Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[SkepticThinker]

It has not been debunked and the debate will continue on. The key word you use is COULD have evolved. More evidence that this is made up. Here is an example I just finished watching. Like most people who enjoyed the 80s, I watched Stranger Things and just now was watching what to expect for season 2. Warning: Spoilers ahead. To cut to the chase, it ends up talking about the supernatural which is what all of season 1 was about. Not only were there CIA-types and a company hiding their findings and experiments, there was this other dimensional world and the supernatural things inside it. So, what am I getting at? The evos have to make up stuff about the supernatural because they can't accept the real supernatural in our world and what has always been and what will always be. It's irony and what I would call the real Stranger Things ha ha (For real eyes people, we had Risen and The Young Messiah (Christ the Lord) in 2016).

If you haven't finished season 1, then don't watch.

STRANGER THINGS | NEW Season 2 Information

I've seen the whole season and loved it. It's a fictional show made for entertainment purposes.

What it has to do with evolution, the complexity of the eye, or "evos," is beyond me.

If the supernatural is real, please go ahead and demonstrate that it is. After all, the title of this thread is, "Verifiable evidence for creationism?" What are you waiting for? You're going to need to do better, than "the eye is complex and I don't understand it, so the specific god I believe in must have made it," and then providing some out-of-context quote from Darwin.

 

[james bond]

The Talk.Origins Archive has two articles on this famous and flagrantly out-of-context eye quote: Evolution of the Eye and An Old, Out of Context Quotation. This quote as been used by many creationists, for example Creation Moments: Radio: The Deceptive Eye and An Overview of Intelligent Design. The Archive has the full text of what Darwin wrote online. Alternately try The Writings of Charles Darwin on the Web for full text of what Darwin wrote about this in the first edition or the sixth edition and use your browser's "find" feature to search for "absurd." Reading what Darwin wrote following the text the creationists quote mine clearly shows that Darwin did not in any way find the evolution of the eye absurd. Also see a creationist site lists the quote as an argument not to use saying that it is "subtly out of context." - Quote Mine Project.

JB must by now realize that quote mining is a lie by omission, but a lie never-the-less.

Tut, tut, tut. My reading Darwin's book was already discussed and the person I was discussing with ran away after he/she realized that I had read his chapters on it. This is de rigueur for evos on this forum. They have no answers and they run away. Darwin did make up explanations when he first said it would be ridiculous to see how something as complex as the eye system evolved then proceeded to do so with hypotheses. He was wrong, of course. Thus, the explanation still rests upon the evolutionists and they can't agree how it evolved. I'm not going to get an answer from ST because all he has are links, but cannot explain. Remember the evos could not agree on what Australopithecus looked like? All of this makes it very easy to see much of the hypotheses is fiction.

BTW you never answered what Donald Johanson said in his speech.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Tut, tut, tut. My reading Darwin's book was already discussed and the person I was discussing with ran away after he/she realized that I had read his chapters on it. This is de rigueur for evos on this forum. They have no answers and they run away. Darwin did make up explanations when he first said it would be ridiculous to see how something as complex as the eye system evolved then proceeded to do so with hypotheses. He was wrong, of course. Thus, the explanation still rests upon the evolutionists and they can't agree how it evolved. I'm not going to get an answer from ST because all he has are links, but cannot explain. Remember the evos could not agree on what Australopithecus looked like? All of this makes it very easy to see much of the hypotheses is fiction.

BTW you never answered what Donald Johanson said in his speech.

I hope you're not talking about me. Because that never happened.

I suggested to you to go and actually read Darwin's book. If you did, you might understand it better. How do you know Darwin was wrong if you've never read the part of the book we're talking about?

I gave you links with scientific explanations as to how they eye has evolved. These are explanations from people who spend their lives studying this stuff. It's much more in-depth and informative than anything I can say to you. Besides, you'd probably ask for links anyway. You said "evos" don't understand how the eye could have evolved. I don't know who "evos" are, but if you mean scientists, they do actually have a clue about how the eye evolved.

Why you're stuck repeating the same claims over and over is quite a mystery.

 

[james bond]

I've seen the whole season and loved it. It's a fictional show made for entertainment purposes.

What it has to do with evolution, the complexity of the eye, or "evos," is beyond me.

If the supernatural is real, please go ahead and demonstrate that it is. After all, the title of this thread is, "Verifiable evidence for creationism?" What are you waiting for? You're going to need to do better, than "the eye is complex and I don't understand it, so the specific god I believe in must have made it," and then providing some out-of-context quote from Darwin.

Sometimes I wonder what you get from our discussions enough to reply. At least, I hope we agree ST is an interesting and entertaining throwback type of show and you will be watching season 2. I've already explained that evos are interested in the supernatural and have to make up the supernatural when it already exists in the real world. It's one of the reasons why ST is a hit imo. The creators of the show make up fiction with throwback references and evos and other fans of the show lap it up. Bring up aliens or alternate dimensions and universes and many will believe that it exists except we haven't found it yet. I write about it myself as fiction or as fiction based on a true story, i.e. some truth as to the background. Take a kernel of truth and make stuff up or call it hypotheses.

