The best evidence for Creationism

[mathetes123]

This all sounds great. However ancient fossils generally do not have DNA. Therefore morphological traits are all that can be used. Who gets to choose the traits that these nested hierarchies are based on? Evos do.

You evos suggest mankind is more similar to a chimp than a chimp is to an orangutan regardless of a plethora of morphological similarites that unite non human primates this is what your genomics and nested hierarchies have come up with. This flys in the face of observation and evos will never sell it to me.

Now let's take an example of just how well nested hierarchies demonstrate anything. I have been discussing Indohyus on another thread. Indohyus is a mosaic of bones that is challenged by some evo researchers such as Rose. Here is some info.

Kenneth Rose, a professor of functional anatomy and evolution at Johns Hopkins University, said Thewissen didn't provide enough evidence to merit his conclusions. He also questioned the use of the composite skeleton.
The ear bone thickness, the key trait that Thewissen used, was difficult to judge and seemed based on a single specimen, Rose said. Much of the work is based on teeth, and overall the remains preserved from this family of species are poorly preserved, he said.
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/wh.indohyus.pdf​

But "I do not believe the evidence presented here demonstrates that with confidence," he said in an email. "It is an interesting hypothesis to be tested as more complete [Indohyus] fossils are discovered."
Whales Evolved From Tiny Deerlike Mammals, Study Says


So here we have a supposed whale ancestor, indohyus. Which suite of traits or dna marker do you look to to get Indohyus into a nested hierarchy with anything given Indohyus is a mosaic of pieces washed into a river bed, challenged by evo researchers, and really could be anything?

The same goes for archaeopteryx that was the intermediate that has been knocked off its perch with the discovery of modern bird footprints dated to 212 mya and predating arch by some 80 million years.

Do please explain to the forum how these nested hierarchies of yours demonstrate conclusively that Indohyus is a whale or that arch should stay nested as it was previously?

Is it not so that nested hierarchies take an assumption and then look for the markers that will give the result that is required? Is it not so that nested hierarchies are useless in identifying ancestral species within the fossil record?

Here is some info from an ID site.

There are many other interesting little problems concerning commonly used phylogenic tracing genes and proteins. For example, mammalian and amphibian "luteinizing hormone – releasing hormone" (LHRH) is identical. However, birds, reptiles, and certain fish have a different type of LHRH. Are humans therefore more closely related to frogs than to birds? Not according to standard evolutionary phylogeny trees.
Again, the data does not match the classical theory in this particular situation.15

Calcitonin (lowers blood calcium levels in animals) is another protein commonly used to determine phylogenies. Interestingly though humans differ from pigs by 18 of 32 amino acids, but by only 15 of 32 amino acids from the salmon. Are we therefore more closely related to fish than to other mammals like the pig? 5
Cytochrome c is another famous phylogenic marker protein used to determine evolutionary relationships. There is only a single amino acid difference between human and chimp cytochrome c. Because of this, many assume that the evolutionary link is obvious. However, with many other animals, this link is not so obvious. For example, the cytochrome c protein of a turtle is closer to a bird than it is to a snake and a snake is closer to a human (14 variations) than it is to a turtle (22 variations).5 Humans and horses, both being placental mammals, are presumed to have shared a common ancestor with each other more recently than they shared a common ancestor with a kangaroo (a marsupial). So the evolutionist would expect the cytochrome c of a human to be more similar to that of a horse than to that of a kangaroo. Yet, the cytochrome c of the human varies in 12 places from that of a horse but only in 10 places from that of a kangaroo.5 Such discrepancies between traditional phylogenies and those based on cytochrome c are well known.
Genetic Phylogeny​

I suggest that nested hierarchies are concoctons and machinations of evolutionists who get to choose the suite of traits or marker they use as comparisons and invent excuses when the results are uncomfortable. When it comes to identifying fossil evidence, nested hierarchies are not worth the paper they are written on.

The pseudo science of evolution, like global warming, is tainted by politics. Follow the money. The results will tend to support the conclusion the grantor is looking for if they wish to continue receiving grant money. Considering the vast majority of our public universities are controlled by God hating liberals, is it any suprise that they side with evolution.

 

[Davian]

Um ... my two posts on I WANT TO BELIEVE and THEOLOGICAL NONCOGNIVIST were taken directly from his avatar and user title.

I'm just using them against him, that's all.

With no apparent effect, I see.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

The pseudo science of evolution, like global warming, is tainted by politics. Follow the money. The results will tend to support the conclusion the grantor is looking for if they wish to continue receiving grant money. Considering the vast majority of our public universities are controlled by God hating liberals, is it any suprise that they side with evolution.

Ah, a conspiracy theorist. Evolution is all about money. Of course!

 

[mkatzwork]

Yes, and of course Christianity has never been about money, never been tainted by politics or tainted it in turn, and hasn't controlled or manipulated either for centuries, and never at any time had a total monopoly on the predominant majority of world governments. You could of course profess atheism as your belief and get elected President of the USA, no problems.

