Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[shmogie]

you do realize......you haven't really presented a discussion

your personal denial.....as always......noted

Never does, just drive by comments.

 

[Skwim]

The distinction is simple. Evolution within a species is clearly evident. The ability to change related to environment or other factors is apparent (micro evolution). The ability for a species to morph into another, Or further, for lizards to change into birds is not apparent at all. In fact, there are very significant problems with, and very little evidence for this idea.

I agree, birds did not evolve from lizards. They evolved from dinosaurs

Now, I anticipate that you will complain about the terms micro evolution and macro evolution. Complain away, evolution is not just evolution. It is observable and quantifiable on the one hand, and just the opposite on the other hand.

Forgive me, but after a remark like this I don't think you have the slightest idea of what you're talking about. Have a good day.

 

[Zosimus]

I agree, birds did not evolve from lizards. They evolved from dinosaurs

Speculation.

 

[Sapiens]

Name one.

How about, "I have a policy against accepting self-refuting statements." I got such kick out of that one.

You talk a lot but say nothing.

First of all, where in this rant did you address the tacking by disjunction problem?

Second, do you not agree that finding a dead Jewish guy in Jesus of Nazareth's tomb would effectively falsify Christianity?

No, it would mean that you a dead Jewish guy in what you allege to have been the (possibily mythical) Jesus of Nazareth's tomb. He might have crawled in there to get ouf the rain and expired.

 

[Sapiens]

Someone had to be First

Show me the beginning of a mobius strip or a klien bottle.

 

[McBell]

you do realize......you haven't really presented a discussion

you do realize...... Your ignoring the discussion doe snot make it go away.

your personal denial.....as always......noted

Again, what is it you claim I am denying?

Interesting how you are so unwilling to answer that direct question.
Much like when you are asked to define "spirit"....

 

[McBell]

Never does, just drive by comments.

Perhaps one day you will offer up a post that is worthy of more than a drive by posting.

I doubt it will be in my lifetime, but you never know.

 

[james bond]

Since you guys brought up bacteria and mutation, why have we gone silent? Can anyone show that mutation is positive and neutral? Creation scientists have circumstantial evidence that it is negative and neutral. Someone just used US Olympic gold medal swimmer, Michael Phelps as being double-jointed and that demonstrates mutation is awesome. Bzzzzz. No, it isn't. Hypermobility may be beneficial in sports such as swimming, but those with it are more susceptible to disease. Children with Down's Syndrome are usually hypermobile. Even the atheist scientist Craig Venter thought GMO bacteria to eat oil was beneficial. All of these evo scientists were brought up this way and you all buy into it because of evolution. Seeing Craig Venter infected with his creation would be just desserts. Or Neil DeGrasse Tyson promoting GMO foods as being safe. I like to see him practice what he preaches. After all, the GMO foods are bigger and cheaper. What could be wrong with that? Nothing, but you may end up being more susceptible to disease like cancer. Is the evidence in the rates of cancer going up? God works in mysterious ways.

 

[gnostic]

Or further, for lizards to change into birds is not apparent at all.

And there apparently is your ignorance, once again.

No one said a lizard can changed into a bird.

That's the sort of nonsense that creationists clearly have no idea what they are talking about.

Reptiles (including lizards), dinosaurs and birds, all belonged to the Sauropsida group, which distinguished them from the Synapsida group, which all mammals evolved from. But as Skwim pointed out, birds evolved directly from dinosaurs, not lizards.

Me, not being a biologist, I have to say that finding understanding the common ancestry of all animals, of which belongs to which, are really beyond my pay grade. But as I understand it now, biologists are mostly, if not all, in agreement where the birds come from.

 

[Sapiens]

Since you guys brought up bacteria and mutation, why have we gone silent? Can anyone show that mutation is positive and neutral?

Yes, I can even show you some that are both:

Creation scientists have circumstantial evidence that it is negative and neutral.

