Creationists, please provide evidence

[PolyHedral]

Singpeace, what are you doing? Despite our best efforts, humans are not immortal. Assuming every couple, everywhere, has two reproducing children every 15 years means that the population remains approximately constant, not doubles every 15 years. If you try to use ancient birth rates as a baseline, you've also got to take into account the staggeringly high death rate as well.

 

[Autodidact]

O.K., rather than start with humans, let's find out what your basic hypothesis is, singpeace. In your scenario, how did we get the enormous diversity of species on earth? Please be specific. Remember, not who, which we all agree on, but how? Thanks.

 

[Venatoris]

O.K., rather than start with humans, let's find out what your basic hypothesis is, singpeace. In your scenario, how did we get the enormous diversity of species on earth? Please be specific. Remember, not who, which we all agree on, but how? Thanks.

And please don't say micro-evolution without stating the specific groups in which it can take place and which it cannot. All of them, not examples like dogs and cats.

 

[Pegg]

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

Instinct is not found in the genetic code and cannot be explained by evolution as to how every animal on the planet became programmed. This is evidence of creation.

 

[Venatoris]

Instinct is not found in the genetic code and cannot be explained by evolution as to how every animal on the planet became programmed. This is evidence of creation.

This is evidence of rhetoric, not creation. We want evidence for creation. Tip: if you can fit it into one sentence it isn't good enough.

 

[Skwim]

Instinct is not found in the genetic code

Just because we haven't found gold in them thar hills doesn't mean it isn't there; however, as the article on instinct in Wikipedia points out, the gold has been found.

"Instinct is the inherent inclination of a living organism toward a particular behavior. The fixed action patterns are unlearned and inherited. The stimuli can be variable due to imprinting in a sensitive period or also genetically fixed."
​

Yet I assume you have the science at hand that backs up your claim and refutes the science the Wikipedia article is based on. I await-----and, yes, to be inherited it must reside in the genetic code.

 

[Requia]

You might want to quote the part of the wikipedia article where it actually says what where and how instinct was linked to genetics, and not something fairly vague that probably means instinct was assumed to be genetic.

 

[jarofthoughts]

You might want to quote the part of the wikipedia article where it actually says what where and how instinct was linked to genetics, and not something fairly vague that probably means instinct was assumed to be genetic.

His quote was proportional to your claim. Instinct in and of itself is an extremely vague concept and can mean many different things based on the context it is used.
But to give you a shot rundown of how it works it goes a little something like this:
1. Instinct is based on outer and inner stimuli as a result of the neural signals from the animal's sensory organs or internal biology.
2. Instincts often manifest as a particular emotion or emotions inciting the behaviour.
3. We know that both our internal biology and our sensory organs are coded for in our genes.
4. We also know that emotions stem from electrochemical signals in our brain, which are also coded for in our genes.
5. Therefore, instinct is coded for in our genes.
6. Your argument is nothing more than "I don't understand it so God must have done it" which really is just an argument from ignorance.

If you want more detailed explanations and related evidence you must be a lot more specific than just throwing "instinct" on the table.

 

[walmul]

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

Explain the difference.

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

So something came from nothing! What happened to; "for every action there is a reaction"?

Spirit is an unfalsifiable concept and therefore non-scientific.

Look up "Noetic Sciences"

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

It is also better to ask and learn than to keep quiet and stay a fool!

walmul.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Instinct is not found in the genetic code and cannot be explained by evolution as to how every animal on the planet became programmed. This is evidence of creation.

Ahh the "i don't know it happens so i'm gonna say god did it" argument.

Very very sad.

-Q

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Noah and his wife.

Ok your problem here is your premise starts with a myth.

Not a real solid base for your argument.

-Q

 

[Requia]

His quote was proportional to you claim. Instinct in and of itself is an extremely vague concept and can mean many different things based on the context it is used.
But to give you a shot rundown of how it works it goes a little something like this:
1. Instinct is based on outer and inner stimuli as a result of the neural signals from the animal's sensory organs or internal biology.
2. Instincts often manifest as a particular emotion or emotions inciting the behaviour.
3. We know that both our internal biology and our sensory organs are coded for in our genes.
4. We also know that emotions stem from electrochemical signals in our brain, which are also coded for in our genes.
5. Therefore, instinct is coded for in our genes.
6. Your argument is nothing more than "I don't understand it so God must have done it" which really is just an argument from ignorance.

