Is there ANY solid creation evidence?

[Belk]

Is that why you guys trample them under your feet, then turn to rend their casters, like the Bible says you will?

Reveling in your self fulfilling prophecy again?

 

[Skaloop]

For example, if a Christian outreach should even dare ask the government for financial support, your 'discussion' suddenly becomes a list of demands that have to be met.

Such as:

• put tv's in the lounge
• relax dating standards
• allow co-ed housing
• et worse cetera

No, there's more to it than meets the eye, my friend.

Can you provide a link to anyone who's ever said such a thing? Not mere suggestions about what should be done, or disagreement with how the outreach wants to do it, but actual demands of the "Do this or you do not get money" sort.

Yes I could, but I'm going to abstain for personal reasons.

If you really can, I am interested in seeing it. You could always PM me with the link. I won't respond to it or argue it or anything. I'm just curious about it.

Just a bump, since you've been active in this thread but have not addressed this yet. If you fail to, that would show that you don't have any support for your position and a retraction of your statement should be forthcoming.

 

[Nostromo]

One of these days you may be called on to explain it, then it won't be so funny, will it?

To be fair to Naraoia, you haven't really got much in the way of a concrete explanation yourself.

We don't know exactly.
gopher tree may have...
which I don't think...
I assume the...
I surmise it...
I would assume that...

So what we have is an assumption about the location of a tree that you can't identify. The only tie you have to a particular location is that pitch pine are found there, as if pitch pine are the only source of pitch. You're also assuming that when God "refloraed" the Earth, he put everything back where it was before, otherwise any clues based on the present location of trees is useless.

Regarding "bobbling around in Mesopotamia, it's 10,000 square miles, so there's a bit of room to bobble about in, not that it has to stay within the area to end up there. Using a conservative estimate of ocean currents you could probably travel the current distance of NJ to Iraq, with a wind behind you could probably circumnavigate the planet twice in a year.

 

[USincognito]

So. Nearly 250 posts and no evidence for Creationism yet, just AV's off topic musings and people responding to them.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Reveling in your self fulfilling prophecy again?

Well, as we all know, when AV runs out of ways to make himself feel special, he's always got the martyr card to play.

 

[theFijian]

.

 

[justaguy78]

Seems like a weird question. What kind of evidence would you expect? A signature that says:

"I, God, created this"

or some video tape?

There is no proof to anything when it comes to trying to determine the origins/path of life.

Finding a fossil and saying it turned into this other species doesn't offer any solid evidence either. It's just a theory. I have joked in the past that in the future a person could find a skeleton of someone with some funky skeletal disease and say it is a new species because of the differences there would be.

As I said in another thread, NOBODY could convict someone of even a simple crime of say theft with the type of evidence/support people whip around when it comes to the debate of the origins of life. People seem to just debate this to satisfy their ego since it can't ever be proven by any living person.

Me personally, I think evolution can only be true if there is a guiding force behind it or that set it in motion at least based on what I am supposed to believe about it:

I am trying to figure out why if humans evolved from some early primate why humans hardly have body hair when it is clear body hair is beneficial to survival.

I want to know how evolution knew what would be needed for flight and then started to build wings and why it stuck with the wings since it'd have apparently taken 193563954692345 years for the wing to be complete given what I am told about how long the process takes.

I want to know why human babies are perhaps the most useless offspring of all species in the sense they can't do anything on their own for years. How does that make sense from a survival point of view? It isn't simply the lifespan of humans being longer than most species because the % of baby uselessness is greater than for those other species.

I want to know why most/all land mammals can't survive in water for more than 3.2 seconds when the majority of the planet is covered by water. I especially want to know this if I am to believe life evolved from the sea. Seems retaining the ability to survive under water would have been logical.

There are many questions I have about the process which make me question it without that guiding force.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Seems like a weird question. What kind of evidence would you expect? A signature that says:

"I, God, created this"

or some video tape?

There is no proof to anything when it comes to trying to determine the origins/path of life.

