If there is no evidence for creation...

[Tomk80]

You fail to understand something. There is a lack of evidence that supports my beliefs. There is also a lack of evidence that disproves it now isn't there?

That, again, would depend on what your beliefs are, wouldn't it. Since you haven't stated them, how can I tell?

That means evolution isn't any more powerful, because as there is evidence to support it, there is a lot that disproves it.

No, there is not.

Let me capitalize on this. THE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTING CREATIONISM IS ABOUT THE SAME AS THE AMOUNT THAT GOES AGAINST IT. AND AS TO THE LOAD OF EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS EVOLUTION, THERE IS EVEN MORE AGAINST IT. If you would like to see it, please ask

Go ahead. Although, judging from your other thread, I will state upfront that I think you have been severely mislead by the charlatans that make up the creationism movement.

To the first person who replied:

Ah, that would be me

God doesn't want us to just believe in him...as we can't, because he hasn't shown himself. If you knew the Bible, you'd know he wants us to have Faith.

Don't worry about my theological knowledge, it is fine. But don't you see the problems this gives?

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 don't think billions of people are retarded. I do think they are wrong. There is a difference in the two and you would do good to learn it. But if I were to think billions of people were indeed retarded, what would you have to show that they were not? Now can we leave this point behind. It is a logical fallacy to think that because many people believe it, it must be true.

Important learning point:
Argumentum ad populum: the logical fallacy that states that because many people believe something, it must be true. That this is a fallacy is easily seen by the fact that approximately thousand years ago virtually everybody believed that the earth was the center of the universe. Everybody who believed this at that time, was wrong.

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.

10 to the power of 39982 to 1. That's the odds of Life occurring by chance.

Show me the calculations. What is your basis for them, where did the number come from? What were the underlying theories you derived the individual chances from to arrive at this overall number?

Scientists with virtually unlimited resources cannot create life....

Craig Venter already synthesized life from scratch. Keep up sonny.

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

Reiterating your statement for the third or fourth time does not make it any less wrong than it was the first time.

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

Who said that? Not that there doesn't seem to be some truth in it, but I don't see anyone here saying that... Yet...

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

Go on then. One rule though. One piece at the time, no Gish gallop. Agreed?

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.

Great, go ahead. Where would you like to start? The probability calculations seems fair. So why don't you provide the information I asked for regarding those.

 

[Tomk80]

Ok, first off, I'm am not going to be able to totally disprove Evolution....If I did that, I'd be famous...because I would have just put down a popular theory down the drain lol. I don't think that's going to happen by myself. But here ya go, reply back when you're done with the following:

1. Irreducible Complexity in microbiological processes.

2. Polonium-218 Halos in primordial granite

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

4. Fossil Record

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

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

7. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

So, pick one and write a post on it. And by pick one I mean one, uno, één, 1, eins, une, yi.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Ok, first off, I'm am not going to be able to totally disprove Evolution....If I did that, I'd be famous...because I would have just put down a popular theory down the drain lol. I don't think that's going to happen by myself. But here ya go, reply back when you're done with the following:

1. Irreducible Complexity in microbiological processes.

2. Polonium-218 Halos in primordial granite

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

4. Fossil Record

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

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

7. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Do you know what the term PRATT means? I suggest you look it up before bringing anymore of them up here.

You can find the polonium PRATT refuted HERE.

Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails, or is inconclusive for, all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth.

Perhaps you would like to explain exactly which step required for evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Or maybe you could start by demonstrating that you even know what the second law of thermodynamics is about. Here is a hint Thermo = heat, dynamics = the study of movement.

And BTW the fossil record completely refutes young earth creationism and flood geology and YEC attempts to explain it away all lead to hilarious inconsistencies and absurdities so I would not bring up the fossil record if I were you.

