The best evidence for Creationism

[HitchSlap]

Why is there a fossil record all over the world?

Source?

 

[Inan3]

Really? Because just plugging "culex pipiens speciation" into Google scholar provided a bunch of hits including this abstract from 1999?
Heredity - Abstract of article: Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations

That's right. That's all you have to do. That's all most people ever do and most any of you ever do and yet, you believe it is rock solid evidence.

That's a newsgroup posting. Who posted the message and was there any response to it?

Well, Sherlock you'll have to investigate that for yourself.

 

[Elendur]

This is really quite laughable. It's funny how convenient it is to not HAVE to see things on the side you WANT to believe in but you HAVE to see things on the side you don't want to believe in. That's okay, of course, that's your right as a human being.

It's not that I have to, or not have to, see things or not. I trust the peer review method because I can't think of something better to try to gain an objective perspective of how the universe works. The creationist way isn't appealing because I haven't seen one argument that have made sense.

Also, honestly, I think the natural world is too complex, I prefer the simpler mathematical models.

Edit: If someone thinks that I have made a critical mistake in my logic for my personal choice, please tell me about what it is and why,

 

[Elendur]

Maybe not 'cause this is what I got

Oops! Google Chrome could not find www.hereisalinkforyou.com

Try again!!

Ok, maybe this link is better?
http://www.thatpreviouslinkwasajoke.com/

 

[Inan3]

Yeah, we do. We have wolves evolving into chihuahuas, as one example. Great Danes and chihuahuas share a common ancestor and now they are no longer able to interbreed because of the forms they have evolved.

Well, aren't they all still canids? And did they become better or worse?

 

[Inan3]

Ok, maybe this link is better?
http://www.thatpreviouslinkwasajoke.com/

Cute Or maybe this one

Http://www.Iwontfallforthatagain.com

 

[Elendur]

Cute Or maybe this one

Http://www.Iwontfallforthatagain.com

(Hope you got a laugh if you didn't, sorry)

 

[Inan3]

It's not that I have to, or not have to, see things or not. I trust the peer review method because I can't think of something better to try to gain an objective perspective of how the universe works. The creationist way isn't appealing because I haven't seen one argument that have made sense.

Also, honestly, I think the natural world is too complex, I prefer the simpler mathematical models.

Edit: If someone thinks that I have made a critical mistake in my logic for my personal choice, please tell me about what it is and why,

Well, I guess that would depend upon why you think that peer review gives a better method.

 

[Inan3]

(Hope you got a laugh if you didn't, sorry)

Yes, I did get a laugh out of it. And I thought it was quite innovative, also.

 

[CabVet]

Well, aren't they all still canids? And did they become better or worse?

They became adapted to their new environment: people's houses and farms. Evolution does not make anything better or worse, it makes everything adapted.

And yes, they are still canids, but if somehow evolution managed to turn them into cats you would be asking if they were still mammals, if they were turned into plants, you would be asking if they were still "life", so why ask if you move the goal post for every answer you get?

 

[Inan3]

Do you realize that scientists have yet to see a supernatural deity create life in the lab, or any evidence whatsoever for a deity?.

Neither have they seen nor can they see in the lab one species evolving from one form to another and yet they believe in it.

Yeah, we do. We have wolves evolving into chihuahuas, as one example. Great Danes and chihuahuas share a common ancestor and now they are no longer able to interbreed because of the forms they have evolved.

BTW LM you never did see the transition happen "in the lab" as I said. As to the evidence of a deity, I told you there is plenty of evidence, in peoples lives all over the world and it's been happening for thousands of years. Just because there are no scientific peer reviews does not mean there is no evidence. Peer review does not determine evidence it only writes about it.

 

[Inan3]

They became adapted to their new environment: people's houses and farms. Evolution does not make anything better or worse, it makes everything adapted.

And yes, they are still canids, but if somehow evolution managed to turn them into cats you would be asking if they were still mammals, if they were turned into plants, you would be asking if they were still "life", so why ask if you move the goal post for every answer you get?

Well, I wouldn't say that Great Dane is adapted to that Chihuahua LM was talking about.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

BTW LM you never did see the transition happen "in the lab" as I said. As to the evidence of a deity, I told you there is plenty of evidence, in peoples lives all over the world and it's been happening for thousands of years. Just because there are no scientific peer reviews does not mean there is no evidence. Peer review does not determine evidence it only writes about it.

Perhaps, but ultimately "in peoples lives the world over" doesn't constitute evidence. It's anecdote, and poor anecdote at that.

 

[Inan3]

That explanation only works if you start with the premise that a god exists.

Well, that's the best place to start, Nails!! How you doing?

 

[CabVet]

BTW LM you never did see the transition happen "in the lab" as I said. As to the evidence of a deity, I told you there is plenty of evidence, in peoples lives all over the world and it's been happening for thousands of years. Just because there are no scientific peer reviews does not mean there is no evidence. Peer review does not determine evidence it only writes about it.

I really don't see the point of this discussion if you are not open to change your mind. Most hard-core creationists I know will tell me that if they could witness evolution themselves in a time machine they would still not believe it, so why question the evidence (or ask for any) when no amount of evidence will change your mind?

In other words, would you believe in evolution if we saw the transition happening "in the lab"? If your answer was no, you shouldn't ask for evidence of such transition.

There will never be evidence for God. God is a supernatural entity, the minute we find evidence for him, he will be natural and no faith to believe him will be needed, defeating the purpose of religion.

