Creationists, please provide evidence

[newhope101]

Well, for the millionth time, if you can't state what your hypothesis is, you can't begin to determine what might or might not be evidence for it. I don't think any of our friends have stated a hypothesis yet (at 166) pages so we are no closer in our challenging hunt for evidence.

YOU HAVEN'T STATED YOUR HYPOTHESIS YET EITHER.
God only knows how many you have to choose from. Can't you pick one from the multitude to present to us. I'll bet you can't. Do you now why? because Toe is so convoluted and full of inconsistencies that you will require more than 10,000 words to explain just one of them.

About the only stable hypothesis evolutionists have is that all life evolved from something else, somewhere, somehow, maybe for a reason. Well creationists can equal that...
God created all life......
That is as good a hypothesis as any evolutionist can put up.

 

[newhope101]

1. Would you stop rudely telling our esteemed community members to "go away." It's not your forum, and you don't have the right to tell anyone to go anywhere.

2. You have just destroyed any hope of having a shred of credibility. Like most creationists, you are either ignorant or dishonest.

Here is a basic schema of biological taxonomy:

As you can see, within Biology (which is, of course, what we are talking about), family and species are quite different; they are separated by a full taxonomic rank.

If you are interested in learning more about any of this, just ask. Or, if you prefer, you may remain ignorant; it's up to you. My guess is that you will choose the latter.

I hope you are making a bad joke, and not a racist to boot.

OMG I can't believe you put this rubbish up. Name a taxon above that is not vague, disputed and full of inconsistency and I'll show you ..you are wrong. Wait ..that may be a little too hard for you..I'll make it easy. Pick anything you like and I'll show you the inconsistency.


Current tree of life showing horizontal gene transfers.,,and I've already posted all about your precambrain shamozzal.

 

[Father Heathen]

I guess it was all nothing but the ol' castin' of a jebus spell after all.

 

[newhope101]

Isnt that the idea? How can you believe something if there is no fact for it?

Do you believe in fairies, or werewolves? No, cause there are no facts that they exist.

There aren't any facts that support evolution either but that has not stopped you from having faith.

 

[outhouse]

There aren't any facts that support evolution either but that has not stopped you from having faith.

you lie, in my opinion

we have shown you the facts over and over and over again


let me remind you this thread is about providing evidence for creation

trying to trash evolution with myths is not evidence for creation.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

There aren't any facts that support evolution either but that has not stopped you from having faith.

The Phylogenetic Tree
Human Chromosome #2
Pseudogenes
Atavisms
Fossils
Homology
Endogenous Retroviruses
Embryology
Vestigial Organs
Vestigial Behaviors
Species Distribution

among other things....

However, this is a thread about the evidence for creation. If you want to discuss evolution, start a new thread.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

God created all life......
That is as good a hypothesis as any evolutionist can put up.

Great, now how do we go about testing this "hypothesis"?

What evidence can you present that a god created?

 

[Father Heathen]

There aren't any facts that support evolution either but that has not stopped you from having faith.

If you believe science is a lie, then what are you doing sitting at a computer of all things? The insurmountable mountain of evidence and data that supports the theory of evolution is undeniable. It's sad to see people grasping for straws in futile desperation and clinging to outmoded mythology in self-deceit.

 

[outhouse]

its funny since her thread got whacked shes been trolling

jut like creationist jaw's dun dun ,,dun dun,,, dun dun dun dun dun

 

[newhope101]

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.
​

Thus far this above and a challenge re Chromosome 2 have been the only decent challenges the few days I've been on this thread.

The quote above demonstrates these researchers have no clue about even the very beginnings of life, let alone what evolved from what, where, when, why or how.

Chromosome 2 evidence was refuted with ...the all so identical fussion actually has "approximately 150,000 base pairs of sequence not found in chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B"..and of course there are a plethora of hypothesis to explain what happened......

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.

Have any of you got anything intelligent to put up as a refute? Any shmook can hand out insults.

 

[outhouse]

its funny since her thread got whacked shes been trolling

jut like creationist jaw's dun dun ,,dun dun,,, dun dun dun dun dun

LOOK MA

THERE SHE GOES BEATIN ON EVOLUTION AGAIN, evolution was just minding its own buisiness and she went over when evolution wasnt looking and clubbed him!!!

