PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Evidence for Creation?
       Is there any?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationists often attack evolution and assume that if evolution is found to be false creation would win automatically. This however is wrong, it is not enough to just show that evolution is wrong, but that creation is the best possible explanation for the evidence at hand.

So I have decided to make this thread to see if there is any evidence that can be provided that supports the creationist model.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 11:41 PM on July 19, 2009 | IP
AndyRawrs

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think it might come down to the idea that the opposing side being brought down is considered a victory from God in some people's eyes...  In a war primarily against Evolutionites by the Creationites, if the Evolutionites' city is burned down, the war is won.  But  the cause for the war is still there isn't it?  I guess the cause of war is...uhh I dunno.  Why do creationists push faith and preach to evolutionists who don't wanna hear it?  (Off-Topic, sorry)

Anyways, I think that the above analogy is the best way to explain it right now.  God says these people are your enemy (they preach against "the word") so if they're gone it'll be ok.  

Creationism (that is, Christianity) is based on faith, which I think the definition would be to believe without firm evidence.  Which is contradictory to science.  I don't believe the idea of creationism is science, and shouldn't be taught as such.  And frankly, I also think that the ToE can be accepted alongside creationism, if just as a theory.  (Oops getting off-topic again sry)

Creationism has been around for a while, and if the now mainstream ToE is gone, maybe the creationists believe most thought will go back to creationism?

End Rant :P


-------
I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.

Voltaire
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 01:05 AM on July 22, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationists often attack evolution and assume that if evolution is found to be false creation would win


Creation and evolution are two opposing explanations for the history of this planet.One is based on the Word of God and the other on the words of men. Both can be considered religious viewpoints as they are once off events that occurred in the distant past.
The same evidence is used to support both positions. The interpretation is different.

For instance:
Evolutionists contend that the fossils represent hundreds of millions of years of gradual fossilization of different life forms that existed in the past.

Creationists contend that no-one was there but according to our record of the past,there was a worldwide flood that wiped out practically everything that existed.We look at the exact same fossil record and see catastrophism where evolutionists see gradualism and uniformatarianism.

We say there are enormous gaps between different kinds of living creatures that are never filled no matter how many fossils are found. Evolutionists say that we have an imperfect fossil record which is why they have trouble demonstrating the gradualism that they believe in.
Evolutionists say one kind of animal turned into another via mutation and natural selection.
Creationists acknowledge mutation and natural selection as observable phenomena but dispute their ability to bring about all the prodigious change required to 'create' all the life forms living and extinct.
Creationists say that without the evidence for mutation and natural selection's creative abilities, evolutionism is a religion based on faith every bit as much as we believe what the Bible says on faith.
We do however believe that one model (the creation model) can be demonstrated to be a better model than the evolution model which is in complete opposition to the creation model.  


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 02:18 AM on July 22, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AndyRawrs at 01:05 AM on July 22, 2009 :
I think it might come down to the idea that the opposing side being brought down is considered a victory from God in some people's eyes.

I think many creationists see it that way.
Why do creationists push faith and preach to evolutionists who don't wanna hear it?  (Off-Topic, sorry)

(don't worry about it) Creationists believe themselves to be right, but it is not just about disproving evolution. To them it is also about turning people towards God and saving their souls, and part of that is preaching the faith. My guess is that they hope that at least someone will see what they write and convert to Christianity in the end, or at least get them started on the right path.
Creationism (that is, Christianity) is based on faith, which I think the definition would be to believe without firm evidence.  Which is contradictory to science.

You are correct, but be careful on how you use the terms creationism and Christianity, the two are not synonymous with each other.
I don't believe the idea of creationism is science, and shouldn't be taught as such.

Almost everyone who isn't a creationist would agree with you there.
And frankly, I also think that the ToE can be accepted alongside creationism, if just as a theory.

What do you mean by this?
Creationism has been around for a while, and if the now mainstream ToE is gone, maybe the creationists believe most thought will go back to creationism?

There are really only two viewpoints on the issue, creation and evolution, and for the average person I think if one goes down they will assume the other.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 06:03 AM on July 22, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:18 AM on July 22, 2009 :
Creation and evolution are two opposing explanations for the history of this planet.One is based on the Word of God and the other on the words of men.

Somewhat irrelevant to the conversation at hand.
Both can be considered religious viewpoints

I don't want to move the goal post for this thread, but you say this a lot and it is wrong. If you have a response to this make a new thread.
The same evidence is used to support both positions. The interpretation is different.

For instance:
Evolutionists contend that the fossils represent hundreds of millions of years of gradual fossilization of different life forms that existed in the past.

Creationists contend that no-one was there but according to our record of the past,there was a worldwide flood that wiped out practically everything that existed.

You're not very good at staying on topic. One minute you talk about the fossil record, the next about a flood from the same evidence. If you have evidence that there was a world wide flood, well, that is what this thread is for. So present something that supports that claim.

We say there are enormous gaps between different kinds of living creatures that are never filled no matter how many fossils are found.

You are basically saying that nothing will change your mind making your position not scientific at all.

Evolutionists say that we have an imperfect fossil record

Are you saying we have a complete one?

Evolutionists say...

Evolutionists say this, evolutionists say that. Where is the evidence for creationism?
Creationists acknowledge mutation and natural selection as observable phenomena but dispute their ability to bring about all the prodigious change required to 'create' all the life forms living and extinct.

But you can't say how it happens, or have any evidence that it can happen.
Creationists say that without the evidence for mutation and natural selection's creative abilities, evolutionism is a religion based on faith every bit as much as we believe what the Bible says on faith.

But you yourself just said that you acknowledge mutation and natural selection, just that it can't account for the diversity we see. For all intent and purposes you accept evolution. Only you re-name it calling it micro evolution, and impose limits on it that can't be verified or even supported by any evidence. Unless you have something to show us?
We do however believe that one model (the creation model) can be demonstrated to be a better model than the evolution model which is in complete opposition to the creation model.  

Then demonstrate it.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 06:22 AM on July 22, 2009 | IP
discinbob

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here is undeniable proof of one such Christ figure.  Watch the video and it is undeniable proof that this Christ exists!!!

Proof that Christ Exists
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 1:53 PM on July 22, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creation and evolution are two opposing explanations for the history of this planet.One is based on the Word of God and the other on the words of men
Somewhat irrelevant to the conversation at hand. .


Actually I was answering the question put to me.

Both can be considered religious viewpoints
I don't want to move the goal post for this thread, but you say this a lot and it is wrong.


Actually it is correct, you need to give it a bit of thought. Both viewpoints are based on what we believe to be true historically. Neither is subject to proof due to its historical nature and its once off occurrence. Nobody was there except perhaps God who created man, spoke to him, and told him what was happening. Regardless of whether God was there or not, none of us was, so we are fundamentally incapable of reproducing the event in order to demonstrate its veracity. You have your religious belief, I have mine.

One minute you talk about the fossil record, the next about a flood from the same evidence.


The fossil record is the evidence for the flood.

If you have evidence that there was a world wide flood, well, that is what this thread is for.


The fossil record is a portion of my evidence for the flood -mass death, burial under sediments from massive erosion. Fossils don't form under normal uniformatarian conditions -you have to bury them quickly and exclude oxygen so that they don't rot. This is my point which you apparently keep missing when you keep asking for my evidence.  

We say there are enormous gaps between different kinds of living creatures that are never filled no matter how many fossils are found.
You are basically saying that nothing will change your mind making your position not scientific at all.


No, I'm saying that no matter how many fossils they collect, the gaps remain. There is still nothing between invertebrates and fish to show us how they arrived; there's still nothing to show us where the dinosaurs came from -it's a 'mystery' is what the evolutionists tell us;
There's still nothing to show us where the invertebrates popped from in all their glory -they have no ancestors. We call it creation and evolutionists still keep calling it evolution in the hopes that their long lines of transitionals will appear one day. Don't bother to tell me everything is a transitional, that is like the mantra that evolutionists repeat when ever they take a peek at the vast gaps. Remember all the inbetween types had to be better survivors than their predecessors and had to change over hundreds of millions of years into all the necessary intermediates. They shouldn't all be missing. Why do we only ever find distinct different invertebrates and then lots of different fish. What turned into a fish???

