Atomist
I love you.
... prove it? oh, btw Instinct - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationists, please provide evidence
- Thread starter evolved yet?
- Start date
Venatoris
Active Member
Awwww, that's so cute. You actually think that's a legitimate response. Where's your mommy little one? Does she know you're using the big scary computer?
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
Hi Empress,
I thought god was the creator within the mythology that jesus is a part of.
And could you please explain which miracles you are referring to?
-Q
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Right. Now all you have to do is:
1. Provide evidence that there was a Jesus.
2. Provide evidence that there is a Creator.
3. Provide evidence that Jesus is that Creator.
4. Provide evidence that there is such a thing as miracles.
5. Provide evidence for all of Jesus' miracles individually.
I'll eagerly await your paper.
Last edited:
evolved yet?
A Young Evolutionist
Really?
A universe which did not come from nothing, and had no net increase in something would be much more likely than an all powerful being coming from nothing.
I start with the premise that spirit does not exist, I know that Kenneth Miller a evolutionary biologist and a Christian says that although he believes in a god he can not test the existence of god or spirit, no one can.
Well you can start by educating us on the two following questions:
I will try to help you by explaining my thoughts on the matter and show evidence for my views.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Do you know what we mean by the word "evidence?" That's what this thread is about.
newhope101
Active Member
Empress..I think evolutionists believe in miracles also..but they have hypothesis to explain it all.
The evidence for creation has already been established in the scientific community. One only needs to separate fact from hypothesis to observe it. The topic is huge and a post cannot do the topic justice. So I’ll take on a couple of little points. Y chromosome Adam and mitochondrial Eve have already proven the creation of mankind.
Genetic computations involve an incredible amount of guesstemating. You are likely aware of the info pasted below. The articles use different substitution rates and have dated Eve to 6,500 years. The same is possible with Y chromosome Adam. Much the same is possible with any dating methods. I can show many instances of other dating methods having been shown to be faulty. The creation story is easier to swallow than the myth scientists have invented to explain their Adam and Eve.
So basically a reply speaking to human migrations or quoting dated objects or species is void. As is speaking to fossils where scientists can't tell the difference between one example of a non human primate or another. eg Homo florensisensis, but I can quote many others.
About ERRORS:
Checking one method's results against another has traditionally been scientists' way of keeping their methods honest. In 1990, the New York Times published an article revealing that Columbia University researchers using the uranium-thorium dating method to confirm radiocarbon dating had found huge discrepancies between the radiocarbon dates and the uranium-thorium dates, calling into question the validity of radiocarbon dating. More recently, a group of Christian scientists tested substances thought to be millions of years old, like coal and diamonds, only to find traces of radiocarbon, which would make them much younger according to the radiocarbon method.
Mankind was created in Gods image as opposed to the rest of the creation. Genes are the blueprint for life and this is why all life shares so many genes. God controls the expression. For example, when God created the first flowers he gave them plenty of room for diversity, as part of an ecological system, for beauty, to please mankind. Two groups, superrosids & superasterids that used their genetic diversity to become over 200,000 so called ‘species’, which are still flowers, of course.
Genetics show common ancestory in all living organisms that trace back to an individual. That's the fact. The hypothesis is that all living organisms go back to an individual organism that split off a tree of common decent. A truly miraculous supposition.
Besides, your science alleges multiple homo species co existing at the one time for millions of years. Strangely, the primitive races we have found in written history are all perfectly human, they just don’t have washing machines. A shame bigfoot was a fraud.
Now to look at the other end of the creation. Sponges and other cnidarians have nerve cells, microRNA’s that fine tune gene expression have been around for a billion years. Trichoplax, one of natures most primitive multicellular organisms shares over 80% of its genes with humans. Intelligent design is obvious in all life. Life was created with much more than was necessary to live, reproduce and adapt. Rather genetic studies are illustrating Gods signature throughout the creation.
So in conclusion science has already proven the creation. Perhaps scientists are just too intoxicated with ToE to see it.