The complexity of the eye system and its sudden appearance in creatures of the Cambrian period is evidence for God or an intelligent designer. Was there enough time for evolution or Darwinism? Doubtful. There you go.

 

[james bond]

I hope you're not talking about me. Because that never happened.

I suggested to you to go and actually read Darwin's book. If you did, you might understand it better. How do you know Darwin was wrong if you've never read the part of the book we're talking about?

I gave you links with scientific explanations as to how they eye has evolved. These are explanations from people who spend their lives studying this stuff. It's much more in-depth and informative than anything I can say to you. Besides, you'd probably ask for links anyway. You said "evos" don't understand how the eye could have evolved. I don't know who "evos" are, but if you mean scientists, they do actually have a clue about how the eye evolved.

Why you're stuck repeating the same claims over and over is quite a mystery.

I was addressing my post to Sapiens.

 

[McBell]

I was addressing my post to Sapiens.

And you got called out for telling Sapiens a bold faced lie.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sometimes I wonder what you get from our discussions enough to reply. At least, I hope we agree ST is an interesting and entertaining throwback type of show and you will be watching season 2. I've already explained that evos are interested in the supernatural and have to make up the supernatural when it already exists in the real world. It's one of the reasons why ST is a hit imo. The creators of the show make up fiction with throwback references and evos and other fans of the show lap it up. Bring up aliens or alternate dimensions and universes and many will believe that it exists except we haven't found it yet. I write about it myself as fiction or as fiction based on a true story, i.e. some truth as to the background. Take a kernel of truth and make stuff up or call it hypotheses.

Practically every TV show or movie is a work of fiction. I don't believe other dimensions exist just because I enjoy a certain TV show. I think your hypothesis needs a lot of work.

I think it's a hit show because it's a throwback to the great films of the 70s and 80s that everybody loved so much.

The complexity of the eye system and its sudden appearance in creatures of the Cambrian period is evidence for God or an intelligent designer. Was there enough time for evolution or Darwinism? Doubtful. There you go.

This is just an empty assertion that doesn't mean a whole lot of anything. Anybody can just say something. How? Why? What specifically makes you think eyeballs are evidence for god? Just the fact they're there's complexity to them?

I mean seriously, you're going to beat up on and dismiss scientists who actually work on providing evidence, explanations and answers to these kinds of questions while you sit there making empty assertions? Well, they have a whole lot more to offer than you do. That's obvious.


Here's a scientific discussion about the discovery of "eye folds" found in Precambrian marbles:
http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/90/4/397

Here's a scientific article on the Pax6 gene and its involvement in eye development in bilaterian phyla
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23016973


Not to mention the fact that most, if not all stages of eye evolution are represented in all manner of organisms currently existing on our planet.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I was addressing my post to Sapiens.

You were talking talking about me.

So, I think I'm entitled to respond to your comments when I'm discussed in them. Don'tcha think? Especially when you're just making stuff up.

 

[Sapiens]

Tut, tut, tut. My reading Darwin's book was already discussed and the person I was discussing with ran away after he/she realized that I had read his chapters on it. This is de rigueur for evos on this forum. They have no answers and they run away. Darwin did make up explanations when he first said it would be ridiculous to see how something as complex as the eye system evolved then proceeded to do so with hypotheses. He was wrong, of course. Thus, the explanation still rests upon the evolutionists and they can't agree how it evolved. I'm not going to get an answer from ST because all he has are links, but cannot explain. Remember the evos could not agree on what Australopithecus looked like? All of this makes it very easy to see much of the hypotheses is fiction.

BTW you never answered what Donald Johanson said in his speech.

I never offered to tell you what Johanson said, why would I?

Someday, when you have achieved enough to be elected to fellowship in the Explorers Club, perhaps you can get a transcript.

 

[viole]

The complexity of the eye system and its sudden appearance in creatures of the Cambrian period is evidence for God or an intelligent designer. Was there enough time for evolution or Darwinism? Doubtful. There you go.

Ccol. At least you believe that there was such a thing as the Cambrian.

Do you?

Ciao

- viole

 

[james bond]

Practically every TV show or movie is a work of fiction. I don't believe other dimensions exist just because I enjoy a certain TV show. I think your hypothesis needs a lot of work.

I think it's a hit show because it's a throwback to the great films of the 70s and 80s that everybody loved so much.



This is just an empty assertion that doesn't mean a whole lot of anything. Anybody can just say something. How? Why? What specifically makes you think eyeballs are evidence for god? Just the fact they're there's complexity to them?

I mean seriously, you're going to beat up on and dismiss scientists who actually work on providing evidence, explanations and answers to these kinds of questions while you sit there making empty assertions? Well, they have a whole lot more to offer than you do. That's obvious.


Here's a scientific discussion about the discovery of "eye folds" found in Precambrian marbles:
http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/90/4/397

Here's a scientific article on the Pax6 gene and its involvement in eye development in bilaterian phyla
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23016973


Not to mention the fact that most, if not all stages of eye evolution are represented in all manner of organisms currently existing on our planet.

