If there is no evidence for creation...

[Shicoco]

Well, people, and not just silly Christians, have come up with refutes for evolution, yes?

People have come up with refutes to those.

And I'm sure people have come up with refutes to those. It just keeps going.

Vene, I'm not sure I understand that last statement.

Mpok: I'm really not concerned about your word dealing with these matters, as you were totally incorrect with that statement you made about monkeys not having opposable thumbs...therefore you have lost credibility.

However, as you will notice, monkeys' craniums are all different than one another. Some are very humanlike. As for their tails, old world monkeys don't have the ability to grab onto things with their tails, and new world monkeys do.

Do I need to iterate on hips? Lucy was a monkey.

And maybe we're monkeys too. Well, then that means we didn't evolve, doesn't it? (Well, not as much then, because evolution states we have common ancestors.)

Sorry Tom.

 

[Tomk80]

Well, people, and not just silly Christians, have come up with refutes for evolution, yes?

No. Really, no. No valid ones at least.

People have come up with refutes to those.

And I'm sure people have come up with refutes to those. It just keeps going.

Not exactly, the validity of the arguments matters. Generally, the validity of creationist arguments (because it is always creationists coming up with anti-evolution arguments) is very low or absent. Your polonium argument is a good example.

Vene, I'm not sure I understand that last statement.

Mpok: I'm really not concerned about your word dealing with these matters, as you were totally incorrect with that statement you made about monkeys not having opposable thumbs...therefore you have lost credibility.

Making one error does not make his complete statement untrue. Why don't you check out what he said, instead of rejecting everything he says because of a single error?

However, as you will notice, monkeys' craniums are all different than one another. Some are very humanlike. As for their tails, old world monkeys don't have the ability to grab onto things with their tails, and new world monkeys do.

Do I need to iterate on hips? Lucy was a monkey.

No, all monkeys have tails. Lucy was an ape, but not a monkey. Just as humans are apes. And yes, there is a difference between humans and apes.

And maybe we're monkeys too.

No. We are apes, not monkeys.

Well, then that means we didn't evolve, doesn't it? (Well, not as much then, because evolution states we have common ancestors.)

No, that does not mean we did not evolve. Evolution is a process of diversification. An original species of ape gave rise to multiple new species of ape. Of those, humans, chimps, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans are still alive. The same way a monkey gave rise to different species of monkey, and a species of primate gave rise to different species of monkeys and different species of apes (apes and monkeys are both primates).

Sorry Tom.

Let's just keep it on apes then shall we?

That goes for the rest of you. Can we please stick to one topic? I have never, ever in my time on this forum seen a thread go anywhere if this wasn't done. Please, pretty please?

 

[Vene]

Well, people, and not just silly Christians, have come up with refutes for evolution, yes?

People have come up with refutes to those.

And I'm sure people have come up with refutes to those. It just keeps going.

So, you're not going to refute anything. Do you have any idea who a discussion and debate board works?

Vene, I'm not sure I understand that last statement.

All the physical evidence points to evolution. If we were specially created it means that God placed the evidence there. Why? Who knows, but is sure is deceptive to make it look like evolution happened if it didn't.

 

[biggles53]

That last video makes a good point: How is it that we can see stars that are billions of lightyears away when we think the universe is only a few thousands years old.

Genesis 1:3 "And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

What rubbish!

Even if we were to accept that he clicked his fingers and 'created' light, he obviously created that light with certain properties - properties that he 'permits' us to measure.

And one of the properties that we are able to measure about light is that it travels with a known, constant velocity! Which we use to very accurately measure the distance to far-flung stars - and these measurements CONFIRM the data we get from OTHER methods for measuring this distance!

Nice try.......not!

 

[Shicoco]

biggles...you have no imagination. God created the light for the earth. He created the stars, billions of lightyears away. If I would believe he could do this, surely I would also believe that he could have brought the light from the star to earth instantly.

God has no rules or laws of physics to abide by.

 

[Shicoco]

I'm done with pointless arguing, it's getting us nowhere lol. So far no one has disproved Creationism, nor have I disproved evolution. No one is going to believe me, so I quit on this thread

All of you, I respect your input, and thank you. You all bring up good points. Except for you Biggles. God created the light, surely he can bring it to earth too

I shall no longer be looking on this thread, so if you wish to tell me something, PM me.

