• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Creationists, please provide evidence

newhope101

Active Member
Thanks PaintedWolf. Yes the bird to dino theory is interesting. It will be interesting to see where it goes and if it is accepted by the scientific community. Of course I believe birds were created as a kind and then diversified, rather that having evolved from dinos or gliders. Besides I understand that birds were present when dinos were about anyway.

I think arch is either a bird or a feathered dinosaur, as some were, and not necessarily a mid species. Fossils of several other early theropod dinosaurs have shown evidence of feathers, including a species described by Xu in 2004 that was an ancestor of Tyrannosaurus rex.

This species discussion in relation to ‘kind’ appears to be never ending. As genomic data comes to light just how much one organism is related to another will be clearer, as will ‘kinds’. From the Wiki info below, I’d say horses, zebras and other equine animals are PROBABLY not related to Hyracotherium. It looks too unlike a horse. If this guy is depicted as the common ancestor I’d have to say God likely created Rhinos and horses and possibly Tapirs separately as ‘kinds‘.

It is now known that genes can express themselves as the need arises. Similar body parts can evolve separately in different lines. I do not think the same toes necessarily show close ancestry. So I’d say there was a horse type creature created, of whatever name, and this creature diversified into zebras horses okapi etc. However, I acknowledge the similarily evolutionists see.
 
WIKI - Horse
Pleistocene horse fossils have been assigned to a multitude of species, with over 50 species of equines described from the Pleistocene of North America alone, although the taxonomic validity of most of these has been called into question. Recent genetic work on fossils has found evidence for only three genetically divergent equid lineages in Pleistocene North and South America. These results suggest that all North American fossils of caballine-type horses (which also include the domesticated horse and Przewalski's Horse of Europe and Asia), as well as South American fossils traditionally placed in the subgenus E. (Amerhippus) belong to the same species: E. ferus.
 
Hyracotherium
(also known as Eohippus or The Dawn Horse, This small, dog-sized animal is the oldest known horse.
It is believed by some scientists that the Hyracotherium was not only ancestral to the horse, but to other perissodactyls such as rhinos and tapirs. It is now regarded as a paleothere, rather than a horse proper, but this is only true of the type species, H. leporinum. Most other species of Hyracotherium are still regarded as equids, but they have been placed in several other genera: Arenahippus, Minippus, Pliolophus, Protorohippus, Sifrhippus, Xenicohippus, and even Eohippus At one time, Xenicohippus was regarded as an early brontothere.
 

Atomist

I love you.
Thanks PaintedWolf. Yes the bird to dino theory is interesting. It will be interesting to see where it goes and if it is accepted by the scientific community. Of course I believe birds were created as a kind and then diversified, rather that having evolved from dinos or gliders. Besides I understand that birds were present when dinos were about anyway.
birds are dinosaurs but not all dinosaurs are birds. Like are you really going to argue that a Velociraptor is a bird?
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
So that's a case where there was no drive towards speciation. Now, if somehow some of those smaller beaked individuals had been isolated from the rest of the pack, you might now have a small beaked species distinct from the original group.

Now, what of the 15 types of Galapagos finches that did speciate? There are in fact 15 distinct, but closely related finch species on the island.

they are examples of variety just as we see examples of variety amongst other animals such as dogs, cats, horses and every other creature on the planet.

So, are you saying that Eohippus is the same thing as Equus?

eohippustoequus.jpg


Remember, that evolution merely means change over time. Change over time has occurred. The mechanism for evolution is natural selection. This is random mutation being non-randomly selected based on environmental aptitude.

i dont think anyone can definitely link a creature that lived 50 million years ago with the horse. It may look similar but that in itself is not enough 'evidence' to state that it is related. You would need to confirm it with dna to be sure. Until they can do that, then its pure speculation and opinion. Thankfully not all people in the science community believe this one.
Paleontologist Niles Eldredge commented, “ There
have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the
nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit
downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has
been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is
lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may
themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff” [Harper’ s Magazine,
1985, p. 60].


