Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[SkepticThinker]

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.

That is an erroneous claim.

http://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/cambrian-explosion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/CambrianExplosion.htm
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/cambrian_02

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

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.

I do hope you don't ignore this critically important post, Hockycowboy. At the very least, see if you understand what is said here.

It should also be noted that ERV patterns in the genome independently show the same phylogeny (form the same cladograms) as the fossil record, embryology and comparative anatomy. All those lines of evidence independently show the same relationship and independently prove human/chimp common ancestry as well as the common ancestry of all life. It begs the question that if common ancestry weren't true, then some powerful entity (god or aliens) went completely out of their way to make it look like it did, as if the intent of this being was to completely trick and deceive us.

 

[Thief]

I do hope you don't ignore this critically important post, Hockycowboy. At the very least, see if you understand what is said here.

It should also be noted that ERV patterns in the genome independently show the same phylogeny (form the same cladograms) as the fossil record, embryology and comparative anatomy. All those lines of evidence independently show the same relationship and independently prove human/chimp common ancestry as well as the common ancestry of all life. It begs the question that if common ancestry weren't true, then some powerful entity (god or aliens) went completely out of their way to make it look like it did, as if the intent of this being was to completely trick and deceive us.

or maybe some Entity went out of His way to tweak the ongoing scheme of things for the sake of diversity.....

seems to me...
life would replicate as is should all factors remain fairly constant.

back to the garden.....and the tweaking....

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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.

Correct, and even Richard Dawkins would agree ' It's as if they were just planted there, with no evolutionary history'

 

[SkepticThinker]

Correct, and even Richard Dawkins would agree ' It's as if they were just planted there, with no evolutionary history'

No, he wouldn't. Of course, you already know that.

 

[viole]

Correct, and even Richard Dawkins would agree ' It's as if they were just planted there, with no evolutionary history'

There is a difference between the two statements

1) it is as if they were just planted there, with no evolutionary history (what he said)
2) they were just planted there, with no evolutionary history (what he did not say)

So, no. He would definetely not agree.

Ciao

- viole

 

[gnostic]

or maybe some Entity went out of His way to tweak the ongoing scheme of things for the sake of diversity.....

You are just speculating here...with no evidence of any entity doing any tweaking.

seems to me...
life would replicate as is should all factors remain fairly constant.

Again, it is more speculating.

back to the garden.....and the tweaking....

And yada, yada, yada...more baseless speculation if you think the story Garden of Eden were true.

The idea of talking serpent is old, along with talking eagle, can be found in Old Babylonian story of Etana, but most likely originated from Sumerian source, because of stone carving of Etana mounted on an eagle. However, any ancient story of talking animals, is fable or mythological.

Second, Genesis suggest that this original talking snake, that went with leg and then legless as punishment was the ancestor to all snakes during the time of man, Adam.

But all calculations of the OT bible from the known historical time of Jerusalem fallen to the Neo-Babylonian army (587-586 BCE) to the time of Adam, put this occurrence of God passing judgment on the trio to less than 4000 BCE. Septuagint give different datings of Adam creation.

But the earliest modern snakes can be dated to the Paleocene period, 66 to 56 million years ago. And this is not the earliest snakes; more primitive snakes can be found back in Jurassic period. That's show the earliest modern snakes have been around at the very least 55 million years earlier than the earliest fossils of Homo sapiens man (200,000 years ago).

There are huge gap and differences between science and Genesis creation myth.

Believing in Genesis creation story required to ones to accept all sorts of anachronisms and myths, which included the nonexistent global flood in human history, the date of different languages existing only at the time of Abraham, and how Jacob and family arrived in Egypt (which lead to another myth of Moses and Israelites on the exodus out of Egypt).

 

[leibowde84]

Correct, and even Richard Dawkins would agree ' It's as if they were just planted there, with no evolutionary history'

That's not true. They match up with previous fossil records. They don't just appear, and this "explosion" occurred over a period of between 20-30 million years.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That's not true. They match up with previous fossil records. They don't just appear, and this "explosion" occurred over a period of between 20-30 million years.

No, he wouldn't. Of course, you already know that.

cmon folks, didn't we cover this already?

"In the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years (evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years), are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

we can disagree on the explanations for this observation, but it is what it is.

 

[Thief]

You are just speculating here...with no evidence of any entity doing any tweaking.

Again, it is more speculating.

And yada, yada, yada...more baseless speculation if you think the story Garden of Eden were true.