Below a little info on how easy it is to manipulate dating methods results.
A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region (8):
The rate and pattern of sequence substitutions in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region (CR) is of central importance to studies of human evolution and to forensic identity testing. Here, we report direct measurement of the intergenerational substitution rate in the human CR. We compared DNA sequences of two CR hypervariable segments from close maternal relatives, from 134 independent mtDNA lineages spanning 327 generational events. Ten substitutions were observed, resulting in an empirical rate of 1/33 generations, or 2.5/site/Myr. This is roughly twenty-fold higher than estimates derived from phylogenetic analyses. This disparity cannot be accounted for simply by substitutions at mutational hot spots, suggesting additional factors that produce the discrepancy between very near-term and long-term apparent rates of sequence divergence. The data also indicate that extremely rapid segregation of CR sequence variants between generations is common in humans, with a very small mtDNA bottleneck. These results have implications for forensic applications and studies of human evolution...
....The observed substitution rate reported here is very high compared to rates inferred from evolutionary studies. A wide range of CR substitution rates have been derived from phylogenetic studies, spanning roughly 0.025-0.26/site/Myr, including confidence intervals. A study yielding one of the faster estimates gave the substitution rate of the CR hypervariable regions as 0.118 +- 0.031/site/Myr. Assuming a generation time of 20 years, this corresponds to ~1/600 generations and an age for the mtDNA MRCA of 133,000 y.a. Thus, our observation of the substitution rate, 2.5/site/Myr, is roughly 20-fold higher than would be predicted from phylogenetic analyses. Using our empirical rate to calibrate the mtDNA molecular clock would result in an age of the mtDNA MRCA of only ~6,500 y.a., clearly incompatible with the known age of modern humans.'
'The rate and pattern of sequence substitutions in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region (CR) is of central importance to studies of human evolution and to forensic identity testing. Here, we report direct measurement of the intergenerational substitution rate in the human CR. We compared DNA sequences of two CR hypervariable segments from close maternal relatives, from 134 independent mtDNA lineages spanning 327 generational events. Ten substitutions were observed, resulting in an empirical rate of 1/33 generations, or 2.5/site/Myr. This is roughly twenty-fold higher than estimates derived from phylogenetic analyses. This disparity cannot be accounted for simply by substitutions at mutational hot spots, suggesting additional factors that produce the discrepancy between very near-term and long-term apparent rates of sequence divergence. The data also indicate that extremely rapid segregation of CR sequence variants between generations is common in humans, with a very small mtDNA bottleneck. These results have implications for forensic applications and studies of human evolution...
The evidence for creation has already been established in the scientific community. One only needs to separate fact from hypothesis to observe it. The topic is huge and a post cannot do the topic justice. So I’ll take on a couple of little points. Y chromosome Adam and mitochondrial Eve have already proven the creation of mankind.
Genetic computations involve an incredible amount of guesstemating. You are likely aware of the info pasted below. The articles use different substitution rates and have dated Eve to 6,500 years. The same is possible with Y chromosome Adam. Much the same is possible with any dating methods. I can show many instances of other dating methods having been shown to be faulty. The creation story is easier to swallow than the myth scientists have invented to explain their Adam and Eve.
So basically a reply speaking to human migrations or quoting dated objects or species is void. As is speaking to fossils where scientists can't tell the difference between one example of a non human primate or another. eg Homo florensisensis, but I can quote many others.
About ERRORS:
Checking one method's results against another has traditionally been scientists' way of keeping their methods honest. In 1990, the New York Times published an article revealing that Columbia University researchers using the uranium-thorium dating method to confirm radiocarbon dating had found huge discrepancies between the radiocarbon dates and the uranium-thorium dates, calling into question the validity of radiocarbon dating. More recently, a group of Christian scientists tested substances thought to be millions of years old, like coal and diamonds, only to find traces of radiocarbon, which would make them much younger according to the radiocarbon method.
