Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[McBell]

No, it's more like how we both can wipe our butts.

It certainly isn't based on our "shared" abilities to show mercy; to compose music; to choose employment; to write poetry; to care for the disadvantaged; to contemplate our existence; et.al. These things are "substantial"!

To bad the baboons and apes got us humans beat...

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

No, it's more like how we both can wipe our butts.

It certainly isn't based on our "shared" abilities to show mercy; to compose music; to choose employment; to write poetry; to care for the disadvantaged; to contemplate our existence; et.al. These things are "substantial"!

They're really not. Or to put it differently, it took a small difference in our brains to have a big effect.

For example: the average desktop computer may have around 4gb of ram and 2 ghz of processing power. That allows you to run very basic applications by todays standards. You triple those numbers, and suddenly, you're able to run very advanced software that the average computer can't run.

The point is, there's no special component in our brains that allows us to do the things you mentioned. Both our brains are structurally the same as theirs. It's just that the sheer magnitude of ours is different. All it took was for evolution to increase the number of neurons in a particular clade of apes, and boom, you have poetry, music, math, etc... there wasn't any special component added in to grant us that. And that's exactly what the fossil record shows. A particular lineage of apes showing a gradual increase in cranial size, and with it, more advanced tools show up in the fossil record. Why is that? Someone went out of their way to make it look like humans evolved from apes?

Again, there's no structural or fundamental difference between a 4gb ram 2ghz computer and a 12gb ram 6ghz computer. The only difference is magnitude. But there are computers that have fundimental differences because they'll have structurally different components. Like specialized CPUs, solid state drives etc... But we're not like that compared to the chimp. They have everything we have in their brains. Just to a lesser magnitude.

Also, some of the things you mentioned are done by other apes, like caring for the disadvantaged. And creating art (though not necessarily music).

 

[Midnight Rain]

Certainly....I'm not saying there wasn't. I have a few pre-Cambrian fossils myself.

Indeed. I was just noting that the Cambrian explosion was not a creation of life event. . .

 

[leibowde84]

No, it's more like how we both can wipe our butts.

It certainly isn't based on our "shared" abilities to show mercy; to compose music; to choose employment; to write poetry; to care for the disadvantaged; to contemplate our existence; et.al. These things are "substantial"!

Why would you think these differences would mean that we didn't share a common ancestor? No one is doubting that humans are more advanced mentally, but I fail to see why these differences would make the notion that we are related by a common ancestor impossible.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Why would you think these differences would mean that we didn't share a common ancestor? No one is doubting that humans are more advanced mentally, but I fail to see why these differences would make the notion that we are related by a common ancestor impossible.

Indeed. Also our closest living relative is the Chimpanzee which is separate from us by about 13 million years since the true ancestor of both species. Horses and Zebra's for example are very different animals and they split a mere 4 million years ago.

On top of that what it seems to be implied is that the "core" values of what makes us "human" or "humankind" is the social aspects we have rather than the physical. If I had to take a guess I believe it may also be re-worded to mean "evidence of a soul" is what animals lack. The reason other animals don't have those qualities is because they are not "humankind". It doesn't mean we aren't related as we obviously share a multitude of other similarities.

 

[viole]

Yes, I'll tentatively agree to the time frame. I'm definitely not a YEC.


"Do you agree that we and gorillas share a common ancestor?"

No. Humans are unique, no animal -- even the Bonobo -- comes close, to any significant degree! (Oh, I'm sorry, we both poop.) In fact, the gulf between us and any other species is too huge.

Any species is unique. That does not entail that different unique species can not come from one. For instance, a butterfly is also very different from an elephant. Being different does not imply being special.

But the obvious fact that we are so much similar to a gorilla than, say, to a stick insect, begs the question: what is so special about apes in the eyes of God to make Him decide to create the pinnacle of His creation, the very creature the whole Universe has been made for, in the form and shape of a hairless gorilla?

If we have been created from scratch, and we are supposed to be so very special to justify the creation of everything else, then I would have expected that we look like nothing else in nature. That we are so different from anything else, in the same way a butterfly is different from that elephant.

The standard apology that God wanted to reuse some other design is not convincing. It cannot be that He created such a huge diversity and then got lazy when it came to generate the very thing He wanted to create from the beginning.

I think that postulating that we and the other apes evelved from a common ancestor has more explanation power, even from a theological point of view.

And yet, all human populations, although different in many physical and cultural ways, nevertheless share innate emotional, linguistic, intellectual, etc., similarities that practically mirror each other!

Well, obviously. We are one species after all.

And looking at world human population studies, they don't agree with accepted prehistoric hominid development. Though it does tend to support the Bible's timescale.

I am not aware of the Bible mentioning Neadenthalers, whose existence is pretty uncontroversial. My genome has Neadenthaler genes, like most Europeans'. By the way, the 6,000 years time scale coincides with humans moving from being hunters gatherers to increasing food production efficiency by taking advantage of agriculture and milk storages (aka cows). That was the epoch when people started having some free time to think about the universe and write books.

