What proof would you need?

[FrenchyBearpaw]

The bible is a spiritual guide.

Please define "spiritual."

 

[Orogeny]

I already have, and it appears you would not know what observed evidence looks like any more.

Please quote the post where you've provided positive supporting evidence for creationism.

Fact: your researchers are unable to produce a living cell under lab conditions which is even more unlikely to occur in nature. This demonstrates that for now the creation of life remains with the Gods because you lot cannot make it.

This is not a positive evidence for creationism, it is simply 'god of the gaps.' If that's the god you'd like to play with, fine, but he's shrinking on the daily. You're 0 for 1.

Fact: A living cell is a factory and there is no such thing as a primitive cell and you lot have never observed one. It is a myth derived to facilitate an outlandish idea that a factory can assemble itself. Even bacteria is a complex factory that could not have evolved. A factory requiring all its parts to live and replicate.

Argument from incredulity, which is not a positive evidence for creationism. 0 for 2.

Fact: A creature cannot design itself a placenta while facilitating biological change in mum.

What? Please be more clear.

This is proof that mammal kinds were created and could not evolve.

If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is 'It must not be evolution, therefor God.'

Do you understand the difference between positive and negative evidences? Do you understand that invoking a negative evidence against one particular theory (which is all you've done so far) is not the same as providing positive evidence for an opposing theory?

The change is simply hand waved away by evolutionists without any demonstration as to how a placenta may have 'evolved'

Provide evidence that it was created, rather than just saying 'NUH-UH EVOLUTION!' You're 0 for 3 so far. Not a good record.

Fact: Your fossil evidence does not demonstrate gradual change. The fossil evidence supports punctuated equilibrium even for evolutionists.

That's right; as selective pressures change, populations adapt as quickly as possible to accommodate those changes. This is actually supportive of evolutionary theory.

Hence totally different kinds are misrepresented as ancestors. Eg Indohyus is a variety of mouse deer and looks the same as pakecetus. The skeleton of Ambulocetus natans looks more like a crocodile that has been misrepresented in sketch to suit. You may believe Natans is an intermediate if you wish. However, to me, if a fossil looks more like a croc than a whale or deer I am more likely to say it is a crocodile.

At best this speaks to our continued study of vertebrate lineages. In no way is it a positive evidence fore creationism.

You are going to invent some new species and call that an intermediate. Evos have no wish to validate the existence of similar species alive today as that does not attract news headlines or get research grants. Then you have Kutch that resembles a variety of croc also. Then you have a skinny popoise, dophins and whales as intermediates.

If it swims it must be a fish, right?

I'm glad to hear that you're an expert in vertebrate paleontology. Where did you get your degree, and can you provide citations for the studies you've participated in? In your expert opinion, you would classify dolphins as a type of shark rather than a mammal, right? After all, they do look so much more like sharks than they do humans. And kangaroos are insects because they jump around like grasshoppers? Or is it that grasshoppers are mammals because they jump around like kangaroos?

Biology is easy when you do it your way!

0 for 4.

The fossil evidence supports the sudden appearance of kinds that vary greatly, some of which are simply versions of the same kind eg Pakecetus and Indohyus are early deer.

Define 'kind'.

Fact: I can produce evidence of a universe centred earth demonstrating a remarkable of which there is no other that does not rely on the mystery of dark energy and dark matter.

If I had any idea what this jumbled mass of incoherent text meant, I would respond to it.

This is evidence earth is special and supports the creationist paradigm that the earth was created for special purpose. You can produce mysteries.

Oh my, and we've come the the crux of the issue: Creationists need to feel special or they get SO SAD. As SkyWriting so generously posted, the earth isn't in the center of the universe, it simply APPEARS to be in the center of the universe. Here is his link, read through it carefully: Exploratorium: Hubble: Where is the center of the Universe?

0 for 5. If this were rugby league and you missed 5 goals in a row, you would be riding the pine.