Mankind was created in Gods image as opposed to the rest of the creation. Genes are the blueprint for life and this is why all life shares so many genes. God controls the expression. For example, when God created the first flowers he gave them plenty of room for diversity, as part of an ecological system, for beauty, to please mankind. Two groups, superrosids & superasterids that used their genetic diversity to become over 200,000 so called ‘species’, which are still flowers, of course.
Genetics show common ancestory in all living organisms that trace back to an individual. That's the fact. The hypothesis is that all living organisms go back to an individual organism that split off a tree of common decent. A truly miraculous supposition.
Besides, your science alleges multiple homo species co existing at the one time for millions of years. Strangely, the primitive races we have found in written history are all perfectly human, they just don’t have washing machines. A shame bigfoot was a fraud.
Now to look at the other end of the creation. Sponges and other cnidarians have nerve cells, microRNA’s that fine tune gene expression have been around for a billion years. Trichoplax, one of natures most primitive multicellular organisms shares over 80% of its genes with humans. Intelligent design is obvious in all life. Life was created with much more than was necessary to live, reproduce and adapt. Rather genetic studies are illustrating Gods signature throughout the creation.
So in conclusion science has already proven the creation. Perhaps scientists are just too intoxicated with ToE to see it.
Below a little info on how easy it is to manipulate dating methods results.
A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region (8):
The rate and pattern of sequence substitutions in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region (CR) is of central importance to studies of human evolution and to forensic identity testing. Here, we report direct measurement of the intergenerational substitution rate in the human CR. We compared DNA sequences of two CR hypervariable segments from close maternal relatives, from 134 independent mtDNA lineages spanning 327 generational events. Ten substitutions were observed, resulting in an empirical rate of 1/33 generations, or 2.5/site/Myr. This is roughly twenty-fold higher than estimates derived from phylogenetic analyses. This disparity cannot be accounted for simply by substitutions at mutational hot spots, suggesting additional factors that produce the discrepancy between very near-term and long-term apparent rates of sequence divergence. The data also indicate that extremely rapid segregation of CR sequence variants between generations is common in humans, with a very small mtDNA bottleneck. These results have implications for forensic applications and studies of human evolution...
....The observed substitution rate reported here is very high compared to rates inferred from evolutionary studies. A wide range of CR substitution rates have been derived from phylogenetic studies, spanning roughly 0.025-0.26/site/Myr, including confidence intervals. A study yielding one of the faster estimates gave the substitution rate of the CR hypervariable regions as 0.118 +- 0.031/site/Myr. Assuming a generation time of 20 years, this corresponds to ~1/600 generations and an age for the mtDNA MRCA of 133,000 y.a. Thus, our observation of the substitution rate, 2.5/site/Myr, is roughly 20-fold higher than would be predicted from phylogenetic analyses. Using our empirical rate to calibrate the mtDNA molecular clock would result in an age of the mtDNA MRCA of only ~6,500 y.a., clearly incompatible with the known age of modern humans.'
'The rate and pattern of sequence substitutions in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region (CR) is of central importance to studies of human evolution and to forensic identity testing. Here, we report direct measurement of the intergenerational substitution rate in the human CR. We compared DNA sequences of two CR hypervariable segments from close maternal relatives, from 134 independent mtDNA lineages spanning 327 generational events. Ten substitutions were observed, resulting in an empirical rate of 1/33 generations, or 2.5/site/Myr. This is roughly twenty-fold higher than estimates derived from phylogenetic analyses. This disparity cannot be accounted for simply by substitutions at mutational hot spots, suggesting additional factors that produce the discrepancy between very near-term and long-term apparent rates of sequence divergence. The data also indicate that extremely rapid segregation of CR sequence variants between generations is common in humans, with a very small mtDNA bottleneck. These results have implications for forensic applications and studies of human evolution...
Last edited:
evolved yet?