Evolutionists say that we have an imperfect fossil record
Are you saying we have a complete one?


No, what I’m saying is that the incomplete fossil record story is getting old and worn; the more fossils we find, the worse it looks, we still find loads of invertebrates and loads of fish but nothing inbetween. The same is true all over the ‘record’.

Creationists acknowledge mutation and natural selection as observable phenomena but dispute their ability to bring about all the prodigious change required to 'create' all the life forms living and extinct.
But you can't say how it happens, or have any evidence that it can happen.


You're not making any sense here.

But you yourself just said that you acknowledge mutation and natural selection, just that it can't account for the diversity we see. For all intent and purposes you accept evolution.  


I accept microvariation which is totally different from accepting evolution as evolutionists define it. It is a slippery term. Evolutionists assume that minor changes can add up to major changes over a lot of time. I don't accept that as I believe that the Bible says that everything reproduces 'after its kind' -it says that many times and that is all we ever see.

Only you re-name it calling it micro evolution, and impose limits on it that can't be verified or even supported by any evidence.


I accept that which is observable -you accept that which we have never seen so it is not for me to prove a negative, it is for you to prove that some creature can change into another creature altogether. In the meantime you accept that on faith alone.  




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:12 AM on July 23, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:12 AM on July 23, 2009 :

No, I'm saying that no matter how many fossils they collect, the gaps remain.


I find this a rather odd argument.  It's sort of like a Zeno paradox.  What you're saying is that no matter how many fossils are found, there will always be gaps between them.  

It's like trying to grab a cookie.  Every time you reach your hand half way to the cookie, there is always half the distance to go.  You'll never be able to grab the cookie.  

In this case, you'll always create more gaps as more fossils are found.





-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 9:50 PM on July 23, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

give even one example of a transitional fossil that wasnt a hoax.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 01:39 AM on July 24, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

give even one example of a transitional fossil that wasnt a hoax.

Fish to amphibian transitional fossils:

Panderichthys
Elpistostege
Hynerpeton
Acanthostega
Ichthyostega
Labyrinthodonts
Tiktaalik roseae

Transitionals between amphibians and reptiles:

Proterogyrinus
Limnoscelis
Tseajaia
Solenodonsaurus
Hylonomus
Paleothyris

Transitionals between reptiles and mammals, one of the most well supported and overwhelmingly uncontested series of transitional fossils:

Paleothyris
Protoclepsydrops haplous
Clepsydrops
Archaeothyris
Varanops
Haptodus
Dimetrodon
Sphenacodon
Biarmosuchia
Procynosuchus
Permocynodon
Thrinaxodon
Cynognathus
Diademodon
Probelesodon
Probainognathus
Exaeretodon

There's a couple for you.  These are all transitional fossils and none of them are hoaxes.  Looking back over the history of scientific claims of fossils, there haven't been too many hoaxes and the ones that have been exposed, they were exposed by real scientists.  Next question...






(Edited by Demon38 7/24/2009 at 02:27 AM).
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:18 AM on July 24, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Where are all your fish ancestors? Dinosaur ancestors? Bat ancestors (ones that don't look exactly like a bat)? Invertebrate ancestors?

I'll bet everything on your list is an extinct member of one or the other group you're trying to transtion between. Lots of false deductions come from bones being assumed to have soft tissue features they don't actually possess -like the 'legs' of the coelocanth for example. When a live one is found, suddenly there are no legs after all. I'll check it all out though.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 03:30 AM on July 24, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Where are all your fish ancestors? Dinosaur ancestors? Bat ancestors (ones that don't look exactly like a bat)? Invertebrate ancestors?

I don't know, what does this have to do with
jango's post?

I'll bet everything on your list is an extinct member of one or the other group you're trying to transtion between.

They have characteristics of both groups, just what jango asked for, transitional fossils that are not hoaxes.

Lots of false deductions come from bones being assumed to have soft tissue features they don't actually possess -like the 'legs' of the coelocanth for example.

What false deductions?  Be specific, you're famous for making claims that turn out to be wrong.  What about coelacanth?  From here: Coelocanth

"A 400 million-year-old fossil of a coelacanth fin, the first finding of its kind, fills a shrinking evolutionary gap between fins and limbs. University of Chicago scientists describe the finding in a paper highlighted on the cover of the July/August 2007 issue of Evolution & Development.
The fossil shows that the ancestral pattern of lobed fins closely resembles the pattern in the fins of primitive living ray-finned fishes, according to the scientists.
“This ends intense debate about the primitive pattern for lobed fins, which involves the ancestry of all limbs, including our own,” said author Michael Coates, Ph.D., associate professor of organismal biology and anatomy at Chicago.
According to the researchers, the fossil’s pattern is similar to the branching arrangement still embedded in the fins of paddlefishes, sturgeons and sharks.

So what's the problem with the Coelacanth and how does it invalidate the list of transitionals I provided?

When a live one is found, suddenly there are no legs after all.

Who claimed they had legs, fins somewhat similar to legs but not legs.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:02 AM on July 24, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:12 AM on July 23, 2009 :
Creation and evolution are two opposing explanations for the history of this planet.One is based on the Word of God and the other on the words of men
Somewhat irrelevant to the conversation at hand. .


Actually I was answering the question put to me.


Even though you feel that way it is not evidence and therefore irrelevant to the conversation. I could say that I have a better theory than evolution given to me through revelation by the flying spaghetti monster, and even if I believed it to be true with all my heart, soul, strength and mind it wouldn't count as evidence.

Both can be considered religious viewpoints
I don't want to move the goal post for this thread, but you say this a lot and it is wrong.


Actually it is correct, you need to give it a bit of thought.


I would be happy to give it thought if you made a new thread about it. I don't want this thread to clutter up with a lot of off-topic debate.

Nobody was there except perhaps God... You have your religious belief, I have mine.


If what you're saying is that creationism is not science and not supported by evidence and is purely philosophical/theological, I will agree.

The fossil record is a portion of my evidence for the flood -mass death, burial under sediments from massive erosion.


Things can get fossilized during floods, but that is not the only way fossils can come about. Unless you want to argue that all fossils came from Noah's flood, be more specific on how fossils are evidence of the great flood.

One thing that would be evidence for a massive global flood would be a world wide sediment layer dating back to 4K years, or whenever you believe the flood took place. As it happens there is no such layer, why is that?

This is my point which you apparently keep missing when you keep asking for my evidence.


Couldn't some of the fossils have come from other, much smaller floods, than that depicted in Genesis? Or perhaps it died near a lake and soon after its death a rainstorm happened and it was carried down into the lake before it was too decomposed.

No, I'm saying that no matter how many fossils they collect, the gaps remain.


That is a quite odd argument indeed. It is like we have H. habilis and H. sapien, we need a transitional, we find H. erectus. Now, instead of one gap we now have two!

There's still nothing to show us where the invertebrates popped from in all their glory -they have no ancestors.


Spontaneous generation had been proven false, so they didn't pop out of no where.

We call it creation and evolutionists still keep calling it evolution in the hopes that their long lines of transitionals will appear one day.


Attacking evolution doesn't support creationism. Just like attacking and showing that the Earth is not flat isn't evidence that the Earth is spherical, it could be a cube, or a convex mirror. You must show positive evidence for creation.

Remember all the inbetween types had to be better survivors than their predecessors


No they don't, you obviously just don't understand how evolution works.

Why do we only ever find distinct different invertebrates and then lots of different fish. What turned into a fish???


I don't know what turned into a fish, maybe Demon can supply you with an answer. Even if we find no ancestry for fish that would just be one example versus hundreds, possibly thousands, of examples supporting evolution. And we could find that transitional next week if there isn't one or more already found.  

No, what I’m saying is that the incomplete fossil record story is getting old and worn; the more fossils we find, the worse it looks, we still find loads of invertebrates and loads of fish but nothing inbetween. The same is true all over the ‘record’.


I don't have an answer for your fish question, but talk about willful ignorance when saying there are no transitionals.

You're not making any sense here.


Sorry, that was badly phrased. All I'm saying is that you can't support the notion that there are fixed kinds. The best you can do is say that we haven't directly observed it, but evolution would be false if we did directly observe fish to amphibians, or reptiles to mammals and so on.

I accept microvariation which is totally different from accepting evolution as evolutionists define it.