Finding a fossil and saying it turned into this other species doesn't offer any solid evidence either. It's just a theory. I have joked in the past that in the future a person could find a skeleton of someone with some funky skeletal disease and say it is a new species because of the differences there would be.

As I said in another thread, NOBODY could convict someone of even a simple crime of say theft with the type of evidence/support people whip around when it comes to the debate of the origins of life. People seem to just debate this to satisfy their ego since it can't ever be proven by any living person.

Me personally, I think evolution can only be true if there is a guiding force behind it or that set it in motion at least based on what I am supposed to believe about it:

I am trying to figure out why if humans evolved from some early primate why humans hardly have body hair when it is clear body hair is beneficial to survival.

I want to know how evolution knew what would be needed for flight and then started to build wings and why it stuck with the wings since it'd have apparently taken 193563954692345 years for the wing to be complete given what I am told about how long the process takes.

I want to know why human babies are perhaps the most useless offspring of all species in the sense they can't do anything on their own for years. How does that make sense from a survival point of view? It isn't simply the lifespan of humans being longer than most species because the % of baby uselessness is greater than for those other species.

I want to know why most/all land mammals can't survive in water for more than 3.2 seconds when the majority of the planet is covered by water. I especially want to know this if I am to believe life evolved from the sea. Seems retaining the ability to survive under water would have been logical.

There are many questions I have about the process which make me question it without that guiding force.

Yes, learning does begin with a question.

 

[Greg1234]

I want to know why most/all land mammals can't survive in water for more than 3.2 seconds when the majority of the planet is covered by water. I especially want to know this if I am to believe life evolved from the sea. Seems retaining the ability to survive under water would have been logical.

Organisms moving out of water still need to get their food from the water and evade predators in the water, hence they would be selected for survival in the aquatic environment and fish would get fishier, not less

 

[Split Rock]

Finding a fossil and saying it turned into this other species doesn't offer any solid evidence either. It's just a theory. I have joked in the past that in the future a person could find a skeleton of someone with some funky skeletal disease and say it is a new species because of the differences there would be.

Strangely enough, the experts (you know people who actually study this stuff instead of sitting around musing about what they don't know) know what bone diseases look like. they have found fossils of diseased bones and identified them as such. Crazy, huh?

As I said in another thread, NOBODY could convict someone of even a simple crime of say theft with the type of evidence/support people whip around when it comes to the debate of the origins of life. People seem to just debate this to satisfy their ego since it can't ever be proven by any living person.

I guess no one is ever convicted of crimes based on forensic evidence where you live.

Me personally, I think evolution can only be true if there is a guiding force behind it or that set it in motion at least based on what I am supposed to believe about it:

That's nice. Considering you do not understand evolution and ignore all the responses you receive on the subject, I don't wonder why.

I am trying to figure out why if humans evolved from some early primate why humans hardly have body hair when it is clear body hair is beneficial to survival.

And I am wondering why you never read the response I gave you on this very question in another thread.

I want to know how evolution knew what would be needed for flight and then started to build wings and why it stuck with the wings since it'd have apparently taken 193563954692345 years for the wing to be complete given what I am told about how long the process takes.

I suppose I could excplain how theropods werer pre-adapted toward flight because they already has hollow bones, or how they evolved feathers for insulation and display defore featehr were exapted for flight, but I would be just wasting my time... wouldn't I?

I want to know why human babies are perhaps the most useless offspring of all species in the sense they can't do anything on their own for years. How does that make sense from a survival point of view? It isn't simply the lifespan of humans being longer than most species because the % of baby uselessness is greater than for those other species.

I suppose I could explain that human heads are so large that human babies have to be born premature in order for their head to get through the birth canal, but you would probably ignore that too.

I want to know why most/all land mammals can't survive in water for more than 3.2 seconds when the majority of the planet is covered by water. I especially want to know this if I am to believe life evolved from the sea. Seems retaining the ability to survive under water would have been logical.

Not if they were adapted to life outside of water. I seem to be repeating myself with you... I wonder why?