A Young Evolutionist
Y adam and mitochondria eve would have lived in completely different times by thousands of years, the common ancestry of all humans to a couple individuals is not proof of creation, it could of happened on an evolutionary model, besides there could of been another woman who gave birth to sons that lived beside M eve's children, that woman would leave no trace on the mitochondria genes of our species.
evolved yet?
A Young Evolutionist
That must have been a mistake, 200000 to 6500 is a large difference.
Here is an example of dating methods agreeing in the same place:
The oldest rocks exposed on the surface of the earth are 3.5 to 3.8 billion years in age. Consider the various dating methods applied to the Greenland Amitsoq Gneiss:
Rb-Sr isochron 3.70 +- 0.14 billion years
Pb-Pb isochron 3.80 +- 0.12 billion years
U-Pb discordia 3.65 +- 0.05 billion years
Th-Pb discordia 3.65 +- 0.08 billion years
Lu-Hf isochron 3.55 +- 0.22 billion years
All of the methods agree (3.68-3.70 is within all of their ranges of error). Isochron and discordia methods also have an internal check which identifies undateable samples. Similar formations which give similar ages can be found as well in Everywhere. This date therefore gives some confidence.
I suppose he made Malaria to please us too?
Isn't this agreeing with the theory of evolution.
You are only counting since the beginning of civilization, farther back many homo species existed at once none have co-existed with humans in 30000 years.
Give a way to falsify design, a way to prove it and an example.
You are most definitely not agnostic.
Not to mention that Y Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve weren't the only ones that lived at their time. They are just the earliest common ancestor of all humans for y chromosomes and mDNA, respectively. There were plenty of humans alive at the time of Y-adam and M-eve.
I invite people to think about it like cones: if you put a "V" shape on a page and imagine "up" as forward in time and towards the bottom as backwards in time, and where the lines meet at a point at the bottom of the "V" as mitochondrial eve, and everything between the V are descendents of m-eve, then it's a true statement that all modern humans fall within the V.
However at the time of m-eve, she wasn't the only woman in existence... there were people on either side of the V (not-descendents of m-eve), even as you move "up" there were humans outside of the V, though clearly not as successful because ultimately the only humans left turned out to be descendents of m-eve.
I guess it would be easier if I could actually construct the graph, but suffice to say, the existence of m-eve and y-adam don't support creationism or populations coming from 2 people whatsoever.
newhope101
Active Member
QUOTE EvolvedYet "You are only counting since the beginning of civilization, farther back many homo species existed at once none have co-existed with humans in 30000 years."
I have said that dating methods can be biased. How can scientists accurately know population size at any given time? Rather poplation guesses are made to suit. It is guess work that all dating is based on so obviously it is possible to arrive at same dates. It means little. I have posted examples of where it has gone wrong. This has implicaions for validity. Perhaps the method, may be able to ascertian one specimen is older than another. That's about it I reckon. What's so special about the last 30,000 years? Why did all other previously co existing Homo species all turn into modern humans. There should be niches where the evolution rate was not so progressive resulting in homo species still evolving into humanity. This is not observed.
Quote: Give a way to falsify design, a way to prove it and an example.
I don't understand what you're asking for. Why would a sponge/porifera require any nerve type cells? It's an evolutionary dead end. God created all form of life based on the same design. This is not unusual. Artists, archetects etc have similarities in their creations also. Genes did not evolve. They were there from the moment of creation. God could then use his design to express the various traits resulting in diversity within kinds. It's really not that hard to understand.
Quote: Even Homo florensis have been found to be contempory with modern humans
Y adam and mitochondria eve would have lived in completely different times by thousands of years, the common ancestry of all humans to a couple individuals is not proof of creation, it could of happened on an evolutionary model, besides there could of been another woman who gave birth to sons that lived beside M eve's children, that woman would leave no trace on the mitochondria genes of our species.
..and of course the myth states that there were other women with mtEve and every single other one of Eve's female counterparts of the time went on to have offspring that ended in males or no children. The same for Y chomo Adam. ALL of his male counterparts of the time went on to have only female children or no children. If you believe this I do not see why creation should strike you as so absurd.