Fact: Mankind and chimpanzee have huge genomic differences.

Differences that are smaller than their differences to other species, making humans and chimps each others' nearest relatives. You and your mom have 'huge' genetic differences as well, but you're still related, aren't you?

The Y chromosome alone demonstrates this remarkable difference. Genome size difference of 10%, differences in surface composition, different hot spots. More differences are being found as research goes on even with biased algorithms. This alone is ample evidence to support the assertion Mankind and chimps are not related by a common ancestor.

Even if this assertion were true, it still wouldn't be a positive evidence for creationism. What is it now, you're 0 for 6 I think.

Then there is all the creationist research out there that is too numerous to fit into a thread space and is mostly based on observed evidence.

Does any of it actually provide POSITIVE EVIDENCE FOR CREATIONISM? Or does it simply try to cast doubt on evolution, as you've tried? Have you figured out yet why this isn't the same as providing supportive evidence for creationism?

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Life Sciences

Not one bit of positive evidence in these pages, just 'evidence' meant to cast doubt on evolution. This is not the same as supporting creationism. 0 for 7.

ETA: I looked through this website some more-- this part is HILARIOUS: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Limestone.html

Evidence from Science

If you would like me to respond to a particular argument on this website, post it. I'm not clicking through your links for you.

The bible is the word of God and says God created all life and the bible has plenty of scientific veracity and knowledge before your researchers knew of it. Why would one disbelieve anything the bible has to say based on what you have to offer or rather the lack of it. To discredit Genesis is to pick and choose ones beliefs.

Aaaand the fallback! Once the 'evidence' for creationism is exhausted, cite the Bible. The bible has exactly nothing to do with science, astrid, and science has nothing to do with the bible. Stop trying to mix the two.

So I started by answering the thread topic. None of you have addressed what it would take to convert me, which is evolutionary stability rather than never ending change in all aspects other than "it all evolved because we said so"..

So in order to convert you, science would have to no longer be science. That's reasonable.

The other possible thing that may lead to a reconsideration is if there was a recant of some of the seriously non plaubible scenarios proffered, such as human feet on curved fingered apes, dinosaurs with modern bird feet, and calling a variety of mouse deer an early whale.

Glad to see you know more about biology and archaeology than the biologists and archaeologists. Boy you must be one smart cookie.

You also cannot tell me how to weigh up all data. There are many well credentialed creationist scientists, eg John Sanford with peer reviewed papers, that also feel likewise so the lay creationists here are not alone.

No, I can't tell you how to 'weigh up all the data', but I can tell you that you're doing it wrong. I certainly can't stop you from continuing. And lets not bring up numbers here; the Steve Project will just make you feel bad.

The fact that you may not like what I have to say is inconsequential as facts will always be facts.

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes I agree. These are facts. This is what is observed. Big Bang is not necessarily anti biblical. However, if we are at the centre of the universe and the only planet to have intelligent life forms, which the observed facts supports, then this goes a long way in supporting earth being created for special purpose.

Nor is the big bang real. It's just a made up term created to encompass whatever facts we find lying around. Note that the entire idea needed to be scrapped when the numbers didn't add up, until dark matter and energy were dreamed up. Someday people will hold their hand up and have a better understanding about why 96% of ones hand does not interact with our reality. Well....a little I guess.
http://www.amazon.com/Percent-Universe-Matter-Discover-Reality/dp/0618982442

 

[SkyWriting]

Please define "spiritual."

112 uses of the word for your pleasure:
Bible and Library Search: spiritual

 

[SkyWriting]

I know how much you guys rely on the written word, but science is not dependent on written history.

I wonder if the Science we know today is built on this afternoon's experimental results, or next weeks results or on historical records?

Outside of being a complete slave to it, (#4 below)
science has nothing to say about human history.
History is a completely different field.
Science can only predict future outcomes.
7&8 Below

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

112 uses of the word for your pleasure:
Bible and Library Search: spiritual

I'm aware how the word is used. Can you provide a definition of "spiritual"?

