Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[james bond]

The word 'bacteria' is plural. One is called a bacterium.

I stand corected. It should read, "Bacteria is actually very complex. Evolution cannot create a bacterium as they "claim."

 

[McBell]

I stand corected. It should read, "Bacteria is actually very complex. Evolution cannot create a bacterium as they "claim."

Other than creationist, who claims that evolution creates anything, let alone bacterium?

 

[Sapiens]

I stand corected. It should read, "Bacteria is actually very complex. Evolution cannot create a bacterium as they "claim."

No, it should read:

1. Bacteria are actually ...

2. Evolution has created bacteria as they claim.

 

[shmogie]

Other than creationist, who claims that evolution creates anything, let alone bacterium?

Evolutionists claim that evolution created vastly complex organisms, from infinitely simple ones

 

[McBell]

Evolutionists claim that evolution created vastly complex organisms, from infinitely simple ones

Merely repeating the claim does not help you.

 

[Parsimony]

First of all, it entirely depends on what you mean by evolution. Assuming that your definition of evolution is similar to the neo-Darwinism theory, which includes the theory of common descent, abiogenesis is essential to this argument.

For example, if it could be proved that abiogenesis cannot occur, then neo-Darwinism fails immediately.
Conversely, if it could be proved that abiogenesis is so common that it has occurred multiple times in the past, one would be hard pressed to claim that all life shares a common ancestor.

By "evolution" I mean "common descent". Common descent doesn't rely on abiogenesis, it only relies on a common ancestor or (ancestors). How that ancestor came into being doesn't matter, so long as it did in fact exist.

True, and I conceded that. For an atheist, macro evolutionist, what options are left ?

None that I can think of, but that doesn't mean that they have to know how abiogenesis happened in order to accept evolution.

 

[Zosimus]

By "evolution" I mean "common descent". Common descent doesn't rely on abiogenesis, it only relies on a common ancestor or (ancestors). How that ancestor came into being doesn't matter, so long as it did in fact exist.

First of all, if you mean common descent, I'd rather that you said common descent rather than evolution. Many things evolve – we can talk about the evolution of the automobile, for example. Biological evolution is simply the theory that the frequency of alleles changes from generation to generation. Belief in biological evolution does not necessarily lead one to believe in common descent.

Second, you cannot divorce common descent from abiogenesis as easily as you seem to think. Let me hypothesize, for example, that all prokaryotes came from one instance of abiogenesis whereas all eukaroytes came from a different instance of abiogenesis. If that is true, then the theory of common descent is completely wrong.

 

[shmogie]

Merely repeating the claim does not help you.

Evolutionists do not claim that vastly complex organisms were created by evolution from infinitely simple ones ? Doesn't seem quite right to me. Do you tell fortunes ?

 

[Milton Platt]

the definition has a built in pivot.
I say the big bang and evolution are evidence of God.

Okay, make your case and connect the dots from there was a 'rapid expansion from a central point' to "a god exists"

You must first demonstrate that the entity (god) exists and then give a testable hypothesis for exactly how he did it.

Otherwise, yes, you are guilty of an "argument from ignorance". Basically you have no evidence to point to to connect the two ideas. You have no idea of how it happened and you simply prefer to make up that answer.

 

[shmogie]

The BB began from an alleged singularity, outside the universe.before the expansion Because of the breakdown of theoretical physics, in retrograde at the planck time point, the nature of the singularity can only be guessed at. So, God did it is just as viable an explanation as any other. "Science" denied this for approx. 150, proposing a steady state or closed universe. Red shift and the rapidly increasing speed of the universe were nails in the coffin of these proposals. During these 150 years, Genesis said what it said

 

[gnostic]

Hmmm, so literary alliteration is unfamiliar to you ? Do you believe Job to be a work of science, or literature ? Here is a major myth, held by blind faith, by many.

Genesis is a myth. And so is JOB.

And they are both religious and mythological literature.

The 6 day creation didn't happen.

Nor does Eden episode.

And there are no global flood as Genesis 6 to 8 narrated, happened. No evidences to support the global flood occurring in human history. There are however many devastating regional floods throughout human history and we still get them, but none of them ever cover the entire earth including the mountains as stated by Genesis 7 & 8.

