Creationists, please provide evidence

[outhouse]

HoMP. Hypothesis of Magical Poofing

im using that in another forum lol

this should be used when the 2 or 3 known members who choose not to learn post. we all hit them with HoMP.

they are really not worth a debate anyway

 

[strikeviperMKII]

HoMP. Hypothesis of Magical Poofing

im using that in another forum lol

this should be used when the 2 or 3 known members who choose not to learn post. we all hit them with HoMP.

they are really not worth a debate anyway

To debate you have to have be on equal footing, yes? You can debate two hypothesis's or two theories. But you can't debate a theory and a hypothesis as one is supported and one is not.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Too funny. I think I said that here in this thread or somewhere recently but every time I read it, it makes me chuckle....:biglaugh:

Yeah i think it was you i got it from.

 

[fantome profane]

Actually that's HoMP. Hypothesis of Magical Poofing. To graduate to a theory, it would need to be supported by actual evidence.

I like that, I think that is what kind of sound a cockoduck makes. "homp homp"

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I like that, I think that is what kind of sound a cockoduck makes. "homp homp"

hehehehe

 

[outhouse]

To debate you have to have be on equal footing, yes? You can debate two hypothesis's or two theories. But you can't debate a theory and a hypothesis as one is supported and one is not.

I understand where your coming from.

we just have a select few here that post the same stuff over and over depsite it being refuted time and time again to the T

They are so desperate grasping at moldy straws its not funny, and they are not worth debating because they just like to hear themselves

 

[Iasion]

So take your smirky athiesm and put it inside of your butt.

Hard to sound tough if you can't even SPELL the word atheism!

 

[Dan4reason]

The book does make it clear that he is being symbolic. As soon as he finishes describing the 7 periods of the creation he tells you exactly what they symbolize. It's a little bit obscure, but not really. See Moses 3:4.

Here is Moses 3:4.

4And now, behold, I say unto you, that these are the generations of the heaven and of the earth, when they were acreated, in the day that I, the Lord God, made the bheaven and the earth,

I do not see the part where Joseph Smith says that this account is metaphorical. The word "generations" is not being used for animals but for the heavens and the earth and since inanimate objects cannot reproduce this word is best interpreted to mean "stages." Joseph Smith clearly says that God created the universe and life and no indication of metaphore is anywhere. You might as well say that my entire post is entirely metaphorical and is in no way an argument about the meaning of the book of Moses.

I can assure you, this is NOT an account of a cosmic creation.
There is some loose resemblence due to the metaphors only.

If you look at the header of Moses chapter 2, the creation account is obvious in Smith's writings. Here it is:

"God creates the heavens and the earth-All forms of life created-God makes man and gives him dominion over all else."

Reading verse 1 of the same chapter we see what God is taking about, and the first thing that he did.

And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I areveal unto you concerning this bheaven, and this cearth; dwrite the words which I speak. I am the Beginning and the End, the eAlmighty God; by mine fOnly Begotten I gcreated these things; yea, in the beginning I hcreated the iheaven, and the earth upon which thou standest.

It is obvious from this account that the Mormon church does believe that God was talking to Joseph Smith about the heavens and the earth, and he created the heaven and the earth.

Mormonism and the theory of the evolution contradict and you should have to choose between science and is religion if you are to remain consistent.

 

[kylixguru]

Here is Moses 3:4.

4 And now, behold, I say unto you, that these are the generations of the heaven and of the earth, when they were created, in the day that I, the Lord God, made the heaven and the earth,

I do not see the part where Joseph Smith says that this account is metaphorical.

It seems to me that it should remain that way.

 

[Dan4reason]

It seems to me that it should remain that way.

Probably the best source to go to when seeking interpretation of Mormon doctrine is the mormon church is from the church itself. Here is Joseph F. Smith.

Moses 2 . An Account of the Physical Creation

President Joseph Fielding Smith said: “The account of the creation of the earth as given in Genesis, and the Book of Moses, and as given in the temple, is the creation of the physical earth, and of physical animals and plants” ( Doctrines of Salvation, 1:75).

This is the informative source I found this information.
Pearl of Great Price Student Manual - Religion 327 : Moses 2:1 - 25 - The Physical Creation of Heaven and Earth

 

[newhope101]

I understand where your coming from.

we just have a select few here that post the same stuff over and over depsite it being refuted time and time again to the T

They are so desperate grasping at moldy straws its not funny, and they are not worth debating because they just like to hear themselves

Only if you call woffling on some sort of refute. Yes you are good at that.