 

[Shicoco]

I'm done with pointless arguing, it's getting us nowhere lol. So far no one has disproved Creationism, nor have I disproved evolution. No one is going to believe me, so I quit on this thread

All of you, I respect your input, and thank you. You all bring up good points. Except for you Biggles. God created the light, surely he can bring it to earth too

I shall no longer be looking on this thread, so if you wish to tell me something, PM me.

 

[gaara4158]

Sorry. This statement wasn't meant to be a proof. It was meant to show that Christianity has been around a while, so please don't assume that billions of humans are retarded. I'd like a little more respect than that, even if you don't believe.

I'm not saying they're retarded. Wrong, yes. But don't give me that "oh, it's just to show it's been around a while" business. You definitly wrote about it like it was compelling evidence of creation. A lot of religions have been around for a long time, man. They can't all be right.

I don't assume that you believe in evolution. But if you will look at the name of this forum lol....If I'm going to debate, I'll need something to debate against. Evolution is what that's going to be.

You must not have read the OP. I asked, assuming there was no evidence for creation, why we should believe it. Not whether evolution or creation were more plausible. This thread was mostly intended as a response for AVVET's Apple Challenge, in which his point is that creation has no evidence.
But in any case, as I think I said earlier, no matter what you prove about evolution, it doesn't help creation at all. You have to prove creation by providing evidence for it, not by providing evidence against evolution.

10 to the power of 39982 to 1. That's the odds of Life occurring by chance. Scientists with virtually unlimited resources cannot create life....

Where are you getting these numbers?

I have noticed something. People on these kinds of forums will go around saying that there is no evidence that supports Creationism, and lots that supports Evolution.

Including your fellow creationists.

Well, there is no evidence that goes against Creationism, and plenty the goes against Evolution.

Oh? Like what?

It's funny, one person says that there is no proof of God, and then I say that there is no proof for Evolution (I guess that's why it's just a theory), but what I get is

You understand nothing about the role of science, do you...?
​

Because you don't. Of course there's no proof for evolution; proof only exists in mathematics. There is, however, a mountain of compelling evidence for evolution. There's none for creation, and the evidence for evolution counts directly as evidence against literal creation.

People like to bash Christianity...and what usually ends up happenning is I give evidence against Evolution...totally backwards from what it should be.

You're right, I don't know why you waste your time trying to prove creationism by bashing evolution.

So, from now on, I am not going to try to prove that Evolution is impossible...at least on this thread. I want all of you to back up your arguments against Creationism.

NO. DO NOT HIJACK MY THREAD. Read the OP. That's the question I want addressed. This is my thread.

 

[Tomk80]

I'm done with pointless arguing, it's getting us nowhere lol. So far no one has disproved Creationism, nor have I disproved evolution. No one is going to believe me, so I quit on this thread

All of you, I respect your input, and thank you. You all bring up good points. Except for you Biggles. God created the light, surely he can bring it to earth too

I shall no longer be looking on this thread, so if you wish to tell me something, PM me.

So much for having an actual argument.

 

[biggles53]

I'm done with pointless arguing, it's getting us nowhere lol. So far no one has disproved Creationism, nor have I disproved evolution. No one is going to believe me, so I quit on this thread

All of you, I respect your input, and thank you. You all bring up good points. Except for you Biggles. God created the light, surely he can bring it to earth too

I shall no longer be looking on this thread, so if you wish to tell me something, PM me.

Run, rabbit, run....

What a farce! What you fail to address is that the light CONTINUES TO COME to the earth! And it does so with a constant velocity! So, with a simple calculation, I can see that the light I see NOW, TODAY, emanating from that distant star MUST have originated billions of years ago. Your ridiculous image of your god taking an instantaneous 'snapshot' and zapping it to us at the moment of creation DOESN'T explain why we CONTINUE to see that light streaming to us now!

Learn some science.......

 

[dlamberth]

If the Lord showed himself, there'd be no need for his planned judgements...because everyone would believe in him.

