Creationists, please provide evidence

[angellous_evangellous]

Ah, but more should be said! Atheists' nightmares are tasty.
Slice'm into vanilla yogurt, & even the most fire breathing heathen can experience heaven on earth!

It's difficult to argue with someone who has no intention [or ability] of intellectually engaging a topic.

Stupidly marvelling about the genius of a banana is all he's capable of, and any run of the mill fool can participate in that.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Ah, but more should be said! Atheists' nightmares are tasty.
Slice'm into vanilla yogurt, & even the most fire breathing heathen can experience heaven on earth!

Mmm, nightmare yogurt. :eat:

 

[Skwim]

Re. YouTube - kirk Cameon And Bananas If one didn't know better you'd think the whole thing was a spoof.

 

[Autodidact]

I believe that when these two geniuses learned that bananas are a product of centuries of artificial selection, they stopped making this retarded argument.

Wild banana fruit:

 

[DeitySlayer]

I believe that when these two geniuses learned that bananas are a product of centuries of artificial selection, they stopped making this retarded argument.

Calling this argument retarded is an insult to retarded people. To make this argument, you'd have to be on the same intellectual level as someone who would try and exorcise demons from someone having an epileptic fit - oh! wait, Comfort already did. :clap

 

[evolved yet?]

Hi.
I can be called a creationist, a evolutionist, a atheist, a gnostic etc, thing is I like to look at life from many perspectives, life is just too intricate to look at it from only one or two angles.

The sentences you just gave show that you are not in anyway a atheist, evolutionist or gnostic.

To give absolute proof by anybody is just about impossible. Looking from a scientific (I am not a scientist) point of view tell me that whatever is under the microscope and living, some form of creation must have caused that living thing to be here, millions of years ago that small living thing might have looked differently due to an evolution process the ancestors of that living thing had gone through, scientific studies have indicated with relative proof that what I am stating here is quite possible.

I did not ask for proof, I asked for evidence.

To just reject the creationists claim out right could also be wrong, we don't know due to lack of evidence whether a creator exist or not. Whatever we look at around us tells us it must have started somewhere, and with something. Nothing can be created with nothing, the evolutionist claim that everything just started some time in the past from a big bang is also a theory, a theory which can be explained from a number of angles to make it look possible but is it even close to true? No definately not.

That is not part of evolutionary theory, we are not talking about the big bang, besides this argument is a straw man argument.

If it did start from a big bang, something caused the big bang, yes a number of elements which interacted and 'pow' here we are! Something or someone must have mixed those elements knowing exactly what the outcome would be, the design of every living thing we look at and investigate tells us that a intelligence was involved, that is a conclusion all scientists come to after having studied life for some time, even the hard core atheist scientists, but lack of proof deny them to accept a creator.

The big bang did not start with a mixture of elements since there were no elements before the big bang.

Something the creationists and evolutionists can think about is this; grass, plants, trees, flowers, insects, small to large animals, germs, viruses( emphasis added) etc, live, all those things breath in air, and eat in some manner, same as us!

Viruses don't respirate or eat the similarities can be explained by common descent.

Religion and folkreligion across the globe talks about spirit, and life after death etc.

And your point is?

No dead man we know have come back yet in another body some hundred or thousand years later and while awake told us exactly who he or she was all those years ago and prove it by way of historical books etc, because of this we don't want to believe in spirit, no proof!

Spirit is an unfalsifiable concept and therefore non-scientific.

Ok, let's assume; according to science the first life on earth were microscopic organisms similar to the amoeba and also procreated by way of self division. many years later due to survival instincts these organisms have mutated into various different bigger creatures, but to this day we still find those exact same microscopic organisms, and in remote areas some of their later descendants!

Living microorganisms today are very different then there ancestors, if you refer to stromalites they have also changed greatly.

Which tells us what?

Creation hasn't stopped!

Some time ago a scientist told me that a group of scientists experimented with atoms, they managed to lock a atom inside a container, placed a wall in the middle with a slot in it and chased the atom through the slot to the other side, the scientist busy with the test expected the atom to hit the other wall in a direct line, but it didn't, it veered from the straight line and hit at a place not "expected" he tried again, same result, another scientist tried, same story.

He then asked me my opinion, which is this; that small microscopic thing experience us fully, but we only experience it in a small way. Which led me to think that nature can 'read' us, but we due to our ignorance in relation to spirit cannot 'read' nature.

Another unfalsifiable, religious, unscientific, and philosophical concept.

My suggestion is; do you think it is possible that spirit evolve the same as the physical entities which first breathed the air on this planet, is it possible that we have reincarnated numerous times learning all the way and because of this are able to grasp science so readily, but our ignorance in regards to spirit is keeping us back? Is preventing us to really understand creation?

I think that our ignorance to lack of spirit is definitely holding us back.