There's no such thing as a, "creation scientist."
I have just shown you one that is negative and positive depending on heterozygosity.

Someone just used US Olympic gold medal swimmer, Michael Phelps as being double-jointed and that demonstrates mutation is awesome. Bzzzzz. No, it isn't. Hypermobility may be beneficial in sports such as swimming, but those with it are more susceptible to disease. Children with Down's Syndrome are usually hypermobile. Even the atheist scientist Craig Venter thought GMO bacteria to eat oil was beneficial. All of these evo scientists were brought up this way and you all buy into it because of evolution. Seeing Craig Venter infected with his creation would be just desserts. Or Neil DeGrasse Tyson promoting GMO foods as being safe. I like to see him practice what he preaches. After all, the GMO foods are bigger and cheaper. What could be wrong with that? Nothing, but you may end up being more susceptible to disease like cancer. Is the evidence in the rates of cancer going up? God works in mysterious ways.

GMO foods maybe all that stands between adequate nutrition and starvation for most of the human race. It is a complicated issue. Is there anything wrong with eating GMO food, per se? No. You break it down into it's component parts exactly the same way and it is composed of exactly the same carbohydrates and amino acids. The problem is the application of GMO technology to things like "Roundup Ready" crops and the residual herbicides and pesticides, not to mention the overall loss of genetic diversity in crops.

And there apparently is your ignorance, once again.

No one said a lizard can changed into a bird.

That's the sort of nonsense that creationists clearly have no idea what they are talking about.

Reptiles (including lizards), dinosaurs and birds, all belonged to the Sauropsida group, which distinguished them from the Synapsida group, which all mammals evolved from. But as Skwim pointed out, birds evolved directly from dinosaurs, not lizards.

Me, not being a biologist, I have to say that finding understanding the common ancestry of all animals, of which belongs to which, are really beyond my pay grade. But as I understand it now, biologists are mostly, if not all, in agreement where the birds come from.

Actually the consensus is that just like humans are a form of ape, birds are a form of dinosaur ... the dinos are not extinct, they are all around you and most people eat them and their eggs regularly.

 

[Zosimus]

How about, "I have a policy against accepting self-refuting statements." I got such kick out of that one.

That's not a self-refuting statement.

No, it would mean that you a dead Jewish guy in what you allege to have been the (possibily mythical) Jesus of Nazareth's tomb. He might have crawled in there to get ouf the rain and expired.

What you have to say is irrelevant and wrong. First of all, no serious scholar thinks that Jesus of Nazareth was mythical. Second, if you found a dead Jewish guy in a tomb with the placard reading "Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary and Joseph, crucified by Pilate" and damage to his bones consistent with that of a crucifixion, Christianity would be blown out of the water. However, simply pointing out that Christianity is theoretically falsifiable doesn't make Christianity a scientific theory. Falsifiability is not the test of a scientific or non-scientific theory.

 

[shmogie]

Perhaps one day you will offer up a post that is worthy of more than a drive by posting.

I doubt it will be in my lifetime, but you never know.

How long do you plan to live ?

 

[Thief]

Show me the beginning of a mobius strip or a klien bottle.

cute....

show me a spinning coin on a table top.....that jumped into action on it's own

or the calculated flight path of a dandelion seed

or an equation for the big bang (you might have a chance on this one?)

 

[Thief]

and I've heard somewhere that gmo's are depleting the soil of nutrients we need to live

eat all you want and starve at the same time

 

[shmogie]

And there apparently is your ignorance, once again.

No one said a lizard can changed into a bird.

That's the sort of nonsense that creationists clearly have no idea what they are talking about.

Reptiles (including lizards), dinosaurs and birds, all belonged to the Sauropsida group, which distinguished them from the Synapsida group, which all mammals evolved from. But as Skwim pointed out, birds evolved directly from dinosaurs, not lizards.

Me, not being a biologist, I have to say that finding understanding the common ancestry of all animals, of which belongs to which, are really beyond my pay grade. But as I understand it now, biologists are mostly, if not all, in agreement where the birds come from.

