Creationists, please provide evidence

[outhouse]

You know she must love to type, Oh wait its all copy and paste for her with no comprehension

 

[McBell]

You know she must love to type, Oh wait its all copy and paste for her with no comprehension

I suspect she thinks that the more she puts in each post, combined with as many big words as she can manage, shows that she is smart.
She seems to be completely oblivious to the fact that that tactic does not work very well here on RF. MOST members here on RF care more about the quality of the posts much more than the quantity in each post.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

I don't think that pointing out everything that is wrong with evolution will solve the 'poof' problem with creationism.

 

[tumbleweed41]

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

• Define kind.
• Provide objective and empirical evidence that these defined kinds do no evolve into other kinds.
• Find the biological mechanism that prevents kinds from further evolution.
• Publish your findings for peer review.
• If these findings and definitions are independently confirmed by detached researchers, you may finally have some support for Creationism.

Until then, you're stuck with picking out data that supposedly supports your hypothesis, and discarding anything that goes against it. A very dishonest and decietful practice that any honest Christian would abhor.

 

[Dan4reason]

Nah, I prefer to consult its founder.

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.

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.

Well, Joseph Smith himself taught there there was a spiritual creation before a physical one, and that rather than creating the universe out of nothing, multiple Gods make the earth, and they organized if from material that was already there. Maybe when Joseph Smith refers to "Gods" he is referring to God and Jesus together.

Moses 3:5
5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, acreated all things, of which I have spoken, bspiritually, before they were cnaturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had dcreated all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the eground; for in fheaven gcreated I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;

There is another creation account in Abraham 4 which speaks specifically about how the Gods organized the earth from pre-existing material. In Abraham chapter 3, it talks about the war in heaven, and so far God's plan has prevailed and Satan rebelled.

Abraham 4

1And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the aGods, borganized and formed the cheavens and the earth.
2And the earth, after it was formed, was empty and desolate, because they had not formed anything but the earth; and adarkness reigned upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of the Gods bwas brooding upon the face of the waters.
And the rest of the chapter continues the genesis creation story...

 

[painted wolf]

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.

Thanks for confirming my hypothesis that rather than address my points you would obfuscate, use ad hominem attacks, bald assertions and whine about how science works.

Your argument is summed up by "la la la, I'm right your wrong, la la la":ignore:

wa:do

 

[kylixguru]

Well, Joseph Smith himself taught there there was a spiritual creation before a physical one, and that rather than creating the universe out of nothing, multiple Gods make the earth, and they organized if from material that was already there. Maybe when Joseph Smith refers to "Gods" he is referring to God and Jesus together.

Moses 3:5
5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, acreated all things, of which I have spoken, bspiritually, before they were cnaturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had dcreated all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the eground; for in fheaven gcreated I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;

There is another creation account in Abraham 4 which speaks specifically about how the Gods organized the earth from pre-existing material. In Abraham chapter 3, it talks about the war in heaven, and so far God's plan has prevailed and Satan rebelled.

Abraham 4

1And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the aGods, borganized and formed the cheavens and the earth.
2And the earth, after it was formed, was empty and desolate, because they had not formed anything but the earth; and adarkness reigned upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of the Gods bwas brooding upon the face of the waters.
And the rest of the chapter continues the genesis creation story...

Thank you for the additional information.
My previous remarks are in harmony with this.
I'm going to take my cue from Brigham Young and say no more on this topic.

 

[newhope101]

• Define kind.Provide objective and empirical evidence that these defined kinds do no evolve into other kinds.I have defined kind on another thread that worked well.. The problem was that you lot of evolutionists could not accept your own research available and continuing the fettish of human/chimp ability to mate.
• Find the biological mechanism that prevents kinds from further evolution. I have see below. Now you provide evidence to the contrary that does not involve the use of theory. You cannot.
• Publish your findings for peer review.Oh so now you are trying to turn a forum into a scientific panel. This is your game of feeling important, dear, This is not a scientific panel and your acceptance of anything is not required.
• If these findings and definitions are independently confirmed by detached researchers, you may finally have some support for Creationism. Why? You have nothing independently confirmed. Rather you have debate and inconsistency and more questions arise than answers. This sounds a little hypocritical to me...or perhaps a display of an over inflated sense of self importance!

Until then, you're stuck with picking out data that supposedly supports your hypothesis, and discarding anything that goes against it. A very dishonest and decietful practice that any honest Christian would abhor.