DANG EVOLUTION DIDNT EVEN FLINTCH

 

[McBell]

Great, now how do we go about testing this "hypothesis"?

What evidence can you present that a god created?

Seems to me that they would have to start by showing that god actually exists.

THEN they can start showing how god did this or that.....

 

[strikeviperMKII]

So, 150,000 base pairs of 2A & 2B were not found in the chimp at the site of fusion, yet we are lead to believe they were soooooo identical. What you do know is, non human primates do not have human chromosome 2, or the human variant of FoxP2 either. Sharing what apears to be similar genes means little. How this came to be is based on theoretical assumptions in the face of no other evolutionary explanation.

Maybe I've misunderstood your post, but if 150000 base pairs are not existent or different between chimps and humans in one chromosome with 240000000 base pairs that's a .6% difference. I'd say that's pretty damn identical...

 

[strikeviperMKII]

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? 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?

They are people that understand God doesn't have to have created the world in order to be God. In fact, he doesn't have to have created anything to be God.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

There is plenty of evidence for creation. I reckon the basis for toe is 99% theoretical assumptions and 1% evidence. The 99% of theoretical assumptions are what supports Toe and why it appears you have so much 'evidence'. The 1% of actual evidence is all in favour of the creation and that's all that creationists need. We need evidence and not assumptions. Perhaps that makes creationsists more scientific than evolutionists in a way.

I think the debate is not that evolution happened, but how it happened.

And you think the 'poof' theory is actually scientific? Please. Don't kid yourself. 'Poof' God, then 'poof' universe is not a valid theory. Unless you can explain all of the things evolution can't AND all of the things it can (with a 'poof' approach, of course), then you have nothing.

 

[David M]

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...

Apart from the value of the weak nuclear force which can be reduced or eliminated and other values of the 3 main forces produce exactly the same universe we see today? The fine tuning argument is dead as there is not one unique set of values that can produce our universe.

Adaption within a species is observed tested and proven Fact, which nobody would deny. So this is "Evolution" Fact. Because of this, innocent students have been duped in to believing adaption from one species into another must also be fact. But it has NEVER been observed and tested.

Adaption from one species to another is a tested and proven fact.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060616135623.htm

A new species that does not breed with the parent species, observed in the wild and replicated in the lab.

 

[Tristesse]

YOU HAVEN'T STATED YOUR HYPOTHESIS YET EITHER.
God only knows how many you have to choose from. Can't you pick one from the multitude to present to us. I'll bet you can't. Do you now why? because Toe is so convoluted and full of inconsistencies that you will require more than 10,000 words to explain just one of them.

About the only stable hypothesis evolutionists have is that all life evolved from something else, somewhere, somehow, maybe for a reason. Well creationists can equal that...
God created all life......
That is as good a hypothesis as any evolutionist can put up.

Ok, thats not what this thread is about. It's about the evidence FOR creationism. Evolution shouldn't even be a topic of discussion.

 

[Tristesse]

There aren't any facts that support evolution either but that has not stopped you from having faith.

Change in inherited traits of a population over time doesn't happen? Do you believe everything is in a form of stasis?

 

[Tristesse]

Thus far this above and a challenge re Chromosome 2 have been the only decent challenges the few days I've been on this thread.

The quote above demonstrates these researchers have no clue about even the very beginnings of life, let alone what evolved from what, where, when, why or how.

Chromosome 2 evidence was refuted with ...the all so identical fussion actually has "approximately 150,000 base pairs of sequence not found in chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B"..and of course there are a plethora of hypothesis to explain what happened......

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.

Have any of you got anything intelligent to put up as a refute? Any shmook can hand out insults.

Again newhope, EVIDENCE FOR CREATIONISM! Creationism doesn't win by default if evolution is not correct. You still have to provide your own evidence.

 

[Autodidact]

On another thread I saw in here had you all whinning about no creationist joining the thread, and you treated that as proof that you where all right. Again, the absence of fact seems to be accepted as truth among you.

I see. So there is evidence, but for some reason creationists don't want to produce it? Why not?