There are many questions I have about the process which make me question it without that guiding force.

And no doubt you will continue to ignore any answer you receive from us and then later ask the same questions again.

I am disappointed in you, but not surprised.

 

[AV1611VET]

Strangely enough, the experts (you know people who actually study this stuff instead of sitting around musing about what they don't know) know what bone diseases look like.

Let's see these same experts go back in time and diagnose someone that God has judged with a 'strange disease'.

Like I've said before, if they dug up King David's bones, they'd probably think they found a missing link.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Let's see these same experts go back in time and diagnose someone that God has judged with a 'strange disease'.

Like I've said before, if they dug up King David's bones, they'd probably think they found a missing link.

Haven't we been over this, AV? If only we had a time machine to prove you wrong. I would love to take that ride with you, but you'd probably complain about reality not following your interpretation of the Bible and then you'd claim reality is thus false. Boolean standards, after all.

FYI, no diseases would make any human's bones suddenly look like Homo erectus or Homo habilus. But then again you'll probably say "oh but these are special Bible diseases" which is a completely unfalsifiable statement which just means you don't want to use your brain.

 

[Split Rock]

Let's see these same experts go back in time and diagnose someone that God has judged with a 'strange disease'.

Like I've said before, if they dug up King David's bones, they'd probably think they found a missing link.

So, God's "strange disease" doesn't actually deform bones? What does it do?

 

[Naraoia]

Finding a fossil and saying it turned into this other species doesn't offer any solid evidence either. It's just a theory. I have joked in the past that in the future a person could find a skeleton of someone with some funky skeletal disease and say it is a new species because of the differences there would be.

You have no idea how fossils are interpreted, do you?

It would have to be either a disease we don't know, or a known disease that doesn't make the bones themselves look pathological (no odd swellings, no disrupted bone structure, etc.) I suppose, say, an otherwise healthy dwarf could be mistaken for a new species - but handwaving away well-documented transitional series as artefacts of disease is a bit of a stretch. Such diseases are rare compared to normal individuals, for one thing. What's the probability that all preserved fossils of, I don't know, Homo erectus came from diseased individuals that just happened to look like a species closely related to our own?

As I said in another thread, NOBODY could convict someone of even a simple crime of say theft with the type of evidence/support people whip around when it comes to the debate of the origins of life. People seem to just debate this to satisfy their ego since it can't ever be proven by any living person.

I have a fleeting suspicion that you aren't very familiar with said evidence. (Oh, and evolution != the origins of life. That would be abiogenesis. Not that we can't discuss it, but it's important to remember that the two theories have quite different kinds of problems and different levels of support.)

I am trying to figure out why if humans evolved from some early primate why humans hardly have body hair when it is clear body hair is beneficial to survival.

If body hair is clearly beneficial to survival, why are six and a half billion largely hairless humans crowding the planet?

I want to know how evolution knew what would be needed for flight and then started to build wings and why it stuck with the wings since it'd have apparently taken 193563954692345 years for the wing to be complete given what I am told about how long the process takes.

Andrew Moore is so right. We really need a new language for evolution.

Guys, anyone wishing to understand evolution. Burn the following into your brain forever.

Evolution doesn't "know" anything. Evolution has no foresight, no plan, no purpose. Evolution always reacts. Evolution is an outcome, not a means.

Understood?

Good. Then we can discuss wings.

So, we've established that evolution didn't know what was needed for flight. By implication, what was needed for flight (for the sake of not making this into a whole essay, I assume you mean wings) must have started out doing something else.

Such as respiration (one hypothesis for insects), sexual display (birds), brooding (birds) and gliding (a possibility for pretty much all winged animals).

Notice that with gliding, you don't need much modification of a normal tree-dweller's body to gain an advantage. Any small increase in lift can help an animal jump further, which can mean the difference between life and death when, for example, chased by a predator. Snakes glide by extending their ribs, making themselves broader and flatter. Gliding frogs just have very long, webbed fingers, like four little parachutes. Gliding mammals have flaps of skin extending between their arms and sides in various sizes. None of these are particularly difficult to evolve from a mechanistic perspective, all of them being extensions of pre-existing properties.

