Creationists, please provide evidence

[Autodidact]

It makes new species if you like, but not new kinds.

O.K., so what is your hypothesis for how we got the "kinds," (however you define that), if not magic poofing?

 

[Pegg]

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.

christians have accepted the God of the bible as their God and hindus have accepted Vishnu as their god and others accept other gods...the point is that in terms of creation, a creator was involved no matter which creator you believe him to be...he could even be an alien from an advanced civilization for that matter. Either no creator was involved and we are merely products of a natural world, or a creator was involved.

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.

of course they believe that...its what the ToE says should have happened. However, the evidence doesnt back up that belief as this article shows
"Similarly, as far as the arthropods are concerned, the different subphyla of trilobites, horseshoe crabs and crustaceans arise in the Cambrian. Furthermore, the crustaceans are exceedingly diverse. All four major classes of the crustaceans and many lower taxa are found in the Cambrian; but, again, despite this multitude of fossils, no trace can be found of any transitional forms which would link the different groups to a common ancestor. "

You mean the truth that plants arose before the sun?

Genesis does not say that plants arose before the sun. the light from the sun is mentioned at Gen 1:3 “Let light come to be.’ that was in day 1. The 'light' mentioned is from the hebrew word 'ohr' which is light in a general sense meaning that the light was reaching the earth, although the source of light, the sun (hebrew ma'ohr'), was not visible.

Is it possible that there can be light but no sun? Of course it is. We get days like that when the sky is overcast with cloud cover...we still have light on a cloudy day even though we cannot see the sun.

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

The bible does not say the moon is an 'independent light source'
The hebrew word for 'source of light' is ma'ohr and is used only in reference to the 'sun' whereas the word for moon when used for 'luminary' is marth

Genesis says that it was the 'smaller luminary for lighting the night and to provide a sign for seasons and for dividing the day and night' which is quite interesting considering that at certain times of the month the moon actually looks bigger then the sun.

Does the moon provide light at night? Yes i think it does.

 

[Pegg]

You have no clue what the Cambrian explosion is. It has no resemblance to the Genesis account. It's about tiny slugs and shelled creatures, all living in the ocean, first showing up in the fossil record over a period of millions of years, millions of years ago. Does that sound to you anything like God poofing two giraffes into existence?

"tiny slugs and shelled creatures" is a bit of an understatement. There is a great variety of fully developed, complex sea creatures who appeared during the cambrian period. Basically we see all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates appearing at once. And they are not all the same, they are very diverse...snails, sponges, starfish, the lobsterlike trilobites...the diversity is enormous and the fact that they have no known ancestors is also 'enormous'.

But heres an even more 'enormous' fact...Monoplacophorans were believed long extinct until a living species was discovered deep in the Pacific Ocean in the 1950s.

Your argument is that the fact that two different species cannot reproduce together is evidence of your magic poofing hypothesis? Do you disagree with me that idea can neither be supported nor refuted by evidence? If so, why?

it simply clarifies what a genesis 'kind' is. If two different species cannot reproduce (or hybridize), it is evidence that they are two different 'kinds', that is all.

Can you cite any such research?

Let's start with the initial magic poof. What sort of research would support that?

Genesis says that 'in the beginning God created..."

Cosmologists have shown that the universe is expanding which, if reversed would logically come back to a starting point, hence why they believe the universe had a beginning. The bible is in harmony with that fact.

They also believe that 'the big bang' is a away to describe how the universe came into existence...the bible states that God is the source of 'dynamic energy' at Isaiah 40:26 “Raise your eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? . . . Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing.”
Is the big bang in harmony with the bibles description of Gods ability here? yes i believe it is. If he caused the big bang then he would need to have quite a bit of energy and power to do so.

Isaiah 40:22 says 'There is one dwelling above the circle of the earth...the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze'
Is the earth round like a circle? yes i think it is
Is the 'heavens' as in the skies above us, being stretched out? According to cosmologists, yes it is. Its expanding which could be described as being stretched out.