Personally, (and I do believe this) I have no doubt that most Christians would deny Jesus if he did show Himself today.

The reason why is that just like their non-acceptance of evolution, when Jesus returns, He will not fit the mold they believe everything to be.

.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

1. Irreducible Complexity in microbiological processes.

Not one of the purposed irreducibly complex items has ever been shown to be irreducibly complex. Plus this is theologically troubling since to use this argument you must state that the creator is unable to make a properly functioning universe and must constantly correct mistakes and fix things to get what he wants. Does not sound much like the Christian God to me.

2. Polonium-218 Halos in primordial granite

Not evolution, and if I recall correctly the originator of this admitted under oath that he falsified data to get the results. In other words, he was lying. Does God really need us to lie for Him?

3. Astronomical probabilities calculated as necessary for the simplest proteins to form (not enough time).

Not evolution, also I have never seen this argument ever use statistics correctly. They use incorrect calculations to get false results. Again more lying for God.

4. Fossil Record

The fossil record has been found to support evolution again and again. Who ever told you it has not is again, sadly, lying for God.

5. Existence of information more complicated than a computer language encoded in DNA requires an author.

Again, with every new feature we have seen appear in life since we have started studying DNA we have yet to see a feature that cannot occur naturally. This argument again proposes an incompetent creator that needs to keep fiddling with his creation because he could not get it right the first time.

6. Genetics, i.e. losses always involved in mutations, fatality rate when mutations occur.

Another case of lying for God. Every human has on average one hundred mutations that neither parent had, yet humans still are alive, funny thing that.

Also to address the information argument also commonly used, the creationist speakers that argue that no new information can be formed have never given a definition for information that can be tested. Every form of calculating information that can be applied to DNA has shown that increases in information are common and easy to create.

7. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Not evolution. I have never seen a creationists use the actual second law of thermodynamics in an argument about thermodynamics. They usually sputter some nonsense about order and chaos, or order and disorder which the second law of thermodynamics does not even cover.

As a fellow Christian, I urge you to please really research what evolution is and how it works before arguing against it. If you use many of the arguments given to you by creationist resources you will find that they are quickly shredded by the truth.

Take time to understand what you are against, do not make yourself and Christianity look foolish and ignorant because you could not be bothered to test all things and hold on to what is true as the Bible says.

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

A good number of Shicoco's arguments are covered and refuted [here]. Please do read it, Shicoco. It'd be terrible if you didn't know what you're arguing.

 

[AV1611VET]

It'd be terrible if you didn't know what you're arguing.

If you believe in evolution, please explain where Geococcyx californianus came from, when there weren't any roads yet.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

If you believe in evolution, please explain where Geococcyx californianus came from, when there weren't any roads yet.

Plymouth didn't start making them until the late 60's and by then there were plenty of roads... What are you talking about? Is this another embedded decrepitude argument?

 

[Kyrisch]

If you believe in evolution, please explain where Geococcyx californianus came from, when there weren't any roads yet.

I do so hope, more that I have ever hoped before regarding your posts that this is a joke.

I really do. Please tell me.

Please.

I weep for humanity sometimes.

 

[AV1611VET]

I do so hope, more that I have ever hoped before regarding your posts that this is a joke.

I really do. Please tell me.

Please.

I weep for humanity sometimes.

It was a joke.

 

[RBM11]

-nevermind-

 

[Baggins]

As per number 4 on the list, look up "Cambrian Explosion".

.

I am a geologist with a special interest in the Cambrian "explosion", what about it makes you think it is evidence that runs counter to evolutionary theory?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

If you believe in evolution, please explain where Geococcyx californianus came from, when there weren't any roads yet.

Giant roadrunner like dinosaur
http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2007/06/giant_roadrunnerlike_dinosaur.php

An artist's painting of the newly discovered Gigantoraptor dinosaur, depicted with other smaller dinosaurs. Fossilized bones uncovered in the Erlian Basin of northern China's Inner Mongolia region show the Gigantoraptor erlianensis was about 26 feet in length and weighed 3,000 pounds. The discovery of the giant, birdlike dinosaur indicates a more complicated evolutionary process for birds than originally thought.