A Call for Creationist Evidence, Take 3...

[lucaspa]

Today at 09:24 PM Arikay said this in Post #16

I want to see this supposed evidence. The fact that I have yet to see any evidence for creationism that has actually stood up to any form of research or study, doesnt mean it its not out there (just that it might not be out there).

Just like evolution needs real evidence to support it. Creationism needs real evidence to support it. I want to give the creationists a fair chance to show this evidence that they keep claiming they have.

1. To be consistent, when creationists want information about evolution, we tell them to go read the textbooks. The same applies here.  Go look to see if the evidence is there by reading creationist books and articles. Don't be a lazy creationist, go look.

2. "Real evidence" in science is survived attempts to falsify.  Theories really don't "need" that in order to be considered.  All currently valid hypotheses/theories at one point or another had no evidence at all.  The problem, as you know well, is that creationism didn't survive the attempts to falsify. It was falsified.  With that data that falsified creationism, any evidence "for" creationism is now irrelevant. 

3. Are you sure you want to give "a fair chance"?  Or do you simply want to rub creationist noses in the fact that they have no evidence that hasn't already been disputed?

4. If you really want to contribute to the discussion, the March 4 issue of Science had three articles relating to evolution in the broad sense. Why don't you post a thread on each summarizing the results?

 

[Arikay]

Actually I normally send them to websites based on what the question was.

Yes, im interested in any evidence.
So, would a better thread be, A question for evidence to falsify evolution?

Today at 07:54 PM lucaspa said this in Post #21



1. To be consistent, when creationists want information about evolution, we tell them to go read the textbooks. The same applies here.  Go look to see if the evidence is there by reading creationist books and articles. Don't be a lazy creationist, go look.

2. "Real evidence" in science is survived attempts to falsify.  Theories really don't "need" that in order to be considered.  All currently valid hypotheses/theories at one point or another had no evidence at all.  The problem, as you know well, is that creationism didn't survive the attempts to falsify. It was falsified.  With that data that falsified creationism, any evidence "for" creationism is now irrelevant. 

3. Are you sure you want to give "a fair chance"?  Or do you simply want to rub creationist noses in the fact that they have no evidence that hasn't already been disputed?

4. If you really want to contribute to the discussion, the March 4 issue of Science had three articles relating to evolution in the broad sense. Why don't you post a thread on each summarizing the results?

 

[Cantuar]

Before you start responding, please read the entire post.

I did. Would you please stop being so bloody condescending.

The evidence Brown presents from magnetic fields is that the field is decaying._ Extrapolating the rate back into the past gives a maximum age of 6,000 years before all life on earth is fried._ Therefore, his inference from the evidence is that the earth is less than 6,000 years old.

For the salt concentrations in the ocean, creationists look at the amount of salt in the ocean, the rate of influx, and then calculate how long it would have taken to get the present day amounts. They end up with 20,000 years.

For the moon dust, they take data on the amount of meteorite infall on earth, calculate the thickness of dust on the moon should be at given ages of the moon, and show that the depth of dust corresponds to about 10,000 years.

All this is "evidence" as you originally stated it._

The problem is that almost all the time, it isn't THEIR evidence. That's what the OP was asking for, and that's what creationists are not providing. Creationists are taking evidence provided by real scientists doing real science and reinterpreting it to suit their own agenda. Which means that I stand by what I originally said, which is that they provide claims, not evidence. They use OTHER people's evidence to APPEAR to support those claims. When they do provide evidence of their own, it's done by little tricks like sending young rocks for K-Ar testing and other such "evidence" that's set up to support a claim that was already made.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Arikay would I be out of bounds if I asked you what evidences you think creationists have to come up with? In other words what evidences would make you believe in creation? Do you know?

I tried this with you once before, if you remember, and got the feeling that nothing I said would satisfy you. I however never got the idea of what you were actually looking for.

I don't believe that any evidence of a young earth would prove creation. I believe in a creation but I also believe in an earth as old as most of you evolutionists say it is. The prof I have for myself is that in the word of God in which I put my faith in. Personnely that's good enough for me to go on.

 

[Arikay]

I dont know.
Evidence that supports their claims.

When they say, The earth is 6000 years old I wouldnt mind evidence to support it.

When they say there is a wall that stops micro evolution from becoming macro evolution, I would like to see evidence supporting this.

