Creationists, please provide evidence

[newhope101]

154 pages and only weak attaks on evolution.

and not one shred of evidence for creation, nothing, nada, zip!!!

I'd say it is fair to alledge that all your posts in a plethora of threads every day, all day, are of equal substance. Here's just a few examples of evidence for creation, below. It is about time you lodged some sort of refute. Here's a tip...don't use neaderthal again. He's one of the best examples of the mess your science, dating, genomic data, fossil physical representations, are that have proven invalid and are still in debate today...and he's not that old. The light looks seriously dim at the end of the evolutionry tunnel.

This is also evidence that illustrates that you are prepared to tell fibs and maintain ignorance because you are unable to refute. It must be frustrating outhouse. So you just keep mounting empty personal attacks against creationists. Is this the extent of your functionality?

I'm only responding to your opinion because I like to put up my points. So now and again I'll use your assertion of no evidence to remind me that you need reminding again..and up they'll go..

Here's some evidence for you to ignore...Again.

1. Mitochondrial Eve demonstrates all of mankind alive today are related to and descendant from a single female as told in the bible. This evidence supports creation and requires theoretical assumptions to provide support for toe.There is no evidence of cohorts other than by theoretical modelling.

2. Y chromosome Adam, demonstrates we are all related to and descendant from the one male, There is no evidence to suggest that there were cohorts other than theoretical modelling.

3. The Y chromosome in the human and chimpanzee males are remarkably and unexpectedly different to each other and comparable to a chicken and human at 310 million years of divergence.. Hence further proof that Chimps and humans are not related. Your attempts to explain why the Y chromosomes are so different is theoretical. The fact that they are very different supports chimps and humans being created individually.

4. An abundance of life is shown to arise during the Cambrian period. This is the evidence and this is proof of creation. Anything else apart from this evidence are hypothetical assumptions. Evolutionists attempts to assert ancestry to the Precambrian creation have failed. Researchers are unable to provide anything more than assumptions and hypothesis re oxygen levels and why such a plethora of life suddenly begins to appear at the one time. Many Precambrian creatures still exist today..

5. Mankind appears fully formed. This is evidence for creation. Researchers attempts to show ancestry through the fossil record to chimpanzees have failed. The constant debate and reclassification of fossil evidence along with proof that homo cranial features are not unique to the homo line, invalidate any attempt to prove ancestry through morphological similarity. Genomic information is reliant on fossil evidence to inform same and hence is not a reliable source of data. Evolutionary moves away from smooth transitions to staged evolution to resolve the fossil evidence have also failed. Your attempts to tie bipedal walking to brain increases have failed. Your attempts to tie humans to knuckle walkers have failed. Your attempts to classify bipedal walking as a move to humanness have failed.

6. The search for Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) has failed and no longer ties all life to a single LUCA. This supports creation. Your assumption in relation to horizontal gene transfer remain controversial and provide no substance other than assumptions and hypothesis as to why there is no LUCA. The fact is simply, there is no LUCA and that is evidence in favour of creation.

7. Researchers have now shown that the sharing of genes means little in the understanding of what makes humans special or other creatures unique. It is about gene expression and gene families. The fact that a human and a plant share genes is proof of common design, and not ancestry.

 

[newhope101]

Might you please define your definition of "empirical evidence" ?

Also the term " temporary scientific uncertainties"

I find the term "theoretical assumption" is quite self explanatory and in no way nonsensical. It simply means it's an assumption lacking factual evidence to back it up. One can never assume, it makes an *** out of u and me. Although to be precise, the use of the word "Theorectical" as a prefix to "assumption" is arguably, superfluous.

Agreed. I am amazed at some people's inability to separate fact from assumptions.

Wiki - Scientific Modelling, sums it up.

Modelling as a substitute for direct measurement and experimentation
Models are typically used when it is either impossible or impractical to create experimental conditions in which scientists can directly measure outcomes. Direct measurement of outcomes under controlled conditions (see Scientific Method) will always be more accurate than modelled estimates of outcomes. When predicting outcomes, models use assumptions, while measurements do not. However, it is important to note that in analyzing the data collected from measurements, assumptions are made albeit different to those made through the use of a model. As the number of assumptions in a model increases, the accuracy and relevance of the model will likely diminish.

These models use assumptions and insertion values that come from other models using assumptions and probabilities etc.

Yes, theory and assumption mean much the same and neither are facts nor evidence.

 

[Autodidact]

And for the umpteen time I ask you to explain HOW HOW HOW you reckon we evolved.

I'm sorry, I don't remember you asking me that. I would say we evolved from an extinct primate in the way described in ToE. Is there some controversy about that?

Your thousands of rearchers are still hypothesising. So you have no hope at all of explaining how we evolved, either.

Oh, that's not right. We're significantly beyond hypotheses. There are specifics that are agreed on, and other details we're not sure of yet.