The Genesis flood is based on the Babylonian deluge myth, and the Babylonians got it from Sumerian myth. All the flood myths in this region, is based on the n these river floods.

There are always flood in the Mesopotamia, caused by rivers and streams building from the upper land.

Ziusudra (Sumerian hero), Atrahasis (Akkadian & Old Babylonian hero) and Utnapishtim (Middle and Late Babylonian hero) all attempt to save their family, servants, some animals and boarded a vessel they had built.

In each one, the latter ones get more and more exaggerated, as they evolved over time.

It begun with Ziusudra and the legend was that of river flood, at Shuruppak. It make no mention of every lands in the world been covered floodwaters. In the myth of Ziusudra, the flood lasted 7 days and 7 nights. Myth of this flood can be found narrated on fragmented tablets, known as the Eridu Genesis, a title given by the archaeologist who found the tablet at Nippur; the city of Eridu was used instead of Nippur, most likely due to the city was sacred to Enki, the God of wisdom who warned Ziusudra of the deluge. And there are archaeological and geological evidences that such a flood did occur in 2900 BCE, that left Shuruppak. So the legend is based on real flood, that simply got exaggerated, by later authors. Ziusudra is mentioned in the Sumerian King List, and alluded in the Sumerian poem of Gilgamesh (Death of Gilgames), in which the hero was said to have met Ziusudra, and Brough back the custom of face washing back to Uruk.

In the Epic of Atrahasis, the hero name was changed to Atrahasis, and the tablets though fragmented, tell myth in more details than the earlier Sumerian myths, but there is no mention of Gilgamesh encountering Atrahasis in this epic. Here, the gods created the world including humans, the black-headed humans, which are the Sumerians, so the humans could take over the roles of labourers that the lesser gods, known as the Igigi, building cities and temples, excavating for irrigation. But overpopulation and noise of humans made Enlil want to wipe out the human race. Enlil repeatedly tried to wipe out humans with plagues, diseases and famine, but each time, Enki (or Ea) always managed to warn Ziusudra and save many humans. Finally, Enlil decided to destroyed the black-headed people. Like that of Ziusudra, Atrahasis managed to save his family, some servants and animals. Again, the flood lasted for 7 days, and it is still a river flood.

And in the epic of Gilgamesh, we have the myth of Utnapishtim, which is more like that of Atrahasis myth, except the diseases, plagues and famines are omitted in the latest myth, and the river flood was distorted into a sea flood. Here, Gilgamesh met Utnapishtim, after the death of his friend, Enkidu, in which Utnapishtim relates his story to the hero.

All 3 myths have in common, the creation story, followed by flood and its aftermath, in which the hero made sacrifice to the four gods, just as Noah later sacrificed to one God, after the deluge. The smell of sacrifice drew all the gods to the hero.

The difference is that Genesis turn the sea flood of Utnapishtim, into a more global flood.

And like the older myths, the smell of Noah's sacrifice drew the God.

 

[Thief]

Okay, make your case and connect the dots from there was a 'rapid expansion from a central point' to "a god exists"

You must first demonstrate that the entity (god) exists and then give a testable hypothesis for exactly how he did it.

Otherwise, yes, you are guilty of an "argument from ignorance". Basically you have no evidence to point to to connect the two ideas. You have no idea of how it happened and you simply prefer to make up that answer.

I will not be allowed to plead ignorance when I stand before God and heaven
and you lack the ability to label me as such

and you get to ask God ...how He did it.....when you get there

 

[shmogie]

Genesis is a myth. And so is JOB.

And they are both religious and mythological literature.

The 6 day creation didn't happen.

Nor does Eden episode.

And there are no global flood as Genesis 6 to 8 narrated, happened. No evidences to support the global flood occurring in human history. There are however many devastating regional floods throughout human history and we still get them, but none of them ever cover the entire earth including the mountains as stated by Genesis 7 & 8.

The Genesis flood is based on the Babylonian deluge myth, and the Babylonians got it from Sumerian myth. All the flood myths in this region, is based on the n these river floods.

There are always flood in the Mesopotamia, caused by rivers and streams building from the upper land.

