Proof of Creation?

KTS said:

The fact you are twisting my words. Or are you doing that in all seriousness?



Yes we do. https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sou...ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=what causes evolution

Click to expand...

You google source states that evolution " Change must be genetic". This proves my point since many now know there a lot more than genetics changes. There is still much to learn about developmental biology but they do know it's requires more than a few genetics changes here and there to make major changes in body plans.

Rubbish. If evolution was true, then we could not find a fossil rabbit in the precambrian. If we found a rabbit there, it would falsify evolution.

Click to expand...

You don't even realize the Precambrian layer itself falsify evolution.

And you don't understand evolution either. How would "co-evolution" explain a fossil rabbit in the precambrian?

Click to expand...

Again the Precambrian it evidence against ToE. I'm amazed how evolutionist try to use that which totally contradicts the theory and try to use it as evidence. There is no such thing as co-evolution.

If you think evolution explains everything we could conceivably see, then you really have no idea what evolution is. Why do you argue against a thing when you don't even know what that thing is?

Click to expand...

I don't believe at all evolution explains all life we see. It's a fairy tale for adults with thin shell of facts around it.

stevevw said:

Not really again. If its the same gene made in both then it will be bad in both because its bad....

Click to expand...

Sorry, that is just not consistent with an intelligent designer. It doesn't even make sense. Copied non working parts are not intelligent design.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

Sorry, that is just not consistent with an intelligent designer. It doesn't even make sense. Copied non working parts are not intelligent design.

Click to expand...

I am not sure about the part and would have to look into what it is. But I do know that some of the so called useless parts that are often put forward are not so useless after all as new discoveries have found. Just like the junk DNA we are finding it does have some use. But how do you know the part was not designed originally to work and because it is the same part of similar for whatever reason it has failed in both species. Just like some species can both be supceptable to certain diseases. You have to remember with intelligent design a creature was good to start with as God had said. Meaning it was perfect and then with the fall of man we have slowly been deteriorating.

Just out of interest you are a Baptist so what do you believe. You dont think God had anything to do with creating life. I am not sure what you believe as some of the beliefs that include evolution and God can have other ripple affects which change whats written in the bible. I dont discount evolution completely and believe there is a form of evolution. But I cant see how complex life came from nothing or chemicals and then evolved into more complex organisms step by step adding complex information and abilities.

Can someone help me understand natural selection. Say we have a fish for example that will eventually become a land creature. I think Tiktaalik is the one that is most famous for this. Now with natural selection this takes a mutation which is basically a copying error and makes changes to the original genetics which then will make a change in shape or ability of the creature. Now only the beneficial mutations are kept on. So if this is the case then that change becomes an adaptation that filters through the group and takes over. But am I right in saying that the mutations that occur are random. Mutations just happen anyway and are copying mistakes but they have no predictive qualities about knowing what ones to keep. Its the mutations that give some sort of benefit and advantage that allows a creature to adapt and survive to its environment that are kept. Am I on the right track.

stevevw said:

Can someone help me understand natural selection. Say we have a fish for example that will eventually become a land creature. I think Tiktaalik is the one that is most famous for this. Now with natural selection this takes a mutation which is basically a copying error and makes changes to the original genetics which then will make a change in shape or ability of the creature. Now only the beneficial mutations are kept on. So if this is the case then that change becomes an adaptation that filters through the group and takes over. But am I right in saying that the mutations that occur are random. Mutations just happen anyway and are copying mistakes but they have no predictive qualities about knowing what ones to keep. Its the mutations that give some sort of benefit and advantage that allows a creature to adapt and survive to its environment that are kept. Am I on the right track.

Click to expand...

Yes, looks broadly correct to me, if a little garbled.

Mutations are sometime beneficial but often are not and happen when cells divide and the DNA isn't copied perfectly. 99% of the time these mistakes are picked at and the DNA is corrected or the cell dies. However, occasionally they aren't. These mutation can be harmful (that's basically what most cancers are - copy errors).

Sometimes these mutation are not harmful. This might result in the organism having a slightly different feature to others in the species (eg. can run slightly faster, is a slightly different colour etc) which will make it more likely that it will survive and reproduce passing its DNA on. Over time this can result in members of the species with that slight advantage outcompeting the others. Eventually all of the species will have the adaptation. That's evolution. If there are changes to the environment of a species (eg temperature, new predetors, lack of food) and the species cannot adapt, it will go extinct (like the thousands of species that went extinct after the asteroid impact 65 MYA). 99%+ of all species that have ever existed are now extinct, which is a somewhat sobering thought!

.