An example of nonsense was given, just like you posted another, birds evolved from dinosaurs. I wasn't concerned about what macro evolutionists say in making my general point. Were dinosaurs warm blooded, or cold ? Were they covered with feathers, or not ? did their stride resemble lizards, or mammals ? Nobody knows. Tell me, what skeletons and how many were used in coming to the conclusion that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Does similarity in some respects mean genetic relationships ?

 

[shmogie]

I agree, birds did not evolve from lizards. They evolved from dinosaurs

Forgive me, but after a remark like this I don't think you have the slightest idea of what you're talking about. Have a good day.

lol, you take yourself way too seriously. Apparently familiarity with the English language is not your forte. Let me help. Stating an absurdity to represent a group of absurdities is quite common. A lizard turning into a bird is absurd, as is a dinosaur turning into a bird. Your chart is impressive, I have seen many of them over the years, but they are really bogus aren't they ? As we say at law, you cannot testify to a fact not in evidence. We both know there are extreme difficulties in making those connections. Some would say they aren't made. So your hypersensitivity to an example of absurdity is suspect, a bit of bait and switch ? Simply provide the evidence to support your assertion that birds evolved from dinosaurs

 

[Sapiens]

That's not a self-refuting statement.

Sure is.

What you have to say is irrelevant and wrong.

Nah.

First of all, no serious scholar thinks that Jesus of Nazareth was mythical.

Please prove that "no serious scholar thinks that Jesus of Nazareth was mythical." Not, some, not most, not nearly all, but every last one!
See ... that's another "self-refuter."

Second, if you found a dead Jewish guy in a tomb with the placard reading "Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary and Joseph, crucified by Pilate" and damage to his bones consistent with that of a crucifixion, Christianity would be blown out of the water.

Nah, the apologists will find concoct something to make it seem to go away.

However, simply pointing out that Christianity is theoretically falsifiable doesn't make Christianity a scientific theory. Falsifiability is not the test of a scientific or non-scientific theory.

Correct, for a change. But scientific hypothesis should be falsifiable.

 

[Zosimus]

and I've heard somewhere that gmo's are depleting the soil of nutrients we need to live

eat all you want and starve at the same time

Well, it's true. Food today is less nutritious than that of yesteryear. However, it's not just GMO foods. There are many non-GMO strains that are bred to grow in mineral-depleted soil or bred to grow more quickly.

 

[Sapiens]

Well, it's true. Food today is less nutritious than that of yesteryear. However, it's not just GMO foods. There are many non-GMO strains that are bred to grow in mineral-depleted soil or bred to grow more quickly.

Yet another unsubstantiated claim, more likely than your religious ones, but still ... growing in mineral-depleted soil or growing faster may (or may not) have anything to do with the plant's quality. Please provide refereed publications (preferably in different thread) and hold the side of baseless conspiracy theories.

 

[Zosimus]

Sure is.

No, a self-refuting statement is something that literally disproves itself. Saying that 2+2=5, for example, is not self-refuting. It's just wrong.

Nah.
Please prove that "no serious scholar thinks that Jesus of Nazareth was mythical." Not, some, not most, not nearly all, but every last one!
See ... that's another "self-refuter."

Again, you have no idea what a "self-refuter" is. Nevertheless, I refer you to Scholarly Opinions on the Jesus-myth theory, which has a number of quotes from Bible scholars (yes, even atheist ones) such as Michael Grant, who says:

"This sceptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth.... But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms.... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus'..."

Bart Ehrman is an author (or editor) of 30 books, most of which are very critical of the Bible and Christianity. Titles such as "Forged," "Misquoting Jesus," and "How Jesus Became God" illustrate his extremely skeptical view of the stories in the Bible. However, let's let him make his own case in the following video:

"There is no scholar in any college or university in the Western world who teaches classics, ancient history, New Testament, early Christianity–any related field–who doubts that Jesus existed."