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm aware how the word is used. Can you provide a definition of "spiritual"?

That is how we define words. By their usage.

Originally Posted by SkyWriting
112 uses of the word for your pleasure:
Bible and Library Search: spiritual

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

That is how we define words. By their usage.

Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to provide a defintion here:

 

[Split Rock]

Well Split Rock if you have never heard a good explanation about this you must not get around much. This is easy.

These ranks you speak to are thought up by naturalists on the basis of common descent.

Wrong again. The ranks were created by Carl Linnaeus, who knew nothing at all about common descent.

In fact, as you should know, there is huge controversy relating to taxonomic rankings. There is no longer tree of life, but a bush of life. Scientists now are having a preference for using cladistics.

Yes, this has been known for a long time now. There is no controversy about it being more like a bush. Yes, clatistics is being used more often now, as the original system did not take common descent into account. This goes back to you being wrong in the first part of your post.

So even though evolutionists speak to this taxonomy like as if it is clear cut and obvious, this is actually not the case. The taxonomic system is really in a mess. I have plenty of this kind of info that demonstrates the mess it is in. Once we peer into the sub family or family ranks we see a plethora of various kinds thrown together. Most of these named species are created from a chard of bone or tooth.

No one said taxonomy was clear cut and obvious. In fact, if you guys were correct about "kinds," it would be clear cut and obvious, Funny that.

The bible states the earth was without life at its creation. This agrees with evolutionists. I cannot see your problem.

My problem with what?

The bible also speaks to staged creation before Darwin thought of it. That's the 6 creative days, be they literal or not.

No, Darwin never said anything about a "staged creation."

The bible speaks to the fish of the sea being the first creation of animal life. This has been verified by the fossil record. Of course the best point being that the bible writers new this before evolutionists did. The same for the circle of the earth. The same for the moon being created after the earth. The same for the systems of the earth. It has not mentioned many sea creatures but generally sea creatures appear to be the first animal creation. Given the vocabulary of the day I think the bible writers have done a great job in putting inspired thoughts into writing just as a secretary writes for her boss, the work still being the work of the boss..

They also have the sun created after plants. Cherry pick all you like, the biblical account is not historically accurate, and frankly was never intended to be historically accurate.

Flying creatures came next. Birds are small and unlikely to have fossils survive long periods. Yet modern bird foot prints have been dated to 212mya. This placed birds half way back to the Devonian. So this find is welcomed by biblical creationists but again throws your lineages into disarray and requires convoluted and mostly non plausible explanations to realign into the common ancestry thing. God has not given all the knowledge about ecosystems. However the Isrealites were told to wash hands and therefore knowledge of bacteria is indicated.

Still repeating the "modern bird print" falsehood, are you? I guess you're not afraid of hell, unlike most Christians.

The bible is a spiritual guide. It was never meant to be an exhaustive science book. However, whenever the bible speaks to a scientific fact it has been proven to be accurate many times with knowledge known well before modern science.

The first part is correct and you guys should stick with that. Leave science to scientists.

I seriously have no basis to disbelieve any of the bible that does not appear to align with naturalists at present, as I beleive the book was generally protected by Divine intervention in that it has not been allowed to loose its basic meanings and assertions throughout the ages.

You have no basis because believing so makes you feel superior.

 

[SkyWriting]

Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to provide a defintion here:

Go hire a tutor. Take a class. Open a book. -yawn-

 

[SkyWriting]

...They also have the sun created after plants. Cherry pick all you like, the biblical account is not historically accurate, and frankly was never intended to be historically accurate....

Interesting theory.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Go hire a tutor. Take a class. Open a book. -yawn-

I only ask because "spirituality" is such a vague and ambiguous term used to describe that which can't be substantiated, that is to say, nonsense.
So, yawning is what I typically do when people bandy about "spirituality."