 

[Vene]

Ok, first off, I'm am not going to be able to totally disprove Evolution....If I did that, I'd be famous...because I would have just put down a popular theory down the drain lol. I don't think that's going to happen by myself. But here ya go, reply back when you're done with the following:

1. Irreducible Complexity in microbiological processes.

2. Polonium-218 Halos in primordial granite

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

4. Fossil Record

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

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

7. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

A bunch of PRATTs, all are covered at talkorigins. Each article with nifty references to peer-reviewed journals. I'd be a lot more impressed if you did your homework first.

 

[mpok1519]

sooooo, lemmie get this straight; just because there are scientific anomalous mysteries you don't understand means creationism is a fact?

lol

Sigh. I guess I have to do some research....hold on.....

Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails, or is inconclusive for, all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth. Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his hypothesis by proposing three "singularities" - one time divine interventions - over the past 6000 years. Of course, supernatural events and processes fall outside the realm of scientific investigations to address. As with the idea of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond the realm of physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific usefulness. If divine action is necessary to fit the halo hypothesis into some consistent model of Earth history, why waste all that time trying to argue about the origins of the haloes based on current scientific theory? This is where most Creationist arguments break down when they try to adopt the language and trappings of science. Trying to prove a religious premise is itself an act of faith, not science.


Now, the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't have anything to do with creaitonism.


You are using fallacious reasoning for creationism; you suggest that bc there are strange or anamolous phenomena in the universe that creationism MUST be a fact, yet none of those things have ANYTHING to do with creationism.

Hey; this is to the real scientists out there; care to explain to Shicoco what he wishes to know about his list of things he is uneducated in?

 

[Danyc]

Ok, first off, I'm am not going to be able to totally disprove Evolution....If I did that, I'd be famous...because I would have just put down a popular theory down the drain lol. I don't think that's going to happen by myself. But here ya go, reply back when you're done with the following:

1. Irreducible Complexity in microbiological processes.

2. Polonium-218 Halos in primordial granite

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

4. Fossil Record

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

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

7. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Shicoco, you have just posted the greatest list of evidence against Evolution to have ever been created. I am so compelled; obviously, scientists who have an even greater understanding about these topics you have listed than you do have been completely wrong about them for 150 years or more.

At the end of the day its not that farfetched that so many people who have worked their whole lives as geologists, biologists and the like could be wrong. I mean, even though the scientific world is full of scrutiny and even the very weakest theories are thrown out and the proposing scientist's career is usually terminally ruined when they are shown to have been committing fraud, or at the very least, scolded by their peers when they find that his theory, accepted for over 100 years, is completely wrong...

But then I guess its their fault for not catching his mistake sooner. This is exactly evolution's situation. Those stupid scientists, they have years and years of training and degrees under their belt, but they still consider evolution as much of a theory as gravity. Silly people.



///sarcasm mode off


All of these are PRATTs (Points refuted a thousand times)

It really gets tiring when these get thrown around. But don't worry, someone will be here soon to educate you; that is, if you are even willing to learn. I doubt it. But if you have any pride at all in your intelligence, prove me wrong.

 

[Tomk80]

Guys, please relax a bit. He's just here, cut him some slack. Why don't we let him explain his reasoning and go over the point one by one that way? Surely that is what this forum is actually about? I know the PRATT's get tiring, but if we don't go into them, what is this forum other than a link collection?

 

[Shicoco]

Tom, I did on another thread. There's no need for me to do it here, when you can look up all that stuff online. I would like your thoughts on it though. If request again though, then I will make a post about one of those.

Frumious, if the polonium didn't cause it, what else did? Furthermore, these are not necessarily my arguments, just some arguments against Evolution. Some are weaker than others.

Vene, I have seen rubuttals to just about them all. Most of them are confusing, and are just more theories. Did you even check to see if they're all on there?

Another argument which is not up there is the evolution of the wing. First off, the wing had to begin by a mutation. Mutations are extremely rare, and when they do happen, they cause disorders, many of which are fatal. I have not heard (but I do have open ears) of mutations actually causing something like this.

