Creationists, please provide evidence

[Autodidact]

YOU HAVEN'T STATED YOUR HYPOTHESIS YET EITHER.

Why would I? That's not what this thread is about. This thread is about your hypothesis. Do you have one?

God created all life

Why do I have to say the same things over and over to you? Are you hard of understanding? As I have explained repeatedly:
(1) This hypothesis is completely consistent with ToE. That's because ToE, like all of science, isn't about WHO did something, it's about HOW. If God exists, ToE explains HOW He created all life.
(2) Therefore, the question is:
HOW. HOW. HOW. NOT WHO, HOW.

I have probably typed this simple phrase at least 100 times, many of them in this very thread. Why do you think you cannot grasp it? Or is it that you disagree, and believe that science is about who?

 

[Autodidact]

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.

That's not the point. The point is that these words have definitions, and a family is not the same as a genus.

You may call it garbage, but it's basic Biology--the words we use to mean certain things. If you want to take on all of Biology, go for it.

Meanwhile, our friend bereanz is simply wrong to say a species is the same as a family. It isn't.

I think it's the height of arrogance to call something garbage when you have spent no time even trying to understand it, let alone devoted years of your life to advancing it. IMO Biology is doing a rather good job of helping us understand our world.

 

[Autodidact]

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

I'm sure you're right, and all of Biology is simply insane.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Yes. What is your hypothesis? Remember, not WHO, but HOW. And not abiogenesis, but diversity of species. Thanks.

 

[micrurus]

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.

waaaw, you just took this to a new level. you proved not onley your ignorance for ToE but for Biology in general.

Show me the inconsistency within the genus Thamnophis please.

Im sure that can find one and you might accidently learn something when your looking for it.

 

[Autodidact]

It's not that complicated, creationists, here's how it goes:

Set forth an idea for HOW you think we get the diversity of species on earth. Be specific.

Then tell us what the evidence is that supports that hypothesis.

If you cannot do this, then you don't have a scientific leg to stand on. Which is is fine. You reject science, and prefer myth. That's your perfect right. Just don't lie and call it science.

Any time now.

 

[outhouse]

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

i cant believe we havnt had one of those utterly stupid post like

"faith" is all I need, thats all the evidence I will ever need

 

[dallas1125]

i cant believe we havnt had one of those utterly stupid post like

"faith" is all I need, thats all the evidence I will ever need

Just give it time...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It's not that complicated, creationists, here's how it goes:

Set forth an idea for HOW you think we get the diversity of species on earth. Be specific.

Then tell us what the evidence is that supports that hypothesis.

If you cannot do this, then you don't have a scientific leg to stand on. Which is is fine. You reject science, and prefer myth. That's your perfect right. Just don't lie and call it science.

Any time now.

Right, This is sort of what I've been asking and definitely want to know what they have to say.

 

[Autodidact]

 

[The_Evelyonian]

 

[newhope101]

That's not the point. The point is that these words have definitions, and a family is not the same as a genus.

You may call it garbage, but it's basic Biology--the words we use to mean certain things. If you want to take on all of Biology, go for it.

Meanwhile, our friend bereanz is simply wrong to say a species is the same as a family. It isn't.

I think it's the height of arrogance to call something garbage when you have spent no time even trying to understand it, let alone devoted years of your life to advancing it. IMO Biology is doing a rather good job of helping us understand our world.

Auto I am afraid you may fit the description of being a hypocrite. You have demmanded a hypothesis yet despite repeated requests you have not shown us your ability to articulate any hypothesis in relation to evolution. Neither will you be able to provide the audience with any reflections of HOW HOW HOW, because your best researchers still do not have the answers only debated theories.

Taking cheap shots is getting you nowhere. I actually know more than you about this science of yours and I have no related quals. You are in no way on top of recent research and your thread commentary supports this allegation.

Please note you have not taken up the chllenge to provide any taxon or any other tennant of evolutionary science that is not debated nor connected to inconsistencies. There are none.

The sad fact is what little evidence there is that can actually be called evidence is supportive of the creation. All your modelling, despite its' bias, has indicated every species alive today is decendant from a common ancestor. This supports creation, whether or not you like it. Evolutionists theorize cohorts, yet do not see anything to rationaize this assertion and that is a fact whether or not you like it.

Despite the constant evolutionary prattle about the genetic similarities what you are finding, in RECENT research is that our similar genes are not similar at all. The Y chromosome and FOXP2 are examples of this. In fact something like 30% of the chimp genome does not align with human DNA. Further to that the Y chromosome is strikingly different not only between chimps and humans but also neanderthal who also has the human version of the FOXP2. The Y chromosome in chimp and human is comparable to 310 millions years of divergence, not 5-8my. This is your own evolutionary scientific research. I have not had to make this up nor misrepresenting the informarion. This is what your science has found.

There is ample evidence for the creation of kinds whether you choose to accept it or not.

 

[Autodidact]

Auto I am afraid you may fit the description of being a hypocrite. You have demmanded a hypothesis yet despite repeated requests you have not shown us your ability to articulate any hypothesis in relation to evolution.