Just a thought.

walmul.

"It is better to keep quiet and be thought a fool then speaking and removing all doubt"...

 

[Super Universe]

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

I believe in God and I believe in evolution. Why couldn't God do it that way? It's smart.

But don't overstep your own theory. Evolution does not explain, nor attempt to explain, the origin of life. Yes, I know Darwin titled his book that way but Natural Selection does not address the beginning of life. And yes, I know about the experiment where amino acids formed in the presence of primordial elements and lightning but amino acids are not alive. It's like finding a deposit of aluminum oxide and saying "See, a 747 could have formed itself from natural processes!"

Find one instance of something dead coming to life. Just one. You can't. A fetus is simply a growth of living tissue formed from the combination of two living cells.

This mysterious energy that activates DNA/RNA (what we call "LIFE") is unknown other than it's effect. Kind of like gravity.

Also, Natural Selection has very little to do with the actual evolution of life forms. It's main job is simply population control.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Define life.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I believe in God and I believe in evolution. Why couldn't God do it that way? It's smart.

Did you read the tread before posting this?

But don't overstep your own theory. Evolution does not explain, nor attempt to explain, the origin of life. Yes, I know Darwin titled his book that way but Natural Selection does not address the beginning of life.

Again, did you bother to read the tread?

And yes, I know about the experiment where amino acids formed in the presence of primordial elements and lightning but amino acids are not alive. It's like finding a deposit of aluminum oxide and saying "See, a 747 could have formed itself from natural processes!"

Amino acids are building blocks of life as we know it, but all of that is irrelevant to the discussion we're trying to get going here.
Also, you analogy is nonsense. 747s, houses and watches are not alive and are thus not dealt with in the Theory of Evolution. At all.

Find one instance of something dead coming to life. Just one. You can't. A fetus is simply a growth of living tissue formed from the combination of two living cells.

Again, this is irrelevant to the topic of this discussion. It is also utterly irrelevant with regards to the Theory of Evolution.

This mysterious energy that activates DNA/RNA (what we call "LIFE") is unknown other than it's effect. Kind of like gravity.

The forces that affect atomic and molecular structures are fairly well understood. There is no "life-energy", and if there is, show me some evidence of this force (And don't say "life". Again, the physical aspects of molecular science and microbiology are fairly well understood.).

Also, Natural Selection has very little to do with the actual evolution of life forms. It's main job is simply population control.

Really? Please explain which mechanism is responsible for the evolutionary pressure then.

 

[Verdadero]

This guy keeps trying to steer everyone back to the topic but this topic is stupid in the first place. What kind of evidence do you really expect to get. Are we supposed to post a website with all the answers.

 

[Meow Mix]

This guy keeps trying to steer everyone back to the topic but this topic is stupid in the first place. What kind of evidence do you really expect to get. Are we supposed to post a website with all the answers.

Oooohhh... so close. Would have been so true if instead it just said:

This guy keeps trying to steer everyone back to the topic but this topic is stupid in the first place. What kind of evidence do you really expect to get. There is none.

 

[Wotan]

"Yes, I know Darwin titled his book that way but Natural Selection does not address the beginning of life."

Dude, you are demonstrating your ignorance. Darwin did NOT entitle his major work "The Origins of Life."

Jezz you'd think before someone started criticizing something they would at least know what it said.

 

[evolved yet?]

This mysterious energy that activates DNA/RNA (what we call "LIFE") is unknown other than it's effect. Kind of like gravity.

This is a form of Vitalism a long out dated principle.

 

[Autodidact]

This guy keeps trying to steer everyone back to the topic but this topic is stupid in the first place. What kind of evidence do you really expect to get. Are we supposed to post a website with all the answers.

It depends on what your hypothesis is. What's yours?

 

[Atomist]

Okay, I'm a young earth Creationist. I'll give it a shot. Here goes:

Based on the Berlin census, the population of the world in 1922 was 1,804,187,000.

The human race must double itself 30.75 times to make this number.

At the beginning of the first period of doubling there would just be two human beings; the second, 4; the third, 8; the fourth, 16; the tenth, 1024; and so on. To have the present population of the globe, the net population must be doubled more than thirty times and less than thirty-one times. By logarithms, we find it to be 30.75 times. After all allowances for natural deaths, wars, catastrophes, and losses of all kinds, if the human race would double its numbers 30.75 times, we would have the present population of the globe,1,073,741,824.

Hales' chronology based on the Septuagint text states there have been 5177 years since the ancestors of humanity numbered only two, Noah and his wife.
If the human race is 2,000,000 years old, the period of doubling would be 65,040 years.

If the human race is 2,000,000 years old, the remote ancestors would've begun with one pair and doubled their numbers in 1612.51 years. That equates to 1240 times in 2,000,000 years. If you raise 2 to the 1240th power, the result is 18,932,139,737,991 with 360 figures following.