 

[newhope101]

Well, I have to admit an error for ever expecting to rely on your theoretical assumptions for too long. As I said they change like the wind. It appears you evolutionists have been holding out on me. The best refute to my previous point 1 is…there is no MTEVE. Looks like she's headed for the delutional garbage bin, also.

Now, no doubt there is evidence to refute the research suggesting Mt Eve is dead. However what do evolutionists class as the truth. It it as simplistic as the most recent research must have it right? Or is a matter of choosing from contradictory evidence that which suits you.

The upshot of it all is that there is so much past evidence that resides in the garbage bin of delusional evidence that one would have to question if your researchers can see anything at all without the use of probabilities and biased assumptions. So I have had to reword my evidence in support of creation to reflect the inconsistent and changing nature of your assumptions.
.
Here is some evidence in support of creation:
1. For now, it appears the MRCA is set at 5,000 years. This demonstrates all of mankind alive today are related to a group of people at that time, which is likely Noah and his family.

2. The Y chromosome is meant to stay the same from generation to generation. The Y chromosome is remarkably different in the Chimp and human male chromosome. If we share a common ancestor the Y chromosome should be very similar between descendants. It is not. Rather they are compared to a chicken and human at 310 million years of separation.

3. For now the human version of the FoxP2 gene is also set to 5,000 years which also coincided with the appears of written language an arts.

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, eg sponges, illustrating that sponges were created to be sponges and have remained so until today.

5. Mankind appears fully formed in one domain. This is evidence for creation. Your dating methods are theoretical and biased. SkhulV was initially dated to 40ya then redated to suit the assumption of ancestry. Your theoretical dating methods are tied to evolutionary assumptions and not valid as evidence. 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. False assumptions re knuckle walking ancestry and inability to classify florensiensis demonstrate that researchers are unable to validly identify mid species, which btw are not mid species at all. Genomic information is reliant on fossil evidence to inform same and hence is not a reliable source of data.Your attempts to tie bipedal walking to brain increases have found no substance to the claim. Your attempts to tie humans to knuckle walkers ancestry had had to be reworked. Your attempts to classify bipedal walking as a move to humanness have failed. Your attempts to consolidate another evolutionary path into a new version of human evolutionary theory will not stand the test of time, as past behaviour is the best predictor of future performance.

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. After all a banana shares 50% of genes with humans. 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.

None of you have sucessfully challenged any of the above yet, with anything more than your opinion, dribbling on and belittling creationists.

Surely you can provide some contested and debated theory backed by some theoretical model somewhere to refute. It shouldn't be hard in your world to find a refute, and a refute to the refute and then a refute of the refute to the refute, and so it goes on and on and on endlessly.

If you require the research behind my claims because you are not aware of same, just ask for it.

The point being, only those that are cognitively challenged are going to believe the most recent evolutionary thoughts and assumptions are any more than flavour of the month. Still feel free to post some to refute me. That's the name of your game.

 

[David M]

Here is some evidence in support of creation:
1. For now, it appears the MRCA is set at 5,000 years. This demonstrates all of mankind alive today are related to a group of people at that time, which is likely Noah and his family.

Wrong, as I have pointed out before the MRCA is set at a wide range of years, you are just picking the date witin that range that you like the most. And this method of calculating the MRCA does not give the date of the oldest human common ancestor of all humans.

2. The Y chromosome is meant to stay the same from generation to generation. The Y chromosome is remarkably different in the Chimp and human male chromosome. If we share a common ancestor the Y chromosome should be very similar between descendants. It is not. Rather they are compared to a chicken and human at 310 million years of separation.

Wrong, the Y chomosome is not meant to stay the same, the rest is just your usual misrepresentation of the facts.

3. For now the human version of the FoxP2 gene is also set to 5,000 years which also coincided with the appears of written language an arts.

Impossible because Neandertals and Humans have the same FoxP2 gene which makes it date to whole orders of magnitude older than 5,000 years.

Music and Painting date back to tens of thousands of years ago.

The rest is just a repeat of already refuted falsehoods about the facts.

Still feel free to post some to refute me. That's the name of your game.

All ready been done. You ignored them and just keep repasting this list which is completely fallacious.

 

[outhouse]

this is all newhope has

Wrong

Wrong

Impossible

completely fallacious

falsehoods

misrepresentation of the facts

Yeesh David you know here well

 

[painted wolf]

Well, I have to admit an error for ever expecting to rely on your theoretical assumptions for too long. As I said they change like the wind. It appears you evolutionists have been holding out on me. The best refute to my previous point 1 is…there is no MTEVE. Looks like she's headed for the delutional garbage bin, also.

Now, no doubt there is evidence to refute the research suggesting Mt Eve is dead. However what do evolutionists class as the truth. It it as simplistic as the most recent research must have it right? Or is a matter of choosing from contradictory evidence that which suits you.