The Vatican isn't sitting on a priceless collection of art whilst demanding money from their relatively poor 1 billion membership, their priests don't wear cloaks with gold sewn in, evangelical Christian ministries don't own private jets, and of course, in the good old USA, religions all pay their fair share of taxes on their vast incomes, just like Christ himself exhorts them to. They don't sit on large reserves of cash, and they all donate the majority of what they earn to the poor, as Christ instructs them to, without any theological gunpoints of denying contraception or the like, or demanding anything of those that receive the donations.

Hang on a minute...no...er...wait...er...oh dear.

The pseudo science of evolution, like global warming, is tainted by politics. Follow the money. The results will tend to support the conclusion the grantor is looking for if they wish to continue receiving grant money. Considering the vast majority of our public universities are controlled by God hating liberals, is it any suprise that they side with evolution.

 

[SkyWriting]

What, in your opinion, is the best evidence for Creationism? Also, say whether you're an evolutionist or a Creationist.

As a Creationist, the strongest evidence are the laws of science.
Because none exist for Evolution, the basic laws of Nature win.

1. Energy and matter cannot be Created or Destroyed.
2. Organized energy and matter exist.

3. Science says that energy cannot be created, yet it is present.
4. Every action has an equal or opposite reaction. Action ---> Reaction
5. So, every result must have had a cause. Result <-----Cause
6. We, earth, energy, matter, exist in an orderly fashion in seemingly infinite amounts.
7. Something equal to or larger must have been the cause.
8. God is described as larger than humans, and of a size and power great enough to have Created our Cosmos.

Most other concepts are very small and very stupid with little power.

 

[SkyWriting]

.... in the good old USA, religions all pay their fair share of taxes on their vast incomes, just like Christ himself exhorts them to. ...

The constitution doesn't allow for non-profits to pay taxes.

• American Civil Liberties Union
• Americans United for Separation of Church and State
• Amnesty International
• Anti-Defamation League
• Association on American Indian Affairs
• B'nai B'rith International
• Children's Defense Fund
• Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
• The Carter Center
• Center for Constitutional Rights
• Committee for Missing Children
• Doctors of the World
• Human Rights Watch
• NAACP

Animal Rights

Become an ASPCA Volunteer

• African Wildlife Foundation
• American Humane Association
• American Association for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
• Animal Legal Defense Fund
• Animal Welfare Institute
• Associated Humane Societies
• Best Friends Animal Society
• Born Free United with Animal Protection Institute
• Defenders of Wildlife
• Doris Day Animal League
• D.E.L.T.A. Rescue
• Delta Society
• The Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee
• Farm Sanctuary
• Humane Farming Association
• Marine Mammal Center
• National Audobon Society

Land Conservation and the Environment

• American Farmland Trust
• American Forests
• American Rivers
• Center for Biological Diversity
• Chesapeake Bay Foundation
• Cousteau Society
• Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International
• Earth Island Institute
• Earth Justice
• Environmental Defense Fund
• Farm Aid
• Greenpeace
• Keep America Beautiful
• National Parks Foundation
• Ocean Conservancy
• Wildlife Conservation Society

 

[mathetes123]

As a Creationist, the strongest evidence are the laws of science.
Because none exist for Evolution, the basic laws of Nature win.

1. Energy and matter cannot be Created or Destroyed.
2. Organized energy and matter exist.

3. Science says that energy cannot be created, yet it is present.
4. Every action has an equal or opposite reaction. Action ---> Reaction
5. So, every result must have had a cause. Result <-----Cause
6. We, earth, energy, matter, exist in an orderly fashion in seemingly infinite amounts.
7. Something equal to or larger must have been the cause.
8. God is described as larger than humans, and of a size and power great enough to have Created our Cosmos.

Most other concepts are very small and very stupid with little power.

Exactly! A law trumps a theory any day.

 

[AV1611VET]

With no apparent effect, I see.

I think because it went over a couple of you guys' heads --

 

[mkatzwork]

As a Creationist, the strongest evidence are the laws of science.
Because none exist for Evolution, the basic laws of Nature win.

1. Energy and matter cannot be Created

Yay for non sequitur!

Yeah, I know what you meant. I'm kidding.



I actually stopped there because that was the first point you got wrong anyway.

If two particles of antimatter hit each other their mass is completely converted into energy (photons) with no residue. If you think light (photons) is matter, then you're fine - if you think light (photons) isn't matter then yes, matter can actually be destroyed. Matter is a tricky thing to define.

Think you actually meant (well I don't think you meant because I don't think you know, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now) - conservation of mass, but even that is not strictly true in all cases.

Most of the time it is - but occasionally it is more complicated than that, and special relativity comes into play. It partly depends on what you mean by "destroyed" in terms of nuclear reactions. If mass becomes energy, is it destroyed? If you turned into photons right now, I think we'd consider you destroyed at least in a sense. It depends on what you mean.

Newton's laws are just a low velocity/low mass special case of SR.

It's not as clear cut as you'd like it to be, especially when you delve into quantum levels.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

As a Creationist, the strongest evidence are the laws of science.
Because none exist for Evolution, the basic laws of Nature win.