Smidlee said:

You google source states that evolution " Change must be genetic". This proves my point since many now know there a lot more than genetics changes. There is still much to learn about developmental biology but they do know it's requires more than a few genetics changes here and there to make major changes in body plans.

Click to expand...

In each generation the change is small. But lots of small changes in each generation over many generations leads to big changes.

Simple.

You don't even realize the Precambrian layer itself falsify evolution.

Click to expand...

How so? Please show a valid scientific source for this (not some creationist propaganda).

Again the Precambrian it evidence against ToE. I'm amazed how evolutionist try to use that which totally contradicts the theory and try to use it as evidence. There is no such thing as co-evolution.

Click to expand...

Again, you can make the claim as much as you want, but without supporting evidence the claim is not going to be very convincing. Please provide evidence to support this claim.

I don't believe at all evolution explains all life we see. It's a fairy tale for adults with thin shell of facts around it.

Click to expand...

Yes, you are entitled to your opinion. But it is an opinion which the majority of biologists disagree with. COnsidering that they are far more experienced and skilled in this particular area than you are, you'll forgive me if I take their word over yours.

stevevw said:

The only problem the similarities and as has been the case more and more no with the genetics it doesn't match the nice neat tree of common decent.

Click to expand...

Where does it say the tree must be nice and neat? And why does it NOT being neat falsify it?

There are creatures that are distant on the tree which share similar genetics and there are creature who are suppose to be linked on the tree with many difference.

Click to expand...

And where does it say this is a problem? Genes can evolve in similar ways.

And as it has been said there are to many of these occurrences now to put it down to convergent evolution. Its more like the tree is a hedge indicating many roots being taken up.

Click to expand...

If it was the result of life arising several times instead of once, why would different life forms then have similar genes? You said it yourself that distantly related life forms can have similar genes.

This is more in line with single creation of many different kinds and them growing parallel and having a small amount of evolution then all creatures being traced back to a common ancestor.

Click to expand...

The fact that all life on earth uses the same building blocks and the same set of genetic "tools" is evidence against it.

It is the science that is stating this.

Click to expand...

Increasingly genome similarities in otherwise distant species, and genome differences in otherwise similar species were discovered. And while evolutionists sometimes tried to explain these uncooperative findings, the evolutionary histories they needed to construct became increasingly complex and circuitous. Today these uncooperative findings have become undeniable and in response evolutionists have all but dropped the common descent prediction, replacing it with a lineage-specific model where evolution is constantly creating new genome features, even between nearest neighbors on the evolutionary tree.


Phylogenetic incongruence is rampant in evolutionary studies. Conflicts exist at all levels of the evolutionary tree and throughout both morphological and molecular traits. This paper reports on incongruent gene trees in bats. That is one example of many. These incongruences are caused by just about every kind of contradiction possible. Molecular sequences in one or a few species may be out of place amongst similar species. Or sequences in distant species may be strangely similar. As one paper admitted, there is “no known mechanism or function that would account for this level of conservation at the observed evolutionary distances.” Or as another evolutionist admitted, the many examples of nearly identical molecular sequences of totally unrelated animals are “astonishing.”

The mystery of extreme non-coding conservation | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Click to expand...

This was written by Nathan Harmston, Anja Barešić, and Boris Lenhard, whose qualifications are in medicine, not biology, so they are not qualified as experts in the field. It would be like asking a electrician to fix your leaky tap.

We had expected to find identical changes in maybe a dozen or so genes but to see nearly 200 is incredible. We know natural selection is a potent driver of gene sequence evolution, but identifying so many examples where it produces nearly identical results in the genetic sequences of totally unrelated animals is astonishing.
Genetic similarities between bats and dolphins discovered -- ScienceDaily

Click to expand...

First of all, don't get your science from journalists. If you can, have a look at the original paper.

Secondly, bats and dolphins are both mammals. I'm not surprised to find that they have much in common, why are you? The fact that they have similar ways of performing similar functions isn't that surprising to me.

However, recent studies have demonstrated that adaptive convergent sequence evolution can be detected in vertebrates using statistical methods that model parallel evolution.
In other words not a tree in common decent but a hedge.
Genome-wide signatures of convergent evolution in echolocating mammals : Nature : Nature Publishing Group

Click to expand...

Perhaps you missed the bit in this where they explain it?

However, similar traits might also evolve convergently in unrelated taxa owing to similar selection pressures.​

Darwin's Tree of Life May Be More Like a Thicket
Darwin's Tree of Life May Be More Like a Thicket

Click to expand...

Why is this a problem?

