Creationists, please provide evidence

[evolved yet?]

You like to attack evolution but I have never heard positive evidence for your beliefs please provide some.

 

[DeitySlayer]

You might want to pull up a chair and grab some popcorn. It's going to be one hell of a long wait.

 

[evolved yet?]

I can't wait for them to start grasping at non-existent straws, that is the best part of debating creationism.

 

[City_Hunter]

BUT LOOK AT THE TREES! How can you look at the trees and say there's no god?

Psalm 14:1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no GOD".

-----------------------

That's all the "Evidence" I have ever heard for creationism and I wager that it will be much the same in this thread.

 

[evolved yet?]

Please don't reply unless you are trying to add to the conversation, or you want to respond to the challenge.

 

[evolved yet?]

Surprise, surprise...

 

[Noaidi]

This thread is deader than a dead thing on National Dead Day on Planet Dead.


Dead.


Has the Rapture happened and taken all the creationists to heaven? Is that why there are none here?

 

[DeitySlayer]

I have a hypothesis.

"The number of Creationists replying to a thread is in direct inverse proportion to how openly they are asked to provide empirical evidence"

 

[Skwim]

The best evidence they have, actually the only evidence, is that evolution is wrong.

 

[evolved yet?]

To Skwim:
The purpose of this thread was to see if that was true and they have met my expectations.

 

[rusra02]

You like to attack evolution but I have never heard positive evidence for your beliefs please provide some.

Microbiologist Michael J Behe wrote in the NY Times of 2/7/2005 regarding the intelligence evident in nature: "The strong appearance of design allows a disarmingly simple argument: If it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then absent compelling argument to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it's a duck. Design should not be overlooked simply because it's so obvious."
The Bible puts it better, I think: "For [God's] invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship. (Romans 1:19,20)
Science has presented no compelling arguments contrary to the simple truth "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" and thereafter created the living things that fill this planet.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Microbiologist Michael J Behe

Do you mean this Michael J Behe?

As a primary witness for the defense, Behe was asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges under cross examination, where he conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred", and that the definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well. His simulation modelling of evolution with David Snoke described in a 2004 paper had been listed by the Discovery Institute amongst claimed "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design", but under oath he accepted that it showed that the biochemical systems it described could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible.

 

[evolved yet?]

Do you mean this Michael J Behe?

As a primary witness for the defense, Behe was asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges under cross examination, where he conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred", and that the definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well. His simulation modelling of evolution with David Snoke described in a 2004 paper had been listed by the Discovery Institute amongst claimed "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design", but under oath he accepted that it showed that the biochemical systems it described could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible.

Frubals:clap.

 

[Noaidi]

Microbiologist Michael J Behe wrote... Design should not be overlooked simply because it's so obvious." .

You quote this implying that design is obvious. The nature of this thread is for proponents of creationism / ID to provide the evidence for that assertion. There is no point claiming that it is obvious, then not backing that statement up.

 

[rusra02]

Do you mean this Michael J Behe?

As a primary witness for the defense, Behe was asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges under cross examination, where he conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred", and that the definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well. His simulation modelling of evolution with David Snoke described in a 2004 paper had been listed by the Discovery Institute amongst claimed "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design", but under oath he accepted that it showed that the biochemical systems it described could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible.

Ah, the evolutionist knee-jerk response to a scientist who dares challenge the ToE. Attack the scientist.

 

[Noaidi]

Ah, the evolutionist knee-jerk response to a scientist who dares challenge the ToE. Attack the scientist.

Any scientist who thinks astrology should be regarded as a scientific theory deserves to be ridiculed.

 

[rusra02]

You quote this implying that design is obvious. The nature of this thread is for proponents of creationism / ID to provide the evidence for that assertion. There is no point claiming that it is obvious, then not backing that statement up.

It is obvious to anyone not blinded by the ToE mantra... but OK:

"How can nature make life if we failed with all the experimental conditions controlled?" - (Between Necessity and Probability: Searching for the definition and Origin of Life by Radu Popa p.129)

"The complexity of the mechanisms required for the functioning of a living cell is so large that a simultaneous emergence by chance seems impossible." (Between Necessity and Probability: Searching for the definition and Origin of Life by Radu Popa pp.126,127) (Quotes from The Origin of Life - Five Questions Worth Asking)

 

[DeitySlayer]

Ah, the evolutionist knee-jerk response to a scientist who dares challenge the ToE. Attack the scientist.

If you actually read the paragraph, it blows holes through his argument, THUS discrediting him. I don't do it the other way round as you imply.

 

[Noaidi]

It is obvious to anyone not blinded by the ToE mantra... but OK:

"How can nature make life if we failed with all the experimental conditions controlled?" - (Between Necessity and Probability: Searching for the definition and Origin of Life by Radu Popa p.129)

"The complexity of the mechanisms required for the functioning of a living cell is so large that a simultaneous emergence by chance seems impossible." (Between Necessity and Probability: Searching for the definition and Origin of Life by Radu Popa pp.126,127) (Quotes from The Origin of Life - Five Questions Worth Asking)

"How can nature make life if we failed with all the experimental conditions controlled?"
Because we are only human. We couldn't possibly control all the variables. We probably don't even know what all the initial variables were.

"The complexity of the mechanisms required for the functioning of a living cell is so large that a simultaneous emergence by chance seems impossible."
Seems being the important term here.

Edit: What is the ToE mantra, by the way?
Edit: you are highlighting the limits of scientific knowledge here. The thread is concerned with creationists providing evidence for their ideas.

 

[Skwim]

It is obvious to anyone not blinded by the ToE mantra... but OK:

"How can nature make life if we failed with all the experimental conditions controlled?" - (Between Necessity and Probability: Searching for the definition and Origin of Life by Radu Popa p.129)

So what?

"The complexity of the mechanisms required for the functioning of a living cell is so large that a simultaneous emergence by chance seems impossible." (Between Necessity and Probability: Searching for the definition and Origin of Life by Radu Popa pp.126,127) (Quotes from The Origin of Life - Five Questions Worth Asking)

Nice, purposeful misquote, that is, leaving out the qualifying context.

Here's the whole thing.

"The Complexity of the mechanisms required for the functioning of a living cell is so large that simultaneous emergence by chance seems impossible. Most scientists now believe that life originated in a number of smaller and probabilistically likelier steps. Instead of being one big chance like event, life might actually be an accretion of a series of events emerging at different moments in time."
​