The idea of talking serpent is old, along with talking eagle, can be found in Old Babylonian story of Etana, but most likely originated from Sumerian source, because of stone carving of Etana mounted on an eagle. However, any ancient story of talking animals, is fable or mythological.

Second, Genesis suggest that this original talking snake, that went with leg and then legless as punishment was the ancestor to all snakes during the time of man, Adam.

But all calculations of the OT bible from the known historical time of Jerusalem fallen to the Neo-Babylonian army (587-586 BCE) to the time of Adam, put this occurrence of God passing judgment on the trio to less than 4000 BCE. Septuagint give different datings of Adam creation.

But the earliest modern snakes can be dated to the Paleocene period, 66 to 56 million years ago. And this is not the earliest snakes; more primitive snakes can be found back in Jurassic period. That's show the earliest modern snakes have been around at the very least 55 million years earlier than the earliest fossils of Homo sapiens man (200,000 years ago).

There are huge gap and differences between science and Genesis creation myth.

Believing in Genesis creation story required to ones to accept all sorts of anachronisms and myths, which included the nonexistent global flood in human history, the date of different languages existing only at the time of Abraham, and how Jacob and family arrived in Egypt (which lead to another myth of Moses and Israelites on the exodus out of Egypt).

yada....yada....yada.....
so I believe in a sudden divergence of man.....and God did it....

 

[leibowde84]

cmon folks, didn't we cover this already?

"In the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years (evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years), are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

we can disagree on the explanations for this observation, but it is what it is.

Right, and any scientist (or intelligent person for that matter) will tell you that appearances don't mean too much in this context. Just because it "appears" that these organisms were "planted there", that doesn't support the conclusion that they actually were. It merely supports the conclusion that we don't have enough information as of yet. Our trusting nature when it comes to how things appear to be is why the scientific method is so important. It utilizes actual evidence rather than appearances to support hypotheses and graduate them to the level of scientific theories. So, the appearance of the Cambrian Explosion, which took place over roughly 25 million years, should not be relied upon to understand what it actually was. Dawkins is incredibly clear about this.

The purpose of the scientific method is to bypass our flawed experience as human beings.

 

[Thief]

and we await the experiment to surpass our humanity!

oh!.....that might be .....death!

 

[leibowde84]

and we await the experiment to surpass our humanity!

oh!.....that might be .....death!

??? Not sure what you mean by this at all. Can you explain, please?

 

[Thief]

??? Not sure what you mean by this at all. Can you explain, please?

science seeks that item of repeat.....
results are considered sure when the action repeats.....

waiting for something sure?

 

[SkepticThinker]

cmon folks, didn't we cover this already?

"In the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years (evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years), are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

we can disagree on the explanations for this observation, but it is what it is.

Yes we did, several times. Which is why I'm wondering why you're still making the same misleading claim at this point in time.

 

[leibowde84]

science seeks that item of repeat.....
results are considered sure when the action repeats.....

waiting for something sure?

In the context of knowledge, of course. In the context of faith/belief, not exactly. We all have to make assumptions and jumps in reasoning to hold beliefs in anything supernatural and unproven, but, when it comes to knowledge, we must be prudent before declaring that we "know" anything.

 

[Thief]

In the context of knowledge, of course. In the context of faith/belief, not exactly. We all have to make assumptions and jumps in reasoning to hold beliefs in anything supernatural and unproven, but, when it comes to knowledge, we must be prudent before declaring that we "know" anything.

without 'prudent' consideration....the pending experiment (death) will likely do you in.

I prefer to be more positive.

 

[leibowde84]

without 'prudent' consideration....the pending experiment (death) will likely do you in.

I prefer to be more positive.

Who knows whether it will or won't. I certainly am not going to let something like the finality of death cause me any concern, as I can't see how it would do any good. My beliefs as to what happens after I die are not going to change what actually happens to me ... that I wholeheartedly believe.

 

[Thief]

Who knows whether it will or won't. I certainly am not going to let something like the finality of death cause me any concern, as I can't see how it would do any good. My beliefs as to what happens after I die are not going to change what actually happens to me ... that I wholeheartedly believe.

I believe.....WHAT we believe.....has an immediate effect pending the last breath.

 

[leibowde84]

I believe.....WHAT we believe.....has an immediate effect pending the last breath.

Why? Obviously what happens is disputable, so why would any supernatural force judge us for choosing the wrong option to believe?