There is nothing decietful about my data, dear, you are stuck with bugger all evidence and heaps of theoreticals and creationists know it.


Why are you asking for emericql evidence when you yourself have nothing more than theories.

You have theories to explain why the Y chromosome is so different in chimps and humans, punctuated evolution, you have theories about every bit of evidence that is unexpected and out of line with Toe.

However, further evidence is at hand that your theories do not work.

In research done with fruitflys, your researchers tried so hard to come up with the goodies and show how all your theory comes together. Guess what? Your researchers failed. What happened over 600 generation? ...Nothing.

No advantageous alleles arose..nothing. Rather the fruitfly kept reverting back to a plain old fruitfly.

You evolutionists are confused a to what constitutes evidence and what remains theoretical. Let me explain. Your theory says that advantageous alleles should be selected. That explains it all...then we morph. This research demonstrates that theses alleles did NOT become fixed.

The theory is macro change happens as a result of many micros, the evidence is....it doesn't.

Hence on the basis of evidence rather than theory, I have evidence that your theories do not work. You have evidence of small adaptive micro adaptations and those that are epigenetic. However this research has shown that none of that explains macroevolution. Indeed the fruitfly did not select advantageous alleles, let alone deleterious mutations, to start morphing into a new kind at all.

I have previously posted research on 'limits to variation' here or elsewhere, that I will repost on request.

Therefore, this research provides evidence for creationists that a kind cannot evolve into another kind. Hence kinds were created and is evidence in favour of creation.

Here is the extract:

Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature, Vol. 467, pp. 587-590.Burke, Molly K., Joseph P. Dunham, Parvin Shahrestani, Kevin R. Thornton, Michael R. Rose, Anthony D. Long. 30 September 2010.

Experimental evolution systems allow the genomic study of adaptation, and so far this has been done primarily in asexual systems with small genomes, such as bacteria and yeast1, 2, 3. Here we present whole-genome resequencing data from Drosophila melanogaster populations that have experienced over 600 generations of laboratory selection for accelerated development. Flies in these selected populations develop from egg to adult ~20% faster than flies of ancestral control populations, and have evolved a number of other correlated phenotypes. On the basis of 688,520 intermediate-frequency, high-quality single nucleotide polymorphisms, we identify several dozen genomic regions that show strong allele frequency differentiation between a pooled sample of five replicate populations selected for accelerated development and pooled controls. On the basis of resequencing data from a single replicate population with accelerated development, as well as single nucleotide polymorphism data from individual flies from each replicate population, we infer little allele frequency differentiation between replicate populations within a selection treatment. Signatures of selection are qualitatively different than what has been observed in asexual species; in our sexual populations, adaptation is not associated with ‘classic’ sweeps whereby newly arising, unconditionally advantageous mutations become fixed. More parsimonious explanations include ‘incomplete’ sweep models, in which mutations have not had enough time to fix, and ‘soft’ sweep models, in which selection acts on pre-existing, common genetic variants. We conclude that, at least for life history characters such as development time, unconditionally advantageous alleles rarely arise, are associated with small net fitness gains or cannot fix because selection coefficients change over time.
　

 

[outhouse]

HoMP is all i see in the above post

more misinformation from someone who just loves to type, WAIT i mean copy and paste

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Just a reminder--you can't begin to look for evidence until you state a hypothesis. That's science.

 

[kylixguru]

Just a reminder--you can't begin to look for evidence until you state a hypothesis. That's science.

Belief = hypothesis. Religion has no lack of that.

 

[painted wolf]

Actually a hypothesis is an educated guess based on observation that can be tested to see if it is accurate.

wa:do

 

[jarofthoughts]

Belief = hypothesis. Religion has no lack of that.

How is religious belief a falsifiable hypothesis?
Because, if it isn't, then it's not a scientific hypothesis.

 

[kylixguru]

Actually a hypothesis is an educated guess based on observation that can be tested to see if it is accurate.

wa:do

Right, that is why people in religious environments get down on their knees and invoke who they believe is their Eternal Father and commence to have a relationship with Him by direct experience. They test things to see if there is accuracy to that which they put their faith in. And, just like scientists are discovering in the quantum realm, they are entering a domain where all of the rules of the physical sciences no longer apply.