If you want more detailed explanations and related evidence you must be a lot more specific than just throwing "instinct" on the table.[/quote]

A) I'm not the one that threw instinct on the table
B) My argument does not conclude anything, I was simply pointing out flaws in his logic.
C) What you describe is not evidence that instincts are genetically programmed, but an assumption based on current understanding, assumptions based on current understanding are how you end up concluding that a big rock falls faster than a light rock. No hypothesis is useful without evidence.
D) I'm not a creationist, you might want to consider that before writing responses to things I never said.
E) If you're going to use the word 'therefore' in your conclusion, you should make at least some attempt to have a logical argument leading up to the 'therefore' What you have is a total non sequiter. This is much better:

1) If the sensory organs and neural signals in the brain are rooted in genetics, instinct is rooted in genetics
2) Sensory organs and neural signals are rooted in genetics
3) therefore instinct is genetic

(At least I think that was your argument, it was a bit garbled and I'm not sure what a lot of it was even included for)

 

[Requia]

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

Explain the difference.

Make a prediction for something that will be true if creationism is true. See if that prediction is true.

Make at least one prediction for something that will be false if creationism is true, see if it is in fact false.

Get both of those and you have evidence. Note that the 'prediction' part is critical, you can't name things that are already known.

Proof on the other hand would require demonstrating that *every* prediction of creationism is correct, not just the ones you've checked.

 

[jarofthoughts]

A) I'm not the one that threw instinct on the table.

I realize now that Pegg was the one I intended to quote. For some reason I got your posts mixed together and I appologize for that.

1) If the sensory organs and neural signals in the brain are rooted in genetics, instinct is rooted in genetics
2) Sensory organs and neural signals are rooted in genetics
3) therefore instinct is genetic

(At least I think that was your argument, it was a bit garbled and I'm not sure what a lot of it was even included for)

That is the essence of my argument, yes.

 

[evolved yet?]

Explain the difference.

Evidence can be disputed proof can not, there is no evidence or proof for creationism.

So something came from nothing! What happened to; "for every action there is a reaction"?

What reaction is god started from?

Look up "Noetic Sciences"

That is an alternative to the scientific method, this is not a valid science.

It is also better to ask and learn than to keep quiet and stay a fool!

walmul.

Well you certainly didn't ask to learn you came for debate by the looks of it.

 

[Autodidact]

Instinct is not found in the genetic code and cannot be explained by evolution as to how every animal on the planet became programmed. This is evidence of creation.

First, you are once again making the mistake of giving (what you erroneously believe is) evidence against the Theory of Evolution (ToE) as if it were for some reason evidence in favor of your hypothesis, whatever that may be. Even if your statement were true, which it is not, it would not get you anywhere. You need to first clearly state your hypothesis, then figure out what evidence would tend to show it to be true. And remember, we're not looking for who--we know who (God). We're looking for how. How did God go about creating all the different species?

Second, you are quite wrong. ToE explains very well the behavior of varioud different animals, and does so better than any other explanation.

 

[Autodidact]

Explain the difference.

Proof is absolute and complete, as a mathematical or logical proof. Evidence is empirical, cumulative and never absolutely definitively irrefutable. Science is about evidence, not proof. It's empirical, not a priori.

 

[DeitySlayer]

So something came from nothing! What happened to; "for every action there is a reaction"?

I detest the frequent YEC statement that the Big Bang teaches 'something came from nothing'.

No.

'From nothing, something AND 'anti-something' came into being'

This is a very different situation. The two components balance into a net energy gain of zero. Nothing has been 'created' in the net, overall sense.

 

[Meow Mix]

I detest the frequent YEC statement that the Big Bang teaches 'something came from nothing'.

No.

'From nothing, something AND 'anti-something' came into being'

This is a very different situation. The two components balance into a net energy gain of zero. Nothing has been 'created' in the net, overall sense.

Also, something and anti-something didn't even come from "nothing."

Physics can't go further "backwards" than the first Planck time at this time. In fact, with our current knowledge, asking what was "before" the first Planck time makes as much sense as asking what's north of the north pole.

Physics does not claim the universe came from nothing, regardless of early-universe matter/anti-matter symmetries.

 

[Autodidact]

Creationists: Do you understand what you are being asked for?
First, state in clear terms how you believe God actually went about creating the many different species we see on earth.
Second, state what evidence would tend to support or disprove that hypothesis.

For example, if your hypothesis is that Pangu grew tired after pushing earth and heaven apart, and died, and that his body turned into everything we see on earth, with the insects on his body turning into human beings, what would we expect to see? How could we confirm or test this hypothesis?