In recent years, evolutionary biologists have increasingly used DNA sequences to construct evolutionary trees. Researchers find transposons particularly suitable for this endeavor. When evolutionary biologists propose evolutionary relationships, they rely on the principle that organisms with shared DNA sequences arise from a common ancestor. But other mechanisms exist that can introduce the identical DNA sequences. Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is one.


In other words gene are passed sideways and not down as would be with common decent and common ancestors. This also explains why we see similarities in distant creatures on the traditional tree and differences in creatures that are suppose to be closely related.
Reasons To Believe : Lost in a Masquerade: Horizontal Gene Transfer Impersonates Common Ancestry

Click to expand...

Firstly, you make it sound like this completely eliminates vertical gene transfer (which is sexual or asexual reproduction). This is not the case.

Secondly, what I have read suggests that it is more important in smaller single celled lifeforms rather than larger core complex creatures. Can you show me that this is a significant form of new genetic information in mice, for example? Or any other large complex creature?

Thirdly, this is well known to scientists and does not invalidate evolutionary theory.

Tina W said:

No, you convinced yourself of that when you chose not to believe what God told us when He said He created Adam & Eve from the ground. When you choose not to believe God, then you have to find another source of where we came from and force it to fit into your reasoning. That's not God's doing.

Click to expand...

Um, that's not how science works. Looking at the evidence and following that evidence to the most parsimonious conclusion is not what you are talking about here. And there is a wealth of evidence supporting evolution. And many people who accept evolution are scientists who study it. Your claims do not seem to be applicable to reality.

florida2 said:

Yes, looks broadly correct to me, if a little garbled.

Mutations are sometime beneficial but often are not and happen when cells divide and the DNA isn't copied perfectly. 99% of the time these mistakes are picked at and the DNA is corrected or the cell dies. However, occasionally they aren't. These mutation can be harmful (that's basically what most cancers are - copy errors).

Sometimes these mutation are not harmful. This might result in the organism having a slightly different feature to others in the species (eg. can run slightly faster, is a slightly different colour etc) which will make it more likely that it will survive and reproduce passing its DNA on. Over time this can result in members of the species with that slight advantage outcompeting the others. Eventually all of the species will have the adaptation. That's evolution. If there are changes to the environment of a species (eg temperature, new predetors, lack of food) and the species cannot adapt, it will go extinct (like the thousands of species that went extinct after the asteroid impact 65 MYA). 99%+ of all species that have ever existed are now extinct, which is a somewhat sobering thought!

Click to expand...

So my next question is if we have a big change say wings from limbs do the changes needed come in small stages. How do those small changes remain if they are not beneficial.

If so does each small stage know what it is aiming for so that it remains and builds up to the major change it ends up with such as a complete set of wings.

KTS said:

In each generation the change is small. But lots of small changes in each generation over many generations leads to big changes.

Simple.

Click to expand...

That sounds simple but it is not. It isn't even a fact. It's a very large
assumption that people think is fact. What Stevevw and these other
people are saying is right on the money.

You would need more than billions of years for any major body plan
change in ONE creature group. The majority of changes we see are
actually loss of characteristics, not a gain. The majority of mutations are bad mutations.

stevevw said:

So my next question is if we have a big change say wings from limbs do the changes needed come in small stages. How do those small changes remain if they are not beneficial.

Click to expand...

Wings would have likely evolved from limbs. If you want the specifics I'm sure you can google it.

stevevw said:

If so does each small stage know what it is aiming for so that it remains and builds up to the major change it ends up with such as a complete set of wings.

Click to expand...

No, evolution has no aims. It just happens. There is no goal of evolution. To talk of a 'complete' set of wings doesn't really make sense. In effect, nothing is ever complete - everything is always evolving, there's no end point where a species stops evolving.

katikookie wrote:

I'm pretty new to the whole subject, and while I believe in young earth creation, I was wondering if there was actual evidence or proof of it. Any links to articles would be appreciated!

Click to expand...

Welcome to CF, and to the discussion of our origins!

From a Christian standpoint, don't be fooled by those trying to say that you have to have one or another origin belief to be Christian. A Christian need only believe that God did it - regardless of whether God used evolution over millions of years or instantly.

Also - all links are not equal. Some rely on evidence, others just say things that could be false. That goes for any subject, not just our origins.

I know there are a lot of creationists out there, with websites and preachers decrying evolution as the spawn of the pit of hell.

However, there are also millions of Christians who see evolution as perfectly compatible with Christianity (see BioLogos: Science and faith in harmony) . Indeed, the majority of Evolution supporters in the united states are Christians. Similarly, the work of discovering evolution has mostly been done by scientists (of many fields) who are Christian.

I'm sure you've heard many other Christians say that evolution is evil for a long time. However, please take the time to look into both sides with an open mind.

