strongly object to. Opinion is not science.

Except, you know, the characteristics of the skull, wrist and teeth show that Moeritherium was a member of the elephant family.

 

[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

Exactly. "Spontaneous Generation" was not then proved, and has not been. It forms no part of ToE. None. Zip. Nada. Completely separate subject.

The above article from Pubmed Central shows that there were numerous other evolutionists who were discussing 'spontaneous generation' as a part of evolution.

No, it does not.

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.

Well bully for him, it is not part of that 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'

Please provide a quote from Richard Dawkins or any other evolutionary biologist claiming that abiogenesis is part of the Theory of Evolution.

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.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Plural of genus is genera. What I said is, according to you, Noah took two of each genus on the ark, and all the species we have today evolved from those genera within the last 4000 years, correct? If not, where did we get all the different species we have today? That's the question we're trying to answer.

So to use an example, rats are genus Rattus, and we know about 64 living species of them, with many more than that extinct species. So your assertion is that more than 64 species of rats have evolved in the last 4000 years, correct? Also, there are about 36 or so other genera that are sometimes called rats, such as Lenothrix, Anonymomys and so forth. So you would also say that Noah took at least 30 different pairs of rats on board, not even getting into the mice, correct?

 

[Skwim]

just by looking at the two birds, I would say that they are a variety of seagull and therefore they are a variety within the same 'kind' (genus)
Biologists call them different species...but in terms of Genesis, they are actually a variety within one 'kind'

Even if "kind" = genus Noah would still be stuck with an incredible number of organisms to feed, water, and clean up after.

From a reply I once made elsewhere (I no longer have the sources of each number)

(XXX) = male + female

GENERA of

KNOWN EXTINCT ANIMALS:

DINOSAURS: 673 (1346)

MESOZIC LAND MAMMALS: 310 (620)
​

PRESENT DAY ORGANISMS:

LAND MAMMALS: 714 (1428)

REPTILES: 917 (1834)

AMPHIBIANS: 461 (922)

BIRDS: 2029 (4058)

TERRESTRIAL ARTHROPODS: 5,416 (10,832)

ANGIOSPERMS (flowering plants) 4,238 (5,297)

GYMNOSPERMS (none flowering plants) 80 (100)
​

Total number of individual organisms on the ark 26,437

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Total number of organisms on the ark 28,378

More than that, actually. Noah was instructed to bring seven pairs of animals for the "clean" kinds.

Going by Leviticus 11, "clean kinds" would include most even-toed ruminant ungulates; all fish with fins and scales; all birds except most raptors, herons, storks, the hoopoe, and the bat (!); and all locusts, katydids, crickets and grasshoppers, but not other winged creatures that "go on all fours"(!).

That would've been one crowded boat. Especially when we consider that the list of "clean" animals includes a lot of very large livestock.

However, I have to quibble with you on one point: Genesis 7 doesn't record Noah ever being told to bring any plants. Apparently, they all survived the flood on their own somehow.