As for my hypothesis AGAIN... God created kinds individually and all the evidence supports it. [/quote]

Read this carefully. You may get it:

HOW. HOW. HOW. NOT WHO, HOW.
What is a kind? How did God create it? What does that tell us about how we get the diversity of life on the planet? You have not stated a hypothesis at all.

Maybe we need to go back a little further and explain what science is and what it studies. Would that help?

 

[Autodidact]

Genes of the Chromosome 2 fusion site

Diagramatic representation of the location of the fusion site of chromosomes 2A and 2B and the genes inserted at this location.




The results of the chimpanzee genome project suggest that when ancestral chromosomes 2A and 2B fused to produce human chromosome 2, no genes were lost from the fused ends of 2A and 2B. At the site of fusion, there are approximately 150,000 base pairs of sequence not found in chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B. Additional linked copies of the PGML/FOXD/CBWD genes exist elsewhere in the human genome, particularly near the p end of chromosome 9. This suggests that a copy of these genes may have been added to the end of the ancestral 2A or 2B prior to the fusion event. It remains to be determined if these inserted genes confer a selective advantage.

• PGML. The phosphoglucomutase-like gene of human chromosome 2. This gene is incomplete and may not produce a functional transcript.[8]
• FOXD. The forkhead box D4-like gene is an example of an intronless gene. The function of this gene is not known, but it may code for a transcription control protein.
• CBWD. Cobalamin synthetase is a bacterial enzyme that makes vitamin B12. In the distant past, a common ancestor to mice and apes incorporated a copy of a cobalamin synthetase gene (see: Horizontal gene transfer). Humans are unusual in that they have several copies of cobalamin synthetase-like genes, including the one on chromosome 2. It remains to be determined what the function of these human cobalamin synthetase-like genes is. If these genes are involved in vitamin B12 metabolism, this could be relevant to human evolution. A major change in human development is greater post-natal brain growth than is observed in other apes. Vitamin B12 is important for brain development, and vitamin B12 deficiency during brain development results in severe neurological defects in human children.
• CXYorf1-like protein. Several transcripts of unknown function corresponding to this region have been isolated. This region is also present in the closely related chromosome 9p terminal region that contains copies of the PGML/FOXD/CBWD genes.
• Many ribosomal protein L23a pseudogenes are scattered through the human genome

If you cannot grasp what strong evidence this is for common human chimp ancestry, you may be beyond hope. Would you like me to explain it in simple terms that you can understand? I think I can do it. (Although if you still haven't grasped why you need a hypothesis, or what science studies, it may be difficult for you to understand.)

 

[idea]

... The light looks seriously dim at the end of the evolutionry tunnel..

what I find interesting about evolution, and I am surprised that I have not read anyone else noticing this rather obvious glaring fact - is that it only occurs in living organisms.

the structure of Iron, Copper, Quarts, etc. etc. has never and will never evolve. If evolution was a mere product of a misplaced atom here, of point defects, and line defects - these types of defects occur in inorganic materials just as often and as frequently as they occur in living beings - and yet in inanimate materials, no defect has ever led to an evolved structure.

Life is different - there is something more going on than atomic potentials and point defects - there is an intelligence behind it, a forced ordering of molecules that does not happen in inanimate compounds - life contains more than just matter and energy, it contains information, intelligence, conscience, spirit, call it what you will, but there is more than just matter, energy, and random mutations at play in that which is alive.

 

[Autodidact]

I see you are also unable to distinguish fact from the theoretical. There is a huge difference between science based in the here and now and trying to theorize on what went on millions of years ago.

It's all subject tot he scientific method.

All this you posted above and showing grand accomplishments in the here and now in no way justifies nor validates the use of probabilities and theoretical modelling to assume the past.

It's all the same method, and it's all empirical.

Also do not forget that there are many here that strongly believe in a God as well as Toe. How do you see these people?

As a lot more sensible than you.

Are they clever and functional because they have accepted toe over prior religious beliefs, but delusional also because they believe in a deity? So are they functional or delusional?

It's not for me to say. I agree with them about some things and disagree about others. The part we agree about is not really subject to dispute without rejecting the scientific method. The part we disagree about is outside the scope of science, and therefore more open to opinion.

Certainly I think anyone that believes in any sort of God has little basis to ridicule others that maintian the creation.

"Creation" is a very vague word. If you mean merely that God created all things, I hope you realize by now that is entirely consistent with ToE, right? Or do we need to go over that again. If by "creation" you mean ToE is false, then a ridiculous position like that is open to ridicule.

 

[Autodidact]

As I stated, using examples in the here and now does not validate theoretical assumptions. The difference being they can see their results without the same level of assumptions being made.