One place to start with examining the evidence for evolution is at TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy. There are plenty of others - including any high-school or college level biology class.

Important things to realize (and check these out, don't just take my word for it) are:

• Practically all scientists support evolution, and have for decades. It's simply not a controversy. While there is disagreement about minor points (such as whether ambulocetus was 70% vs. 80% aquatic), the basics are agreed upon.

• The evidence for evolution includes all kinds of stuff, not just fossils. DNA tests alone would be enough to prove evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt, even if there were no fossils. Others are phylogeny, biogeography, ontogeny, pathology, agriculture, and many others.

• There are tons of excellent series of clearly transitional fossils. The horse, whale, mammal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile and many others series are so clear that creationists generally just avoid them, and don't deny that they are clear.

• Creationists don't agree on their basics. You can see this from OEC websites. Those creationists say the earth is billions (>2,000,000,000) of years old, while most creationists say it is about 6,000 years old.

• Geologists (including thousands of Christians) worldwide overwhelmingly reject the idea of a young earth and a global flood, based on evidence. They have agreed on this for over 150 years, deciding this long before Darwin published his book.

• Creationists rely almost solely on a handful of deceptive tactics. These include moving the goalposts, being evasive/misleading (AiG does that alot), quote mining (which you’ve no doubt seen – google it), ignoring/hiding evidence (very common), and less often, outright fraud. Creationism makes Christians look like liars.

• The majority of Christians worldwide are in churches that accept evolution.

The bottom line is that evolution & common descent are as firmly proven as the existence of the Civil War, and the harder fundamentalists fight against it, the more damage they will do to Christianity, by making people think the Christianity is deception. Creationism is as well supported as is believing that the earth is flat.


Take your time. There is no time limit to decide on evolution, and it will take time to test all of the statements above.

In Christ-

Papias

KTS said:

In each generation the change is small. But lots of small changes in each generation over many generations leads to big changes.

Simple.

Click to expand...

Developmental biologist already know this isn't true. In early development everything is so interconnected that you have to made a lot of changes at once.

Yes, you are entitled to your opinion. But it is an opinion which the majority of biologists disagree with. COnsidering that they are far more experienced and skilled in this particular area than you are, you'll forgive me if I take their word over yours.

Click to expand...

Biologists opinion (speculations) doesn't automatically prove mine wrong. Man loves laws and regulations so he tries to force life into his little box.

If evolutionist uses speculates to fill in all those missing fossils for evolution to be true then someone else can speculate rabbits were around during the Precambrian layer and prove it false.
You claim others doesn't understand evolution yet you don't know the Precambrian layers doesn't support evolution which was known in Darwin's day.

Papias said:

katikookie wrote:

Welcome to CF, and to the discussion of our origins!

From a Christian standpoint, don't be fooled by those trying to say that you have to have one or another origin belief to be Christian. A Christian need only believe that God did it - regardless of whether God used evolution over millions of years or instantly.

Also - all links are not equal. Some rely on evidence, others just say things that could be false. That goes for any subject, not just our origins.

I know there are a lot of creationists out there, with websites and preachers decrying evolution as the spawn of the pit of hell.

However, there are also millions of Christians who see evolution as perfectly compatible with Christianity (see BioLogos: Science and faith in harmony) . Indeed, the majority of Evolution supporters in the united states are Christians. Similarly, the work of discovering evolution has mostly been done by scientists (of many fields) who are Christian.

I'm sure you've heard many other Christians say that evolution is evil for a long time. However, please take the time to look into both sides with an open mind.

One place to start with examining the evidence for evolution is at TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy. There are plenty of others - including any high-school or college level biology class.

Important things to realize (and check these out, don't just take my word for it) are:

• Practically all scientists support evolution, and have for decades. It's simply not a controversy. While there is disagreement about minor points (such as whether ambulocetus was 70% vs. 80% aquatic), the basics are agreed upon.

• The evidence for evolution includes all kinds of stuff, not just fossils. DNA tests alone would be enough to prove evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt, even if there were no fossils. Others are phylogeny, biogeography, ontogeny, pathology, agriculture, and many others.

• There are tons of excellent series of clearly transitional fossils. The horse, whale, mammal, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile and many others series are so clear that creationists generally just avoid them, and don't deny that they are clear.

• Creationists don't agree on their basics. You can see this from OEC websites. Those creationists say the earth is billions (>2,000,000,000) of years old, while most creationists say it is about 6,000 years old.

• Geologists (including thousands of Christians) worldwide overwhelmingly reject the idea of a young earth and a global flood, based on evidence. They have agreed on this for over 150 years, deciding this long before Darwin published his book.

