Evidence for Creation

[tcampen]

If you are talking about Carbon dating, you realize that it's not completely accurate correct? Tell me, does anyone believe in time traveling?

ya ya ya, we all know carbon dating isn't perfect. But it's still pretty good for certain time spans, and can be used in conjuction with half a dozen other methods of determining the age of things.

Time travel? Dunno about that one. Be cool to actually do it tho. As close as we might get is to somehow intantly travel to one of those planets that are identical to our own planet in every way, except in time. But they are awefully difficult to get to.

 

[Jacob4Jesus]

Again, you are simply missing the point that I was in basis agreeing with those of you who say that there is no concrete proof of creation. But, having been on the evolution side of the arguement before, evolution itself is not 100% proven. There are flaws in evolution. I even came out and said there was more proof of it. Perhaps my example was not great, but then again, I am neither a scientist or a theoligan.
But if you want to get even more technical, at one point when animals besides those who reproduce by simply splitting cells, began to give birth to other animals, those animals were born through eggs that develop in the wombs of the female animal, regardless of whether the eggs have been laid or not.
Furthermore, your chart really doesn't prove anything, because it states fish as being the first "animals" besides cellular organisms that more than likely reproduced by the use of mitosis. The fish would have reproduced using eggs, not mitosis, which would have resulted in some sort of question over how that happens.

 

[troodon]

Furthermore, your chart really doesn't prove anything, because it states fish as being the first "animals" besides cellular organisms that more than likely reproduced by the use of mitosis.

You must have missed this:

"580-545 = Fossils of Ediacaran organisms are made
545 = Cambrian explosion of hard-bodied organisms
528-526 = Fossilization of the Chengjiang site
517-515 = Fossilization of the Burgess Shale"

Fish are not the first animals besides (I assume you meant) unicellular organisms (since all organisms are cellular).

I think what bagfullofsnakes meant was that animals predate hardshelled eggs; though I could be wrong. Since ova are characteristic of both plants and animals it is logical to assume that it is a trait the MRCA between the two had.

 

[Arikay]

How so? Maybe some examples?

Yes, I believe in time travel, we do it all the time. If you mean time travel into the past, it is theoretically possible with limits.

If you are talking about being able to travel back into time to see the carbon 14 ratio in the atmosphere, then yes, we can do that. Trees and Ice core samples have allowed us to travel back in time and calibrate c-14 dating.

If you are talking about Carbon dating, you realize that it's not completely accurate correct? Tell me, does anyone believe in time traveling?

 

[Zadok001]

John.

1. Evidence exists.
2. The hypothesis of creationism attempts to explain the existance of all things.
3. The theory of evolution attempts to explain only the diversity of living organisms.
4. Since creationism attempts to explain more things that exist, more things can be used as evidence for creationism than things that can be used as evidence for the ToE.
5. Therefore, there is more evidence for creationism than evolution.

The problem here is the jump from "attempts to explain" to "uses as evidence." It's not EVIDENCE unless it SUPPORTS your thesis, John. It has to not merely be explainable by your thesis, but must be something we would EXPECT to see were your thesis true.

Hence, EVIDENCE for evolution is the existance of transitional fossils - Were the ToE true, we would EXPECT to see transitional fossils. We do. Hence, the existance of transitional fossils is EVIDENCE for the ToE. (The same type of thing works in reverse, though not as well. Evolution predicts that we will NOT find furry fish with hair similar to that found on mammals. We find no such fish. This is evidence, but rather weak evidence, since such fish might exist and merely be undiscovered.)

In the case of creationism, it's a whole different deal. If your hypothesis is "God created the universe and everything in it," you cannot make specific predictions about what we would expect to see were your hypothesis correct. Would you expect to see fish? Well, maybe. Would you expect to see furry fish? Well, maybe. Hence, the existance of fish and non-existance of furry fish is NOT evidence for creationism.

Distinct?

 

[Philosoft]

But, having been on the evolution side of the arguement before, evolution itself is not 100% proven.

I don't know what you consider "evolution," but common descent is as proven a scientific theory as there is.