Allele frequency changes over successive generations due to mutation and natural selection? You accept evolution in everything but name and the implications it proposes.

Evolutionists assume that minor changes can add up to major changes over a lot of time. I don't accept that as I believe that the Bible says that everything reproduces 'after its kind' -it says that many times and that is all we ever see.


Just because the Bible says it doesn't mean it is automatically true, or that you don't need evidence to support it. Or even that all evidence to the contrary must have been corrupted in some fashion. You still need to show evidence for your claim.

I accept that which is observable -you accept that which we have never seen so it is not for me to prove a negative, it is for you to prove that some creature can change into another creature altogether. In the meantime you accept that on faith alone.


Saying that populations can't change into another kind is a positive ascertain, and you must provide evidence for it if you want to sway people who don't blindly follow you.

You say you accept that which is observable, but we have never seen any deity create anything. Spontaneous generation was shown to be false and has never been observed, but that is exactly what you are proposing.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 05:59 AM on July 24, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The fossils you listed are not transitional fossils but their own unique species. We can't use and extinct species fossil as a transitional fossil just because it seems to have traits in common with other species. It is much simpler and logical to accept these fossils as their own unique species than it is to say they are evolving into another species.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 2:34 PM on July 24, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The fossils you listed are not transitional fossils but their own unique species.

Yes they are "unique" species, that's how evolution works.  

We can't use and extinct species fossil as a transitional fossil just because it seems to have traits in common with other species.

Why not?  and what is your definition of a transitional fossil?  Tje scientific definition, the one experts use is this, from here:
TransitionalFossils

"Transitional fossils are the fossilized remains of transitional forms of life that tangibly and demonstrably encode an evolutionary transition. Thus, transitional fossils are characterized by their retention of primitive (plesiomorphic) traits in contrast with their more derived characteristics, as they are defined in the study of cladistics."

All the fossils I mentioned display these traits.
All the fossils are listed are transitional.

It is much simpler and logical to accept these fossils as their own unique species than it is to say they are evolving into another species.

Then why do they have characteristics from 2 different groups of animals?  No, it's not simpler and more logical to to assume they did not evolve.  First of all evolution is a fact that we directly observe today.  Secondly, there is no other process besides evolution that can account for them.  If an animal has charactreristics of both a reptile and a mammal, the best explanation for it is evolution.  What's your alternate claim and what's the evidence for it?


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:23 PM on July 24, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What macroevolution do we observe today?
And if there is a Creator, it is logical that the Creator would use similar parts in animals for similar functions, even though they may be totally different types of animals. This is much more logical than saying that these parts evolved through thousands of beneficial mutations, which VERY rarely happen.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 3:52 PM on July 24, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What macroevolution do we observe
today?


We see new species arising all the time, that,
by definition, is macroevolution.

And if there is a Creator

Absolutely no evidence of a creator.

it is logical that the Creator would use similar parts in animals for similar functions, even though they may be totally different types of animals

And that's exactly what we DON'T see.  Some bats, birds and butterflies live in the same environment, yet they have completely different wings.  Why is a bat's wing more similar to a human arm or a whale flipper than it is to a bird wing?  The simplest and most logical plan would be for a creator to give animals in similar environments the same parts, but that's not what we see in nature.
the patterns we see in morphology are best explained by common descent.

This is much more logical than saying that these parts evolved through thousands of beneficial mutations, which VERY rarely happen.

Not when we can see what mutations occurred and what they caused, like we can now.  Beneficial mutations happen, we can now look at an organisms genetic structure and see what these mutations did.  Common descent and therefore evolution, is a fact.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:42 PM on July 24, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

jango, are you ever going to answer the questions I posed to you, or are just going to ignore the hard stuff?

"what is your definition of a transitional fossil"

"why do some fossils have the characteristics of 2 different groups of animals"

"What's your alternate explanation"
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:44 PM on July 24, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What new species do we see arising? New species are being discovered but are not "arising."

Your point about a bat's wing being similar to a human arm and whale flipper proves mynpoint: if a Creator found a design that works for these jobs, why not use it?

And your argument about looking at an organisms genetic structure to see beneficial mutations uses circular reasoning because it assumes the organisms characteristics evolved.

To me the definition of a transitional fossil is a fossil or series of fossils which shows he development from one species to another. We should find a series of fossils that show how organisms change if evolution is correct, while in reality we might fnd a few that seem to have the same characteristics of current organisms. Some fossils show characteristics of two different animals because many animals are like this. Cats and dogs have paws and hair. They are similar traits but this does not mean one evolved into the other. This means the Creator gave them these traits because they are what best suits them to their environment, even though it may be similar to other animals.

And as for evidence of a Creator, how did the universe and matter begin? Before this there was nothing, not even the potential for matter. A Creator is the only logical explanation to create the universe and time. The Creator would be outside of time, and since we are bound by times limitations we can't grasp what it is to be eternal, like the Creator.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 8:16 PM on July 24, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 7:16 PM on July 24, 2009 :
What new species do we see arising? New species are being discovered but are not "arising."


Here's a link to the TalkOrigins FAQ on observed speciation (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html).  You might want to take a look at it.

Also, while doing a Web search I came across an interesting article on what appears to be incipient speciation for flycatcher birds that live in the Solomon Island area (http://www.geneticarchaeology.com/research/Study_catches_2_bird_populations_as_they_split_into_separate_species.asp).

Also, I'd suggest reading about ring species.



-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 8:44 PM on July 24, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I thought this thread was a place for creationists to post evidence supporting their view?  It seems to be just another example of creationist attempting to poo-poo modern biology, but not offering anything as a scientific alternative.  Anyone have some evidence for creationism to post?

(Edited by Mustrum 7/24/2009 at 8:48 PM).


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 8:47 PM on July 24, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 7:16 PM on July 24, 2009 :

And as for evidence of a Creator, how did the universe and matter begin? Before this there was nothing, not even the potential for matter.


Now why would say something like that?  In quantum chromodynamics, for example, space is fill with the "potential" to form particles (quark-antiquark pairs).  Anyway, a topic such as this should be on another thread and is not directly related to biology.


(Edited by Mustrum 7/24/2009 at 8:56 PM).


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 8:55 PM on July 24, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'll read your articles when I have time probably sometime tonight or tomorrow.

Evidence for creation:
In my previous post about the origin of the universe.

Life itself is evidence for creation. The specific position and composition of the earth is uniquely created for life. Any number of minute changes will offset this balance and destroy life on earth.

Second law of thermodynamics. Systems (such as the universe or earth) increase in entropy. This requires earth and life on earth to have started in a state of higher order and organization: the creation. Evolution teaches the opposite of this. And by the way this is a LAW not just a theory.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 9:02 PM on July 24, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What new species do we see arising? New species are being discovered but are not "arising."

From here:Speciation

"In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses.

WH × WH - 75%
P1 × P1 - 95%
P2 × P2 - 80%
P1 × P2 - 77%
WH × P1 -  0%
WH × P2 -  0%

They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations."

A new species is seen to arise.

Your point about a bat's wing being similar to a human arm and whale flipper proves mynpoint: if a Creator found a design that works for these jobs, why not use it?

So you're going to ignore the main point of my post here, typical creationist response.  Why are a batwing, human arm and whales flipper so similar?  They are used for different purposes and accoring to creationists, they're not related (different "kinds").  The logical way to do things would be for a creator to give animals in the same environment the same design, why go to all the trouble to design 3 entirely different wings?  And that's what we don't see in nature, we see animals with similar structures in completely different environments with no logical reason to have the same sturctures, accept if they evolved from common ancestor.  So no, this doesn't prove your point, it disproves it completely.

And your argument about looking at an organisms genetic structure to see beneficial mutations uses circular reasoning because it assumes the organisms characteristics evolved.

Circular reasoning?!?!  You don't know what circular reasoning is!  We see that that certain genes control certain characteristics in organisms.  We see mutations can change these genes and produce a different charateristic.  Not circular at all, just the result of observation.  Now if you want to see a circular argument, here's a classic.  The Bible is inerrant, we know this because it says so in the Bible.

To me the definition of a transitional fossil is a fossil or series of fossils which shows he development from one species to another.