• Creationists rely almost solely on a handful of deceptive tactics. These include moving the goalposts, being evasive/misleading (AiG does that alot), quote mining (which you’ve no doubt seen – google it), ignoring/hiding evidence (very common), and less often, outright fraud. Creationism makes Christians look like liars.

• The majority of Christians worldwide are in churches that accept evolution.

The bottom line is that evolution & common descent are as firmly proven as the existence of the Civil War, and the harder fundamentalists fight against it, the more damage they will do to Christianity, by making people think the Christianity is deception. Creationism is as well supported as is believing that the earth is flat.


Take your time. There is no time limit to decide on evolution, and it will take time to test all of the statements above.

In Christ-

Papias

Click to expand...

There are certain aspects to evolution theory that are true and are
compatible with creation. Then there is a lot that isn't true and is
mere speculation that is touted as true.

The same with common descent.

EternalDragon said:

There are certain aspects to evolution theory that are true and are
compatible with creation. Then there is a lot that isn't true and is
mere speculation that is touted as true.

The same with common descent.

Click to expand...

They try to cover up their speculations with a thin layer of facts. As long as people doesn't looked too deeply, which most don't, they know they can fool them in accepting their speculations as well.

florida2 said:

Wings would have likely evolved from limbs. If you want the specifics I'm sure you can google it.



No, evolution has no aims. It just happens. There is no goal of evolution. To talk of a 'complete' set of wings doesn't really make sense. In effect, nothing is ever complete - everything is always evolving, there's no end point where a species stops evolving.

Click to expand...

To me wings are complete when a creature can use them to fly. Thats what I can never understand. All the steps that would lead to wings whatever they maybe have to be things that go into making wings. Otherwise the stages will go off in some other direction. So whether the winds start off as little fluffy bits that begin to replace the hair follicles. Or the limb becomes wider and flatter I dont know. But I cant see how those in between stages are beneficial and I can see those in between stages in the fossil records or even in the animal kingdom we have now. They al look like fully developed creature. If you times this by all the changes needed for all the animals ever and now there would be millions of in between stages. Its like what Darwin himself said in that there was a lack of transitional stages and creatures seems so well defined.

You have to remember as you said that the mutations dont know what is needed. Its a blind process so there are almost unlimited shapes, features and other various changes like to internal systems that can occur. That includes all the possible changes that may not have been beneficial that died out and were left in the ground. There would be millions of different shapes and transitions. I know people always point out things like say a penguin as having part wings. But if they are on their way to wings then they wont need to be wings anymore because they have found a use in what they are being used for now. So those can never be used as an example of becoming wings because things would stop there. Besides if all creatures do this then we would have as many creatures if not more who have these half formed wings or legs or find or any feature as we would complete. Not just a few examples like the penguin or emu or the very other few creatures that are presented.

The thing is many of the creatures we see today like all the Crustaceans , insects, many plants, flamingos, sandpipers, penguins, cormorants, parrots, owls and many other creatures living today, including numerous types of mammals, reptiles, amphibians and arthropods are found in supposedly 65-plus-million-year-old rock layers, when dinosaurs and other “pre-historic” beasts once roamed the earth? - See more at: http://www.creationstudies.org/Education/living_fossils.html#sthash.xVyHgWS8.dpuf

There were also bigger versions of many of these creatures which look very much the same except bigger. But you dont get shown many of these things by evolutionists. Plus how do you explain the many paintings and figures from ancient art of dinosaurs. The bible mentions the big creatures like dinos. The book of job chapter 40 states that a monstrous animal "Behemoth" that has a tail like a cedar tree
http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/dinohistory.htm

Smidlee said:

They try to cover up their speculations with a thin layer of facts. As long as people doesn't looked too deeply, which most don't, they know they can fool them in accepting their speculations as well.

Click to expand...

Really? So you think those who accept evolution meet in dark rooms rubbing their hands with glee cackling 'Ha ha! We fooled them again!'

If you can disprove evolution, please go and collect your Nobel Prize.

florida2 said:

Really? So you think those who accept evolution meet in dark rooms rubbing their hands with glee cackling 'Ha ha! We fooled them again!'

If you can disprove evolution, please go and collect your Nobel Prize.

Click to expand...

I think it would be more like disproving common descent. Evolution,
that is change in species, is pretty much proven. We've done that in
dog breeds.

EternalDragon said:

I think it would be more like disproving common descent. Evolution,
that is change in species, is pretty much proven. We've done that in
dog breeds.

Click to expand...

We don't just get change in species, we get change outside. Speciation happens.