There are flaws in evolution.

There are flaws in theoretical evolutionary mechanisms. Again, common descent is scientific fact.

But if you want to get even more technical, at one point when animals besides those who reproduce by simply splitting cells, began to give birth to other animals, those animals were born through eggs that develop in the wombs of the female animal, regardless of whether the eggs have been laid or not.

Well, there are more methods of reproduction than the two you mention. For example, Turbellaria (flatworms) reproduce by fragmentation - they break into pieces, each of which is capable of generating a complete organism.

Furthermore, your chart really doesn't prove anything, because it states fish as being the first "animals" besides cellular organisms that more than likely reproduced by the use of mitosis. The fish would have reproduced using eggs, not mitosis, which would have resulted in some sort of question over how that happens.

Where do you find this?

 

[tcampen]

Again, you are simply missing the point that I was in basis agreeing with those of you who say that there is no concrete proof of creation. But, having been on the evolution side of the arguement before, evolution itself is not 100% proven.

That evolution happens is as proven as any other scientific theory generally accepted as true. What hasn't been proven is HOW evolution happens. This is where the holes, debates, and battles reside - and are fully acknowledged by the relevant scientific community. Just thought it would be helpful to clear that up.

 

[OfficeMonkey]

I don't think there is evidence of creation, and possibly the whole premise of faith denotes there having to be such. I am new to Christianity, and only a few weeks ago would have been on the evolution side of the arguement. But, if evidence of creation hadto be given, I think it could only really be found in the things that science and evolution have not yet explained.

Hi Jacob,
I agree with what you have said here. But science explains more and more things every day, and the things that are unknown today may eventually be known. If the evidence for creation shrinks over time, as science makes new discoveries, doesn't this imply that there will eventually be no evidence for creation at all? And that, in fact, it wasn't evidence to begin with, merely an unexplained, uninvestigated, natural phenomenon? Why can't we just say "we don't know yet" instead of "god must have done it"?

 

[bagfullofsnakes]

Evolution predicts that we will NOT find furry fish with hair similar to that found on mammals. We find no such fish. This is evidence, but rather weak evidence, since such fish might exist and merely be undiscovered.)

Every time a new species is discovered, the ToE is put to the test. Were a fish to show up with hair and/or feathers...that'd be a BIG problem for the ToE.

And as you hinted, the ToE makes VERY specific predictions about what characteristics these new species ought to have.

If creationism were accurate, there is no reason to expect that we shouldn't find furry fish.

But we never do...exactly as we'd expect if evolution were accurate...

 

[Quasar1011]

The other problem is, we've observed new living things evolve from existing living things.

You speak of micro-evolution. Can you please give an example of this in macro-evolution?

 

[armed2010]

You speak of micro-evolution. Can you please give an example of this in macro-evolution?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

[Philosoft]

You speak of micro-evolution. Can you please give an example of this in macro-evolution?

You speak of a false dichotomy. Can you please give a mechanism that creates an impenetrable barrier between in-species adaptation and speciation?

 

[tcampen]

You speak of micro-evolution. Can you please give an example of this in macro-evolution?

As for "macro-evolution," it has been observed. Micro-evolution is change within a species, but short of creating a new species itself. Macro-evolution includes speciation and greater forms of transmutation. Speciation has been observed, thus Macro-evolution has been observed. For a number of examples, see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html. Now if you're looking for more than speciation as an example of Maco-evolution, you're going to have to live to be darn old, since these things take bit of time. But there is plenty of other evidence to show you how that works as well.

Side note:
I find it interesting that 75-100 years ago (and even more recently), creationists rejected even so-called "micro-evolution." Now that the evidence is so overwhelming, even among the die-hard creationists had to change their position. So when did the Bible change on this issue? The biblical/creationsist stance that all species were created in their current form by God somehow changed. But I thought God and the Bible were eternal in their truth. Gee, I wonder how long it will take before the next realization occurs in accepting the fact of macro-evolution. I hope it's not another 100 years, but I'm patient.