How about the question asked about the earth found at Job 38:6 "Into what have its socket pedestals been sunk down,"
Does the earth have 'socket pedestals'? Yes, i believe so. The earth’s crust is much thicker under continents and even thicker under mountain ranges. Oceanic crust is only about 5 miles thick, but continental roots go down about 20 miles and mountain roots even further.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

of course they believe that...its what the ToE says should have happened. However, the evidence doesnt back up that belief as this article shows
"Similarly, as far as the arthropods are concerned, the different subphyla of trilobites, horseshoe crabs and crustaceans arise in the Cambrian. Furthermore, the crustaceans are exceedingly diverse. All four major classes of the crustaceans and many lower taxa are found in the Cambrian; but, again, despite this multitude of fossils, no trace can be found of any transitional forms which would link the different groups to a common ancestor. "

That's a creationist website (shock horror).

As for transitional forms from the Cambrian explosion, here:
Cambrian Explosion

 

[Pegg]

Yes, he does, and he doesn't believe in your silly creation story, and he doesn't appreciate having his words twisted to make it look like he does. He was so mad that he wrote this passage to refute that particular quote-mine:

That it is impossible to trace direct lineages of ancestry and descent from the fossil record should be self-evident. Ancestors must exist, of course -- but we can never attribute ancestry to any particular fossil we might find. Just try this thought experiment -- let's say you find a fossil of a hominid, an ancient member of the human family. You can recognize various attributes that suggest kinship to humanity, but you would never know whether this particular fossil represented your lineal ancestor - even if that were actually the case. The reason is that fossils are never buried with their birth certificates. Again, this is a logical constraint that must apply even if evolution were true -- which is not in doubt, because if we didn't have ancestors, then we wouldn't be here. Neither does this mean that fossils exhibiting transitional structures do not exist, nor that it is impossible to reconstruct what happened in evolution. [...]In addition, the use by creationists of selective, unauthorized quotations, possibly with intent to mislead the public undermines their position as self-appointed guardians of public values and morals.

Quote-mining is a type of lie. People who do it are called liars. Are you a liar?If not, then stop quote-mining.It would be as if I took your quote: "The writer of genesis was not a scientist," and used it to show that you oppose creationism. Not very nice, is it? Stop doing it, if you value your credibility or care at all about honesty.

contrary to what you think, that comment by Gee is actually in reference to the 'Discovery Institutes' use of comments he made in his book on pages 11, 40, 47, 88, and 111. Here is the beginning of his comment about their quote mining:

The Discovery Institute’s Viewers Guide to the PBS “Evolution” series claims in several places (for example, on page 11) that the series “…leave(s) viewers with the misleading impression that the evidence for human evolution is much stronger than it really is.” The Guide attempts to discredit the scientific implications of the human fossil record by quoting (on pages 11, 40, 47, 88, and 111) passages from the 1999 book In Search of Deep Time by Dr. Henry Gee, who is also Senior Editor, Biological Sciences, for the journal Nature. Dr. Gee has sent us the following comments:

The quote i have used: "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 "
Is from the same book but frompage 116-117. It has not been taken out of context and he was not replying to that particular quote in the above article.


You should be able to determine exactly what he is saying by his reply that you posted. "That it is impossible to trace direct lineages of ancestry and descent from the fossil record should be self-evident. Ancestors must exist, of course -- but we can never attribute ancestry to any particular fossil we might find."

The quote from him on page 116 says "'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 "

which is exactly what he acknowledges in his rebuttal to the discovery institute... .that it is impossible to attribute ancestry and that fact is self evident.

So now you've gone and quote mined, or havent really read the information you posted well enough to be able to see whats going on.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

christians have accepted the God of the bible as their God and hindus have accepted Vishnu as their god and others accept other gods...the point is that in terms of creation, a creator was involved no matter which creator you believe him to be...he could even be an alien from an advanced civilization for that matter. Either no creator was involved and we are merely products of a natural world, or a creator was involved.