Ziusudra (Sumerian hero), Atrahasis (Akkadian & Old Babylonian hero) and Utnapishtim (Middle and Late Babylonian hero) all attempt to save their family, servants, some animals and boarded a vessel they had built.

In each one, the latter ones get more and more exaggerated, as they evolved over time.

It begun with Ziusudra and the legend was that of river flood, at Shuruppak. It make no mention of every lands in the world been covered floodwaters. In the myth of Ziusudra, the flood lasted 7 days and 7 nights. Myth of this flood can be found narrated on fragmented tablets, known as the Eridu Genesis, a title given by the archaeologist who found the tablet at Nippur; the city of Eridu was used instead of Nippur, most likely due to the city was sacred to Enki, the God of wisdom who warned Ziusudra of the deluge. And there are archaeological and geological evidences that such a flood did occur in 2900 BCE, that left Shuruppak. So the legend is based on real flood, that simply got exaggerated, by later authors. Ziusudra is mentioned in the Sumerian King List, and alluded in the Sumerian poem of Gilgamesh (Death of Gilgames), in which the hero was said to have met Ziusudra, and Brough back the custom of face washing back to Uruk.

In the Epic of Atrahasis, the hero name was changed to Atrahasis, and the tablets though fragmented, tell myth in more details than the earlier Sumerian myths, but there is no mention of Gilgamesh encountering Atrahasis in this epic. Here, the gods created the world including humans, the black-headed humans, which are the Sumerians, so the humans could take over the roles of labourers that the lesser gods, known as the Igigi, building cities and temples, excavating for irrigation. But overpopulation and noise of humans made Enlil want to wipe out the human race. Enlil repeatedly tried to wipe out humans with plagues, diseases and famine, but each time, Enki (or Ea) always managed to warn Ziusudra and save many humans. Finally, Enlil decided to destroyed the black-headed people. Like that of Ziusudra, Atrahasis managed to save his family, some servants and animals. Again, the flood lasted for 7 days, and it is still a river flood.

And in the epic of Gilgamesh, we have the myth of Utnapishtim, which is more like that of Atrahasis myth, except the diseases, plagues and famines are omitted in the latest myth, and the river flood was distorted into a sea flood. Here, Gilgamesh met Utnapishtim, after the death of his friend, Enkidu, in which Utnapishtim relates his story to the hero.

I thought this was a debate on creation, why have you shifted to a totally different topic. Do you find a tactical retreat regarding your views of creation is required ? I would be happy to discuss the flood with you, but you need to start a new thread. I see, you KNOW the six days of creation never happened, provide your evidence that refutes it. Hyperbole is not a replacement for evidence.




All 3 myths have in common, the creation story, followed by flood and its aftermath, in which the hero made sacrifice to the four gods, just as Noah later sacrificed to one God, after the deluge. The smell of sacrifice drew all the gods to the hero.

The difference is that Genesis turn the sea flood of Utnapishtim, into a more global flood.

And like the older myths, the smell of Noah's sacrifice drew the God.

 

[Milton Platt]

The BB began from an alleged singularity, outside the universe.before the expansion Because of the breakdown of theoretical physics, in retrograde at the planck time point, the nature of the singularity can only be guessed at. So, God did it is just as viable an explanation as any other. "Science" denied this for approx. 150, proposing a steady state or closed universe. Red shift and the rapidly increasing speed of the universe were nails in the coffin of these proposals. During these 150 years, Genesis said what it said

"God did it" is not an explanation of anything. It is only an assertion. there are hypotheses which at least have some supporting evidence as far as what happened after the initial inflation. Before that particular time, we have no information with which to form a hypothesis with, including a god or gods. Why arbitrarily try to insert one?

 

[gnostic]

I thought this was a debate on creation, why have you shifted to a totally different topic. Do you find a tactical retreat regarding your views of creation is required ? I would be happy to discuss the flood with you, but you need to start a new thread. I see, you KNOW the six days of creation never happened, provide your evidence that refutes it. Hyperbole is not a replacement for evidence.

You don't even realise that flood myth in Genesis is part of the creation myth, just as the Sumerian Eridu Genesis and the Akkadian Epic of Atrahasis mix creation and flood. And I believe that most Christians view that the Flood is sort of a do-over, where mankind restart.

So I am not sidetracking the thread at all.