(Getting from gliding to powered flight seems a little more difficult - but imagine for a moment a glider similar to this guy trying to land head up on a tree trunk. It wants its hands and feet to land first, of course - which are currently beneath it and to the side. So what does it do? Kick the legs forwards and flap the arms downwards. In the latter, there's one possible beginning of a flight stroke.)

Some of your points I've addressed elsewhere, but this one is new:

I want to know why human babies are perhaps the most useless offspring of all species in the sense they can't do anything on their own for years. How does that make sense from a survival point of view? It isn't simply the lifespan of humans being longer than most species because the % of baby uselessness is greater than for those other species.

While those babies are "useless" and do nothing, they grow the most oversized brains of the animal kingdom and stuff it with all manner of learning. Brains being the biggest key to our success as a species, I wouldn't be so quick to write off extended childhoods as "useless".

 

[MoonLancer]

Let's see these same experts go back in time and diagnose someone that God has judged with a 'strange disease'.

Like I've said before, if they dug up King David's bones, they'd probably think they found a missing link.

Anthropologists are great at figuring this stuff. Just because you cant tell the difference between a non human ancestor and someone with a disease doesn't mean someone else cant.

 

[AV1611VET]

Anthropologists are great at figuring this stuff. Just because you cant tell the difference between a non human ancestor and someone with a disease doesn't mean someone else cant.

If God called it a 'strange disease' -- I promise you, our best anthropologists aren't going to figure it out.

If you believe He smote them with a disease that exists today, then I would surmise you are saying that He hyperevolved a strain of virus or bacteria into something that exists today, smote them with it, then killed off the strain.

In short, you're admitting that God hyperevolved something.

(Note: hypermicroevolved, that is -- don't get excited.)

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

If God called it a 'strange disease' -- I promise you, our best anthropologists aren't going to figure it out.

There are stranger diseases out there than the Bible-writers could come up with, in all honesty.

If you believe He smote them with a disease that exists today, then I would surmise you are saying that He hyperevolved a strain of virus or bacteria into something that exists today, smote them with it, then killed off the strain.

Why does 'strange disease' imply to you that it must be "hyperevolved"? I'm pretty sure those guys would have been impressed by jaundice.

 

[Hespera]

Seems like a weird question. What kind of evidence would you expect? A signature that says:

"I, God, created this"

or some video tape?

There is no proof to anything when it comes to trying to determine the origins/path of life.

Finding a fossil and saying it turned into this other species doesn't offer any solid evidence either. It's just a theory. I have joked in the past that in the future a person could find a skeleton of someone with some funky skeletal disease and say it is a new species because of the differences there would be.

As I said in another thread, NOBODY could convict someone of even a simple crime of say theft with the type of evidence/support people whip around when it comes to the debate of the origins of life. People seem to just debate this to satisfy their ego since it can't ever be proven by any living person.

Me personally, I think evolution can only be true if there is a guiding force behind it or that set it in motion at least based on what I am supposed to believe about it:

I am trying to figure out why if humans evolved from some early primate why humans hardly have body hair when it is clear body hair is beneficial to survival.

I want to know how evolution knew what would be needed for flight and then started to build wings and why it stuck with the wings since it'd have apparently taken 193563954692345 years for the wing to be complete given what I am told about how long the process takes.

I want to know why human babies are perhaps the most useless offspring of all species in the sense they can't do anything on their own for years. How does that make sense from a survival point of view? It isn't simply the lifespan of humans being longer than most species because the % of baby uselessness is greater than for those other species.

I want to know why most/all land mammals can't survive in water for more than 3.2 seconds when the majority of the planet is covered by water. I especially want to know this if I am to believe life evolved from the sea. Seems retaining the ability to survive under water would have been logical.

There are many questions I have about the process which make me question it without that guiding force.

So, justa, you got a lot of good answers. did you learn anything?