Well, the series of fossils that show the evolution of reptiles to mammals does just that.  From here:
Reptile to Mammal

"Due to a series of fortunate geological coincidences the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles is more complete than that of any other group of terrestrial vertebrates, with the exception of the Tertiary mammals. Moreover, their evolution spanned a huge morphological progression, from early forms of a very primitive reptilian grade through to others which are technically to be regarded as mammals. Therefore this is the one example known where evolution of one class of vertebrates from one class to another class is well documented by the fossil record…."

Just what you asked for.

Some fossils show characteristics of two different animals because many animals are like this

Why are they like that, evolution answers this question.

Cats and dogs have paws and hair. They are similar traits but this does not mean one evolved into the other.

Cats and dogs didn't evolve from one another, they share a common ancestor, one that had paws, hair, warm blood and nursed their young with milk.  Are you saying that cats and dogs are NOT related at all?

This means the Creator gave them these traits because they are what best suits them to their environment, even though it may be similar to other animals.

Which creator?  Any evidence of this?  

And as for evidence of a Creator, how did the universe and matter begin?

Energy is eternal.  How did the Creator begin?

Before this there was nothing

Says who...show us the evidence for this claim.

A Creator is the only logical explanation to create the universe and time.

NOt at all, who created the creator?  If you claim he was always there, I claim energy was always there.  You have no evidence for your claim, I have more evidence than you.  So no, it's not logical to claim that an all knowing, all powerful superbeing always existed, that's called a fairytale.

The Creator would be outside of time

How could he be outside time?  Energy could be outside of time.

since we are bound by times limitations we can't grasp what it is to be eternal, like the Creator.

You have an acitive imagination but no evidence for a creator.  And if he (it?) is so powerful, why did he make so many mistakes, like poor design in nature, screwing up humanity, and if he(it?) is so great, why doesn't he show himself to us so we all can see him and be saved?
No, no evidence for an all powerful creator, and alot of evidence against it.  And it certainly isn't logical.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:28 PM on July 24, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Life itself is evidence for creation. The specific position and composition of the earth is uniquely created for life. Any number of minute changes will offset this balance and destroy life on earth.

Life evolved to live on earth.  If the earth was different, life would be different or wouldn't be around.  No evidence at all there.

Second law of thermodynamics. Systems (such as the universe or earth) increase in entropy. This requires earth and life on earth to have started in a state of higher order and organization: the creation. Evolution teaches the opposite of this. And by the way this is a LAW not just a theory.

You don't know what the 2LOT is or what it means.  From here:
2LOT

"The second law of thermodynamics has been proven mathematically for thermodynamic systems, where entropy is defined in terms of heat divided by the absolute temperature. The second law is often applied to other situations, such as the complexity of life, or orderliness. [14] However it is incorrect to apply the closed-system expression of the second law of thermodynamics to any one sub-system connected by mass-energy flows to another ("open system"). In sciences such as biology and biochemistry the application of thermodynamics is well-established, e.g. biological thermodynamics. The general viewpoint on this subject is summarized well by biological thermodynamicist Donald Haynie; as he states: "Any theory claiming to describe how organisms originate and continue to exist by natural causes must be compatible with the first and second laws of thermodynamics."[15]

This is very different, however, from the claim made by many creationists that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Evidence indicates that biological systems and evolution of those systems conform to the second law, since although biological systems may become more ordered, the net change in entropy for the entire universe is still positive as a result of evolution.[16] Additionally, the process of natural selection responsible for such local increase in order may be mathematically derived from the expression of the second law equation for non-equilibrium connected open systems,[17] arguably making the Theory of Evolution itself an expression of the Second Law.

Furthermore, the second law is only true of closed systems. It is easy to decrease entropy, with an energy source. For example, a refrigerator separates warm and cold air, but only when it is plugged in. Since all biology requires an external energy source, the Sun, there's nothing unusual (thermodynamically) with it growing more complex with time."

So no, your claim that the start of life and earth had to be in a higher state than it is today is flat out wrong.  You're 0 for 2 here, both your claims are completely wrong.

And by the way this is a LAW not just a theory.

Theories are "greater" than laws.  And you don't understand the Second law of thermodynamics and you don't understand scientific theories either.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:05 PM on July 24, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from jango at 9:02 PM on July 24, 2009 :
And by the way this is a LAW not just a theory.


Maybe you should read AIG's page on arguments creationists SHOULDN'T use.


Evolution is just a theory. (“Theory” has a stronger meaning in scientific fields than in general usage; it is better to say that evolution is just a hypothesis or one model to explain the untestable past.)


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:15 PM on July 24, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses.

WH × WH - 75%
P1 × P1 - 95%
P2 × P2 - 80%
P1 × P2 - 77%
WH × P1 -  0%
WH × P2 -  0%

They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations."

A new species is seen to arise.


This is not macroevolution but microevolution which i accept is true.

So you're going to ignore the main point of my post here, typical creationist response.  Why are a batwing, human arm and whales flipper so similar?  They are used for different purposes and accoring to creationists, they're not related (different "kinds").  The logical way to do things would be for a creator to give animals in the same environment the same design, why go to all the trouble to design 3 entirely different wings?  And that's what we don't see in nature, we see animals with similar structures in completely different environments with no logical reason to have the same sturctures, accept if they evolved from common ancestor.  So no, this doesn't prove your point, it disproves it completely.

The Creator would also want diversity and beauty in the world, so there are different structures when another could be used.

Circular reasoning?!?!  You don't know what circular reasoning is!  We see that that certain genes control certain characteristics in organisms.  We see mutations can change these genes and produce a different charateristic.  Not circular at all, just the result of observation.  Now if you want to see a circular argument, here's a classic.  The Bible is inerrant, we know this because it says so in the Bible.

Your argument was that by looking at an organisms genetic structure we can see the beneficial mutations that took place to give them this structure. This argument assumes evolution that their genes came from mutations and thus evolution, so you are proving evolution by assuming evolution already.

Why are they like that, evolution answers this question.

Creation also answers this question. Similar function means similar design.

Cats and dogs didn't evolve from one another, they share a common ancestor, one that had paws, hair, warm blood and nursed their young with milk.  Are you saying that cats and dogs are NOT related at all?

They are similar but they were created independently.

Which creator?  Any evidence of this?

The Creator of the Bible and yes the evidence is that the animals are in the habitats that best suit them for life. The Creator would obviously put them where they will survive.  

Energy is eternal.  How did the Creator begin?

Evidence for energy being eternal? Energy had to come from something. The Creator is eternal. The Creator created time and it is logical that we would not be able to fully understand the existence and workings of the being that created the universe.

Says who...show us the evidence for this claim.

How could there have been something? The universe cannot be eternal.

How could he be outside time?  Energy could be outside of time.

He is outside of time because He created time. How can energy be outside of time?

You have an acitive imagination but no evidence for a creator.  And if he (it?) is so powerful, why did he make so many mistakes, like poor design in nature, screwing up humanity, and if he(it?) is so great, why doesn't he show himself to us so we all can see him and be saved?
No, no evidence for an all powerful creator, and alot of evidence against it.  And it certainly isn't logical.


Humanity has freedom of choice so we screwed it up for ourselves. Nature seems pretty amazing to me, and the "poor design" came because of humanity's choice to rebel against God. And He has offered a way to be saved through His Son Jesus Christ. He did show himself to the world.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 12:02 AM on July 25, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is also evidence that the earth is much younger than the billions of years needed for evolution to even be somewhat plausible.

I assume you believe the earth used to be molten? The earth should have cooled down much more than it has in the billions of years that supposedly have passed. The earth is still quite hot beneath the crust, and this heat would have dispersed after such long time periods.

The moon is also receding from the earth. Even with the moon starting very slose to earth, after billions of years it would be much farther away than it is now.

There is also evidence for a young universe. Spiral galaxys are very unstable and after billions and billions of years, they would have reached a much more stable state.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 12:09 AM on July 25, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Now why would say something like that?  In quantum chromodynamics, for example, space is fill with the "potential" to form particles (quark-antiquark pairs).  Anyway, a topic such as this should be on another thread and is not directly related to biology.

This potential only exists because it was created. Space and time had to be created they cannot be infinite.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 12:54 AM on July 25, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is not macroevolution but microevolution which i accept is true.

No, this is macroevolution, this is a new species forming.

The Creator would also want diversity and beauty in the world, so there are different structures when another could be used.

