What proof would you need?

[becon]

I am tired of his insults and the fact that he does not contribute anything to the conversation. Of course evos are quick to say: "not true" many of them are very slow to come up with any evidence to back up their claims.

Evolution is a fact so where would you like to start? if you keep thinking that dogs give birth to cats you are finished,
try reading about evolution for yourself then you won't get your head filled with rubbish, don't LISTEN to anyone,
find out for yourself because you're worth it.

I am a Christian and I also know that evolution is a fact, you don't need to put your brain on hold to be a Christian.

 

[Cabal]

I am tired of his insults and the fact that he does not contribute anything to the conversation. Of course evos are quick to say: "not true" many of them are very slow to come up with any evidence to back up their claims.

No, he made a statement about the unlikelihood of talking animals, then you made an irrelevant point.

Your fail, get over it.

 

[Belk]

I am tired of his insults and the fact that he does not contribute anything to the conversation.

At what point have I insulted you Jazer? I simply pointed out that you changed talking snakes to talking to snakes. Two very different concepts. I admit I can be somewhat snarky at times. I apologize if you feel I am picking on you.

Of course evos are quick to say: "not true" many of them are very slow to come up with any evidence to back up their claims.

The entire field of biology has been based on evolution for more then 150 years. There are mountains of evidence in every field. From ERV insertion through fossils to laboratory experimentation. You have been shown much of this and more. At what point are you going to accept personal responsibility and admit it is not the evidence that is lacking but simply your resistance to changing your views?

 

[jay1]

I am tired of his insults and the fact that he does not contribute anything to the conversation.

I thought he was talking about me for a minute.

 

[Mikecpking]

Yes because there is none. Evolution is the work of Satan

Actually, to us Christians who don't disbelieve evolution is the work of God.

 

[Astridhere]

At what point have I insulted you Jazer? I simply pointed out that you changed talking snakes to talking to snakes. Two very different concepts. I admit I can be somewhat snarky at times. I apologize if you feel I am picking on you.
Of course all animals did not talk to Adam & Eve. The snake was a deity, devil, that materialized into the form of a snake. This ability is also demonstrated in angels ability to take on human form. Unless you purport to be a spirit yourself you are unable to testify if spirits have this ability or not.

This also has nothing to do with the fact that all the observed evidence supports the creation of life on earth. With evidence of the earth being placed at the centre of the universe we now also have proof that earth is not only a remarkable planet it is also a specially placed one.



The entire field of biology has been based on evolution for more then 150 years. There are mountains of evidence in every field. From ERV insertion through fossils to laboratory experimentation. You have been shown much of this and more. At what point are you going to accept personal responsibility and admit it is not the evidence that is lacking but simply your resistance to changing your views?

The 150 years thing is your worst nightmare as what you have is 150 years of instability and change. Even today, after 150 years, evolutionists are still unable to answer how, when, where or why of evolution.

It is not advantageous alleles at all because evolutionists suggest that humans are a walking viral remnant of up to 10 percent. So let's take this nonsense seriously.. viral infection cause a drop in fitness, not an improvement and yet has been selected for to the point where these so called ervs are resonsible for the maintenance of mammalian pregnancy. Do you think evolution has some plan?

This is of course along side todays observed research that suggests huge amounts of genomic material crossing the germ line is deleterious and most often fatal. We are not talking about small changes here we are talking about a viral sequence that becomes endogenized.

Homeostatic Proliferation in the Mice with Germline FoxP3 Mutation and its Contribution to Fatal Autoimmunity
Germline Nonsense Mutation and Somatic Inactivation of SMARCA4/BRG1 in a Family with Rhabdoid Tumor Predisposition Syndrome

Evolutionists talk about colour changes in peppered moths and immunity. This does not explain how ancient viral sequences you reckon you can identify, (although I doubt it) crossed the germ line and then endogenized leaving viable offspring.

I'd say you evolutionists have falsified their own theory many times and evoke more miracles than the bible to save it.

Here is look at carbon dating with another view

Given the short 14C half-life of 5730 years, organic materials purportedly older than 250,000 years, corresponding to 43.6 half-lives, should contain absolutely no detectable 14C. (One gram of modern carbon contains about 6 × 1010 14C atoms, and 43.6 half-lives should reduce that number by a factor of 7.3 × 10-14.) An astonishing discovery made over the past 20 years is that, almost without exception, when tested by highly sensitive accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) methods, organic samples from every portion of the Phanerozoic record show detectable amounts of 14C! 14C/C ratios from all but the youngest Phanerozoic samples appear to be clustered in the range 0.1–0.5 pmc (percent modern carbon), regardless of geological “age.” A straightforward conclusion that can be drawn from these observations is that all but the very youngest Phanerozoic organic material was buried contemporaneously much less than 250,000 years ago. This is consistent with the biblical account of a global Flood that destroyed most of the air-breathing life on the planet in a single brief cataclysm only a few thousand years ago.
Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model

Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages

C14 in diamonds strongly supports young earth - two or three . net

Biological Clocks Indicate Recent Creation

You evolutionists need an old earth for evolution to have had time to do its thing. However the inescapable truth is that the earth is not as old as you would like to think it is afterall.

So what do we see.

