Creation Evidence

[deana1003]

The theory of evolution at some juncture always requires spontaneous generation to occur. The pioneering work of Louis Pasteur paved the way for our canning and bottling industry today. Billions of experiments are performed each day as tuna fish, tomato soup and grape jelly are put into a controlled environment absent living DNA. The result is consistently the same, new life does not form spontaneously from non-living material. Not even from organic, previously alive material. Once the living DNA has been precipitated or disassembled by whatever means, heat, radiation, decay, new life does not form from the remains. There is a specific order to life ordained by the creator of life. All things reproduce according to their kind.

Additional genetic information is never gained in a DNA chain. When mutations occur, it's always a scrambling of information already present; a leg out of place, an additional head or some other abberation of existing DNA code.

Never does a wing form on a snake or a fin on a cat. The information is not present and cannot arise stochastically. It is not only improbable, it is impossible. The result, of course, is that 'all things reproduce according to their kind'. Dogs beget dogs, birds beget birds and so forth.

Many kinds of animals have become extinct, we find their remains all the time. While we discover new varieties of life from time to time, no new kinds of life arise from other kinds, or from non-living material.

Consider this: people consider frogs becoming princes a fairy tale. But, if they tell you mankind came from a rock, it's evolution.

 

[DrunkenWrestler]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

 

[Gawron]

Funny how timing works sometimes.

I just finished reading through your first thread on this topic, you know, the one which was closed down because it devolved into a 'cabbit.'

I sympathize with your endeavor here, really. I admire your courage.

But I can't help but wonder whay you actually hope to achieve.

 

[lemmings]

The theory of evolution at some juncture always requires spontaneous generation to occur.

No, spontaneous generation concerns complex organisms originating from air. Evolution merely requires life, it is no different than the way that gravity requires matter.

Additional genetic information is never gained in a DNA chain. When mutations occur, it's always a scrambling of information already present;

... and there is also mutations that copy information, and some which insert new bases, and there are even some methods to transplant an entire gene into another organism!

a leg out of place, an additional head or some other aberration of existing DNA code.

These are not mutations. They are examples of embryonic twins that have consumed each other.

Never does a wing form on a snake or a fin on a cat.

Now, whoever claimed that this has ever happened?

The result, of course, is that 'all things reproduce according to their kind'. Dogs beget dogs, birds beget birds and so forth.

Birds will always produce other birds but eventually two groups of birds will lose the ability to reproduce with each other... viola, a new species has just been created.

no new kinds of life arise from other kinds,

That all depends on what your time frame is and what you define as kind. If you are asking for the arrival of a new species, we have observed it in bacteria in labs.

if they tell you mankind came from a rock, it's evolution.

No, that is Creationism. Evolutionists will tell you that life originated from simple self replicating molecules... or God.

 

[Nathan45]

The theory of evolution at some juncture always requires spontaneous generation to occur.

1) Evolution does not say how life arose from non-life. Evolution is an explanation for increasing diversity of life after life forms. You are confusing evoultion with abiogenesis. If God created the first cell miraculously, it still would have evolved the same as if it appeared naturally.
2) If you want to argue abiogenesis... this "spontaneous generation" at "some juncture" happened sometime within a 200 million window about 4 billion years ago. And it only happened once. Enough with this strawman, abiogenesis is not occuring around us as we speak, LOL.

The pioneering work of Louis Pasteur paved the way for our canning and bottling industry today. Billions of experiments are performed each day as tuna fish, tomato soup and grape jelly are put into a controlled environment absent living DNA.

Because the inside of a tuna can is an ideal place for abiogenesis to occur. really. *sigh*

The result is consistently the same, new life does not form spontaneously from non-living material.

You know this how?
1) You wouldn't expect abiogenesis to occur in a tuna can or other canned food product, it's a closed off area and there isn't really an energy source, so the odds are vanishingly small.
2) If it did arise, nobody would even know, because it would just be eaten, if not by us then by bacteria once the can was opened. Any new life arising spontaenoulsy certainly couldn't out-compete bacteria or other micro-organisms that's already been evolving for billions of years.
3) Abiogenesis doesn't have to be likely, it simply has to occur one time in the history of the earth.

Additional genetic information is never gained in a DNA chain.

This is simply false. New information is formed whenever there is a random mutation.

When mutations occur, it's always a scrambling of information already present;

Point mutations, duplications, insertions, deletions, etc have been repeatedly observed... this is new information... Educate yourself.
What exactly is preventing new information to occur? I mean it's not like it's hard or unusual for natural processes to produce new information.