Now, if the wing did survive this, why would it continue to develop? It would hinder the bird for millions of generation until it was large enough to glide with. This goes against Natural Selection.

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

Also, there is no evidence of the evolution chain in fossils. They have fossils of Organism A, and of what it eventually evolved into, Organism Z. But there are no fossils of B, C, D, E....

Lucy would make a good argument to this. But what proof is there that Lucy is nothing but a monkey?

Also, I've heard that there is no evidence of human existence that dates back to 10,000 years. But then I hear they found this fossil....Let's discuss this.

Also, let's discuss Creationism.

 

[Shicoco]

Mpok, did I ever use anything about Creationism with my arguments? Nope, sure didn't. Also, I would like more tact than that, otherwise you will be ignored.

 

[mpok1519]

Lucy's hips are primate-like, and monkeys have prehensile tails, whereas Lucy did not; Lucy's thumb was opposable, monkey thumbs are not. Cranial structure, and basically everything about Lucy wasn't monkey-like.

 

[Shicoco]

Wrong. Some monkeys do have opposable thumbs.

"All monkeys share physical features that are linked to their tree-climbing lifestyle. Foremost among these are forward-facing eyes, which enable monkeys to precisely gauge distances as they move about above the ground. Monkeys' hands and feet are also adapted for climbing. Their fingers and toes are very flexible, and their palms and soles—like those of humans—are usually covered in hairless nonslip skin. Most monkeys have flat nails, but the marmosets have claws, a feature they share with some primitive primates.

Many monkeys have opposable thumbs and opposable big toes, which can be closed against the other fingers or toes to create a tight grip. However, the extent of this feature varies greatly between species. Old World monkeys are often remarkably dexterous and can use their fingers to pick tiny parasites out of each other's fur. By contrast, New World monkeys lack truly opposable thumbs, although most have opposable big toes. Remarkably, one group of Old World monkeys—the colobus monkeys—do not have thumbs at all. Despite this apparent disadvantage, they have no difficulty climbing." - Encarta

Marmosets have claws, but most monkeys have nails. Lucy has this, but most monkeys do not. Sounds like another monkey to me. Apparently, there are HUGE AMOUNTS of variation between all monkeys.

 

[Shicoco]

Accidental Post

 

[Shicoco]

Accidental Post

 

[Vene]

Alright, sure. I'll write a bit about the evidence for evolution.

For example, the fossil record and horse evolution (link):
There is a progression of species found in the fossil record where the digits on the foot fuse into one (with all the bones still present) leaving what is essentially a single digit (a hoof). At the same time, they are all increasing in height. This change happened over 55 millions years and is very well mapped out.

Another piece of evidence is observed macroevolution (speciation). There is a big list over here. It includes flies (Drosophila paulistorum), plants (maize), and worms (Nereis acuminata). Macroevolution is one of the biggest events in evolution and numerous examples have been observed both in the lab and in nature.

Another piece of evidence is Cytochrome C. Its sequence of amino acids can be compared in many different species and is used to construct a molecular tree of life. This matches up quite well with the fossil record and morphology (not to mention other molecular trees of life). Here is the sequence itself for various species:

And here is the tree:

link

This is just a small amount of the evidence available. Also, I have stuck entirely to biology, creationism also fails in every other physical science.

Speaking of, if you like videos, here is a series on why young earth creationists must deny gravity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bRvt0InhYk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEW1oQBZu-I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAUxQjylzc8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSEBR_6lnT4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j07Y4IirWZ4&feature=related

 

[Tomk80]

Tom, I did on another thread. There's no need for me to do it here, when you can look up all that stuff online. I would like your thoughts on it though. If request again though, then I will make a post about one of those.

I want to hear it from. You think it is convincing, so you should be able to explain it, show that you understand it and explain why you find it convincing. I'll respond in kind. I have not seen another thread on this forum where you went in depth with any of these things. If you have one, link to it and I'll respond there.