Etc.

Today at 12:20 PM nephilimiyr said this in Post #24

Arikay would I be out of bounds if I asked you what evidences you think creationists have to come up with? In other words what evidences would make you believe in creation? Do you know?

 

[nephilimiyr]

Not so fast!

I just edited it.....Sorry!

 

[nephilimiyr]

When they say there is a wall that stops micro evolution from becoming macro evolution, I would like to see evidence supporting this.

Etc.

I don't know, I think what their saying is that there is no evidence supporting macro evolution. How can they come up with evidence that they say isn't there? I believe they're interpreting the evidence that evolutionist say supports macro evolution as saying that it's just another form of micro evolution. Therefore they say macro evolution doesn't exist.

From the way I understand it creationists don't refute micro evolution at all. They just don't believe the evidence is there to support macro evolution.

 

[larkspur]

Micro evolution is true. Dogs come from different types of dogs. Roses come from different types of roses. It can be seen in nature and can be tested. Macro evolution, however, is NOT true. One species did not evolve fom another species over long periods of time. Roses and dogs do not have one common ancestor. Macro evolution cannot be tested. It is not seen in nature. If it is not testable, how can macro evolution be considered science?

 

[nephilimiyr]

But this is what I mean Larkspur. Creationist take that evidence that evolutionists say supports macro evolution and say that it doesn't support it at all. I've read what they have to say and must say they make a very convincing arguement but even if their right how does that prove their hypothesis that there was a creation. What possible scientific evidence could there possibly be? What would satisfy Arikay's scientific mind to believe in a creation?

 

[Arikay]

Well, I have heard creationists say that Macro evolution is not true and Micro evolution is. Now To a biologist, "Macro" evolution is just a bunch of "micro" evolution steps. So When people say macro evolution doesnt exist, they are saying that there is a wall that somehow prevents micro evolutions from building up. I would like to see evidence that a wall trully exists. And that there really is a block that keeps micro evolutions from building up over time.

To respond to your edit :

I don't believe that any evidence of a young earth would prove_creation. I believe in a creation but I also believe in an earth_as old as most of you evolutionists say it is. The prof I have for myself is that in the word of God in which I put my faith in. Personnely that's good enough for me to go on.

Thats great. You can believe whatever you want. The problem comes from when people try to pass their beliefs off as scientific. Or that opinions can be scientific evidence.

I currently believe in Psychic powers (although thats a rather broad term). but I dont pass that belief off as scientific nor any of my opinions off as scientific evidence.
There are many people who think im blind for not realizing Psychic powers are all just hoaxes and they are free to believe that.
The problem would come if I started saying that psychic powers are a proven truth that scientists are just denying because of some evil science conspiracy or something.

Today at 12:59 PM nephilimiyr said this in Post #27



I don't know, I think what their saying is that there is no evidence supporting macro evolution. How can they come up with evidence that they say isn't there? I believe they're interpreting the evidence that evolutionist say supports macro evolution as saying that it's just another form of micro evolution. Therefore they say macro evolution doesn't exist.

From the way I understand it creationists don't refute micro evolution at all. They just don't believe the evidence is there to support macro evolution.

 

[Arikay]

Well, carefull in making statements like that. Although I believe there is quite a bit of evidence for macro evolution. I would ask you a couple questions.

How far does micro evolution go?

Can different whales come from a whale?

do you believe in the global flood as truth?

Along the same lines as Neph asking me, what evidence would be needed before you thought Macro evolution was true?

Today at 01:06 PM larkspur said this in Post #28

Micro evolution is true. Dogs come from different types of dogs. Roses come from different types of roses. It can be seen in nature and can be tested. Macro evolution, however, is NOT true. One species did not evolve fom another species over long periods of time. Roses and dogs do not have one common ancestor. Macro evolution cannot be tested. It is not seen in nature. If it is not testable, how can macro evolution be considered science?

 

[notto]

Today at 09:06 PM larkspur said this in Post #28

Micro evolution is true. Dogs come from different types of dogs. Roses come from different types of roses. It can be seen in nature and can be tested. Macro evolution, however, is NOT true. One species did not evolve fom another species over long periods of time. Roses and dogs do not have one common ancestor. Macro evolution cannot be tested. It is not seen in nature. If it is not testable, how can macro evolution be considered science?