As far as "established" scientific findings regarding evolution? Get a group of evolutionary scientists together, and try to get them all to agree on the facets of a particular event. Some of the most heated arguments I've ever been privy to, were between evolutionists! And I'm supposed to take their word for it?

I try to see the forest, in spite of the trees! I feel most evolutionists don't.

Trees also started an arm race to get all the sunlight for themselves. That is why they are so high. And that is what we should expect if evolution is true. Who would create plants that use so much energy and resources to get tall and get some sunlight when they could all have settled for a shorter height?

And what scientists sometimes argue about are the mechanisms about evolution. Not evolution, which is uncontroversial. For instance, punctuated equilibrium is different from gradualism, but both try to explain the same underlying mechanism: evolution.

According to your logic we should refute also quantum mechanics, because scientists do not agree on how to interpret it.

Take care.....have a good evening!

You too.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Skwim]

"Do you agree that we and gorillas share a common ancestor?"

No. Humans are unique, no animal -- even the Bonobo -- comes close, to any significant degree! (Oh, I'm sorry, we both poop.) In fact, the gulf between us and any other species is too huge. And yet, all human populations, although different in many physical and cultural ways, nevertheless share innate emotional, linguistic, intellectual, etc., similarities that practically mirror each other!

So what that they're unique? Your point here is meaningless.

And looking at world human population studies, they don't agree with accepted prehistoric hominid development. Though it does tend to support the Bible's timescale.

Just what world human population studies don't agree with the accepted prehistoric hominid development?

As far as "established" scientific findings regarding evolution? Get a group of evolutionary scientists together, and try to get them all to agree on the facets of a particular event. Some of the most heated arguments I've ever been privy to, were between evolutionists!

Truthfully, it's hard to believe you've ever heard evolutionary scientists disagree on any facet of a particular event, much less heatedly. But even if they do disagree, which they do, evolutionary scientists are certainly not alone. Science is built on disagreement. It's one of the cornerstone of the endeavor. If it wasn't for disagreement there would never be any progress.

And I'm supposed to take their word for it?

Of course not, better that you listen to the dictates of your faith in establishing the workings of the world. In fact, in the light of your faith why even bother with science at all? After all, all science does is keep amending itself in the light of better evidence rather than comfortably sitting tight on its first findings. "Yup, the world is indeed flat." Or, as I suggest, just do away with science altogether and rely on people like Christian archbishops: The Earth was created on Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC. (My guess is around supper time.)

I try to see the forest, in spite of the trees! I feel most evolutionists don't.

But you can't have a forest without the trees that make it up. Although I know the trees (details) upset your conclusion, that's no reason to ignore them---if you want to be honest with yourself. .

 

[gnostic]

look in the mirror and call yourself an accident....
does that seem correct?

If you want to rely on superstitious belief that God created everything and it is also everything, then that's your prerogative.

But if you think that God is involved in both the Big Bang and evolution, then please provide verifiable evidences for your claim?

This is what the thread is all about, if there were real tangible evidences that linked the Creator and creation.

First, you jump in head first, and state that BB & evolution are "evidences" for God:

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

But when it come to make good on your claim, you do a backflip, and wrote this in your next reply:

fess up....your line drawn cannot be met.
verifiable?
as in photo? fingerprint? equation? repeatable experiment?

you know very well ......the pivot was built in

Faith needs no proving.....see Webster's

Your 2nd reply to leibowde84 is a complete contradiction to your 1st reply.

Either you have evidences or you don't have evidences. You can't have it both ways, thief.

 

[Thief]

If you want to rely on superstitious belief that God created everything and it is also everything, then that's your prerogative.

But if you think that God is involved in both the Big Bang and evolution, then please provide verifiable evidences for your claim?

This is what the thread is all about, if there were real tangible evidences that linked the Creator and creation.

First, you jump in head first, and state that BB & evolution are "evidences" for God:


But when it come to make good on your claim, you do a backflip, and wrote this in your next reply:



Your 2nd reply to leibowde84 is a complete contradiction to your 1st reply.

Either you have evidences or you don't have evidences. You can't have it both ways, thief.

and for years I have posted....
no photo, no fingerprint, no equation and no repeatable experiment.

when it comes to God ....all you can do is think....

and I am not superstitious.

 

[Thief]

and for years I have posted....
no photo, no fingerprint, no equation and no repeatable experiment.

when it comes to God ....all you can do is think....

and I am not superstitious.

(some things are self evident)

 

[gnostic]

and for years I have posted....
no photo, no fingerprint, no equation and no repeatable experiment.

when it comes to God ....all you can do is think....

and I am not superstitious.

And yet, in your 1st post on this thread, you write:

I say the big bang and evolution are evidence of God.

This is a complete contradiction to what you were saying in your 2nd post and to what you are saying now.

Either there are evidences of God doing the creating or there are no evidences of God doing the creating. You can't have it both ways.

Will you retract your statement "I say the big bang and evolution are evidence of God." as a mistake?

Or are you going to evade any admission that you have made a mistake when you had already made that claim?