Last point first. It's not an empty assertion. According to Darwinism, he hypothesized that the complex eye system could form in a series of steps.

Origin of the Species, Chapter 6
"Organs of extreme perfection and complication. To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.

In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition. Amongst existing Vertebrata, we find but a small amount of gradation in the structure of the eye, and from fossil species we can learn nothing on this head. In this great class we should probably have to descend far beneath the lowest known fossiliferous stratum to discover the earlier stages, by which the eye has been perfected."

If Darwin was correct, the fossil record should show a series of fossils of how the eye evolved step by step. The record doesn't show that. Go look at the fossil record of the Cambrian Explosion and the record does not show the step by step refinement of the eye. Have you read the chapters of the Origin of Species on the eye as I have? Probably not from your avoidance of this part of the subject. I can't blame you either because Darwin sucked as a writer.

As for your other claim, I'm not sure who or what you are stating that I am dismissing. It seems that you're the one who skipped Darwin and his explanation of the evolution of the eye.

 

[james bond]

Ccol. At least you believe that there was such a thing as the Cambrian.

Do you?

Ciao

- viole

Yes, except the Cambrian layer is not associated with time as evos believe, but associated with location. The name comes from Cambria, the Roman name for Wales.

 

[james bond]

I never offered to tell you what Johanson said, why would I?

Someday, when you have achieved enough to be elected to fellowship in the Explorers Club, perhaps you can get a transcript.

No need to be snotty. I just asked. I'll assume you were lying.

 

[james bond]

I'm going on break for a while as I have other things to do. It will give a chance for other creationists to give their usually "correct" POV ha ha.

One more thing. The Chicago Cubs fans are probably the most liberal in all of MLB. Certainly, some evos in that crowd. They have the 5th most expensive payroll in MLB in 2016 and have a chance at a world championship this year. In terms of those, the evo fans and their team have failed miserably. I hope they get the faces stomped this year with the World Series dance like below. Signed SF Giants fan:

 

[Segev Moran]

Cre·a·tion·ism
krēˈāSHəˌnizəm/
noun

1. the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.

Is there any? I often hear creationists lean on arguments from ignorance or the present lack of scientific understanding, but I've never heard of any verifiable evidence for it.

Nope.. There is none whatsoever.. Not even something that might mistakenly be accepted as evidence.
There is no shred of evidence or even logical idea that can hint that the creation story is real or have any grasp to reality.

The strongest "Logical" argument that creationist present, is that if something exists, it must have been created, therefore.. there is a creator...

So one can say, Someone created the universe... But no one knows for sure (And probably never will)

 

[gnostic]

The complexity of the eye system and its sudden appearance in creatures of the Cambrian period is evidence for God or an intelligent designer.

Does the Cambrian period appear in the Bible??? Well, that's new.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Last point first. It's not an empty assertion. According to Darwinism, he hypothesized that the complex eye system could form in a series of steps.


Origin of the Species, Chapter 6

"Organs of extreme perfection and complication. To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.


In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition. Amongst existing Vertebrata, we find but a small amount of gradation in the structure of the eye, and from fossil species we can learn nothing on this head. In this great class we should probably have to descend far beneath the lowest known fossiliferous stratum to discover the earlier stages, by which the eye has been perfected."

Yes, I'm aware. That's why I suggested that you read on.

If Darwin was correct, the fossil record should show a series of fossils of how the eye evolved step by step. The record doesn't show that. Go look at the fossil record of the Cambrian Explosion and the record does not show the step by step refinement of the eye. Have you read the chapters of the Origin of Species on the eye as I have? Probably not from your avoidance of this part of the subject. I can't blame you either because Darwin sucked as a writer.

This does not address my last point. Which was, "Not to mention the fact that most, if not all stages of eye evolution are represented in all manner of organisms currently existing on our planet."


Also, I already provided several links discussing and analyzing the evolution of the eye, even including specific discussion of precambrian “eye folds” and the Pax6 gene.


I think Darwin's writing is introspective, careful, thoughtful, and quite interesting. But to each his own.

And he was right. Scientists have found the “numerous gradations” that he wrote about – that’s what my last point was referring to.

As for your other claim, I'm not sure who or what you are stating that I am dismissing. It seems that you're the one who skipped Darwin and his explanation of the evolution of the eye.

I told you exactly who it is you are dismissing. Perhaps you should read the post again. It sounds like you missed most of it. Including the part where I asked you to explain exactly how the existence of the eye is evidence for the existence of the specific god you believe in. That’s what the thread is supposed to be about, after all.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, except the Cambrian layer is not associated with time as evos believe, but associated with location. The name comes from Cambria, the Roman name for Wales.

What does that mean?

 

[Sapiens]

What does that mean?

Of course the Cambrian layer relates to a given time, the time when it was deposited, and yes the name comes from Cambria, the Roman name for Wales. Both are true and are are not in opposition.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course the Cambrian layer relates to a given time, the time when it was deposited, and yes the name comes from Cambria, the Roman name for Wales. Both are true and are are not in opposition.

Ah, I see. Thank you.