There is no difference in the mechanisms that produce "micro"evolution and "macro"evolution. The only difference is the time involved and the number of differences produced.

Micro evolution is measurable within timelines that can be seen in the lab and in nature. All macro evolution is is the result of those changes after many separations of populations and over a longer amount of time. Speciation has been observed in the lab and in nature.

There has been no demonstrated barrier to the mechanism causing the differences. Evolution does not say that a new species is generated in a single generation.

 

[Arikay]

another thing to point out is that many creationists seem to treat evolution like creation.

Evolution is a rather small theory, its only about the adaptation and change of animals. There are other theories like the big bang (that deals with the begining of the universe) and abiogenesis (how life came from non life). That arent part of evolution.

creationism is a larger idea that encompases all these therories.

Thats where theistic evolutionists come in. They believe in evolution but believe that god started life, or the universe, or that he put everything in motion using the big bang.

Today at 01:29 PM nephilimiyr said this in Post #29

But this is what I mean Larkspur. Creationist take that evidence that evolutionists say supports macro evolution and say that it doesn't support it at all. I've read what they have to say and must say they make a very convincing arguement but even if their right how does that prove their hypothesis that there was a creation. What possible scientific evidence could there possibly be? What would satisfy Arikay's scientific mind to believe in a creation?

 

[nephilimiyr]

Arikay

Well, I have heard creationists say that Macro evolution is not true and Micro evolution is. Now To a biologist, "Macro" evolution is just a bunch of "micro" evolution steps. So When people say macro evolution doesnt exist, they are saying that there is a wall that somehow prevents micro evolutions from building up. I would like to see evidence that a wall trully exists. And that there really is a block that keeps micro evolutions from building up over time.

To respond to your edit <IMG alt="" src="http://www.christianforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif" border=0> :

<B>I don't believe that any evidence of a young earth would prove_creation. I believe in a creation but I also believe in an earth_as old as most of you evolutionists say it is. The prof I have for myself is that in the word of God in which I put my faith in. Personnely that's good enough for me to go on. </B>

Thats great. You can believe whatever you want. The problem comes from when people try to pass their beliefs off as scientific. Or that opinions can be scientific evidence.

I currently believe in Psychic powers (although thats a rather broad term). but I dont pass that belief off as scientific nor any of my opinions off as scientific evidence.
There are many people who think im blind for not realizing Psychic powers are all just hoaxes and they are free to believe that.
The problem would come if I started saying that psychic powers are a proven truth that scientists are just denying because of some evil science conspiracy or something. <IMG alt="" src="http://www.christianforums.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif" border=0>

I haven't heard about this wall your talking about so I really can't comment on that

As for that edit of mind I was just trying to say, perhaps not in the best way, that I really don't believe there is any scientific evidence to support a creation. The evidence I use I have to follow my bible and that does you no good.

Also I think you'd be surprised just how open minded I can be. I believe in all types of powers including that of Psychic powers. I am not one of those people who would call you blind!

 

[Arikay]

ah, ic. I believe I understand now.

basically, getting back to my post. Whenever a creationist makes a claim that creationism is more than just a belief or opinion, I wouldnt mind seeing some actual evidence to support it.

Today at 02:05 PM nephilimiyr said this in Post #34

Arikay



I haven't heard about this wall your talking about so I really can't comment on that

As for that edit of mind I was just trying to say, perhaps not in the best way, that I really don't believe there is any scientific evidence to support a creation. The evidence I use I have to follow my bible and that does you no good.

Also I think you'd be surprised just how open minded I can be. I believe in all types of powers including that of Psychic powers. I am not one of those people who would call you blind!

 

[Cantuar]

Macro evolution, however, is NOT true. One species did not evolve fom another species over long periods of time.

So all the "kinds" in the Ark correspond to species, since species can't form from other species? Do you know how many milions of individuals that would have meant finding room for on the Ark? It'd have to have been like the Tardis - a lot bigger inside than out. And with just eight people to look after them all, too.

Macro evolution cannot be tested. It is not seen in nature. If it is not testable, how can macro evolution be considered science?

It can be tested, and it's been observed both in the lab and in nature. You can go to the Pubmed database

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/

and plug in the keywords "allopatric speciation" or "sympatric speciation" and see for yourself. You'll get the abstracts of the original peer-reviewed papers where these species were observed to form.