The population of the world today would have to be 18,932,139,737,991 decillion, decillion, decillion. decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion; or 18,932,139,737,991 vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion.
[/color]

except population growth is limited by resource... and that population growth has been due to technological advancements more than anything else (increased food production, hygiene, medicine as examples)

How old is the earth? because we can tree ring date to >11,000 years and we can ice core date up to 800,000 years... but I expect straw man responses for both...just like they give to radiometric dating.

Edit did some rudamentary math... 2*2^31= ~2billion so since it doubled 31 times... 31x30.8< 1000 years... so using your logic the earth is under 1000 years...

 

[The Neo Nerd]

At the beginning of the first period of doubling there would just be two human beings; the second, 4; the third, 8; the fourth, 16; the tenth, 1024; and so on. To have the present population of the globe, the net population must be doubled more than thirty times and less than thirty-one times. By logarithms, we find it to be 30.75 times. After all allowances for natural deaths, wars, catastrophes, and losses of all kinds, if the human race would double its numbers 30.75 times, we would have the present population of the globe,1,073,741,824.

These two original people are you talking about adam and eve?

-Q

 

[singpeace]

Noah and his wife.

 

[David M]

Okay, I'm a young earth Creationist. I'll give it a shot. Here goes:

Based on the Berlin census, the population of the world in 1922 was 1,804,187,000.

The human race must double itself 30.75 times to make this number.

At the beginning of the first period of doubling there would just be two human beings; the second, 4; the third, 8; the fourth, 16; the tenth, 1024; and so on. To have the present population of the globe, the net population must be doubled more than thirty times and less than thirty-one times. By logarithms, we find it to be 30.75 times. After all allowances for natural deaths, wars, catastrophes, and losses of all kinds, if the human race would double its numbers 30.75 times, we would have the present population of the globe,1,073,741,824.

Hales' chronology based on the Septuagint text states there have been 5177 years since the ancestors of humanity numbered only two, Noah and his wife.
If the human race is 2,000,000 years old, the period of doubling would be 65,040 years.

If the human race is 2,000,000 years old, the remote ancestors would've begun with one pair and doubled their numbers in 1612.51 years. That equates to 1240 times in 2,000,000 years. If you raise 2 to the 1240th power, the result is 18,932,139,737,991 with 360 figures following.

The population of the world today would have to be 18,932,139,737,991 decillion, decillion, decillion. decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion; or 18,932,139,737,991 vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion.
[/color]

Humans have been around for 200,000 years so the average time would be about 6,500 years. However an average is just that, an average of all values.

Firstly there is ample evidence for a population bottleneck ending about 75,000 years ago that means the population we see today has been increasing since then. An estimated 10,000 humans were around then which means just over 19 doublings since then which makes the average period just shy of 4,000 years.

There is also mortality rates (both infant and maternal) the doubling rates we see today only started a couple of centures ago, there is hard evidence that between 100AD and 800AD the population of england did not grow at all. Part of this was due to mortality rates much higher than we see today. If 50% of your children die before
they are 15 and childbirth is the leading cause of female deaths you can see why its difficult to grow the population that fast.

Then we have the most important factor - carrying capacity. There is a limit to the amount of food that can be gathered annually from any given area. Without agriculture, which has only been around for at best 20,000 years (and I am not talking about modern agriculture that is a much more recent innovation) you are limited to a hunter/gatherer lifestyle. At best you are looking at supporting 1 person per sq KM and usually lower than that.

This would mean that pre-agriculture the UK could have supported a population of 245,000 people, and that is if the entire landscape was being utilised. That is 0.4% of the current population. Even those numbers are maximums, throw in an ice age and the population that northern europe can support drops dramatically.

So considering how early man lived the popualtion growth rates from 200,000 years ago seem about right.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

For singpeace

CB620: Population growth

 

[Gunfingers]

Suppose that man, the dominant species, originated from a single pair, only 100,000 years ago, the shortest period suggested by any evolutionist (and much too short for evolution) and that the population doubled in 1612.51 years, one-tenth the rate of Jewish net increase; the present population of the globe should be 4,660,210,253,138,204,300 or 2,527,570,733.

These calculations have greater allowances than any self-respecting evolutionist could ask. The ancestors of man could not possibly have lived 2,000,000 or 1,000,000 or 100,000 years ago, or even 10,000 years ago; for if the population had increased at the rate it has for 10,000 years, it would be more than two billion times as great as it is.

So our options are either that all the archeological and paleontological evidence for the population rates of human beings over the last 4 million years* are wrong, or you're abusing mathematical extrapolation.

Also, you should reread Genesis, there were 8 people who survived the flood.

*Approximate period in which Australopithecus lived, and thank God Firefox knew how to spell that.