The difference I see is science does everything it can to only bring to bear things it can tangibly observe with the physical senses, or that tools and devices can be constructed to reliably remap criteria instruments have recorded into tangible and reliably reproducable data discernable with their physical senses. Then, they observe reliable associations between their observations and mathematical domains and then they begin to use modern computational devices to further extend their reach in this area and so on and so on.

Their ultimate pinnacle of hope seems to me to be to have some kind of a means of communicating with higher intelligence somewhere 'out there'. The envelope (or bubble) constrained by the speed of light is quite a frustration to them. Only recently are they coming to consider the possibility that the quantum realm may afford a means to have communication beyond the constraints of the speed of light, but they are utterly perplexed as to how to harness such things.

It's like Nimrod of old building his monstrocity level after level because he wants to ascend up to the heavens and usurp the throne upon which the higher intelligences gracefully observe all of our doings from.

All this time that science has arrogated itself as superior to all of these ignoramous religious idiots who have gone off into la-la land by talking to some being that science claims to have proven cannot exist turns out to be the realization of their pinnacle of their hope. Religious people have been enjoying communion with higher intelligence beings for all ages and eons of time.

 

[painted wolf]

Right, that is why people in religious environments get down on their knees and invoke who they believe is their Eternal Father and commence to have a relationship with Him by direct experience. They test things to see if there is accuracy to that which they put their faith in. And, just like scientists are discovering in the quantum realm, they are entering a domain where all of the rules of the physical sciences no longer apply.

So, you track your prayers and their results as a data-set? This seems odd to me as I don't use my prayers as a way to test if Creator is going to answer my whims.
Perhaps it's just a difference between Old World and New World philosophy.

The difference I see is science does everything it can to only bring to bear things it can tangibly observe with the physical senses, or that tools and devices can be constructed to reliably remap criteria instruments have recorded into tangible and reliably reproducable data discernable with their physical senses. Then, they observe reliable associations between their observations and mathematical domains and then they begin to use modern computational devices to further extend their reach in this area and so on and so on.

How does one test something that can't be observed? And science isn't limited to the physical senses.... unless you have x-ray vision?

Their ultimate pinnacle of hope seems to me to be to have some kind of a means of communicating with higher intelligence somewhere 'out there'. The envelope (or bubble) constrained by the speed of light is quite a frustration to them. Only recently are they coming to consider the possibility that the quantum realm may afford a means to have communication beyond the constraints of the speed of light, but they are utterly perplexed as to how to harness such things.

I've never run into a scientist who wanted to "communicate with higher intelligence". Most just want to understand how the universe works.

It's like Nimrod of old building his monstrocity level after level because he wants to ascend up to the heavens and usurp the throne upon which the higher intelligences gracefully observe all of our doings from.

Not really... Science just wants to understand how the universe works.

All this time that science has arrogated itself as superior to all of these ignoramous religious idiots who have gone off into la-la land by talking to some being that science claims to have proven cannot exist turns out to be the realization of their pinnacle of their hope. Religious people have been enjoying communion with higher intelligence beings for all ages and eons of time.

You realize that a lot of scientists are people of faith... like myself.
Like them I know the difference between faith and science.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

jbug, Paintedwolf and auto......lost for words are you?

You see, I have evidence that a fruitfly will not morph by fixation of advantageous alleles.

Therefore all your theories are headed for the garbage bin of delusions, along with the rest. There is no accelerated evolution to becoming human. There is no uptake of deleterious mutations in becoming human. There were no micro adaptations that resulted in one kind poofing into another kind. There is no punctuated evolution to explain the lack of gradualism in the fossil record. There is no selection of any allele that turned a chimp man into a human. This is all speculation to address what you expected as opposed to what you have found.

This research suggests that none of that can be demonstrated at all. In fact the opposite actually happened. That is evidence, not your assumptions...and you all will never GET IT!

God created kinds. They did not evolve from anoher kind. I have supplied research to back this claim and all I get is woffle back.

Go ahead and refute this research with research..not woffle and desperation.

 

[kylixguru]

So, you track your prayers and their results as a data-set? This seems odd to me as I don't use my prayers as a way to test if Creator is going to answer my whims.
Perhaps it's just a difference between Old World and New World philosophy.

What you can say is I listen for an answer and I make a careful note of what I receive. I don't recall taking up any whims so I cannot say how that would go.

The whole premise of wishing to have a connection to a higher intelligence for the sake of whims occurs to me as a good way to tune into a level of intelligence that would not likely be all that respectable.

