The best evidence for Creationism

[SkyWriting]

We came from a common ancestor... that ancestor was unicellular and wouldn't be recognized as a plant. Think of plants, animals and fungi as sister-taxa.

How does a single cell learn how to reproduce?

 

[SkyWriting]

As did Vishnu. Praise Vishnu!

Aren't you thinking of Brahma?

 

[DaneaFL]

How does a single cell learn how to reproduce?

Artificial molecule evolves in the lab - life - 08 January 2009 - New Scientist

http://news.discovery.com/tech/scientists-buil-self-replicating-molecule-111014.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOuqAqGCuwg

 

[SkyWriting]

You make it look like every passage in the Bible is a witness against natural selection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural selection played a part in the creation of man.
But a very small part.

Those are two separate ideas you welded together.

One idea is that I've altered the scriptures or taken anything out
of it's correct context. I didn't.

Second is that natural selection created man. You may show
scriptural support or whatever but don't tie in your idea that
I misrepresented the scriptures with your wish for natural
selection to be your Daddy.

 

[SkyWriting]

Artificial molecule evolves in the lab - life - 08 January 2009 - New Scientist

That's pretty good researching! I like your style.

Clearly this isn't already happening. If it were, then the story of a common origin
for life followed by evolutionary changes would be true. All we'd have to do is look
close and see it happening.

As to what they ARE seeing, read the last line:

"It doesn't have open-ended capacity for Darwinian evolution."

 

[Davian]

Originally Posted by SkyWriting "Everything has a cause or source."


Then you misunderstood me.
I was simply referring to the laws of physics.

Physics -- Newton's Laws of Motion - For Dummies

Newton's First Law

It's hard to fathom a reason if one is not familiar with the source or cause.

Yes, I understand that is how you justify your assertion that every event requires a cause.

You also said "To ignore existence with no clear reason for it is the lie."

What is this reason for existence, in your opinion?

 

[DaneaFL]

That's pretty good researching! I like your style.

Clearly this isn't already happening. If it were, then the story of a common origin
for life followed by evolutionary changes would be true. All we'd have to do is look
close and see it happening.

As to what they ARE seeing, read the last line:

"It doesn't have open-ended capacity for Darwinian evolution."

 

[SavedByChrist94]

First of all I am a Christian and I am a Young Earth Creationist.

To say something came from nothing by accident is quite absurd. that is like saying paint can magically throw itself accidentally and randomly on a canvas accidentally and randomly creating a masterpiece, see how absurd that sounds. nothing comes from nothing. something comes from something, very simple.

One of two things happened, God created the earth the way he says he did in the Bible or he guided Evolution. Evolution could have not happened without God. the universe began to exist so it was caused, and the first cause of all causes must be uncaused, Which is God.

evolution without God just can't happen. there is no chance, the probability would be so low. unless God guided those accidents and coincidences, evolution could have not occurred.

combine that with Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, Emotions, Morality, and The Bible. the "evolution" theory just couldn't have happened.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

First of all I am a Christian and I am a Young Earth Creationist.

To say something came from nothing by accident is quite absurd.

It happens all the time in quantum mechanics.

that is like saying paint can magically throw itself accidentally and randomly on a canvas accidentally and randomly creating a masterpiece, see how absurd that sounds.

Yes, but since that is not analogous to evolution, the point is moot.

nothing comes from nothing. something comes from something, very simple.

As it turns out, too simple.

One of two things happened, God created the earth the way he says he did in the Bible or he guided Evolution. Evolution could have not happened without God.

And your proof is...?

the universe began to exist

There is no evidence that this was the case. Despite the popular misconception, there's no evidence that the Big Bang was actually the beginning of the universe.

so it was caused,

Again, that is incorrect. The law of causality is spotty at best; there is no guarantee that any given event will have a cause.

and the first cause of all causes must be uncaused,

Again, that is incorrect. Even if the universe had a cause, there's nothing to say that there isn't an infinite regress of causes, or an 'open' or circular timeline. And besides, you seem quite willing to accept the existence of something uncaused - why can't that thing be the universe?

Which is God.

Again, that is incorrect. Even if there was a first uncaused cause, there's absolutely nothing to say it was God (that is, the Christian God, a single, concious, intelligent entity who answers prayers and got Mary pregnant). It could, for instance, be an inert phenomenon - or Brahman.

evolution without God just can't happen. there is no chance, the probability would be so low. unless God guided those accidents and coincidences, evolution could have not occurred.

Again, where is your evidence? What statistical data lead you to that conclusion?

combine that with Intelligent Design,

Creationism wrapped up in sheep's clothing, with no actual scientific merit or shred of evidence.