Wiki -Bacteria
Once regarded as plants constituting the Class Schizomycetes, bacteria are now classified as prokaryotes. Unlike cells of animals and other eukaryotes, bacterial cells do not contain a nucleus and rarely harbour membrane-boundorganelles. Although the term bacteria traditionally included all prokaryotes, the scientific classification changed after the discovery in the 1990s that prokaryotes consist of two very different groups of organisms that evolved independently from an ancient common ancestor. These evolutionary domains are called Bacteria and Archaea.[8]

Them there's Wiki -Prokaryotes

There is no consensus among biologists concerning the position of the eukaryotes in the overall scheme of cell evolution. Current opinions on the origin and position of eukaryotes span a broad spectrum including the views that eukaryotes arose first in evolution and that prokaryotes descend from them, that eukaryotes arose contemporaneously with eubacteria and archeabacteria and hence represent a primary line of descent of equal age and rank as the prokaryotes, that eukaryotes arose through a symbiotic event entailing an endosymbiotic origin of the nucleus, that eukaryotes arose without endosymbiosis, and that eukaryotes arose through a symbiotic event entailing a simultaneous endosymbiotic origin of the flagellum and the nucleus, in addition to many other models, which have been reviewed and summarized elsewhere.

So you see bacteria are just as debated and theorised about as everything else in Toe. Then of course there is horizontal gene tranfer and LUCA is dead.

Researchers are far from working out what evolved from whom, where, when, why and how. It is all still fairly well up for grabs by any researcher out to make a name for themselves.
​

Neat, isn't it? And each and every one of them agrees that ToE provides the explanation, the foundation for everything else we figure out.

 

[David M]

You have the MRCA of every human alive today set at 5,000ya.

Even if this claim were true it has no bearing on how long humans have been around.

You have the human version of FOXP2 dated to 5,000ya.

Source? Because Neandertals have the same alleles of the FOXP2 gene as homo sapiens and ours is almost identical to that of chimps.

This is when language and arts became apparent.

Art became apparent tens of thousands of years ago.

Then there's the flood.

Which definitely never happened due to all the evidence which exists that would be impossible if there was a global flood.

So this dating is supportive of a biblical creation.

No it isn't.

 

[idea]

NewHope - feel fre to ignore Auto (she tends to be a grumpy name-calling little one - she does it to everyone)

"Creation" is a very vague word.

You are right on that account though Auto. Many creationists have associated the word creation with the Nihilism concept - something from nothing. This is actually a mistranslation of the Bible - see:

God is not the Creator, claims academic

and see this:
[FONT=Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, Georgia]Pronunciation: "Qa-NeH"
Meaning: To build a nest.
Comments: This child root is a nest builder, one who builds a nest such as a bird. Also God as in Bereshiyt (Genesis) 14.19; "God most high creator (qaneh) of sky and earth". The English word "create" is an abstract word and a foriegn concept to the Hebrews. While we see God as one who makes something from nothing (create), the Hebrews saw God like a bird who goes about acquiring and gathering materials to build a nest (qen), the sky and earth. The Hebrews saw man as the children (eggs) that God built the nest for. [/FONT]
Hebrew Word Studies



When the scriptures say "create" what they are really saying is "transform"
God transforms things, here is the Lexicon on it too if you still don't believe me:

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
bara'
1) to create, shape, form
a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
1) of heaven and earth
2) of individual man
3) of new conditions and circumstances
4) of transformations
b) (Niphal) to be created
1) of heaven and earth
2) of birth
3) of something new
4) of miracles
c) (Piel)
1) to cut down
2) to cut out
2) to be fat
a) (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat


Create = shape, mold, transform.

 

[idea]

Neat, isn't it? And each and every one of them agrees that ToE provides the explanation, the foundation for everything else we figure out.

There is the issue of abiogenesis... biopoesis...
of where all the laws, matter, order and information came from in the first place...
the fine tuning of it all...

fine tuning - everyone says, well, it has to be something... the issue is that all of the values we have occur at a unique singularity -
gravity - a little too large or too small produces nothing but black holes, or dust - everything too small = the same thing, dust... everything too large = the same thing, black holes... ther is only one unique value in the infinite sea of values that produces something that can support life.... gravity is not the only one - there is the atomic force, the electromagnetic force, that amount of mass and energy in the universe etc. etc. etc. around 36 different constants that we know of so far that are all set to just the right value...

 

[Father Heathen]

what I find interesting about evolution, and I am surprised that I have not read anyone else noticing this rather obvious glaring fact - is that it only occurs in living organisms.

Because biology, genetics and procreation only apply to living organisms, dumdum. Things that aren't living to begin with cannot develop nor need survival traits. The willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty of creationists gets rather old and repetitive. Are they holding out that their opponents will someday suffer massive head trauma so they'll finally be able to sway them over to the creationist point of view?