This is simply false.
First, this thread would not be the appropriate place, as has been stated correctly and repeatedly.
Second, the hypothesis that new species arise from existing ones through a process of descent with modification plus natural selection was offered 150 years ago, the evidence supported it, and it is now the foundational theory of all of modern Biology.

That is an example of the sort of thing we mean by a hypothesis.

I understand you don't have one. So what are you doing in this thread?

Taking cheap shots is getting you nowhere. I actually know more than you about this science of yours and I have no related quals. You are in no way on top of recent research and your thread commentary supports this allegation.

Don't tell us, show us. Start with stating your hypothesis.

Please note you have not taken up the chllenge to provide any taxon or any other tennant of evolutionary science that is not debated nor connected to inconsistencies. There are none.

That would be appropriate in a different thread. However, it is false.

The sad fact is what little evidence there is that can actually be called evidence is supportive of the creation.

How do you know, if you haven't stated your hypothesis?

All your modelling, despite its' bias, has indicated every species alive today is decendant from a common ancestor.

You realize that this is the heart of ToE, right?

This supports creation, whether or not you like it.

How?

Evolutionists theorize cohorts, yet do not see anything to rationaize this assertion and that is a fact whether or not you like it.

I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by "cohorts" in this context.

There is ample evidence for the creation of kinds whether you choose to accept it or not.

Great! Are you going to present it? Remember, not WHO but HOW. The first step would be to state your hypothesis.

 

[newhope101]

waaaw, you just took this to a new level. you proved not onley your ignorance for ToE but for Biology in general.

Show me the inconsistency within the genus Thamnophis please.

Im sure that can find one and you might accidently learn something when your looking for it.

Thamnophis belongs to the family Colubrid: Note the gargabe bin taxon for snakes that don't fit anywhere. How scientific!.

Wiki:
The Colubridae are not a natural group, as many are more closely related to other groups, such as elapids, than to each other.[2] This family has classically been a garbage bin taxon for snakes that don't fit anywhere else.[citation needed] It is hoped that ongoing research will sort out the relations within this group.

Would you like another chance to find a taxon that is not debated and inconsistent? You would think there would be at east one wouldn't you that these researchers are really clear about? Well, there isn't.

No other takers...why am I not surprised?

 

[Autodidact]

How about that evidence for creationism? Wait, we don't even know what the hypothesis is. O.K., I'll just wait here.

 

[micrurus]

Thamnophis belongs to the family Colubrid: Note the gargabe bin taxon for snakes that don't fit anywhere. How scientific!.

Wiki:
The Colubridae are not a natural group, as many are more closely related to other groups, such as elapids, than to each other.[2] This family has classically been a garbage bin taxon for snakes that don't fit anywhere else.[citation needed] It is hoped that ongoing research will sort out the relations within this group.

Would you like another chance to find a taxon that is not debated and inconsistent? You would think there would be at east one wouldn't you that these researchers are really clear about? Well, there isn't.

No other takers...why am I not surprised?

colubridae has already been split in 7 subfamilys, thamnophis belonging to natricinae, that was done in 2002 or 2004 (don't remember the exact year) and there has been no arguement about it since than.

I asked you for a inconsistancy WITHIN the thamnophis genus not for a inconcistancy in the superfamily colubroidae.

EDIT

o, and the colubridae family itsself if perfectly concistent, it contains all rearfanged modern snakes. it just turned out that about 2/3 of all snakes are rearfanged modern snakes so they decided to split the family into 7 subfamilies.
why do you think a citation was asked on your wiki when colubridae was described as a garbage bin family?

 

[jarofthoughts]

You have demmanded a hypothesis yet despite repeated requests you have not shown us your ability to articulate any hypothesis in relation to evolution.

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
Source

So a formulation of a central hypothesis regarding evolution could be spelled out as:
"Does the frequency of alleles within a gene pool change from one generation to the next?"

And this is exactly what we see happening, is fully observable to anyone, and can easily be shown to be correct, which means that instead of being a hypothesis this is an observable fact, which in turn means that Evolution, by its textbook definition, is a fact.
Sorry.

But for anyone even vaguely aware of what the Theory of Evolution says this can hardly be called "news"...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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.....

I agree....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
Source

So a formulation of a central hypothesis regarding evolution could be spelled out as:
"Does the frequency of alleles within a gene pool change from one generation to the next?"

And this is exactly what we see happening, is fully observable to anyone, and can easily be shown to be correct, which means that instead of being a hypothesis this is an observable fact, which in turn means that Evolution, by its textbook definition, is a fact.
Sorry.

But for anyone even vaguely aware of what the Theory of Evolution says this can hardly be called "news"...

Now if we could just get newhope101 and her "cohorts" to stop trying to debate Evolution in a thread asking for evidence for creation.....

 

[fantome profane]

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.

Before you do that could you explain how this inconsistency could be interpreted as evidence for creationism?

Or I will make it easy for you, just post anything that could be interpreted as evidence for creationism.