I find creationists dishonestly often refused to retract statements they have made or admit they were mistaken by evasiveness and hedging...and I see you no different from the dishonest ones, because it is a tactics creationists used frequently in debates.

 

[Thief]

And yet, in your 1st post on this thread, you write:



This is a complete contradiction to what you were saying in your 2nd post and to what you are saying now.

Either there are evidences of God doing the creating or there are no evidences of God doing the creating. You can't have it both ways.

Will you retract your statement "I say the big bang and evolution are evidence of God." as a mistake?

Or are you going to evade any admission that you have made a mistake when you had already made that claim?

I find creationists dishonestly often refused to retract statements they have made or admit they were mistaken by evasiveness and hedging...and I see you no different from the dishonest ones, because it is a tactics creationists used frequently in debates.

you continually post a plea for the tangible....
my 'evidence' is of a line of thought.

some lines of thought are self evident.

when it comes to God ....you have to think

 

[outhouse]

when it comes to God ....all you can do is think....

yes the same as imagination by your own standards qualifies

 

[outhouse]

when it comes to God ....you have to think

You mean imagine?

 

[gnostic]

you continually post a plea for the tangible....
my 'evidence' is of a line of thought.

This is "line of thought" is just another word for "opinion" or "belief".

Have you heard of the saying - "call a spade, 'spade'?"

Or you are doing is trying to call your "personal opinion" or "personal belief" anything but opinion or belief.

Personal opinions and personal belief are not "evidence".

Anyone can have belief or opinion. And yours lack credibility.

A child can have a "line of thought" that unicorn is real. This is simply of belief of a child, who don't yet know anything about the real world in which unicorn only exist in fantasy, fable or fairytale.

What do you really think I mean when talk of "evidence"?

I can tell you this much, evidences have nothing to do with your belief or mine. It is about something we can verify, test or refute.

Sorry but you have no credibility, when you to try change the definition of opinion or belief into "line of thought ".

You are still hedging and evading the truth

 

[Thief]

there are no problems you can solve without your imagination.

and truth is dealt be reason.....

 

[Parsimony]

"Do you agree that we and gorillas share a common ancestor?"

No. Humans are unique, no animal -- even the Bonobo -- comes close, to any significant degree! (Oh, I'm sorry, we both poop.) In fact, the gulf between us and any other species is too huge. And yet, all human populations, although different in many physical and cultural ways, nevertheless share innate emotional, linguistic, intellectual, etc., similarities that practically mirror each other!

The pattern of inert retroviruses in our DNA too closely matches that of chimpanzees to be explained by uncommon descent (endogenous retroviruses, as they are called). We don't share just a few ERVs with chimpanzees, we share most of them (and there are almost a hundred thousand of them). We know that these sequences were put there by retroviruses and not designed in because (1) they have all the features of a viral DNA insertion event (including target-site duplications, long terminal repeats, gag, pol and pro regions), (2) viral products are sometimes produced by ERVS and (3) scientists have been able to ressurect at least one such ERV back into an actual virus (the Phoenix virus).

The location in the genome where retroviruses insert themselves is highly random. This is true even when they insert themselves into different cells of the same species (as HIV studies have shown), let alone different species. Although retroviruses do have preferred regions where they insert themselves, they do not have prefered loci (i.e. exact positions within DNA). If these ERVs had inserted themselves separately in chimp and human lineages, then they would be in mostly different spots (we are talking about billions of potential locations for the random insertion of ~98,000 ERVs). ERVs are a class of genetic elements called indels (short for "insertion/deletion"). Not all indels are ERVs and ERVs make up about 10% of total indel content. The Chimpanzee Genome Project has shown that human and chimp indel sequences are 97% similar. Even if we assumed that the entirety of the 3% difference took the form of ERVs in different loci (which would be 30% of the ERVs), that would still mean that at least 70% of the 98,000 ERVs are in the same spot. The study also found less than 100 ERVs that were specific to humans and less than 300 specific to chimps, suggesting that the actual similarity between our ERVs is in excess of 99%. You simply do not get numbers like that from random insertions in separate lineages.

My source.

And looking at world human population studies, they don't agree with accepted prehistoric hominid development. Though it does tend to support the Bible's timescale.

Examples?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yeah, trilobites....wow! Real transitional fossils!

Yes, the trilobites you seem to be claiming either haven't ever been found or don't exist at all.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"......the evolution of these phyla can be seen in the fossil record."????

That is absolutely untrue! Over that relatively short geologic period, each animal representing those phyla start appearing suddenly in the fossil record, fully developed! There are no older fossils depicting any kind of transitional development! That's a fact, and to imply otherwise is disingenuous.

The facts in this case lend credence to the act of creation.

That is just false. You even (mockingly) acknowledged the existence of trilobites, thus contradicting your own claims.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That is just false. You even (mockingly) acknowledged the existence of trilobites, thus contradicting your own claims.

Actually, I think most trilobites, if not all, came after the Cambrian, during the Devonian and Ordovician Eras.
I was not saying there were no fossils before the Cambrian, simply that there are none supporting the evolution of the species from the major phyla.