Merely genetics? It seems like you are fine with the idea of speciation, and the creation of new species over time, but for some reason, simply don't like to use the word "evolution".

the aspect of 'evolution' that i completely disagree with is that all creatures have descended from a previous different creature. If we look at the evidence of the fossil record we see that fully formed creatures appear suddenly (Cambrian explosion)
rather then slowly, and more recent research is pointing to mutliple starting points which has puts the traditional view of 'common descent' into question.

another reason is the example of the horse and Eophippus...they link the horse with a creature that lived 50 million years ago and claim that it is the horses common ancestor...how can they do that without dna to prove it? There is no evidence of that. All they are doing is looking for creatures that can fit into their evolutionary 'tree of life' puzzle in order to try and make the theory of common descent look real. But it doesn't look real at all.

So, you are saying that you cannot conceive of some mutation being introduced into the Finch B's (from the previous example) that would further separate them from the original Finch A group? That is also "merely genetics". Mutations do occur. And some of them will not be harmful, if not beneficial.

Variation. Thats all it is. They are still finches and will remain finches...they will not change into anything new.
 
Last edited:

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
1. You're still arguing against evolution. That's not the subject of this thread. This thread is about YOUR hypothesis and YOUR evidence.

evidence for creation is found in the research into evolution which reveals that the bibles explanation is in harmony with the facts. Its as simple as that.

Science has shown us the complexity of the cell and the improbability of it forming by chance (even though they still teach that it did) All their research indicates that life comes only from pre-existing life, spontaneous generation is not possible.
The Cambrian explosion shows animals fully formed arriving in a short time...its in harmony with genesis account of God creating the various 'kinds'
The way reproduction works shows that crossbreeding is not possible between different types of creatures, only amongst their own type is breeding possible which is also in harmony with the genesis account, they reproduce "according to their kinds"

The writer of genesis was not a scientist or a biologist just as modern day believers are not. He was an ancient man who wrote truth under inspiration from God. That truth is confirmed by modern research and for those who do believe in creation, its a strong testimony to the authorship of the bible.
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
We've already explained that variations occur within their given taxonomic rank, the question is what evidence can you present that all species did not at once diverge from a singular (or similar) point of origin? We already have a mountain of evidence that clearly shows this, what can you demonstrate to refute it?

as Henry Gee states in his book, 'In Search of Deep Time-Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life' 1999 p.23

"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage Is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific"

lineage is pure speculation and opinion...it is not evidence.
 
Last edited:

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
I don't know how to break this to you. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. First, you're arguing against yourself. Second, we know that mutations happen and at what rate. We can actually observe them. You're just plain wrong. As you would have to be, since you're arguing the exact opposite of your position--one of your two positions has to be wrong.

I dont know what you class as a mutation, but I dont believe if my child is born with different hair color to me, its a mutation.

Variety, variety and more variety is a result of the way genes work.
 
Last edited:

McBell

Unbound
evidence for creation is found in the research into evolution which reveals that the bibles explanation is in harmony with the facts. Its as simple as that.
That would would great if there was even one iota of truth to it.
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
I found a link explaining the study: Here Interestingly enough, all of the sites presenting their research hailed it as displaying "evolution in action."

Usually separate species cannot interbreed successfully (the most common definition), but some separate species can interbreed, but will generally not interbreed, thus keeping the two lines separate. An unusual rainy season caused a drastic drop of females in one species, which drove some males to mate with females of the other species-- something that normally would not occur.

I've stated over and over that any animals who can interbreed are the same genesis 'kind'. The finches are an example of that which is why I say that 'nothing new has been created, finches are still finches and will remain as such' . Sheep dont 'normally' choose to mate with a goat...yet they can still be crossbred, thus identifying these two distinct animals as the same genesis 'kind'.

How can you say that with such assurance? Again, I ask you, do you not believe that mutations occur? Would not a mutation be adding "something new"? If the genes for Equus were always available in Eohippus, then why do we not see any Equus fossils- or fossils with Equus-like characteristics-- in the same strata as Eohippus?

mutations in biological terms is 'any' change...good or bad it doesnt matter... having a change in hair color or eye color is a mutation. Yes a change has occurred but that in no way means that the creature will eventually become anything different. Equus doesnt need to be found in the same strata as eohippus to disprove relatedness.