 

[idea]

Because biology, genetics and procreation only apply to living organisms, dumdum. Things that aren't living to begin with cannot develop nor need survival traits.

you missed what I was saying... Why - why does evolution only apply to living organisms? What differentiates living organisms from non-living inanimate materials? Both are made up of the same stuff, just atoms and energy right? If it's all just atoms and energy, there should be no difference, everything should evolve.

some chunks of matter have something else though - something that makes them think, and act, and procreate.... there is something more than just matter and energy at play...

Just survival? quartz is still around, it has survived and will survive longer than any of us.

There is more to life than just survival - at least there is more to my life than just trying to survive...

Animate vs. inanimate objects... there is a force/power/intelligence which animates.

 

[Autodidact]

what I find interesting about evolution, and I am surprised that I have not read anyone else noticing this rather obvious glaring fact - is that it only occurs in living organisms.

the structure of Iron, Copper, Quarts, etc. etc. has never and will never evolve. If evolution was a mere product of a misplaced atom here, of point defects, and line defects - these types of defects occur in inorganic materials just as often and as frequently as they occur in living beings - and yet in inanimate materials, no defect has ever led to an evolved structure.

Life is different - there is something more going on than atomic potentials and point defects - there is an intelligence behind it, a forced ordering of molecules that does not happen in inanimate compounds - life contains more than just matter and energy, it contains information, intelligence, conscience, spirit, call it what you will, but there is more than just matter, energy, and random mutations at play in that which is alive.

I'm guessing you don't understand ToE, and why it is confined to living organisms, or, rather, to be more specific, to things that reproduce. Would you like one of us to explain it to you, or do you prefer to remain confused and ignorant?

 

[Autodidact]

Agreed. I am amazed at some people's inability to separate fact from assumptions.

Wiki - Scientific Modelling, sums it up.

Modelling as a substitute for direct measurement and experimentation
Models are typically used when it is either impossible or impractical to create experimental conditions in which scientists can directly measure outcomes. Direct measurement of outcomes under controlled conditions (see Scientific Method) will always be more accurate than modelled estimates of outcomes. When predicting outcomes, models use assumptions, while measurements do not. However, it is important to note that in analyzing the data collected from measurements, assumptions are made albeit different to those made through the use of a model. As the number of assumptions in a model increases, the accuracy and relevance of the model will likely diminish.

These models use assumptions and insertion values that come from other models using assumptions and probabilities etc.

Yes, theory and assumption mean much the same and neither are facts nor evidence.

Are you maybe confusing "model" with "theory?" Within science, they have different meanings.

 

[Autodidact]

There is the issue of abiogenesis... biopoesis...

Which has nothing to do with ToE.

of where all the laws, matter, order and information came from in the first place...

Which has nothing to do with ToE.

the fine tuning of it all...

Which has nothing to do with ToE.

fine tuning - everyone says, well, it has to be something... the issue is that all of the values we have occur at a unique singularity -
gravity - a little too large or too small produces nothing but black holes, or dust - everything too small = the same thing, dust... everything too large = the same thing, black holes... ther is only one unique value in the infinite sea of values that produces something that can support life.... gravity is not the only one - there is the atomic force, the electromagnetic force, that amount of mass and energy in the universe etc. etc. etc. around 36 different constants that we know of so far that are all set to just the right value...

Which has nothing to do with ToE.

Got anything to say about the subject of the thread?

 

[Autodidact]

you missed what I was saying... Why - why does evolution only apply to living organisms? What differentiates living organisms from non-living inanimate materials?

Reproduction, which is crucial to evolution.

 

[idea]

I'm guessing you don't understand ToE, and why it is confined to living organisms...

avoiding the point, as usual... the ToE (TOE is also used for Theory of Everything btw, so it might be better to actually spell it out - I keep having to correct myself each time I see it )...

anyways, the Toe is confined to living organisms because living organisms contain something more than non-living organisms - because living organisms are more than just matter and energy. That's the point, if it is all just matter and energy, everything would evolve. There is something more in what lives - many people call it a spirit.

 

[PolyHedral]

what I find interesting about evolution, and I am surprised that I have not read anyone else noticing this rather obvious glaring fact - is that it only occurs in living organisms.

It occurs to computer programs too.

 

[idea]

Reproduction, which is crucial to evolution.

still missing the point...

life contain more than just matter and energy, that is why it reproduces, wants to survive, thinks, acts....

when you can describe the physical substance which differentiates living and non-living entities..... you will have solved abiogenesis, and will have learned what life really is.

 

[idea]

It occurs to computer programs too.

Yes, our DNA is remarkably similar to a computer program, interesting isn't it? only I hear it is a 4 based system, rather than binary.

Computers contain more than just matter and energy - they contain information - we do to. where does that info come from? from a programmer of coarse...

We have something more than computers, we have agency, a free will, the ability to act of our own accord. So.... where does that come from?

sorry, it's been fun - have to run, read ya later!