Irreducible Complexity,

A specious idea, in that even if an IC system could be shown to exist, that still wouldn't disprove evolution.

Emotions, Morality,

Both fully explicable under evolution.

and The Bible.

The Qu'ran. See? It's easy!

the "evolution" theory just couldn't have happened.

Sorry, not one thing you said is either true or, indeed, a challenge to evolution.

 

[Non sequitur]

First of all I am a Christian and I am a Young Earth Creationist.

To say something came from nothing by accident is quite absurd. that is like saying paint can magically throw itself accidentally and randomly on a canvas accidentally and randomly creating a masterpiece, see how absurd that sounds. nothing comes from nothing. something comes from something, very simple.

One of two things happened, God created the earth the way he says he did in the Bible or he guided Evolution. Evolution could have not happened without God. the universe began to exist so it was caused, and the first cause of all causes must be uncaused, Which is God.

evolution without God just can't happen. there is no chance, the probability would be so low. unless God guided those accidents and coincidences, evolution could have not occurred.

combine that with Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, Emotions, Morality, and The Bible. the "evolution" theory just couldn't have happened.

First of all, I'm sorry to hear that.

I'm not going to address the multiple and numerous logical fallacies here (maybe someone else would kindly; not enough time in the week, for me), but, in regards to "something from nothing", I would suggest you look at some Lawrence Krauss. Maybe start by watching 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009 - YouTube or reading this?

 

[mkatzwork]

How does a single cell learn how to reproduce?

Why would it need to "learn"? The question is malformed.

As a cell gets larger it has to divide; when its radius doubles, its volume increases eightfold and its surface area just fourfold - which requires eight times as much metabolic activity with only four times the surface area through which to achieve that activity. Division is the only option once a cell reaches a certain size.

If you want to bash the arguments on their weak spot, you should look more into the processes of organic molecules becoming protocells, and focus less on cell division, which we know a great deal about.

 

[mathetes123]

Why would it need to "learn"? The question is malformed.

As a cell gets larger it has to divide; when its radius doubles, its volume increases eightfold and its surface area just fourfold - which requires eight times as much metabolic activity with only four times the surface area through which to achieve that activity. Division is the only option once a cell reaches a certain size.

If you want to bash the arguments on their weak spot, you should look more into the processes of organic molecules becoming protocells, and focus less on cell division, which we know a great deal about.

In other words: "it just does?"

 

[CaliforniaSun]

First of all I am a Christian and I am a Young Earth Creationist.

To say something came from nothing by accident is quite absurd. that is like saying paint can magically throw itself accidentally and randomly on a canvas accidentally and randomly creating a masterpiece, see how absurd that sounds. nothing comes from nothing. something comes from something, very simple.

One of two things happened, God created the earth the way he says he did in the Bible or he guided Evolution. Evolution could have not happened without God. the universe began to exist so it was caused, and the first cause of all causes must be uncaused, Which is God.

evolution without God just can't happen. there is no chance, the probability would be so low. unless God guided those accidents and coincidences, evolution could have not occurred.

combine that with Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, Emotions, Morality, and The Bible. the "evolution" theory just couldn't have happened.

I accept that you believe this.

How would you know if you were wrong?

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Yes, but since that is not analogous to evolution, the point is moot.

Yes it is analogous to "evolution", when you say accidents and coincidences out of nothing happen to make something so complex it sounds absurd. that's like saying for example my computer was created out of nothing and but a mere coincidence and that it just "appears" to have been made by something of greater intelligence.

And your proof is...?

Cosmological argument

There is no evidence that this was the case. Despite the popular misconception, there's no evidence that the Big Bang was actually the beginning of the universe.

From existence-of-God.com June 7, 2012. :

The Past Therefore Cannot be Infinite
The idea that the universe has an infinite past is just as problematic as the idea that I have just counted down from infinity. If the universe had an infinite past, then time would have had to count down from infinity to reach time zero, the present, and so would not have reached it. The fact that we have reached the present therefore shows that the past is not infinite but finite. The universe has a beginning. This claim, of course, has been confirmed by modern science, who trace the universe back to a point of origin in the ‘big bang’.
The past cannot go back forever, then; the universe must have a beginning. The next question is whether something caused this beginning, or whether the universe just popped into existence out of nothing. We all know, though, that nothing that begins to exist does so without a cause; nothing comes from nothing. For something to come into existence there must be something else that already exists that can bring it into existence. The fact that the universe began to exist therefore implies that something brought it into existence, that the universe has a Creator.