Never does a wing form on a snake or a fin on a cat.

The odds of a wing forming on a snake are so low that it will not happen. Large scale evolution such as this usually takes millions of years of small steps.

It is not only improbable, it is impossible.

Oh, it is possible. All animals use the same genetic code. The only difference is what's encoded, and the genetic code is known to change randomly through random mutations. Considering that birds and snakes use the same Genetic code and DNA can mutate, and wings are encoded in DNA, it's not strictly impossible to get a snake to grow a wing.

The result, of course, is that 'all things reproduce according to their kind'. Dogs beget dogs

[sarcasm]
Naturally, a wolf is the same "kind" as a chihuahua, which is the same kind as a golden retriever.
What, Arrogant man thinks he bred chihuahas himself? NO! Clearly God put the chihuaha information into the wolf genome, beforehand!
[/endsarcasm]

Many kinds of animals have become extinct, we find their remains all the time.

true

While we discover new varieties of life from time to time, no new kinds of life arise from other kinds, or from non-living material.

false.

Consider this: people consider frogs becoming princes a fairy tale. But, if they tell you mankind came from a rock, it's evolution.

So can we agree that genesis is a fairy tale?

then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Funny how timing works sometimes.

I just finished reading through your first thread on this topic, you know, the one which was closed down because it devolved into a 'cabbit.'

I sympathize with your endeavor here, really. I admire your courage.

How much courage does it take to post someone else's canned lies? How much courage does it take to ignore the millions of pages of articles that might contradict one's comfortable dogma?

Any hypothetical admiration I might muster for a YEC would at the least be limited to one who tackles the primary literature head-on; anyone can google "evidence for a young Earth" and paraphrase AiG.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Here we go again...

 

[Gawron]

"How much courage does it take..."

To stand up for one's beliefs? Particularly when they are surrounded by vipers?

A lot.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Any hypothetical admiration I might muster for a YEC would at the least be limited to one who tackles the primary literature head-on; anyone can google "evidence for a young Earth" and paraphrase AiG.

Agreed. And no wonder we keep seeing the same tired arguments over and over and over again. Creationist arguments never change. Furthermore, most creationists don't even seem to understand what they are even arguing. Case in point: genetic "information". Ever time a creationist brings this up, I ask for a definition of "information" as it pertains to genetics. And everytime, I get a different answer, and they never quantify it. And for some reason, no one ever references Spetner.

I wonder who creationists actually think they are convincing...

 

[Pete Harcoff]

"How much courage does it take..."

To stand up for one's beliefs? Particularly when they are surrounded by vipers?

A lot.

Via anonymous posting on internet message boards? Oh, come on now...

 

[Nathan45]

"How much courage does it take..."

To stand up for one's beliefs? Particularly when they are surrounded by vipers?

A lot.

Yes, Yes, we've heard this all before. Creationists are the "Underdogs". Everybody loves an underdog.

 

[plindboe]

But, if they tell you mankind came from a rock, it's evolution.

Can someone explain to me why creationists so often feel they have to lie, if they are so certain that they know the truth?

Similarly they tend to consider themselves morally superior, and believe the commandments are from God, yet they often behave as if the opposite was the case.

Sometimes I wonder whether I took the wrong career move, I'd love to have been a psychologist studying these curious cases of cognitive dissonance.

Peter

 

[TeddyKGB]

"How much courage does it take..."

To stand up for one's beliefs? Particularly when they are surrounded by vipers?

A lot.

I'll call it "standing up" when the deana1003 returns to defend the individual claims she made.

I'll call it "standing up" when YECs are persecuted and not merely mocked or derided.

 

[Gawron]

"Via anonymous posting on internet message boards? Oh, come on now..."

Do you have something to say?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I don't think your average creationist follower thinks they are lying. They are simply being fed information they belief is the truth, then encouraged to regurgitate that information in a quest to save all the non-believers from an enternity of torment.

 

[Gawron]

"I'll call it "standing up" when YECs are persecuted "

Part of the final solution there, Teddy?

 

[Nathan45]

"Via anonymous posting on internet message boards? Oh, come on now..."

Do you have something to say?

you mean besides what he already said?

 

[Nathan45]

"I'll call it "standing up" when YECs are persecuted "

Part of the final solution there, Teddy?

Godwin's law.

 

[lemmings]

"I'll call it "standing up" when YECs are persecuted "

Part of the final solution there, Teddy?

Win losing an argument, invoke the Nazis... even if nobody falls for it, it at least makes you feel better.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I thought the sarcasm came through. Point being: posting on message boards, especially anonymously is easy. It takes very little courage.