Why would he want diversity?  You previously said:  "And if there is a Creator, it is logical that the Creator would use similar parts in animals for similar functions, even though they may be totally different types of animals."

So what is it, is it logical to use similar parts in animals for similar functions, as you claim, OR is the exact opposite true, as you also claim,
"The Creator would also want diversity and beauty in the world, so there are different structures when another could be used"

Seems like you're claiming BOTH are locical.  It can't be both, either similar parts for similar functions is logical or different parts for similar functions is logical.  And you never explained to us why features for dissimilar uses, like a bat's wing, a human arm and a whales flipper ARE so similar.  What possible reason could a creator have for that?

Your argument was that by looking at an organisms genetic structure we can see the beneficial mutations that took place to give them this structure. This argument assumes evolution that their genes came from mutations and thus evolution, so you are proving evolution by assuming evolution already.

No it doesn't   We can actually see where a mutation occurred in a line of organisms, when it occurred and what it did to the organism.
We don't assume evolution, we actually see what the mutation does, how it affects the organism.  That it does support evolution is besides the point.  No circular reasoning involved.

Creation also answers this question. Similar function means similar design.

But you never answered the question of similar design, dissimilar function.  You gave us 2 vaque, contraditory answers and could not back up your claims with evidence.  So no, creation answers nothing.

They are similar but they were created independently.

Provide evidence.  Cats and dogs share a common ancestor, that's a fact.

The Creator of the Bible and yes the evidence is that the animals are in the habitats that best suit them for life. The Creator would obviously put them where they will survive.

Then how come animals migrate?  Did God put them in the wrong environment?  How could that be if God is inerrant?  Since we see some amazing migrations of animals, like how animals come to populate islands and how they have evolved to thrive on them, we'll have to say you're wrong here again.  Do you know what biogeography is?

Evidence for energy being eternal? Energy had to come from something.

No it doesn't.  Energy can also just spntaneously form from nothing, so can matter.

The Creator is eternal.

No such thing as a Creator, absolutely no evidence for one.  It's just a fairytale.

The Creator created time and it is logical that we would not be able to fully understand the existence and workings of the being that created the universe.

An all powerful, all knowing being eternally existing outside of time is not logical, it's a fantasy.  You have been unable to provide any evidence for this creator and you have been unable to give us on reason why it's logical.  No matter how many times you keep saying it doesn't make it real.

How could there have been something? The universe cannot be eternal.

But the eleven dimensional space it occupies could be.  

He is outside of time because He created time.

No such thing as a creator, so he couldn't have created time.  

How can energy be outside of time?

It exists outside of our universe.

Humanity has freedom of choice so we screwed it up for ourselves.

How did humanity screw it up?  You claim 2 people who didn't know right from wrong disobeyed God, why do the rest of us have to suffer?

Nature seems pretty amazing to me, and the "poor design" came because of humanity's choice to rebel against God.

Then you obviously don't understand nature.  Why would a good and just god cause whales to get the bends when they have to dive deep to get food?  Why would our choice to rebel against god cause "poor" design?  

And He has offered a way to be saved through His Son Jesus Christ. He did show himself to the world.

If Jesus even existed at all, he was just a man, no evidence that he was anything else.  If god really wanted to save everyone, why doesn't he just appear to us as a giant standing on the moon?  That would sure change my mind.  


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:05 AM on July 25, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is also evidence that the earth is much younger than the billions of years needed for evolution to even be somewhat plausible.

No evidence that the earth is younger than 4.5 billion years.  A young earth was completely disproven over 200 years ago by christian geologists.

I assume you believe the earth used to be molten? The earth should have cooled down much more than it has in the billions of years that supposedly have passed. The earth is still quite hot beneath the crust, and this heat would have dispersed after such long time periods.

God, you're not going to drag out the PRATT list, claims that have been refuted years ago, don't you ever do ANY research???  
OK, molten earth, should have cooled...no it shouldn't have.  Many of the elements deep in the earth are, get this, radioactive!  And those radioactive elements produce heat.  Geologists know about this stuff, and if you bothered to read anything of substance, you wouldn't bother to make these silly claims.
From here:
Earth Core

"For all this, however, Marone says, the vast majority of the heat in Earth's interior—up to 90 percent—is fueled by the decaying of radioactive isotopes like Potassium 40, Uranium 238, 235, and Thorium 232 contained within the mantle. These isotopes radiate heat as they shed excess energy and move toward stability. "The amount of heat caused by this radiation is almost the same as the total heat measured emanating from the Earth."

Radioactivity is present not only in the mantle, but in the rocks of Earth's crust. For example, Marone explains, a 1-kilogram block of granite on the surface emanates a tiny but measurable amount of heat (about as much as a .0001 watt light bulb) through radioactive decay.

That may not seem like much. But considering the vastness of the mantle, it adds up, Marone says. "

So, the earth's heat is not evidence for a young earth but quite the opposite, since this is fueled by radioactive elements that take billions of years to decay, it's evidence that the earth is very, very old (4.5 billion years old).

The moon is also receding from the earth. Even with the moon starting very slose to earth, after billions of years it would be much farther away than it is now.

Nope, wrong again.  This claim was disproven decades ago, if you want drag out the falsified evidence, I'll be happy to show you where your wrong.

There is also evidence for a young universe. Spiral galaxys are very unstable and after billions and billions of years, they would have reached a much more stable state.

Nope, no evidence here.  Look up density waves.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:52 AM on July 25, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why would he want diversity?  You previously said:  "And if there is a Creator, it is logical that the Creator would use similar parts in animals for similar functions, even though they may be totally different types of animals."

He wants diversity for us to enjoy, and this by no means invalidates the argument that He would use similar structures for different animals like a whale and a bat. They obviously work well for these animals, and the Creator knew this when He made them.

Seems like you're claiming BOTH are locical.  It can't be both, either similar parts for similar functions is logical or different parts for similar functions is logical.  And you never explained to us why features for dissimilar uses, like a bat's wing, a human arm and a whales flipper ARE so similar.  What possible reason could a creator have for that?

Why can't there be diversity and similarity? You can't pretend to know what would be best. Maybe for some animals using a similar part would be better while for others making a creative and new part would be better.

No it doesn't   We can actually see where a mutation occurred in a line of organisms, when it occurred and what it did to the organism.
We don't assume evolution, we actually see what the mutation does, how it affects the organism.  That it does support evolution is besides the point.  No circular reasoning involved.


I believe you i just want an example i can read up on.

But you never answered the question of similar design, dissimilar function.  You gave us 2 vaque, contraditory answers and could not back up your claims with evidence.  So no, creation answers nothing.

The design works for both functions right? Why couldn't the Creator use the same design?

Provide evidence.  Cats and dogs share a common ancestor, that's a fact.

Similarities do not imply a common ancestor. Different animals show the creativity of the Creator. Why should the Creator have created only cats but not dogs?

Then how come animals migrate?  Did God put them in the wrong environment?  How could that be if God is inerrant?  Since we see some amazing migrations of animals, like how animals come to populate islands and how they have evolved to thrive on them, we'll have to say you're wrong here again.  Do you know what biogeography is?

Why can't migration be a part of God's plan for a species? they aren't in the wrong environment it was just in his plan for them to migrate. Animals populate islands and through natural selection and microevolution the most fit genes will prevail, but no new genes will come into the mix. It's amazing how God has allowed animals the ability to adapt to their environment isn't it?

No it doesn't.  Energy can also just spntaneously form from nothing, so can matter.

Let's assume that the ability for matter and energy to arise from nothing has always existed, even though i believe it was created. When matter comes out of space, an equal amount of matter and antimatter arise, and then quickly destroy each other. So why is there so much matter in the universe? Where is the antimatter that must accompany it?

No such thing as a Creator, absolutely no evidence for one.  It's just a fairytale.

The evidence is his creation. Something doesn't come from nothing there had to be a first cause.

An all powerful, all knowing being eternally existing outside of time is not logical, it's a fantasy.  You have been unable to provide any evidence for this creator and you have been unable to give us on reason why it's logical.  No matter how many times you keep saying it doesn't make it real.

It is the most logical explanation for there even being a universe. You expect me to believe that all of this ordered incredible universe came from no intelligent designer? There is an obvious design to the universe. This is evidence for a Creator.