Again, that is incorrect. The law of causality is spotty at best; there is no guarantee that any given event will have a cause.

Your proof?, because Cause and effect are common sense.

Again, that is incorrect. Even if the universe had a cause, there's nothing to say that there isn't an infinite regress of causes, or an 'open' or circular timeline. And besides, you seem quite willing to accept the existence of something uncaused - why can't that thing be the universe?

Because the Universe had a beginning, Only logical that the first Uncaused cause, which no greater can be conceived is God.

Again, that is incorrect. Even if there was a first uncaused cause, there's absolutely nothing to say it was God (that is, the Christian God, a single, concious, intelligent entity who answers prayers and got Mary pregnant). It could, for instance, be an inert phenomenon - or Brahman.

it is God, what is the meaning of God? eternal(creator of time, not bound by it), all powerful, all knowing, everywhere, Perfect(of which nothing greater can be conceived) and Jesus Christ Resurrection proves that everything in the Old and New Testament is truth. Thus God is The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit.

Again, where is your evidence? What statistical data lead you to that conclusion?

Logic, it is a statistical impossibility that this all happened by itself. no complex intelligence can happen by fluke of nothing. "evolution" has such a low to no possibility of happening. and If it did, again, only because of God.

Creationism wrapped up in sheep's clothing, with no actual scientific merit or shred of evidence.

Intelligent design is truth, the earth doesn't just appear to be intelligent, it is. thus it came from a higher source of intelligence(God). that would be like saying computers just appear to be intelligent and it's a fluke. they appear to intelligent because they are intelligent and were made by something more intelligent.

A specious idea, in that even if an IC system could be shown to exist, that still wouldn't disprove evolution.

Yes it does disprove evolution, you can't evolve when your irreducibly complex, take out one vital organ and we won't be able to function at all. we've had to had it all at once. that isn't evolution.

Both fully explicable under evolution.

Nope, Morals actually contradict evolution. morals aren't an illusion or made up, and anyone were to say that would be lying. there is right and wrong and that is objective. right and wrong have nothing to do with survival of the fittest.

from physicalismisdead.blogspot.com:

"1. Rape may enhance the survival of the species, but does that make rape good? Should we rape?

2.Killing the weak and handicapped may help improve the species and its survival (Hitler’s plan).Does that mean the Holocaust was a good thing?

3.Evolution provides no stable foundation for morality. If evolution is the source of morality, then what’s to stop morals from evolving (changing) to the point that one day rape, theft and murder are considered moral?

4.Dawkins and Hitchens confuse epistemology with ontology (how we know something exists with that and what exists).So even if natural selection or some other chemical process is responsible for us knowing right from wrong, that would not explain why something is right or wrong.How does a chemical process (natural selection) yield an immaterial moral law?And why does anyone have a moral obligation to obey a chemical process?You only have a moral obligation to obey an ultimate personal being (God) who has the authority to put moral obligations on you.You don’t have a moral obligation to chemistry."

If evolution occurred there would be no right or wrong, since there is right and wrong evolution wouldn't be possible. and to even attempt to justify any wrong would be lying to yourself because you know what is right and wrong. everyone(unless they are a sociopath with no heart) knows right and wrong. morals are laws that we follow, not by man, it is something more than man, so it is obligated, by who? God.

and if you say morals are subjective you are lying to yourself, someone could try to defend rape, but it is still a fact that rape is wrong.

morals are unselfish, that goes against everything that survival of the fittest(selfishness) is. God explains moral, morality explains God, evolution cannot explain morality. morality cannot be explained logically from evolution, only logically from God.

If evolution happened, there would be no such thing as unselfishness or love. since love and unselfishness exist, evolution could not have occurred. if someone were to deny morality they would be either be 1)Deluded 2) a sociopath. 3) lying to themselves

 

[mkatzwork]

In other words: "it just does?"

Well, from an evolutionary standpoint, single-celled organisms that didn't have the inbuilt need/desire/motivation/whatever to reproduce wouldn't have reproduced - and would have been eliminated at the first generation - so it's hardly surprising that the colossal majority of organisms we see today do have that trait.

 

[mathetes123]

Well, from an evolutionary standpoint, single-celled organisms that didn't have the inbuilt need/desire/motivation/whatever to reproduce wouldn't have reproduced - and would have been eliminated at the first generation - so it's hardly surprising that the colossal majority of organisms we see today do have that trait.

Are you serious? It is hardly surprising that the first single cell organism developed the ability to reproduce in the first generation? You find this somehow easier to believe than we came from an intelligent designer?