The upshot of it all is that there is so much past evidence that resides in the garbage bin of delusional evidence that one would have to question if your researchers can see anything at all without the use of probabilities and biased assumptions. So I have had to reword my evidence in support of creation to reflect the inconsistent and changing nature of your assumptions.
.
Here is some evidence in support of creation:
1. For now, it appears the MRCA is set at 5,000 years. This demonstrates all of mankind alive today are related to a group of people at that time, which is likely Noah and his family.

No idea where you get this number. Even barring MtDNA eve, you have the next MRCA (Yadam) at more than 50,000 years ago. You seem to have missed a zero.

2.

The Y chromosome is meant to stay the same from generation to generation. The Y chromosome is remarkably different in the Chimp and human male chromosome. If we share a common ancestor the Y chromosome should be very similar between descendants. It is not. Rather they are compared to a chicken and human at 310 million years of separation.

No the Y chromosome changes pretty frequently... that is how we can track Y chromosome lineages. There are at least 21 significant haplogroups of modern humans based on differences in their Y Chromosome.

[qutoe]3. For now the human version of the FoxP2 gene is also set to 5,000 years which also coincided with the appears of written language an arts.

Actually according to Enard et al. estimate it at between 100,000 and 10,000 years ago.

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, eg sponges, illustrating that sponges were created to be sponges and have remained so until today.

Sponges actually predate the Cambrain... and what kind of sponges are you talking about? Sponges actually have a pretty interesting evolutionary history and are not exactly the same today as back then. Some groups are extinct and some are pretty recent. None of this is hypothetical... we have the fossils.

5.

Mankind appears fully formed in one domain. This is evidence for creation. Your dating methods are theoretical and biased. SkhulV was initially dated to 40ya then redated to suit the assumption of ancestry. Your theoretical dating methods are tied to evolutionary assumptions and not valid as evidence. 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. False assumptions re knuckle walking ancestry and inability to classify florensiensis demonstrate that researchers are unable to validly identify mid species, which btw are not mid species at all. Genomic information is reliant on fossil evidence to inform same and hence is not a reliable source of data.Your attempts to tie bipedal walking to brain increases have found no substance to the claim. Your attempts to tie humans to knuckle walkers ancestry had had to be reworked. Your attempts to classify bipedal walking as a move to humanness have failed. Your attempts to consolidate another evolutionary path into a new version of human evolutionary theory will not stand the test of time, as past behaviour is the best predictor of future performance.

What does fully formed in one domain mean? What is human?

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.

No, it's just gotten more interesting.

7.

Researchers have now shown that the sharing of genes means little in the understanding of what makes humans special or other creatures unique. After all a banana shares 50% of genes with humans. 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.

No, it shows that a very few genes are responsible for making us human. And that those subtle differences are very important.
If shared genes are proof of shared design... then this implies some very troubling things about the designer.

None of you have sucessfully challenged any of the above yet, with anything more than your opinion, dribbling on and belittling creationists.

Surely you can provide some contested and debated theory backed by some theoretical model somewhere to refute. It shouldn't be hard in your world to find a refute, and a refute to the refute and then a refute of the refute to the refute, and so it goes on and on and on endlessly.

If you require the research behind my claims because you are not aware of same, just ask for it.

The point being, only those that are cognitively challenged are going to believe the most recent evolutionary thoughts and assumptions are any more than flavour of the month. Still feel free to post some to refute me. That's the name of your game.

This is because all you do is :ignore:
That and cry foul that scientists are doing their jobs... with some cherry picked quoting and ad hominem attacks.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Sorry Paintedwolf. Your whole evolutionary science is about ...choose what you like out of a plethora of theories. It may be flavour of the month today, if not, then perhaps tomorrow. This is seriously not evidence PW, regardless of how much you wish it to be.

The overall take on it all is there is so much dispute about everything other than 'all life evolved somehow from something else', that one easily finds evidence to suggest that your researchers really don't know what they are doing. That's what your never ending changes and never ending explanation for what is seen, means to a creationist. That is what the evidence at hand strongly and irrefutably supports.


That's the honest, unfortunate truth and the explanation for constant change and the rubbish bin of evolutionary evidence past.

That's the simple answer and most likely the correct one.

 

[tumbleweed41]

MRCA= Most Recent Common Ancestor of a Given Population.

Not the Oldest Common Ancestor of all Mankind.

Get a grip on your "facts" Newhope.

 

[Iasion]

Odd -
Why is it that creationists don't have the smarts to even QUOTE properly?

Newhope rarely even tries - and when he does he usually stuffs it up, and then does NOT go back and check his post !