 

[Elendur]

Well, I guess that would depend upon why you think that peer review gives a better method.

Hmm... Honestly, that's a really hard question (if I were to interpret it as such).
Peer review vs creationism... I would say that two of peer reviews strong points is that it uses the curiosity and competitiveness in people to produce objective reports, and interpretations, of evidence. An additional point is that it helps weed out less important data, forged and similiar.

I don't know what creationism might have as a strong point, it might be because I haven't explored it enough but its main arguments (main arguments as in arguments I've often seen) aren't enough convincing for me to see it as something important.

I try to be as open as I can to as many people and opinions as possible, but it's hard work. If it gets to hard I often have to declare myself an observer, and not a participant, in the argument.

Yes, I did get a laugh out of it. And I thought it was quite innovative, also.

Great (as for the innovation, it's all thanks to an unhealthy consumation of internet )

 

[Inan3]

Perhaps, but ultimately "in peoples lives the world over" doesn't constitute evidence. It's anecdote, and poor anecdote at that.

Not really, WC. It's as much real evidence as our DNA. It's just a different part of us. It's not the physical nor the emotional nor the intellectual,... it's the spiritual!! And when the spiritual is changed it effects all the rest.... and more.

 

[Inan3]

Hmm... Honestly, that's a really hard question (if I were to interpret it as such).
Peer review vs creationism... I would say that two of peer reviews strong points is that it uses the curiosity and competitiveness in people to produce objective reports, and interpretations, of evidence. An additional point is that it helps weed out less important data, forged and similiar.

I don't know what creationism might have as a strong point, it might be because I haven't explored it enough but its main arguments (main arguments as in arguments I've often seen) aren't enough convincing for me to see it as something important.

Well, I can actually agree with you here. I believe the reason for this is that creationists are trying to use the scriptures as scientific information rather than what they are ... spiritual information... which I believe is much HIGHER than scientific information or rationalism. The spiritual realm is a much more profound realm than the natural (which is profound in itself) but the spiritual is where God abides and no one will ever be able to observe God by natural means. The natural is just too limiting.

I try to be as open as I can to as many people and opinions as possible, but it's hard work. If it gets to hard I often have to declare myself an observer, and not a participant, in the argument.

I know what you are saying, I feel that way about science. It is an area that I am just not educated in. Not that I want to be because it's not where God wants me. My place is to bring the spiritual to people and give them the opportunity to get involved or not. I'm not going to do that by arguing about science. In my opinion science is too diverse and in that diversity it keeps any of us from knowing all the truth about everything. It's just too vast and overwhelming. Too many chef's in the kitchen so to speak.

Great (as for the innovation, it's all thanks to an unhealthy consumation of internet )

I relate again and try very hard to keep that in check, also.

 

[Inan3]

I really don't see the point of this discussion if you are not open to change your mind. Most hard-core creationists I know will tell me that if they could witness evolution themselves in a time machine they would still not believe it, so why question the evidence (or ask for any) when no amount of evidence will change your mind?

In other words, would you believe in evolution if we saw the transition happening "in the lab"? If your answer was no, you shouldn't ask for evidence of such transition.

There will never be evidence for God. God is a supernatural entity, the minute we find evidence for him, he will be natural and no faith to believe him will be needed, defeating the purpose of religion.

You know CabVet, I have learned a lot about science on this forum that I never knew before. I have found some of you guys to be WAY above me intellectually and that's okay with me. I've learned a little about evolution but I certainly do not have a handle on what it actually means and is. As a matter of fact even you guys on here don't always explain it the same way. I think some people on here really have a handle on it and then others just sort of "think" they do. I hesitate to agree with evolution because I really don't know what it is. When it comes to domestic dogs coming from wolves, I'm okay with that but when they try to tell me that the reason a giraffe has a long neck is because it wanted to reach the leaves high on a tree, I can't go along with that. That defies reason. I want to know why no other animals wanted the leaves high up on the tree and grew their necks as long, also. Some of the stories and theories just don't jive with me. BUT the major thing I CANNOT accept is that man came from a common ancestor of anything else than the creation of Adam the first man. I could even believe that the apes and monkeys deteriorated from man and became what they are today before I can believe that we came from anything other than what the scriptures say about the creation of man. I may not see the scriptures like every other creationist but I do believe God created man in His image and likeness and gave him dominion over the earth and the creatures therein. That will never change whether I see a transition before my eyes or not. As a matter of fact if I did see that transition right before my eyes I would think it was God because I think God is the only One who can do that. I know you might not be able to see that but for sure that will never change in my life. I know God and I believe Him. No one can convince me that God doesn't exist. I would believe first that the evidence was flawed before I believed that God was not a real and viable and Supreme entity in this universe....creating all and ruling over all.

 

[AECellini]

but when they try to tell me that the reason a giraffe has a long neck is because it wanted to reach the leaves high on a tree, I can't go along with that. That defies reason. I want to know why no other animals wanted the leaves high up on the tree and grew their necks as long, also.

you're correct in assuming that defies reason. however, you will find no one who says "the giraffe wanted the long neck, so he go it." there are two origin hypotheses that i know of. one being the mutation bearing the long neck was beneficial for reaching food on tall trees. this hypothesis has been contested since its proposal. there is also evidence pointing toward long necks in males being a sexual characteristic of "good genes." female giraffe necks stop growing during adolescence where as male necks continue into adulthood. the thicker and longer a neck is, the more likely he will win in contest against another male for a mate.