 

[cupid dave]

They also have the sun created after plants. Cherry pick all you like, the biblical account is not historically accurate, and frankly was never intended to be historically accurate..

no.. many church people and secular readers misread the word "made" to imply "created."

the sun was created on "day one," (the cosmic formative era), in the beginning, as part of the heavens.

on "day" 4, god made the sun the time keeper of earth days and tears, by assigning the sun authiority over the solar clock.

check the hebrew word for made, and see that it means to assign.

 

[RickG]

What's more, who do any of you evos think you are to tell anyone what they should or should not believe?

I agree, no one should be telling anyone what to believe or not believe with respect to religion. And to be honest, the scientific community has no intention of changing anyones religious beliefs. What the scientific community is concerned about is the misrepresentation of what the theory of evolution and supporting sciences actually state.

 

[AV1611VET]

What the scientific community is concerned about is the misrepresentation of what the theory of evolution and supporting sciences actually state.

I'd be concerned too if I changed as much as science does.

Even scientists can't get things straight -- ever heard of peer review? or voting?

 

[Astridhere]

Wrong again. The ranks were created by Carl Linnaeus, who knew nothing at all about common descent.

You waste your time nit picking re who founded the taxonomic system. The point was your taxonomic systems are in a mess, Hence saying what about mesozoans verterbrates etc is just a demonstration of your lack of up to dat knowledge about the science you purport to defend.
Yes, this has been known for a long time now. There is no controversy about it being more like a bush. Yes, clatistics is being used more often now, as the original system did not take common descent into account. This goes back to you being wrong in the first part of your post.
So what Split Rock. You said no creationists was able to address your silly points. Cladistics is much more in line with Baraminology than Linnaeus. Go figure..you guys are copying creationists yet again.


No one said taxonomy was clear cut and obvious. In fact, if you guys were correct about "kinds," it would be clear cut and obvious, Funny that.

Well then you should not have said this "And you are still a eukaryote, an animal, a vertebrate, a tetrapod, a mammal, a primate and an ape. As I say here frequently, you cannot escape your ancestry." This is based on system that already accepts common descent and then ranks species according to a preconceived idea and have the hide to call this some sort of evidence for evolution. It isn't.
My problem with what?

I don't know you are the one saying creationists cannot explain themelves. Rather the facts, all of them, support creation and require convoluted non pluasible scenarios to turn obvious and plain evidence for creation into an evolutionary mystery. eg we do not need to stick modern bird feet on a dinosaur and evoke convergent evolution or any thing else to explain the data. We are able to take the fact of the find to demonstrate exactly what it is demonstrating that modern birds were around 212mya.

The same goes for for Laetolli footprints. You lot have had to put fully human feet on a 3.5 foot arboreal curved fingered ape, Lucy, that isn't even in the human line anymore. Where as we can simply take them for what they are a demonstration that mankind did not descent from such apes at all and mankind appears in the fossil record with no macroevolution of ape to human feet being demonstrated. Don't forget Ardi is only about 500,000 years older and has ape feet. Ardi is also dethroned as a human ancestor. More mess and huge gaps. Take it or ignore it, ignorance does not make the facts go away.

‘Oldest’ Hominid Footprints Show No Evolution! - Answers in Genesis

Of course dating is another issue based on grasping at straws.

Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed - Answers in Genesis
ACCURATE PREDICTIONS BASED ON THE YOUNG EARTH CREATION MODEL | TASC
Problems with Radiometric and Carbon-14 Dating

No, Darwin never said anything about a "staged creation."
Again nit picking demonstrates desperation. You are not very good at this, are you? The point was whomever thought it up it was after a biblical writer spoke to it.

They also have the sun created after plants. Cherry pick all you like, the biblical account is not historically accurate, and frankly was never intended to be historically accurate.
As I said with so many accurate scientific facts why challenge the few that do not align with a bunch of people out to do their best to prove naturalism. If the earth is the centre of the universe the after glow from the creation may well have been sufficient to nourish plants life until the sun fully formed and took over.