 

[mkatzwork]

None of what you're posting here is new, clever, or anything we haven't heard before. I'll pick just a couple and let others pound on your other straw men...

If the universe had an infinite past, then time would have had to count down from infinity to reach time zero, the present, and so would not have reached it. The fact that we have reached the present therefore shows that the past is not infinite but finite. The universe has a beginning. This claim, of course, has been confirmed by modern science, who trace the universe back to a point of origin in the ‘big bang’.

Time is not actually flowing, as far as physics is concerned. If you think time flows, you don't understand what time is. So this entire argument falls over.

Your proof?, because Cause and effect are common sense.

Not when you get to the quantum level.

 

[mkatzwork]

Are you serious? It is hardly surprising that the first single cell organism developed the ability to reproduce in the first generation? You find this somehow easier to believe than we came from an intelligent designer?

Yes. Absolutely serious.

It's not easier, I'll grant. Newton's laws are much easier than Special Relativity, but that doesn't make Special Relativity wrong...

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Are you serious? It is hardly surprising that the first single cell organism developed the ability to reproduce in the first generation? You find this somehow easier to believe than we came from an intelligent designer?

You might find it less likely to believe in an IDer if you had a degree in microbiology. Self replicating proteins is not too far of a stretch.

As for something from nothing argument, check out Dr. Kraus' work. You might find it fascinating, I know I did.

The question, for me is, why is there something rather than nothing? I hope to be alive to see a good answer - if we ever do.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes it is analogous to "evolution", when you say accidents and coincidences out of nothing happen to make something so complex it sounds absurd. that's like saying for example my computer was created out of nothing and but a mere coincidence and that it just "appears" to have been made by something of greater intelligence.

Again, the analogy is moot. Evolution works by have successive generations of inheritance, with random variations in genes being preferentially selected for or against. Over time, traits change. Complexity is no issue to evolution, either theoretically or experimentally. What evolution doesn't say is that something popped out of nothing, that complex systems spontaneously and randomly came together fully-formed, tornado-through-a-junkyard sort of thing.

Evolution explains how imperfect replicators (e.g., living organisms) will, over generations of reproduction, undergo an inexorable march towards complexity and niche-filling. Even if you don't believe it actually happened, it's either ignorant (i.e., not knowing the facts) or disingenuous to compare the probability of evolution with the probability of a computer randomly coming together.

Cosmological argument

Err... the cosmological argument has nothing to do with God, evolution, or even life on this planet. It has to do with causality and the supposition of a 'first cause'. So, I ask you again. You said, "Evolution could have not happened without God" - what's your proof?

From existence-of-God.com June 7, 2012. :

The Past Therefore Cannot be Infinite
The idea that the universe has an infinite past is just as problematic as the idea that I have just counted down from infinity. If the universe had an infinite past, then time would have had to count down from infinity to reach time zero, the present, and so would not have reached it. The fact that we have reached the present therefore shows that the past is not infinite but finite. The universe has a beginning. This claim, of course, has been confirmed by modern science, who trace the universe back to a point of origin in the ‘big bang’.

The past cannot go back forever, then; the universe must have a beginning. The next question is whether something caused this beginning, or whether the universe just popped into existence out of nothing. We all know, though, that nothing that begins to exist does so without a cause; nothing comes from nothing. For something to come into existence there must be something else that already exists that can bring it into existence. The fact that the universe began to exist therefore implies that something brought it into existence, that the universe has a Creator.

The website is simply incorrect. As I said, it's a popular misconception, but a misconception nonetheless. The evidence shows that the universe has been expanding for 13.5 billion years from a small, hot, dense state, and that state is of such high energy that our theories don't work - we need something better in order to probe beyond. So we know the universe is at least 13.5 billion years old, but there's no evidence that it began back then.

The next paragraph is just a series of baseless assertions. "The past cannot go back forever", "the first cause is God", etc.

Your proof?

I'm a nuclear physicist, quantum mechanics throws causality out the window. Radioactive decay, the Casimir effect, etc - all are examples of cause without effect.

because Cause and effect are common sense.

Certainly, but 'common sense' doesn't mean it's real.

Because the Universe had a beginning, Only logical that the first Uncaused cause, which no greater can be conceived is God.

Perhaps, but whoever said it had to be great? Even if the cosmological argument worked (and it doesn't), that only shows that there was a first uncaused cause - not a great uncaused cause.

it is God, what is the meaning of God? eternal(creator of time, not bound by it), all powerful, all knowing, everywhere, Perfect(of which nothing greater can be conceived) and Jesus Christ Resurrection proves that everything in the Old and New Testament is truth. Thus God is The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit.