It in no way proves that eohippus is the common ancestor of the modern horse.

The beak size in the finches fluctuated according to fluctuations between rainy and drought enviornments. What if a group of those finches flew to a different, isolated island where the environmental was consistently drought-like? You would eventually see the eradication of the smaller beak. Add a couple of mutations and a couple thousand years, and you'd likely see a species separate and new.

the fluctuations in the drought did result in a fluctuation in the beak sizes, but as I mentioned, that was due to the larger beaked birds being more capable of obtaining food. When the drought was over, the smaller beaked birds began to dominate again so we can speculate all we like but the fact is that their was no real change in the birds themselves...they were still able to producing small beaked birds. The best explanation for that is that genes can produce variety within a population.
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
Multiple alleles are the results of mutations... usually due to genetic recombination, crossing over and other errors in chromosome copying.

here is an example of a new feature evolving in an isolated lizard population.
Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island

wa:do

thats a very interesting article...if its true then it surely indicates that evolution happens much faster then the millions of years usually attributed to it

and if its true that evolution can happen that fast, then the 4,000 odd years since the ark and its 2 of each 'kind' is no problem for the diversity we see on earth today
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
What would such a discovery would do to the phylogenetic tree? Very little really. It would simply push the split of one branch back a few million years. The rest of the tree would remain relatively the same.

my take on it is that if they have been wrong on this for so long, they could also be wrong on primate evolution..specifically humans and other primates being related.
 

Krok

Active Member
as Henry Gee states in his book, 'In Search of Deep Time-Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life' 1999 p.23
"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage Is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific"
lineage is pure speculation and opinion...it is not evidence.
Creationists and quote mines.....Lying for jesus, I guess. According to bozos, it's acceptable. According to me, an atheist, lying is always unaccaptable. It's wrong. Always. Period. Always wrong. Look at Witless Quote-Mining - iEditor Blog | Nature Publishing Group Let's have a look at what Henry Lee states about creationists, himself:
Henry Gee said:
My response was (and still is) is that creationists are so desperate to acquire credibility that they'd twist one's words any old how, whatever you said - and that I wasn't about to modify my pronouncements to accommodate this particular bunch of bozos. That my stance is justified comes from the fact that no matter how loudly I state that creationism is a consignment of geriatric shoe manufacturers, they'll still rip me off for quotes just the same. They just want to be close to me, I guess... maybe I should turn my charisma down a notch, and they'll just drift away.
Pegg, why do you lie? And keep on lying? The whole world has discovered that you lie. Stop doing it.
 

Pegg

Jehovah our God is One
Creationists and quote mines.....Lying for jesus, I guess. According to bozos, it's acceptable. According to me, an atheist, lying is always unaccaptable. It's wrong. Always. Period. Always wrong. Look at Witless Quote-Mining - iEditor Blog | Nature Publishing Group Let's have a look at what Henry Lee states about creationists, himself:
Pegg, why do you lie? And keep on lying? The whole world has discovered that you lie. Stop doing it.


your link comes up with
404 Error

We're sorry, the page you requested has not been found. Please try the links above or visit the NCSE Home Page to search for the content you requested.


I can assure you that my link "In Search of Deep Time-Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee. 1999, . p.116 et 117" does in fact state what I quoted.

And Henry Gee is believes in God btw.
 

Noaidi

slow walker
thats a very interesting article...if its true then it surely indicates that evolution happens much faster then the millions of years usually attributed to it

and if its true that evolution can happen that fast, then the 4,000 odd years since the ark and its 2 of each 'kind' is no problem for the diversity we see on earth today

You are assuming that the rate of genetic change is the same for all species. This is not the case. Some species remain stable over long periods of time because of, for example, a relatively stable environment. Those species in a rapidly changing environment have to adapt relatively quickly (or die), so natural selection operates at a faster rate.
 

The_Evelyonian

Old-School Member
evidence for creation is found in the research into evolution which reveals that the bibles explanation is in harmony with the facts. Its as simple as that.

As Mestemia said, this would be great if there was any truth to it.