Frumious, if the polonium didn't cause it, what else did?

Because of the terrible manner of sampling by Gentry (who proposed the young age of polonium halos), the origin of the halos he examined is unknown and a definite cause hard to pinpoint. One of the most likely causes is that Uranium-238 decayed into Radon-222. This is a gas that would go up through fractures in the rock and produce the halos.

Furthermore, these are not necessarily my arguments, just some arguments against Evolution. Some are weaker than others.

O great, so now this is going to be your standard reply every time?

Vene, I have seen rubuttals to just about them all. Most of them are confusing, and are just more theories. Did you even check to see if they're all on there?

Do you really think we haven't seen all of them before? It seems from the above that you do not really understand the arguments you are proposing, am I correct?

<snipped new argument>

Stop bringing up new stuff when the old stuff hasn't been thoroughly discussed.

<snipped other arguments>

Stop discussing all arguments through each other. Pick one and discuss that. You picked polonium halos first in this post. Do you understand that one fully now? Or do you rather discuss the other argument. In which case, will you discuss that completely.

 

[Vene]

Vene, I have seen rubuttals to just about them all. Most of them are confusing, and are just more theories. Did you even check to see if they're all on there?

First off, they can be confusing because the universe is complex, just because you don't understand something doesn't make it wrong. I don't have a clue how a computer works, but it still does. Just theories, most everything in science is a theory, from gravity to cell theory to the germ theory to chemical reactions to evolution. Theory in science is fact. And yes, I have checked. Your objections are nothing new.

 

[mpok1519]

Wrong. Some monkeys do have opposable thumbs.

Ok; this still leaves cranial, hips, and tails; other than a bunch of differences, monkeys and lucy are practically the same. =P

Whos to say we arent just all monkeys that lost our tails, learned language and built guns and nuclear bombs? =P

Lucy has alot in common with early hominids than monkeys do, however.

 

[Shicoco]

Actually, those snipped arguments were the arguments on the other thread lol.

Vene...I could probably find good arguments against all of that stuff up there...it just goes on and on. So let's leave that be.

However, you did say something that caught my eye. Creationism doesn't fit with physical sciences. Well, of course not lol. Gee. God creates earth, and suddenly makes things appear....and this does not fit in with science? HOW CAN THIS BE? lol....

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.

Because our beliefs deal with supernatural things, they are going to be against science. Therefore you can't disprove that which is supernatural by basic laws of science, as they don't and can't apply to our beliefs. If I believe Jesus can teleport supernaturally, you can't say that it's not true because it goes against physical science, because I believe it's supernatural. HOWEVER, you can propose that I might just be crazy and could be hallucinating.

 

[Tomk80]

Actually, those snipped arguments were the arguments on the other thread lol.

Okay, we can always do those next.

Vene...I could probably find good arguments against all of that stuff up there...it just goes on and on. So let's leave that be.

However, you did say something that caught my eye. Creationism doesn't fit with physical sciences. Well, of course not lol. Gee. God creates earth, and suddenly makes things appear....and this does not fit in with science? HOW CAN THIS BE? lol....

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.

Because our beliefs deal with supernatural things, they are going to be against science. Therefore you can't disprove that which is supernatural by basic laws of science, as they don't and can't apply to our beliefs. If I believe Jesus can teleport supernaturally, you can't say that it's not true because it goes against physical science, because I believe it's supernatural. HOWEVER, you can propose that I might just be crazy and could be hallucinating.

Well, this kind of ends discussion before it has begun, don't you think?

 

[Vene]

If they are so easy to refute, do it. I am just as happy to be proven wrong as I am to be proven right. Actually, I prefer to be proven wrong, it means I learn something new.

As for the rest, why would your god make such a perfect twin-nested hierarchy for molecular biology, genetics, morphology, and the fossil record unless he was being deceptive?