Quote: Isn't this agreeing with the theory of evolution.
Yes the hypothesis agrees with evolution but the facts do not. The creation occured with that first organism of its kind. The split from the tree of life is the assumption/hypothesis. One or some flowers were created as flowers and diversified. They did not split from anything. This is a hypthesis. What scientists should be looking for is how many flowers were initially created by God that then went onto diversify.
Re my agnosticism....I am also a forensic linguistic researcher that takes delight in truly seeing you through words. I don't think anyone cares what belief I adhere to, nor should you.
I have said that dating methods can be biased. How can scientists accurately know population size at any given time? Rather poplation guesses are made to suit. It is guess work that all dating is based on so obviously it is possible to arrive at same dates. It means little. I have posted examples of where it has gone wrong. This has implicaions for validity. Perhaps the method, may be able to ascertian one specimen is older than another. That's about it I reckon. What's so special about the last 30,000 years? Why did all other previously co existing Homo species all turn into modern humans. There should be niches where the evolution rate was not so progressive resulting in homo species still evolving into humanity. This is not observed.
Quote: Give a way to falsify design, a way to prove it and an example.
I don't understand what you're asking for. Why would a sponge/porifera require any nerve type cells? It's an evolutionary dead end. God created all form of life based on the same design. This is not unusual. Artists, archetects etc have similarities in their creations also. Genes did not evolve. They were there from the moment of creation. God could then use his design to express the various traits resulting in diversity within kinds. It's really not that hard to understand.
Quote: Even Homo florensis have been found to be contempory with modern humans
Y adam and mitochondria eve would have lived in completely different times by thousands of years, the common ancestry of all humans to a couple individuals is not proof of creation, it could of happened on an evolutionary model, besides there could of been another woman who gave birth to sons that lived beside M eve's children, that woman would leave no trace on the mitochondria genes of our species.
..and of course the myth states that there were other women with mtEve and every single other one of Eve's female counterparts of the time went on to have offspring that ended in males or no children. The same for Y chomo Adam. ALL of his male counterparts of the time went on to have only female children or no children. If you believe this I do not see why creation should strike you as so absurd.
Quote: Isn't this agreeing with the theory of evolution.
Yes the hypothesis agrees with evolution but the facts do not. The creation occured with that first organism of its kind. The split from the tree of life is the assumption/hypothesis. One or some flowers were created as flowers and diversified. They did not split from anything. This is a hypthesis. What scientists should be looking for is how many flowers were initially created by God that then went onto diversify.
Re my agnosticism....I am also a forensic linguistic researcher that takes delight in truly seeing you through words. I don't think anyone cares what belief I adhere to, nor should you.
Last edited:
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
You realize that that isn't an argument, right? Evolution isn't heading towards any goal.
...No. It implies that mtEve's peer's descendants did not survive the 60,000 year gap between their lifetimes and our genetics research. This is entirely reasonable, surely?
evolved yet?
A Young Evolutionist
They also might of had children who had children who had children, as long as all the other children eventually died or have not been sequenced yet.
evolved yet?
A Young Evolutionist
Actually 200000 years, see What, if anything, is a Mitochondrial Eve?
evolved yet?
A Young Evolutionist
I have a vague interest in historical linguistics, but I guess that is not a really the same as what you do.
newhope101
Active Member
Quote Polyhedral:...No. It implies that mtEve's peer's descendants did not survive the 60,000 year gap between their lifetimes and our genetics research. This is entirely reasonable, surely?
Reasonable or mythical. In a small population, over time, it is highly likely that one type of mito will become most prevalent. Note 'highly likely' is not science. Besides this research is either proposed as evidence of deep lineage in human ancestry or it does not. You can't use it both ways.
Not so long ago mtEve and YAdam shared evo time. Conveniently Adam has been redated to around 65,000ya. Eve went from 170,000 to 200,000ya.This kind of thing just supports my assertion that dates are manipulated to suit.