Science has shown us the complexity of the cell and the improbability of it forming by chance (even though they still teach that it did) All their research indicates that life comes only from pre-existing life, spontaneous generation is not possible.

And this proves the bible, how? Complexity of the cell doesn't equal "biblegoddidit". As a matter of fact, even if we discovered that the only possible way for life to arise is through the action of an intelligent designer, that still wouldn't prove that the god of the bible is anything more than a myth. The idea that it's either evolution or biblical creationism is nonsense. There are other options.

The Cambrian explosion shows animals fully formed arriving in a short time

Yep, just over a short, short 60-80 million years about 530 million years ago. If you're trying to use the Cambrian explosion to support creationism, you should know it won't work. Animals that we are familiar with today did not arise in the explosion, only their ancestors did. In fact, the animals of the Cambrian age would look alien to us.

The modern species that we all know and love did not appear on the scene until much, much later.

...its in harmony with genesis account of God creating the various 'kinds'

No, actually, it isn't. No serious scientist believes that the animals that arose in the Cambrian explosion just "popped" into existence. All of the available evidence shows that they evolved from earlier basal forms.

The way reproduction works shows that crossbreeding is not possible between different types of creatures, only amongst their own type is breeding possible which is also in harmony with the genesis account, they reproduce "according to their kinds"

Hybridization between different species is possible under certain circumstances. However, no one (that I know of) suggests that hybridization is how evolution produces new species. Evolution does not say that species A mated with species B to give rise to species C. Instead, speciation happens when two (or more) lineages from a single ancestral population become so different genetically that they can no longer readily interbreed or produce viable offspring.

But beyond that, you still can't say that reproduction proves "kind after kind" as you've still yet to define what a "kind" actually is.

The writer of genesis was not a scientist or a biologist just as modern day believers are not.

That much is obvious.

He was an ancient man who wrote truth under inspiration from God.

You mean the truth that plants arose before the sun?

Or the truth that the moon is an independent light source?

Or the truth that showing a striped stick to a goat will cause her to bear striped offspring?

That truth is confirmed by modern research

No, again, it isn't.

and for those who do believe in creation, its a strong testimony to the authorship of the bible.

Subjective validation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:

The_Evelyonian

Old-School Member
your link comes up with
404 Error

We're sorry, the page you requested has not been found. Please try the links above or visit the NCSE Home Page to search for the content you requested.


I can assure you that my link "In Search of Deep Time-Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee. 1999, . p.116 et 117" does in fact state what I quoted.

And Henry Gee is believes in God btw.

The crazy billboard lady is back again : Pharyngula
 

Krok

Active Member
they are examples of variety just as we see examples of variety amongst other animals such as dogs, cats, horses and every other creature on the planet.
That’s the Theory of Evolution.
i dont think anyone can definitely link a creature that lived 50 million years ago with the horse.
Yes, of course you can. Right time-frame in the fossils.
It may look similar but that in itself is not enough 'evidence' to state that it is related.
It is more evidence than you have for “poofing” horses into existence.
You would need to confirm it with dna to be sure.
DNA analyses are not available, because we haven’t found any DNA in those fossils. In the meantime, you can look at other relationships.
Until they can do that, then its pure speculation and opinion.
No, not at all. We can look at the time-frame. No speculation involved at all. Just physical evidence.
Thankfully not all people in the science community believe this one.
Paleontologist Niles Eldredge commented, “ There
have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the
nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit
downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has
been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is
lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may
themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff” [Harper’ s Magazine,
1985, p. 60].
Thankfully Niles Eldridge is an excellent paleontologist. He follows the evidence. Therefore he knows that evolution happened, and is very outspoken about it, like over 99% of all relevant scientists. He’s got no doubt about the Theory of Evolution. It happened. There’s no disagreement that it did happen. Scientists disagree about the exact mechanisms, but they all know evolution occurred. Every little piece of evidence indicates that it did happen. Whereas there’s not one single piece of evidence indicating creation.
....the aspect of 'evolution' that i completely disagree with is that all creatures have descended from a previous different creature.
What? You disagree that dogs evolved from the wolf “kind”?
If we look at the evidence of the fossil record we see that fully formed creatures appear suddenly (Cambrian explosion)
No, we certainly don’t. For example, we don’t have anything resembling the wolf “kind” in the Cambrian. They developed later. Way after the Cambrian explosion.
rather then slowly, and more recent research is pointing to mutliple starting points which has puts the traditional view of 'common descent' into question.
Do you have any evidence for that? Please provide it before making statements.
another reason is the example of the horse and Eophippus...they link the horse with a creature that lived 50 million years ago and claim that it is the horses common ancestor...how can they do that without dna to prove it?
Maybe it’s because they haven’t found any horse DNA from that time. You are welcome to go and have a look at where to find it. Nobody’s stopping you from doing that.
There is no evidence of that.
Yes, there is. We call that evidence fossils.
All they are doing is looking for creatures that can fit into their evolutionary 'tree of life' puzzle in order to try and make the theory of common descent look real. But it doesn't look real at all.
Fossils are very real. We have the fossils. You may find a fossil that contradicts the theory, if you look for it. In the meantime, that’s what we have. The more we discover, the more it fits into that puzzle. What we don’t have, at all, is any evidence that any form of modern life just poofed into existence.
Variation. Thats all it is. They are still finches and will remain finches...they will not change into anything new.
Exactly. Thats what the ToE predicts. Varieties did not poof into existence. They evolved to be different varieties.
 