But the eleven dimensional space it occupies could be.

Something had to create the space. You don't just randomly get space out of nothing. I don't know if you know what i mean by nothing. Not space but NOTHING.

No such thing as a creator, so he couldn't have created time.

No matter how many times you say there isn't a Creator doesn't make it true :p

It exists outside of our universe.

Evidence for this?

How did humanity screw it up?  You claim 2 people who didn't know right from wrong disobeyed God, why do the rest of us have to suffer?

They were representative of humanity as a whole. You would have done the same ifyou were in their position. And they did know right and wrong. God told them not to eat from the tree, his only command, and they did.

Then you obviously don't understand nature.  Why would a good and just god cause whales to get the bends when they have to dive deep to get food?  Why would our choice to rebel against god cause "poor" design?

Since the choice of Adam and Eve nature has been going downhill. Everything changed after that.

If Jesus even existed at all, he was just a man, no evidence that he was anything else.  If god really wanted to save everyone, why doesn't he just appear to us as a giant standing on the moon?  That would sure change my mind.

The fact that he was raised from the dead seems to say that he was more than a man. God does not appear in the moon because He wants us to make the choice to serve him of our own free will. He wants us to love and follow him because we want to not because he makes us.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 02:27 AM on July 25, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And on your next post to be honest im more of a biology guy than a geology or astrophysics guy but I'll let you know if i come across any good evidence on those subjects.

What are your thoughts on the origin of so many comets with near hyperbolic orbits? Over 90% of comets have near hyperbolic orbits. These comets should have been ejected from the solar system or brought into Jupiter's family if their origin was very long ago, and there is no source to replenish these comets. This is strong evidence for a recent origin of comets.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 02:41 AM on July 25, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

More evidence for creation:
http://www.bibleplus.org/creation/evidence.htm
Pay special attention to the portion about radioactive decay halos in granite.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 03:20 AM on July 25, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

He wants diversity for us to enjoy, and this by no means invalidates the argument that He would use similar structures for different animals like a whale and a bat. They obviously work well for these animals, and the Creator knew this when He made them.

How do we enjoy the similarity of a bat wing having the same bones as a whale flipper?  This is not readily apparent to the naked eye.
And why would a logical creator make so many different structures to do the same thing?  This doesn't seem logical it seems wasteful and it also kills your claim that similar design equals similar creator, because if you have 3 different kinds of wings in 3 different animals that live in the same environment, you can't claim similar design equals similar designer.

Why can't there be diversity and similarity? You can't pretend to know what would be best. Maybe for some animals using a similar part would be better while for others making a creative and new part would be better.

Because it's not logical.  We don't see unbound diversity.  Only mammals produce milk and feed their young with it, only birds fly with feathered wings.  Why don't we see real diversity?  You claim God is all powerful, why don't we see bats with feathered wings?  They work fine for birds, an all powerful creator could have given them to other creatures.  Why in the world would an all knowing creator give a totally sea going animal lungs?  We see a pattern in the diversity of life, a pattern an all powerful creator would not have to abide by.  And by examining this pattern, the only way to explain it logically is common descent, evolution.  

I believe you i just want an example i can read up on.

From here:
Fin Evolution

""The emergence of paired appendages was a critical event in the evolution of vertebrates," Cohn said. "The fossil record provides clear evidence that the first fins evolved along the midline. The sequence of evolutionary events leading to the origin of limbs has been known for some time, but only now are we deciphering how these events occurred at a molecular genetic level."

Researchers isolated genes from the spotted catshark, a type of slow-moving shark from the eastern Atlantic Ocean. By studying the activity of a dozen genes in shark embryos, they determined shark median fin development is associated with the presence of genes such as HoxD, Fgf8 and Tbx18, which are vital in the development of human limbs.

They also used molecular markers for different cell types to determine which cells give rise to the median fins, finding that they arise from the same cells that form the vertebrae. These same genes dictate the emergence of symmetrical pairs of fins on the animal sides, showing a shared developmental mechanism in completely different locations, according to Renata Freitas and GuangJun Zhang, co-authors of the paper and graduate students in UF's zoology department."

The design works for both functions right? Why couldn't the Creator use the same design?

But why use the same design for for animals in completely different environments?  Having the same internal structure for limbs that do so radically different functions doesn't make sense, why don't whales have fins more similar to shark fins?  Why don't whales have gills, they spend their entire life in the water!  Because they breathe air and they have to dive so deep to catch their food, they get the bends!  If they breathed water, they wouldn't have this problem.  Evolution explains this nicely, why would an all powerful, all knowing god do something so stupid?

Similarities do not imply a common ancestor.

Why not?  Please explain why similarities do not imply a common ancestor, all the experts say they do.  What about ERVs?  They are similarities on a genetic scale.  The only way to have them in your genetic structure, generation after generation, is to inherit them.  We share 7 ERVs whith chimpanzees, the only way that can happen is if we share a common ancestor with the chimp.  As far as sharing a common ancestor with chimpanzees, there is so much evidence that we do that it's now considered an established fact.

Different animals show the creativity of the Creator.

Why did he create them in a pattern that is only explained by evolution?  Is he trying to deceive us?

Why should the Creator have created only cats but not dogs?

Why not?  

Why can't migration be a part of God's plan for a species?

Because you said:  "The Creator of the Bible and yes the evidence is that the animals are in the habitats that best suit them for life."

If animals change habitats, as we see that they do, then animals are NOT in habitats that best suit them for life.  And strangely enough, when they change environments, they eventually evolve to live in the new environment or die off.  Once again, you're trying to have it both ways.

Animals populate islands and through natural selection and microevolution the most fit genes will prevail, but no new genes will come into the mix.

Of course new genes will come into existance, that's a fact.  And it's not microevolution, when new species form it's macroevolution.

Let's assume that the ability for matter and energy to arise from nothing has always existed, even though i believe it was
created.


We don't have to assume anything, it's a fact.

When matter comes out of space, an equal amount of matter and antimatter arise, and then quickly destroy each other.

We do not know how quantum fluctuations behaved at the exact instant of the Big Bang, but since we know that matter can spontaneously form, this is evidence that the universe could have self started out of nothing.
From here:
QuantumFluctuations

"Once our minds accept the mutability of matter and the new idea of the vacuum, we can speculate on the origin of the biggest thing we know - the universe. Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness - a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility."

So we have some evidence for the universe self starting, no evidence for a creator.  I think the claim that a supreme being beyond time created everything is much more farfetched.

The evidence is his creation. Something doesn't come from nothing there had to be a first cause.

First of all, something DOES come from nothing, matter and energy.  And secondly, you claim "Something doesn't come from nothing" but then you say God did...You just can't seem to avoid these nasty contradictions!

It is the most logical explanation for there even being a universe.

You haven't been able to show us why it's logical, you just keep claiming it with nothing to back up your claim.

You expect me to believe that all of this ordered incredible universe came from no intelligent designer?

That's what the evidence shows us.  Everything we observe in our universe so far is explained by unintelligent natural forces.  Therefore, no creator needed.

There is an obvious design to the
universe.


Explain that design to us...

Something had to create the space.

Why?  Why couldn't it have self started spontaneously, since we see matter and energy can already form out of nothing?  And why couldn't it be eternal?  You make a lot of claims that you just can't back up.

You don't just randomly get space out of nothing.

Yes you do, you can get matter and energy.

I don't know if you know what i mean by nothing. Not space but NOTHING.

You got God out of nothing and you have no evidence to back up your claim.  There IS evidence that we can get matter and energy out of nothing.  How do you know there was nothing?   How can you prove that energy isn't eternal?

They were representative of humanity as a whole.

Boy, that seems unjust.  Punish billions for the mistake of just 2 people.  What an unfair god you worship.

You would have done the same ifyou were in their position.

No I wouldn't have!

And they did know right and wrong.

How?

Since the choice of Adam and Eve nature has been going downhill. Everything changed after that.

But what an unjust thing to do!  And everyone knows Adam and Eve are just a story, they never really existed.

The fact that he was raised from the dead seems to say that he was more than a
man.


Jesus didn't really rise from the dead, that's just a fairytale.

God does not appear in the moon because He wants us to make the choice to serve him of our own free will.