The tale of mtEve & YAdam:
To understand why, consider four couples, each of which has two children. Remember that mitochondria are passed from the mother to each child. One couple has two boys. Each boy inherits the mother's mitochondria, but neither passes them on to his children. The mother's mitochondrial type thus becomes extinct in one generation. Two of the couples have a boy and a girl, while the fourth has two girls. These four daughters go on to have children of their own, each with the same distribution according to sex. Whenever a family has only boys, a mitochondrial type becomes extinct. Any time a family has only girls, the mitochondrial type handed down from the mother becomes more common in the next generation. In a small population, over time, it is highly likely that one type will become most prevalent, ultimately becoming the one type found in all the members of the population. Looking back, we would give the name "Eve" to the original mother of that line of mitochondrial genetic inheritance.
A similar phenomenon occurs with the Y chromosome, for exactly the same reasons: Any family with only girls extinguishes that Y chromosome type. The "Y chromosome Adam" lived 60,000 to 150,000 years ago. There is no reason to expect that "Y chromosome Adam" would know "mitochondrial Eve"; indeed, even without the dates to make it impossible, it would be a remarkable coincidence if they had.
This myth occured for males and females, are remarkable coincidence that is based on what may or may not be 'highly likely'. This is just not good science. It sounds like the social sciences.
Toe is so riddled with likely, highly likely, perhaps, probably and maybe. It's throughout the research in every area. If scientists would just try to 'prove' creation, I think it would be easier and a lot less complicated.
Reasonable or mythical. In a small population, over time, it is highly likely that one type of mito will become most prevalent. Note 'highly likely' is not science. Besides this research is either proposed as evidence of deep lineage in human ancestry or it does not. You can't use it both ways.
Not so long ago mtEve and YAdam shared evo time. Conveniently Adam has been redated to around 65,000ya. Eve went from 170,000 to 200,000ya.This kind of thing just supports my assertion that dates are manipulated to suit.
The tale of mtEve & YAdam:
To understand why, consider four couples, each of which has two children. Remember that mitochondria are passed from the mother to each child. One couple has two boys. Each boy inherits the mother's mitochondria, but neither passes them on to his children. The mother's mitochondrial type thus becomes extinct in one generation. Two of the couples have a boy and a girl, while the fourth has two girls. These four daughters go on to have children of their own, each with the same distribution according to sex. Whenever a family has only boys, a mitochondrial type becomes extinct. Any time a family has only girls, the mitochondrial type handed down from the mother becomes more common in the next generation. In a small population, over time, it is highly likely that one type will become most prevalent, ultimately becoming the one type found in all the members of the population. Looking back, we would give the name "Eve" to the original mother of that line of mitochondrial genetic inheritance.
A similar phenomenon occurs with the Y chromosome, for exactly the same reasons: Any family with only girls extinguishes that Y chromosome type. The "Y chromosome Adam" lived 60,000 to 150,000 years ago. There is no reason to expect that "Y chromosome Adam" would know "mitochondrial Eve"; indeed, even without the dates to make it impossible, it would be a remarkable coincidence if they had.
This myth occured for males and females, are remarkable coincidence that is based on what may or may not be 'highly likely'. This is just not good science. It sounds like the social sciences.
Toe is so riddled with likely, highly likely, perhaps, probably and maybe. It's throughout the research in every area. If scientists would just try to 'prove' creation, I think it would be easier and a lot less complicated.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Yes you did.
non sequitur
You intentionally misquoted him in the vain effort to support your beliefs.
Thus the reason you intentionally left out the part that goes into that.
Unsubstantiated claim by a blatantly dishonest person.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Creation is nothing more than a bald assertion with no empirical evidence to support it.
Thus the reason that creationists spend their time trying in vain to prove ToE false.
Sad really, that creationists do not understand that proving ToE false does not a damn thing for helping support creationism.
But ya'll are extremely funny to listen to.