Certianly you would have a hide thicker than a cow to suggest your big bang theory with its nonsense dark matter and dark energy and the conundrum of the singularity that makes no sense in physics is a better theory than any creationists, with more problems arising for big bang by the day

Still repeating the "modern bird print" falsehood, are you? I guess you're not afraid of hell, unlike most Christians.

Hell is simply the final death. You are obviously not afraid of being made a fool of in this life.....!!!!

Figure[bless and do not curse]1 : Bird-like fossil footprints from the Late Triassic : Nature

The team discovered dozens of three-toed footprints in rocks older than 212 million years in northwest Argentina
Ancient bird-like footprints found - 26 June 2002 - New Scientist

The fact that you lot have had to come up with some convoluted explanation for these modern bird footprints really and clearly is your problem, not mine.

The fact speak for themselves. The facts all support creation. Non plausible scenarios support evolution.


The first part is correct and you guys should stick with that. Leave science to scientists.
You do not have a science. You have a mess and a wish list based on flavour of the month that could be tossed into the great garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past tomorrow along with many falsified human amcestors, knucklewalking ancestry and LUCA etc etc etc etc etc.

You have no basis because believing so makes you feel superior.
I have a very strong basis for my belief in that all the observed data supports creation. Too bad you only have misrepresentations, and 150 years of instability to offer as evidence.

So basically what is observed provides the data and the facts. It is the interpretation of the data that demonstrates evolutionists to be straw grabbers. Still if you seriously want to believe a mouse deer is an early whale and curved fingered apes have human feet and dinosaurs have modern bird feet, not to mention the fairy land of multiple dimensions then you go right ahead. As for me I will stick with the plain and obvious explanations that also just so happen to align with creationism.

Theories built on foundations of straw will surely topple at the slightest challenge. Hence we see the theory of evolution being a theory in evolution itself. Alternatively we see the data align with creationism without the need for ridiculous non plausible scenarios and excuses and more terms to address that which does not align eg convergent evolution, homoplasy.

Your evolutionary researchers really should pack up their algorithms and take them to Wonderland, where they belong and get the heck out of the science labs and let some real scientists that use observations, not myth, get on with the job.

 

[Loudmouth]

Antihistory.

I addressed the entire argument-from-spam, all of it.

Not once did you address the ERV evidence with anything that resembled a cogent argument. You just call it nonsense and walk away. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is absolutely foolish! I've watched you babble on about this endlessly and repeatedly, and there is not one scrap of anything to even suggest such a thing, anywhere. A schoolboy can understand evolution, but you haven't got the foggiest clue about God.

So why would God be forced to put three middle ear bones in every animal that had fur? When humans make design things they do not fall into a nested hierarchy. One of the hallmarks of design is a lack of a nested hierarchy. In fact, when humans design new organisms they regularly violate the nested hierarchy.

Again, you claim that I don't understand something and yet you are incapable of showing what that misunderstanding is. All I see from you are empty assertions. Please, show me why God would be forced to fit species into a nested hierarchy. I am all ears.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I'd be concerned too if I changed as much as science does.

Even scientists can't get things straight -- ever heard of peer review? or voting?

That's one of the incredible things about science! It's estimated that our scientific understanding doubles approximately every ten years.

It's great to be alive.

 

[Loudmouth]

The inability for the various creationists to have a scientifically validiated answer to every question does not detract from the fact that ALL the observed data demonstrates that life must have been created.

It's not a matter of not having answers. Quite the opposite. Their answers are CONTRADICTORY. Creationism is so unstable that they can't even get the same age for the Earth to within 4 billion years, much less a stable position on common ancestry or a recent global flood. So again, I am baffled as to why you accept creationism with all of the instability since you cite stability as your one deciding factor.

It would seem that the only stable statement is that "It was created". That's it.