Why?  If he directly appearred to us as God, we could still accept or reject him of our own free will, except if he appearred to us we could make an informed choice, a better choice.  Hiding himself seems dishonest, if he really exists.  It serves no purpose but give him an excuse to punish people.

He wants us to love and follow him because we want to not because he makes us.

But showing us he really existed wouldn't be making us, it would just show us he existed.  It would show us he really did love us and care for us instead of making us guess and punishing us if we guess wrong.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:32 AM on July 25, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What are your thoughts on the origin of so many comets with near hyperbolic orbits? Over 90% of comets have near hyperbolic orbits. These comets should have been ejected from the solar system or brought into Jupiter's family if their origin was very long ago, and there is no source to replenish these comets. This is strong evidence for a recent origin of comets.

Of course there is a source for these comets, the Oort cloud and the Kuiper belt.  We have directly observed over 200 objects in the Kuiper belt.  As for the Oort cloud, from here:
Oort Cloud

"The Oort cloud is the source of long-period comets and possibly higher-inclination intermediate comets that were pulled into shorter period orbits by the planets, such as Halley and Swift-Tuttle. Comets can also shift their orbits due to jets of gas and dust that rocket from their icy surface as they approach the sun. Although they get off course, comets do have initial orbits with widely different ranges, from 200 years to once every million years or more. Comets entering the planetary region for the first time, come from an average distance of 44,000 astronomical units.

Long period comets can appear at any time and come from any direction. Bright comets can usually be seen every 5-10 years. Two recent Oort cloud comets were Hyakutake and Hale-Bopp. Hyakutake was average in size, but came to 0.10 AU (15,000,000 km) from Earth, which made it appear especially spectacular. Hale-Bopp, on the other hand, was an unusually large and dynamic comet, ten times that of Halley at comparable distances from the sun, making it appear quite bright, even though it did not approach closer than 1.32 AU (197,000,000 km) to the Earth.

Recognition of the Oort cloud gave explanation to the age old questions: "What are comets, and where do they come from?" In 1950, Jan H. Oort inferred the existence of the Oort cloud from the physical evidence of long-period comets entering the planetary system. This Dutch astronomer, who determined the rotation of the Milky Way galaxy in the 1920's, interpreted comet orbital distribution with only 19 well-measured orbits to study and successfully recognized where these comets came from. Additional gathered data has since confirmed his studies, establishing and expanding our knowledge of the Oort cloud."

So yes there is a source to replenish comets, it's been observed and verified.  No evidence for a young universe.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:38 AM on July 25, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Pay special attention to the portion about radioactive decay halos in granite

Refuted
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:42 AM on July 25, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38

No, it's not simpler and more logical to to assume they did not evolve.  First of all evolution is a fact that we directly observe today.


No, we don’t. We observe micro change within a kind.

Secondly, there is no other process besides evolution that can account for them.


There’s creation.

If an animal has charactreristics of both a reptile and a mammal, the best explanation for it is evolution.


What is a duck-billed platypus evolving from? What does it seem to be evolving into? (as far as you’re concerned)

We see new species arising all the time, that,
by definition, is macroevolution.


The problem is with the definition then because a bacteria turning into a new species is still a bacteria and is not supportive of hippo-ancestors turning into whales.

Absolutely no evidence of a creator.


No evidence of macroevolution either.

Common descent and therefore evolution, is a fact.


Don’t you have to prove something in order to have a ‘fact’ – no proof, no fact.

A new species is seen to arise.


But not a new kind. The polychaete worms are still polychaete worms.

Some fossils show characteristics of two different animals because many animals are like this
Why are they like that, evolution answers this question.


Evolution might potentially be the answer to the question but there are other potential answers like ‘creation’. Neither can be proven to be the answer.

Cats and dogs didn't evolve from one another, they share a common ancestor, one that had paws, hair, warm blood and nursed their young with milk.


Well there are two possibilities, either it is a fairy tale or it is true. How do we know since cats and dogs remain cats and dogs for at least the past 6000 years. If they had a common ancestor, it is part of a big story until you have a mechanism for this change and can observe something more convincing that what we got out of mutated fruit flies and bacteria.

A young earth was completely disproven over 200 years ago by christian geologists.

What??? Before radiometric dating? –what did they do? Just look at the rocks pronounce its age according to a theory that included long time for evolution and say “that’s it!” I look at a rock now and I can’t tell you how old it is –they were good back then! Why don’t you go and check out how they did that?

These isotopes radiate heat as they shed excess energy and move toward stability


And after billions of years? Shouldn’t they be stable yet? If you have a hot cup of coffee, it gets cold eventually, so does everything else, radioactive or not.

since this is fueled by radioactive elements that take billions of years to decay


So apparently it’s had billions of years, so what’s the problem? How much radioactive rock is there? As much as you need to keep your theory plausible?  How much has broken down? Is this just another story that we must just accept?

Even with the moon starting very slose to earth, after billions of years it would be much farther away than it is now.

This claim was disproven decades ago, if you want drag out the falsified evidence, I'll be happy to show you where your wrong.


Please, I’d love to see how this was refuted.

the Oort cloud


No evidence for an oort cloud, it has arisen out of necessity to fix up the story about the comets that should all be gone by now.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:59 AM on July 25, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:59 AM on July 25, 2009 :

the Oort cloud


No evidence for an oort cloud, it has arisen out of necessity to fix up the story about the comets that should all be gone by now.


No evidence except for the direct observation of 90377 Sedna, 2000 CR105, 2006 SQ372 and 2008 KV42.  Several new telescopes are coming on line that will expand the list in the near future.

The same weak argument was being made about the Kuiper belt 20 years ago, but reality prevails.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:09 AM on July 25, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No evidence except for the direct observation of 90377 Sedna, 2000 CR105, 2006 SQ372 and 2008 KV42.  


Are you deliberately being deceptive here? All of the above are trans-Neptunian objects , possibly dwarf planets and none has anything to do with the imaginary Oort cloud. Even if they imagined that the above came from the Oort cloud, that would still be imagination in the absence of evidence for the existence of the Oort cloud.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:03 AM on July 25, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok guys, I'm still interested in the initial question here: what evidence is there for creationism?

So far, here is what has been provided in support of creationism (if I missed something, please note it).

1. The origin of the universe: regardless of the origin of the universe, this isn't directly related to biological evolution.

2. Life itself is evidence for creation: it helps to have the antecedent and consequent of an argument be directly related to each other, that's not the case here.

3. The specific position and composition of the earth: Actually, there is a fairly robust range of options for planets that could support life.

4.  The moon is also receding from the earth: Again, not directly related to biological evolution and doesn't support creationism.

5. The earth should have cooled down: Once again, a non sequitur argument - plus it ignores radioactivity among other things.

6. Radioactive decay halos in granite: speaking of radioactivity, as already noted, this is an old debunked argument.

I can't help but notice that of the six arguments presented, only one is directly related to biological evolution.  Alas, that argument (life itself is evidence of special creation) is rather useless.  One could, with equal logical force, argue that life is evidence of a giant, magical turtle that swims through space.

So once again, does anyone have any scientific evidence for creationism?  For example, an observed special creation event?  Genetic evidence that shows that all mutations are harmful?  Something...?

(Edited by Mustrum 7/25/2009 at 09:48 AM).


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 09:44 AM on July 25, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:03 AM on July 25, 2009 :
No evidence except for the direct observation of 90377 Sedna, 2000 CR105, 2006 SQ372 and 2008 KV42.  


Are you deliberately being deceptive here? All of the above are trans-Neptunian objects , possibly dwarf planets and none has anything to do with the imaginary Oort cloud. Even if they imagined that the above came from the Oort cloud, that would still be imagination in the absence of evidence for the existence of the Oort cloud.


In your opinion.  The objects do not belong in the Kuiper belt population, and are considered inner members of the Oort cloud.





(Edited by Apoapsis 7/25/2009 at 11:24 AM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:43 AM on July 25, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In your opinion.  The objects do not belong in the Kuiper belt population, and are considered inner members of the Oort cloud.


Except according to some which say that they are believed to be part of the Kuiper belt. It's all very well to imagine them to be part of the oort cloud, but the oort cloud is still an invention to take care of the fact that comets are still circling when they clearly run out of material too fast to be part of an evolutionist;s galaxy believed to be a few billion years old.
The Oort cloud is a rescue mechanism for a bad theory that people like to believe.  