And, as it currently stands anyway, the available evidence shows no sign of a creator's hand.

of course they believe that...its what the ToE says should have happened. However, the evidence doesnt back up that belief as this article shows
"Similarly, as far as the arthropods are concerned, the different subphyla of trilobites, horseshoe crabs and crustaceans arise in the Cambrian. Furthermore, the crustaceans are exceedingly diverse. All four major classes of the crustaceans and many lower taxa are found in the Cambrian; but, again, despite this multitude of fossils, no trace can be found of any transitional forms which would link the different groups to a common ancestor. "

CC300: Cambrian Explosion

Genesis does not say that plants arose before the sun. the light from the sun is mentioned at Gen 1:3 “Let light come to be.’ that was in day 1. The 'light' mentioned is from the hebrew word 'ohr' which is light in a general sense meaning that the light was reaching the earth, although the source of light, the sun (hebrew ma'ohr'), was not visible.

Is it possible that there can be light but no sun? Of course it is. We get days like that when the sky is overcast with cloud cover...we still have light on a cloudy day even though we cannot see the sun.

However, Genesis relates the creation of plant life on Day Three and the creation of the sun on Day Four. We're not dealing with a sun hidden by clouds. We're dealing with a sun that didn't even exist when plants were made. This is a bit of a problem for the Genesis narrative.

The bible does not say the moon is an 'independent light source'
The hebrew word for 'source of light' is ma'ohr and is used only in reference to the 'sun' whereas the word for moon when used for 'luminary' is marth

Genesis says that it was the 'smaller luminary for lighting the night and to provide a sign for seasons and for dividing the day and night' which is quite interesting considering that at certain times of the month the moon actually looks bigger then the sun.

Does the moon provide light at night? Yes i think it does.

Ma'ohr is used for both the sun and the moon.

Genesis 1 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version)

Two great lights. The greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night.

The moon is not a 'light' in and of itself. It reflects the light of the sun, nothing more.

Clearly, the authors of Genesis were not aware of this.

 

[McBell]

Spades is a kind

Define "kind".

 

[tumbleweed41]

I think it is time to bring back my "Dishonesty of Creationists" thread.

 

[Danmac]

Could you explain that in detail? What does this even mean? Because that's how ToE says we get every species on earth, and you disagree, correct?

Lets assume that God used evolution as the vehicle to bring about all species. The Bible clearly states,

Genesis 1:24 ¶ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

That would be consistent with the evolutionary process. After all, I don't believe God uses anything other than natural means. No magic poofing here. To some extent that doesn't contradict scripture, or my beliefs. The only problem is, humankind is distinct from all other kinds. We cannot be lumped together with all other animal kinds. Somewhere along the line we received an ingredient that is not in all other animal kinds. Somewhere in the process there was a fork in the road where humankind went to the right, and all other kinds went to the left. Would you consider that?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Lets assume that God used evolution as the vehicle to bring about all species. After all, I don't believe God uses anything other than natural means. No magic poofing here. To some extent that doesn't contradict scripture, or my beliefs. The only problem is, humankind is distinct from all other kinds. We cannot be lumped together with all other animal kinds. Somewhere along the line we received an ingredient that is not in all other animal kinds. IMO

Hi Dan,

Can you please explain how we are different.

N.B. The fact that we are more advanced than other animals ain't a great response because so is a gorilla compared to a worm and they are both animals.

-Q

 

[Pegg]

However, Genesis relates the creation of plant life on Day Three and the creation of the sun on Day Four. We're not dealing with a sun hidden by clouds. We're dealing with a sun that didn't even exist when plants were made. This is a bit of a problem for the Genesis narrative.

the account in hebrew does not say that the sun was 'created' on the 4th day. It says 'Let there become lights in the firmament of the heavens' ...the hebrew word used here means 'become' as opposed to the word 'create' mentioned in Vs 1 . There is a big difference.

the firmament was the atmosphere...day 4 was when the skies were finally clear enough for the sun and moon to be visible...the light of which had been reaching the earth since day 1 when God said 'let light come to be' ... before day 1 there was 'darkness upon the surface of the waters'

Ma'ohr is used for both the sun and the moon.