Incorrect. First, the cosmological argument only argues for the existence of a first cause - there is nothing to say that this cause must be eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, perfect, etc. There's nothing to say it must even be concious. You are simply tacking those properties on without justification, because it fits your religious beliefs.

Logic, it is a statistical impossibility that this all happened by itself. no complex intelligence can happen by fluke of nothing. "evolution" has such a low to no possibility of happening.

Right, and I want to know exactly logic you're referring to, exactly what data are saying what you think they're saying. If it's a statistically impossibility, then prove it. All you've done here is just repeat the claim.

Intelligent design is truth, the earth doesn't just appear to be intelligent, it is. thus it came from a higher source of intelligence(God). that would be like saying computers just appear to be intelligent and it's a fluke. they appear to intelligent because they are intelligent and were made by something more intelligent.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean everything is designed, or that complexity is always the hallmark of a designer. Evolution explains how complexity can arise spontaneously and without intervention. God may have had a hand to play, but the fact is we can explain biological diversity and complexity by wholly natural processes.

Yes it does disprove evolution, you can't evolve when your irreducibly complex, take out one vital organ and we won't be able to function at all. we've had to had it all at once. that isn't evolution.

On the contrary, irreducible complexity says that something that's IC loses its specific function. That may well be the case, but that doesn't mean it didn't evolve - the simple fact is, that function can change. What once served one function can get usurped and serve another. This second function may well be irreducibly complex, but the fallacy of IC is that is assumes that there can only be one function.

There's also the telling fact that the various examples put forward by Creationists of IC are, in fact, quite reducible indeed. The eye, the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting cascade... all can be explained quite easily through evolution, despite the Creationist insistence to the contrary.

Nope, Morals actually contradict evolution. morals aren't an illusion or made up, and anyone were to say that would be lying. there is right and wrong and that is objective. right and wrong have nothing to do with survival of the fittest.

Several things here. First, it is a matter of long philosophical debate as to whether morals are objective or subjective - you, in simply asserting objectivity, have by no means settle the debate. Second, morals have everything to do with survival of the fittest - those close-living organisms which operate in a cohesive and mutually beneficial society thrive, while those which decimate each other don't.

"1. Rape may enhance the survival of the species, but does that make rape good? Should we rape?

Rape can cause pregnancy, but it destroys any bond between parents - in human society, children are raised best by two loving parents. Rape destroys that, hence our evolved instinct to abhor it.

2.Killing the weak and handicapped may help improve the species and its survival (Hitler’s plan).Does that mean the Holocaust was a good thing?

No, and nothing in evolution says that it is.

3.Evolution provides no stable foundation for morality. If evolution is the source of morality, then what’s to stop morals from evolving (changing) to the point that one day rape, theft and murder are considered moral?

The sheer existence of society, for one thing. Evolved morals are there for a reason, and unless humanity evolves to become isolated individuals, those same reasons will keep those moral instincts in check. Cultural morals are also there, and society, through education, will keep those in check too.

4.Dawkins and Hitchens confuse epistemology with ontology (how we know something exists with that and what exists).So even if natural selection or some other chemical process is responsible for us knowing right from wrong, that would not explain why something is right or wrong.How does a chemical process (natural selection) yield an immaterial moral law?

That's a naive conflation of two different philosophies of ethics.

If evolution occurred there would be no right or wrong, since there is right and wrong evolution wouldn't be possible. and to even attempt to justify any wrong would be lying to yourself because you know what is right and wrong. everyone(unless they are a sociopath with no heart) knows right and wrong. morals are laws that we follow, not by man, it is something more than man, so it is obligated, by who? God.

That is incorrect, but you defeat any hope of discussion by putting fingers in your ears and going, "LALALA IF YOU DISAGREE YOU'RE JUST LYING TO YOURSELF". There is no hope of civil discourse with that attitude.

and if you say morals are subjective you are lying to yourself, someone could try to defend rape, but it is still a fact that rape is wrong.

'Subjective' doesn't mean 'rape is OK'.

If evolution happened, there would be no such thing as unselfishness or love. since love and unselfishness exist, evolution could not have occurred. if someone were to deny morality they would be either be 1)Deluded 2) a sociopath. 3) lying to themselves

Your naive dichotomy belies more about you than you think it does about me. There are good, well-understood reasons for why we behave morally, for why we consider rape and murder to be wrong, etc. That you've closed your mind to it is your own problem. The answers are there, but you've dogmatically removed them from your vision.