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 12:45 PM on July 25, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mustrum
So once again, does anyone have any scientific evidence for creationism?  


I think the think the thing to realize here is that, as I’ve said many times, the evidence is common to evolutionists and creationists but since the origins issue is about past,unobservable, unrepeatable events - it cannot be proven by either party. In essence, evolutionism is a religion and creationism is a religion, they are both belief systems about what happened before any of us were around.

Christians have a history book about the past which they consider to be the word of the creator and reliable and evolutionists have a story which they made up all by themselves.

Evidence against one is, at least in a general sense, evidence for the other. There are many evidences IMHO that make the idea of evolution look stupid but evolutionists have their paradigm which they believe by a jump of faith and they can be quite unshakeable in their optimism about what natural law is capable of achieving.

Sir Arthur Keith in a forward to an edition of Darwin’s book wrote:

“Evolution is unproven and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative  is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”

That pretty much sums up the attitude of evolutionists.    



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 12:59 PM on July 25, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Whats the evidence against creation? i see nothing that has been put forth that creation cannot fully explain.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 2:46 PM on July 25, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 12:45 PM on July 25, 2009 :
In your opinion.  The objects do not belong in the Kuiper belt population, and are considered inner members of the Oort cloud.


Except according to some which say that they are believed to be part of the Kuiper belt. It's all very well to imagine them to be part of the oort cloud, but the oort cloud is still an invention to take care of the fact that comets are still circling when they clearly run out of material too fast to be part of an evolutionist;s galaxy believed to be a few billion years old.
The Oort cloud is a rescue mechanism for a bad theory that people like to believe.  


It's a replay of 1995 when creationists refused to believe the Kuiper belt.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 5:46 PM on July 25, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, we don’t. We observe micro change within a kind.

What is a kind?  We keep asking this  but no creationist can give us a rigorous, scientific definition of what a kind is.  Since we see new species arising, macroevolution is a fact.

What is a duck-billed platypus evolving from?

the platypus has both reptilian and mammalian characteristics.  It is clearly transitional between reptiles and mammals.  
From here:
Platypus

""The platypus genome, like the animal itself, is an amazing amalgam of reptile-like and mammal-like features," said project co-leader Jennifer Graves, of the Australian National University in Canberra.

The analysis confirms that the platypus was the earliest offshoot of the mammalian family tree, Graves noted.

The group of animals called monotremes—which includes the platypus and the closely related echidna—is thought to have split from other mammals at least 166 million years ago.

That early divergence means platypus genes carry information from a transitional point on the evolutionary time line leading from reptiles to mammals, said project leader Wesley Warren of Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri."

The duckbilled platypus is excellent evidence for evolution.

What does it seem to be evolving into? (as far as you’re concerned)

I don't know, I can't tell the future.

The problem is with the definition then because a bacteria turning into a new species is still a bacteria and is not supportive of hippo-ancestors turning into whales.

Since there are processes that show us how single celled organisms can become multicell organisms, yes it is supported.

No evidence of macroevolution either.

You mean besides directly obseving it, transitional fossils, ERVs, homology, comparative anatomy, embryology, genetics, to name a few?

Don’t you have to prove something in order to have a ‘fact’ – no proof, no fact.

From here:
Common Descent

"Common descent is the theory that all living organisms on Earth descended from a common ancestor. Biologists have evidence that all life developed from a common ancestor that lived just under 4 billion years ago, and the concept is accepted by virtually all scientists working in the field."

Common descent is fully supported by all available evidence, so much so, it is accepted as a fact by virtually all biologists.

But not a new kind. The polychaete worms are still polychaete worms.

Yes because the human life span is not long enough to observe such a change but we can and do observe evidence that shows that macroevolution on the scale your complaining about does happen.

Evolution might potentially be the answer to the question but there are other potential answers like ‘creation’. Neither can be proven to be the answer.

Evolution has been proven beyond a doubt, creation has no evidnce and creationism has been disproven.
From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:
Theory of Evolution
"During the past century and a half, the earth's crust and the fossils preserved in it have been intensively studied by geologists and paleontologists. Biologists have intensively studied the origin, structure, physiology, and genetics of living organisms. The conclusion of these studies is that the living species of animals and plants have evolved from different species that lived in the past. The scientists involved in these studies have built up the body of knowledge known as the biological theory of the origin and evolution of life. There is no currently acceptable alternative scientific theory to explain the phenomena."

Evolution is fully supported and the only valid explaination for the diversity of life on earth, creationism is a quaint, disproven myth.

What??? Before radiometric dating? –what did they do? Just look at the rocks pronounce its age according to a theory that included long time for evolution and say “that’s it!” I look at a rock now and I can’t tell you how old it is –they were good back then! Why don’t you go and check out how they did that?

From here:
Old Earth

"Nicolas Steno (17th century) was one of the first Western naturalists to appreciate the connection between fossil remains and strata.[11] His observations led him to formulate important stratigraphic concepts (i.e., the "law of superposition" and the "principle of original horizontality").[16] In the 1790s, the British naturalist William Smith hypothesized that if two layers of rock at widely differing locations contained similar fossils, then it was very plausible that the layers were the same age.[17] William Smith's nephew and student, John Phillips, later calculated by such means that Earth was about 96 million years old.[18]

The naturalist Mikhail Lomonosov, regarded as the founder of Russian science, suggested in the mid-18th century that Earth had been created separately from the rest of the universe, several hundred thousand years before. Lomonosov's ideas were mostly speculative, but in 1779, the French naturalist the Comte du Buffon tried to obtain a value for the age of Earth using an experiment: He created a small globe that resembled Earth in composition and then measured its rate of cooling. This led him to estimate that Earth was about 75,000 years old."

By the 1700s a 6,000 year old earth was disproven.

So apparently it’s had billions of years, so what’s the problem? How much radioactive rock is there? As much as you need to keep your theory plausible?  How much has broken down? Is this just another story that we must just accept?

Guess you don't know much about geology either.  From hee:
USGS

Parent Isotope  Stable Daughter Product  Currently Accepted Half-Life Values  
Uranium-238  Lead-206  4.5 billion years  
Uranium-235  Lead-207  704 million years  
Thorium-232  Lead-208  14.0 billion years  
Rubidium-87  Strontium-87  48.8 billion years  
Potassium-40  Argon-40  1.25 billion years  
Samarium-147  Neodymium-143  106 billion years  

These are the isotopes we find in the earth, we knowhow long they last and it's certainly long enough to explain why the earth is still hot.  Do yourself a favor and do some real research for a change.

Please, I’d love to see how this was refuted.

Show us your figures and I'll show you where your wrong.  The moon receding to fast for an old earth is an old argument and was disproven long ago.

No evidence for an oort cloud, it has arisen out of necessity to fix up the story about the comets that should all be gone by now.

The Oort cloud is based on evidence and I'd like to see what you have to disprove it since virtually all astronomers accept it's existance.  I noticed you didn't say anything about the Kuiper belt, so I guess you admit there is a source for comets and the claim that comets are evidence for a young universe is false.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:59 PM on July 25, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Whats the evidence against creation? i see nothing that has been put forth that creation cannot fully explain.

But you haven't given us any evidence for creation.  When shown the contradictions in your arguments, your answer simply comes down to "Goddidit", a worthless answer.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:01 PM on July 25, 2009 | IP
jango

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evidence for creation:
Sexual relationships.
This could not have evolved. For two members of a species to independently evolve a male and female reproductive system which will combine to produce offspring is impossible. There is no way sexual creatures could have evolved.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 6:07 PM on July 25, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evidence for creation:
Sexual relationships.
This could not have evolved. For two members of a species to independently evolve a male and female reproductive system which will combine to produce offspring is impossible. There is no way sexual creatures could have evolved.


don't you ever get tired of being wrong?  
First of all, you don't understand evolution!  Individual organisms don't evolve, only populations of organisms evolve!  So your primary claim is already disproven!  
We see asexual reproduction, we see asexual organisms exchanging genetic material and reproducing and then we see sexual reproducition.  Where is the barrier?  Your primary claim is wrong because you didn't understand that single organisms don't evolve, so do you want to take another stab at it or admit you were wrong?

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:17 PM on July 25, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.