1. Energy and matter cannot be Created or Destroyed.

That is a theory. We haven't observed it yet, not in any macroscopic sense, but it's still quite possible.

2. Organized energy and matter exist.

For a given definition of 'organised'. 'Organised' can refer specifically to concious arrangement, or merely as a contrast to uniformity.

3. Science says that energy cannot be created, yet it is present.

Technically, science says that energy is conserved, not that it can't be created.

4. Every action has an equal or opposite reaction. Action ---> Reaction

Newton's First Law, while succinct, is wrong. There are quantum mechanical phenomena which occur without a cause

5. So, every result must have had a cause. Result <-----Cause

Your syllogism is invalid. It is a logical fallacy to say:

1. A => B
2. Therefore, B => A

Even if every action leads to another action, that doesn't prove that every action has itself a prior action. If there are indeed actions without cause, they could exist alongside actions with cause - whether or not this is the case, your syllogism is invalid.

6. We, earth, energy, matter, exist in an orderly fashion in seemingly infinite amounts.

That is incorrect. We see only finite quantities of humans, soil, energy, and matter, and it is questionable whether we are in "an orderly fashion" at all.

7. Something equal to or larger must have been the cause.

That is simply an unsubstantiated assertion. Even theologians disagree: for centuries, theologians have proposed the idea of 'divine simplicity', that God has no parts or size or anything comparable to quantity - in essence, he is a dot. An omnipotent, omniscient, etc, dot, but a dot nonetheless.

In other words, there is no reason why the grand cause must be equal to or larger than its cause. Why couldn't it be smaller? For that matter, it doesn't need to be a) a single being, b) concious, or c) interested in human affairs.

8. God is described as larger than humans, and of a size and power great enough to have Created our Cosmos.

As are Kronos, Jupiter, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and Arceus, what's your point?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Exactly! A law trumps a theory any day.

Scientific 'laws' are theories. The word 'law' is used for historic reasons; it does not connote a level of certainty above 'theory', especially not absolute certainty. There have been many laws which have been subsequently broken, such as the law of the conservation of parity. Matter-energy conservation, while a tenacious observation, is ultimately only that: an observation. It is a well-evidenced theory, nothing more.

So, it is incorrect to say that laws always trump theories, because the former is the latter.

Do you have a response to my post (#111), by the way?

 

[mkatzwork]

The constitution doesn't allow for non-profits to pay taxes.

• American Civil Liberties Union
• Americans United for Separation of Church and State
• Amnesty International
• Anti-Defamation League
• Association on American Indian Affairs

• 
  
  etc. etc. etc.
  
  Can you point me to the organizations on this list that have priceless art collections? The ones that have private jets? Thanks.

 

[mkatzwork]

PS - AV, don't think we won't recall the early part of this thread, where you didn't fare too good. I think you think we forgot already...

 

[Non sequitur]

5. So, every result must have had a cause. Result <-----Cause

The result of when an atomic nucleus of an unstable atom loses energy by emitting ionizing particles doesn't seem to have a cause.

Or does, "it is it's own cause" work?

 

[FaithIsAll]

If you put hot water in a Thermos flask it keeps it warm, if I put cold water in the same flask it keeps it cold,
How does it know?

The Venus Flytrap, Dionaea muscipula, is a carnivorous plant that catches and digests mostly insects and arachnids.
I wonder why God would make such a plant? or did it evolve?

 

[Non sequitur]

If you put hot water in a Thermos flask it keeps it warm, if I put cold water in the same flask it keeps it cold,
How does it know?

(It isn't conscious and doesn't have thought...)

Vacuum and silver lining.

The Venus Flytrap, Dionaea muscipula, is a carnivorous plant that catches and digests mostly insects and arachnids.
I wonder why God would make such a plant? or did it evolve?

1) You are assuming, too much. 2) No idea.

(The first question deals with physics. The second with biology.)

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If you put hot water in a Thermos flask it keeps it warm, if I put cold water in the same flask it keeps it cold,
How does it know?

Thermal isolation from room temperature.

The Venus Flytrap, Dionaea muscipula, is a carnivorous plant that catches and digests mostly insects and arachnids.
I wonder why God would make such a plant? or did it evolve?

Why would God create air-breathing, live-birth giving, cadual osscilating creatures, and put them underwater

 

[mathetes123]

The result of when an atomic nucleus of an unstable atom loses energy by emitting ionizing particles doesn't seem to have a cause.

Or does, "it is it's own cause" work?

Everything that has a beginning requires a cause outside of itself and cannot be it's own cause.

 

[Non sequitur]

Everything that has a beginning requires a cause outside of itself and cannot be it's own cause.

What is the cause for the beginning of radioactive decay, outside of itself?

 

[Davian]

Sure it does:

<snip>

Still nothing on *how* it was done. Try again. Show how it has more explanatory power than the mainstream scientific theories. Hint: you will need to show your familiarity with those theories for this to make any sense.