Is there ANY solid creation evidence?

[dustcake]

How can you tell the nylon-eating bacteria was not already there? So when nylon appeared, they just started to eat it?

look up nylon eating bacteria on wikipedia. (I can't post links yet)
They aren't specifically nylon eating bacteria, they're bacteria that developed over time the ability to digest the nylon in their environment.

 

[dustcake]

So, why didnt those primitive Bible-written people make a similar suggestion?

I can't tell if you're serious or not; please give me evidence for yec (Im assuming thats why you responded to this thread)

 

[Greg1234]

look up nylon eating bacteria on wikipedia. (I can't post links yet)
They aren't specifically nylon eating bacteria, they're bacteria that developed over time the ability to digest the nylon in their environment.

Why Scientists Should NOT Dismiss Intelligent Design | Uncommon Descent

 

[Skaloop]

How can you tell the nylon-eating bacteria was not already there? So when nylon appeared, they just started to eat it?

Because they didn't "just start eating it". There was bacteria. Nylon was introduced. They did not "eat" the nylon right away; that came later. If the bacteria already had the ability to "eat" nylon, they would have been doing so as soon as it was introduced. But they didn't, because they couldn't. It wasn't until they evolved the ability to "eat" nylon that the nylon started getting "eaten."

 

[AV1611VET]

Is there ANY solid creation evidence?

No -- and you're welcome to take my challenge to prove it: 1

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

No -- and you're welcome to take my challenge to prove it: 1

C'mon AV, enough of your silly counting games. You're a grown man for cryin' ou' loud.

 

[dustcake]

So, you're response to the fact that bacteria developed a gene to eat a previously non-existant substance is by saying, quite blatantly, "Goddidit."
And yet you always see creationists saying how they actually want evidence that evolution actually happens before they accept it, but when there is hilariously obvious examples of it, it gets explained away by saying Goddidit.
this at Grant btw, it wouldn't let me repost his link.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

YEC is as meaningless as salvation, as far as having faith in what we interpret the word/testimony of God to be. If faith in YEC is meaningless, I assume you consider faith in Jesus Christ as meaningless.

Doctrinal interpretations aside, it is the power of faith in a testimony that I am connecting to your description of 'meaningless'.

As far as faith being an 'antiquated idea', then the American judicial system would be considered the same.

It is not YEC that is on trial in your statement, but the method by which one believes YEC, a method that well predates the Scientific Method, and is still used today.

Jesus' ministry has nothing to do with YEC. It does not rely on it, nor does it refer to it or require it.

I did not call faith an antiquated idea, but YEC. You can't equate YEC with faith.

And faith predates the scientific method, yes, but that does not mean it is better. To appeal to an idea's age is pretty fallacious.

 

[Mikecpking]

May be you can give me an example on what does a "solid evidence" look like. After I understand what do you mean by it, I might consider to give you an evidence to match that? Fair enough?

I would say solid evidence would be the equal dispersal of fossils throough the geological column, eg a human fossil in precambrian rocks for starters..

 

[Nostromo]

Don't get AV started.

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't get AV started.

Yes -- please read it for yourselves in the Bible.

 

[juvenissun]

look up nylon eating bacteria on wikipedia. (I can't post links yet)
They aren't specifically nylon eating bacteria, they're bacteria that developed over time the ability to digest the nylon in their environment.

So, why is it a solid evidence of evolution? If you give the bacteria benzene, would you expect some bacteria also start to eat benzene? Why is this feature an evidence of anything?

Do not side track your argument. I just want an example of so-called "solid evidence". It seems this so-called evidence is not clear on what is evidenced and it is also not very solid. If this quality of evidence is what you want to see on creation, then there are too many of them.

 

[juvenissun]

I can't tell if you're serious or not; please give me evidence for yec (Im assuming thats why you responded to this thread)

You need to be responsible on what you said. You said the creation "stories" are made up by primitive farmers. So I ask you, a more intelligent person, to make an example of creation.

Consequence? I don't think you can make one better than those primitive farmers did.

 

[juvenissun]

Because they didn't "just start eating it". There was bacteria. Nylon was introduced. They did not "eat" the nylon right away; that came later. If the bacteria already had the ability to "eat" nylon, they would have been doing so as soon as it was introduced. But they didn't, because they couldn't. It wasn't until they evolved the ability to "eat" nylon that the nylon started getting "eaten."

How can you be sure on that is what really is? May be they don't like the taste at the first, but get used to it at later time.

 

[juvenissun]

I would say solid evidence would be the equal dispersal of fossils throough the geological column, eg a human fossil in precambrian rocks for starters..

You are assuming that human is just another animal. If you adopt YEC, then that assumption is wrong to begin with. So your proposed solid evidence may never happen.

 

[Skaloop]

How can you be sure on that is what really is? May be they don't like the taste at the first, but get used to it at later time.

Because bacteria don't have a sense of taste.

But moreso because the bacteria that can "eat" nylon are demonstrably different than the ones that can't. They have mutated genes that result in the production of different enzymes.

 

[Targ]

If you are to create this universe, what is the first thing you like to create?

Megan Fox.

Check your reps.

 

[Naraoia]

That said, the mindset in which you are trying to achieve an answer is called Methodological Naturalism. MN absolutely rejects anything supernatural...

That would be philosophical naturalism. MN doesn't reject the supernatural - it merely rejects the use of supernatural hypotheses as a way of acquiring knowledge. I.e. someone operating on MN doesn't say God doesn't exist, only that God can't be used to figure things out about nature.

Still, it is certainly a dead end to try to prove or disprove YEC by MNaturalism means, since I see it as a faith based belief.

Don't get AV started.

He's quite good at doing that himself.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

So, why is it a solid evidence of evolution? If you give the bacteria benzene, would you expect some bacteria also start to eat benzene? Why is this feature an evidence of anything?

Do not side track your argument. I just want an example of so-called "solid evidence". It seems this so-called evidence is not clear on what is evidenced and it is also not very solid. If this quality of evidence is what you want to see on creation, then there are too many of them.

1. Nylon is a man-made polymer.
2. Bacteria were not able to digest nylon until nylonase evolved.
3. Nylonase is an enzyme that perfectly describes how "new information" can be added to the genome to an organism. Nylonase is evolved from a gene duplication that mutated to form a novel function. It is evidence that the molecular mechanisms of evolution work.

How can you be sure on that is what really is? May be they don't like the taste at the first, but get used to it at later time.

We sequenced the gene and know the exact mutation that occurred. This isn't a shot in the dark.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

You are assuming that human is just another animal. If you adopt YEC, then that assumption is wrong to begin with. So your proposed solid evidence may never happen.

We get disease like any other animal. We die like any other animal. How are we so different? Because we have the ability to be narcissistic?