Beside this is thread is about creationists provide sources or evidences FOR creationism, not for non-believers providing evidences against creationism.

And lack of evidences would mean creationism is not true, because there are no evidences for God or Creator.

 

[Parsimony]

First of all, if you mean common descent, I'd rather that you said common descent rather than evolution. Many things evolve – we can talk about the evolution of the automobile, for example. Biological evolution is simply the theory that the frequency of alleles changes from generation to generation. Belief in biological evolution does not necessarily lead one to believe in common descent.

That is true, but people often say evolution meaning the theory of evolution as a whole, which would imply both allele frequency changes and common descent.

Second, you cannot divorce common descent from abiogenesis as easily as you seem to think. Let me hypothesize, for example, that all prokaryotes came from one instance of abiogenesis whereas all eukaroytes came from a different instance of abiogenesis. If that is true, then the theory of common descent is completely wrong.

Granted. It's the "if abiogenesis can't happen then evolution is wrong" straw-man that gets me.

 

[shmogie]

You don't even realise that flood myth in Genesis is part of the creation myth, just as the Sumerian Eridu Genesis and the Akkadian Epic of Atrahasis mix creation and flood. And I believe that most Christians view that the Flood is sort of a do-over, where mankind restart.

So I am not sidetracking the thread at all.

Beside this is thread is about creationists provide sources or evidences FOR creationism, not for non-believers providing evidences against creationism.

And lack of evidences would mean creationism is not true, because there are no evidences for God or Creator.

Do you believe the universe and life exist ? Doesn't that make them evidence of creation ? Their very nature is evidence


Genesis 1 is the creation, period. At law, an alternate theory supported by evidence can be considered equal to or superior to the primary theory. So impeachment of the alternate theory is a vital step in adoption of the primary theory. If I prove there is no other alternative, the evidence for the primary theory is given
the proper weight. What you believe most Christians believe is not relevant. The universe, the earth, and life were created in Genesis 1, not anywhere else

 

[shmogie]

"God did it" is not an explanation of anything. It is only an assertion. there are hypotheses which at least have some supporting evidence as far as what happened after the initial inflation. Before that particular time, we have no information with which to form a hypothesis with, including a god or gods. Why arbitrarily try to insert one?

You have made my point, exactly. Some people live by faith in a universe and natural system created with a purpose by a Creator. They believe the Creator is outside the universe and not bound by linear time. Others believe the universe created itself for no particular purpose. Others believe they can't believe in either option, because they are incapable of knowing for sure. Discounting the agnostic, one of which I was for many years, the former two have faith, based upon their interpretation of what they see. On the absurdity scale it appear both faiths ranks right at the top. But, do they ? If we look at any apparently human formed object, we instantly believe a human made it, we never believe it created itself. People look in the sky and see things that convinces them humans couldn't make them so aliens had to. I have yet to see someone on TV saying " it was huge, and black, with many colorful and flashing lights, it was not of this world, it must have made itself " So logic tells us a creation demands a Creator. However regarding the creation of everything, many abandon logic. Does the fact that the Golden Gate bridge exists, but we don't know the people who built it, the engineering techniques used, or the financing plan mean it created itself ? Why isn't a creation evidence of a Creator ? The BB now clearly demonstrates that the universe will end. Anything that ends must have a beginning. A beginning requires a first cause. Can a first cause cause itself, and if so, what was the first cause, that caused the first cause to cause itself, ad infinitum ?

 

[james bond]

Other than creationist, who claims that evolution creates anything, let alone bacterium?

Many people, including scientists, who have found a single cell is complex. That beauty isn't a mutation. Those who recognize as such in nature and appreciate the wonders of something, living or not living, and how they were designed by an intelligence. As humans, we all strive for perfection and appreciate perfection. It's our inner call to what once we had and lost. How can those who study common bacterium realize it and are amazed? They know that it doesn't just come together from amino acids. Your question should be how does evolution start when it cannot create anything? Can your worldview explain why you are here?

 

[james bond]

No, it should read:

1. Bacteria are actually ...

2. Evolution has created bacteria as they claim.

Okey dokey, but since evolution has created bacteria, as you claim, where are all the other bacteria they created? The answer isn't just blowing in the solar wind in outer space or in the nether.