Iasion

 

[kylixguru]

Probably the best source to go to when seeking interpretation of Mormon doctrine is the mormon church is from the church itself.

Nah, I prefer to consult its founder.

Here is Joseph F. Smith.

Moses 2 . An Account of the Physical Creation

President Joseph Fielding Smith said: “The account of the creation of the earth as given in Genesis, and the Book of Moses, and as given in the temple, is the creation of the physical earth, and of physical animals and plants” ( Doctrines of Salvation, 1:75).

I went through the transcripts of his battle with B. H. Roberts while studying into the creation and pre-Adamic man. B. H. Roberts clearly schooled him well but Joseph Fielding Smith ultimately just pulled rank. He did not get an oracle from the Lord on the matter. He is stating his personal belief here. It is false doctrine. And, yes, I'm happy to bet my eternal soul on it.

This is the informative source I found this information.
Pearl of Great Price Student Manual - Religion 327 : Moses 2:1 - 25 - The Physical Creation of Heaven and Earth

I liked what Brigham Young said: "We are not authorized to say what the duration of these days was..."

I didn't care for the rest of what was said because it distances people from the truth.
This piece of data shall eventually reveal who the true prophets are/were and who the frauds are/were.

We shall see when and who destroyed the unique and precious aspects of the restoration by selling us out to the foolish and false notions of the traditions of the Christian fathers and the precepts of men that Joseph tried so hard to save a people from.

 

[newhope101]

Hey tumbleweed, I know what you alledge. Don't forget all your evidence for any humans around more than 6,000ya is based on modelled dating techniques that are meant to span a long long time. What you appear to have(ie is modelling used for this also) is evidence that every human alive today is ancestral to every human alive on the face of the planet today, not just 'some populations' as you minimise. This evidence is not based on modelled dating techniques. The 5,000 years is. This can also change your way, my way, who knows?

The sad fact for you is your genome is not giving up any evidence of anyone else. 'Anyone else' is assumed and corroborated by other modelling based on 'must be' ancestry to a chimp ancestor. The funny thing I do not understand about your take on things is this. You alledge small populations branched off, evolved further. Now there is interbreeding brought in to explain more of the unexpected. OK. This is meant to have happened not only in the human line but basically for all multicelled creatures.

Yet...each and every species on the earth that has had their genome decoded shows a single ancestor, both male and female in sexually reproducing organisms.

How is this so? Why, in every species is there no hint of cohorts in their DNA. Each being explained by the same scenario of every other cohort of every living species today left no trace of themselves in today's DNA. Every other cohort of the common ancestors day for every species alive today had the unfortunate mishap of ending their contribution through opposite sex dead ends.

This is very unfortunate for you. It is also unfortunate for you that all we have are dating methods based on models that change. However, this evidence, as derived as it may be, supports creation. If one disbands your dating methods, effectively what you have is not much at all.

This MRCA is also likely based on some presumptive agenda ie ancestry. However, to believe this happened in some species is believeable. To say this happened to every species on the planet to day is unbelieveable and incredible.

What I really think is it is all rubbish, actually. I don't think these researchers really know what ancestry should look like, nor what a genome would look like if each species arose individually from multi genesis style models. All this horizontal gene transfer talk and backtracking, trying to hold the whole TOE thing together, just does not feel right.

I feel the evidence for creation is right before our eyes. It's just that the modelling is colouring the lenses. Soon, I think you will find irrefuteable evidence for the creation and the inability of one kind to sucessfully evolve into a totally different kind, with other ancestors alive today basically unchanged.

It is not that I would not believe any evidence. It is a case of the evidence before me is unconvincing and tends to more support creation that evolution, as I have explained.

What these researchers should be looking for is what stops one kind from becoming another kind? This is support for creation.

In research done for over 35 years with fruitfly, there was shown to be "limits of variation".

They wrote, "forward experimental evolution can often be completely reversed with these populations". "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles." "The probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments." --
Burke, Molly K., Joseph P. Dunham, Parvin Shahrestani, Kevin R. Thornton, Michael R. Rose, Anthony D. Long. 30 September 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature, Vol. 467, pp. 587-590.

Genomic advances in medicine etc nowadays, that is in the here and now and does not require the same assumptions and may have benifits. This is different to the sciences related to ancestry millions of years ago. Yet despite this research humans survived accelerated evolution and many mutations which are usually harmfull, the selection of deleterious mutations along the way, with the backdrop of limits to variation seen in a species that reproduces quickly.

What I really think is your researchers are looking in the wrong direction in relation to ancestry and that is why it is all such a challenge for evolutionists.