Genesis 1 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version)

Two great lights. The greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night.

The moon is not a 'light' in and of itself. It reflects the light of the sun, nothing more.

Clearly, the authors of Genesis were not aware of this.

so we should all stop using the phrase 'moonlight' seeing the moon is not a 'light in itself' ? Perhaps we are also not aware of this seeing we continue to use such a silly phrase.

 

[Gunfingers]

I do believe there can be species within a kind that can become reproductively isolated from the parent kind due to a loss of information.

What is "information" in this context and how does one lose it? How do you distinguish organisms reproductively isolated due to loss of information from ones reproductively isolated due to being different "kinds"?

 

[Danmac]

Hi Dan,

Can you please explain how we are different.

N.B. The fact that we are more advanced than other animals ain't a great response because so is a gorilla compared to a worm and they are both animals.

-Q

Morality is not found in other kinds. There are no manners at the table of animals.

 

[Danmac]

What is "information" in this context and how does one lose it? How do you distinguish organisms reproductively isolated due to loss of information from ones reproductively isolated due to being different "kinds"?

Natural selection eliminates traits that will hinder survival. Or it chooses traits that will better aid survival. Thru this process information is discarded.

 

[Noaidi]

Morality is not found in other kinds. There are no manners at the table of animals.

Research has shown that many animal species have a sense of morality, and that the roots of our own morality can be seen in other primate species. Perhaps it's more accurate for you to say that other animals may not have such a complex form of morality as we do, but it does exist.

Although animal morality isn't the theme of this thread, I'll post a link and perhaps it can be discussed elsewhere.

Animals can tell right from wrong - Telegraph

 

[Danmac]

Research has shown that many animal species have a sense of morality, and that the roots of our own morality can be seen in other primate species. Perhaps it's more accurate for you to say that other animals may not have such a complex form of morality as we do, but it does exist.

Although animal morality isn't the theme of this thread, I'll post a link and perhaps it can be discussed elsewhere.

Animals can tell right from wrong - Telegraph

I have a German Shepherd that had to be bribed with treats to obey. She doesn't stay away from the supper table because of conscience, but because she was bribed to do it with treats, until the habit was formed. If you are right, why don't they teach dogs right from wrong, rather than using bribery to get them to do what you want them to do?

 

[Gunfingers]

Natural selection eliminates traits that will hinder survival. Or it chooses traits that will better aid survival. Thru this process information is discarded.

That could answer one of the three questions i asked, but it leaves the question of "what is information in this context" and "What is the difference between an organism which has lost information and an organism that is a different kind."

 

[Noaidi]

I have a German Shepherd that had to be bribed with treats to obey. She doesn't stay away from the supper table because of conscience, but because she was bribed to do it with treats, until the habit was formed. If you are right, why don't they teach dogs right from wrong, rather than using bribery to get them to do what you want them to do?

You have to consider the circumstances surrounding the display of moral behaviour. Did you read the link I posted? It outlines some thought-provoking examples.

Again, I'm happy to discuss this on another thread to prevent this one being sidetracked away from creationist evidence.

 

[Danmac]

That could answer one of the three questions i asked, but it leaves the question of "what is information in this context" and "What is the difference between an organism which has lost information and an organism that is a different kind."

I'm not sure I understand your question.

 

[Danmac]

You have to consider the circumstances surrounding the display of moral behaviour. Did you read the link I posted? It outlines some thought-provoking examples.

Again, I'm happy to discuss this on another thread to prevent this one being sidetracked away from creationist evidence.

I don't know of an active thread that deals with this topic, It sounds like it could be a good thread. Would you like to start one and open up with your position?