How does one test something that can't be observed?

I think what I said was sufficiently clear as a synopsis.

And science isn't limited to the physical senses....

I absolutely agree, but I happen to experience a good many scientists who shall absolutely tell you otherwise. Whether directly or indirectly via tools, devices, computers, etc. they refute any other domain.

Clarification: I mean any other domain that cannot be remapped somehow into a format their physical senses can objectively observe.

unless you have x-ray vision?

Huh? I already addressed tools and devices scientists use to remap data from such bands into our visible band so that they can make observations.

I've never run into a scientist who wanted to "communicate with higher intelligence". Most just want to understand how the universe works.

You must not get out much.

Not really... Science just wants to understand how the universe works.

Yes, and who funds them? The USA just wanted to have the atom bomb for the sake of having it. They never at all intended to actually use it to kill anyone, right?

You realize that a lot of scientists are people of faith... like myself.

All I have to do is look in a mirror.

Like them I know the difference between faith and science.

So do I. I just touched on it. Where were you? Does that mean there are not parallels between the two? Hubris and dogma seem equally plentiful in both realms. Is that a coincidence?

 

[painted wolf]

jbug, Paintedwolf and auto......lost for words are you?

You see, I have evidence that a fruitfly will not morph by fixation of advantageous alleles.

Therefore all your theories are headed for the garbage bin of delusions, along with the rest. There is no accelerated evolution to becoming human. There is no uptake of deleterious mutations in becoming human. There were no micro adaptations that resulted in one kind poofing into another kind. There is no punctuated evolution to explain the lack of gradualism in the fossil record. There is no selection of any allele that turned a chimp man into a human. This is all speculation to address what you expected as opposed to what you have found.

This research suggests that none of that can be demonstrated at all. In fact the opposite actually happened. That is evidence, not your assumptions...and you all will never GET IT!

God created kinds. They did not evolve from anoher kind. I have supplied research to back this claim and all I get is woffle back.

Go ahead and refute this research with research..not woffle and desperation.

No just bored repeatedly having to tell you you're jumping the shark again.

This experiment had nothing to do with making a new "kind" of anything... they were seeing if the flies would develop faster. You are once again offering up a paper that has nothing to do with what you think it does.

wa:do

 

[kylixguru]

jbug, Paintedwolf and auto......lost for words are you?

You see, I have evidence that a fruitfly will not morph by fixation of advantageous alleles.

Therefore all your theories are headed for the garbage bin of delusions, along with the rest. There is no accelerated evolution to becoming human. There is no uptake of deleterious mutations in becoming human. There were no micro adaptations that resulted in one kind poofing into another kind. There is no punctuated evolution to explain the lack of gradualism in the fossil record. There is no selection of any allele that turned a chimp man into a human. This is all speculation to address what you expected as opposed to what you have found.

This research suggests that none of that can be demonstrated at all. In fact the opposite actually happened. That is evidence, not your assumptions...and you all will never GET IT!

God created kinds. They did not evolve from anoher kind. I have supplied research to back this claim and all I get is woffle back.

Go ahead and refute this research with research..not woffle and desperation.

I am the least bit uncomfortable with any of the aspects of that research. What I question are the presumptive leaps you make to conclude what you do.

I would still be feeling a need to hold to your line of argumentation if I yet understood the creation account in the Bible in the orthodox manner. However, I have found that to be an incorrect interpretation. The way I read it makes far more sense in a literal and explicit manner that at the same time leaves the door wide open for evolution.

Yes, it was uncomfortable to make this shift. I had to completely revamp my entire view of everything and give up a lot of fantasies that I really wish were true. It kind of sucked in a way, but I am very grateful for it. Now at least it is all something I can approach and understand in practical terms.

 

[newhope101]

Where's the research to refute my assertion that I have evidence to suggest there was no accelerated evolution, there was no punctuated evolution, there was no uptake of deleterious mutations, there was no selection of advantageous alleles to provide the mechanism for one kind to poof into another kind.

Indeed, this research shows that in the real world, rarther than the theoretical world, your explanations of the unexpected, have not been realised.

Rather this fruit fly research is support for creation in that your fruit fly stayed a fruit fly for 600 generations and there was NO fixing of the advantageuos alleles that would morph it eventaully into another kind.

This is evidence as opposed to theory.