The_Evelyonian

Old-School Member
my take on it is that if they have been wrong on this for so long, they could also be wrong on primate evolution..specifically humans and other primates being related.

The genetic similarities shore the relation up too well. The sequenced genomes show that humans and chimps (as well as the chimps cousin species, Bonobos) are closer to each other than they are to any other species of ape (or any other species for that matter).

Our branch on the genetic tree is rooted firmly with the apes. That isn't going to change.
 
Last edited:

Krok

Active Member
your link comes up with
404 Error
It works on my computer. Type in :
http//search.yahoo.com/search?p=Henry+Gee+quote+mine&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701
. Maybe my computer is from the devil? Oh, and remember Pegg, that disproving evolution does not make creationism the default hypothesis. You still need evidence for it. Do you know what, for example, panspermia is? Disproving evolution would make panspermia just as likely as, for example, creationism, without any evidence for any of them.
 
Last edited:

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
I've stated over and over that any animals who can interbreed are the same genesis 'kind'.
But you have also said that the ability to hybridize is not the key to determining Biblical kind.
hybridization is not the 'key' to what a genesis kind is. Its merely one way to determine if two animals have the same genotype...reproduction is the key to a genesis kind. It imagine would be impossible to determine if an animal 'lost' the ability to hybridize.
You are claiming that not all species have a common ancestor and then the only evidence you supply is that some species do have common a common ancestor. What we need you to do is first name two species that you believe do not have a common ancestor, and then provide evidence that they do not have a common ancestor. Telling us that certain species do have a common ancestor is not evidence that some species do not have a common ancestor.

I can assure you that my link "In Search of Deep Time-Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee. 1999, . p.116 et 117" does in fact state what I quoted.
Have you read the book? Did you understand the book? Or did you just read a quote from some creationist website?
 

Krok

Active Member
your link comes up with
404 Error
We're sorry, the page you requested has not been found. Please try the links above or visit the NCSE Home Page to search for the content you requested.
I can assure you that my link "In Search of Deep Time-Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee. 1999, . p.116 et 117" does in fact state what I quoted.And Henry Gee is believes in God btw.
Precisely. Science does not try to disprove any kind of god. Whether it's fsm, biblegod, allah, krishna, Zeus, whatever. Maybe some god did create the universe. Scientically nobody can disprove that. Science can investigate claims, though. What science has disproved, for example, is a 6-day creation a few thousand years ago. Only really crazy people can still believe that. They fly into buildings trying to prove it. That's not going to change reality, however. Science can try to have an opinion about that kind of thought, based on evidence. For example, those pilots won't get their 72 virgins in the afterlife, because their's no evidence for an afterlife. They will just sieze to exist. No evidence contradicting that finding anywhere in the world.
 
Top