Evolutionists have no fossils that demonstrate the transition between kinds which validates creationists predictions generally. In my view, Erectus is an ape and I can demonstrate this, You have a revolving door of human ancestors, you have no fossil evidence to support chimp ancestry back to a common ancestor with mankind, Lucy & Ardi have been dethroned, tiktaalic had tetrapods roaming around way before he lived and is dethroned like coelecanth the walking fish that has been found alive and not walking anywhere, you have modern birds dated earlier than their supposed ancestors, you have at least a 30% difference between chimp & human and remarkable differences in the Y chromosome with a 10% difference alone in genome size, additionally there are differences in genome surface structure, you have big bang theory based on mysteries that make no sense as opposed to a theory that does make sense and places earth at the centre of the universe. I have already posted most of these links.



Now I say creationists, in particular the YECS, have much more substantiation for their theory than evolutionists have for theirs.

So in the face of scientific evidence that falsifies evolution and asides with YEC creationism why would an evolutionist, particularly a theistic evolutionist, not reconsider?

 

[Astridhere]

Yes, some creationists claim that the methods work, others don't. That is instability. Even worse, they can't even agree on an age of the Earth within 4 billion years. That is MAJOR instability. Whenever you give an age of the Earth all I need to do is quote other creationists who completely disagree with you. If that is not instability, then evolution does not have instability either.
The various camps have their stable assertions. YECS reamin YECS and old earther remain old earthers. In other words they do not have knee jerk reactions to data changing what they have to say in response to every bit of new data.

After 150 years evolutionary theory has done summersaults with the only stability seen is their insistence that no matter what data is found it must prove evolution. You still have no stable answers to the how, when, where or why of evolution and I expect in another 150 years nothing much will have changed about that.


Yes, it is. How can a local and a global flood both align with the Bible? They are contradictory. Either a place on the Earth was flooded or it wasn't. Creationists can't decide amongst themselves. That is instability by your own criteria.

They are not contradictory withing the various creationist camps. They stick with their assertions and try to substantiate them. This is the opposite of evolutionists. eg Junk DNA supports/proves evolution and so does functional non coding DNA. This is knee jerk science where anything goes and still proves evolution. Rubbish!

Then all I have to show is that creationists produce inconsistent data. I have already shown that with the dating methods that different creationists use. Some date the Earth to 6,000 years while others date the Earth to 4.5 billion years. That is a difference of more than 4 billion years. That is inconsistency, and that is instability.

Again they stick with their individual assertions and look for verifying data, unlike evolutionists that have an anything goes style science.

False. It is one of many. Creationism is the most unstable model there is.

I'd say with no transitional human or chimp fossils; birds, tetrapods, verterbraes in a mess all trying to prove one theory of evolution you are in a mess. While the various creationist remain stable.


So what features must a fossil have in order to be convincing?

Complete or near complete transitional human fossils found in tact together with hands and feet that have not had to be reconstructed and demonstrate gradual change as well as some similar chimp ancestry would be a good start.

This is opposed to putting human feet on curved fingered apes and modern bird feet on dinosaurs. Using complete erectus fossils with feet and hands that demonstrate more in common with mankind than chimps have today or in the past (eg Lluc) may also be a good start.

You have found evidence of ape or human feet, ape or human hands and nothing in the middle at all. Flated faces are seen in Lluc, 12myo and there are flat faced non human primates around today. Neither is stringing together a skeleton from non colocated bones, eg Turkana Boy, a demonstration of anything more than a self serving mosaic of misrepresentation. Turkana Boy with his ape head, extra ape verterbra, small neural canal, long arms, and thigh bones unlike either human or ape is just a variety of ape.

In fact an orangutan shares more similarity to a human today than a chimp, morphologically. You have scientist in dissent over this suggesting DNA should not override morphology and the inherent errors in todays comparative genomics.

How do you determine if a fossil has suddenly appeared or not? What is the creationist method for determining this?
The sudden appearance of tetrapods 400 million years ago, the sudden appearance of birds in the fossil record 212mya, the sudden appearance of modern mankind in the fossil record, the Cambrian explosion, for starters.


You forgot the predictions that differ amongst creationists that produce instability in the creationist model, such as the coverage of a flood and the age of the Earth.
Again I say they are not unstable in their own camps. Evolution is one camp made of knee jerk science.

Of course, I could use your excuses to brush away your criticisms of evolution. What unites scientists is that chimps and humans share a common ancestor. The differences of which fossils are direct ancestors or cousins are details that are being worked out. See, no instability.
Yes there is instability as you do not have an intermediate human/chimp. Erectus is fully ape. You have no chimp ancestry. You do not even know what the common ancestor looked like. Remeber once upon a time it was just like a chimp, then something like a chimp, now nothing like a chimp. Basically anything goes Next thing I am expecting a squirrel like from you guys..Oh wait..that's right there is already one that beccame an ape.


Perfect example of how unstable creationism is.
No instability in the camps, particularly when compared to the instability of evolutionary science. Creationists do not use knee jerk science.


Such as?



Says the person offering magical poofing as a mechanism.

No more grandious than dirt poofing into life by itself and the miserable failure of evolutionists to mimick their miracle.

If only they had evidence to back it up, or a stable model to test.

Each does and the YECS are doing very well. In fact I think I'll back YEC science. It is amazing.

Talk about a biased worldview. At least we can show that humans, apes, dinosaurs, and birds actually exist.

Creationists do not doubt it. It is just that there is nothing in the middle.


What features must a fossil have in order to support evolution and falsify creationism?

Done

So what evidence, if found, would evidence evolution?
Done. A science that actually supports itself would be another good start.

Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps

And what would convince you, say, that the YECS are correct in their theories?

Darls, each creationist view holds their view as stable and none demonstrate the revolving door of evolutionary science that falsifies current thinking on an ongoing basis.

Evolution is the only science that uses straight out falsifications of current thinking as further back up to support itself and calls this science. It is truly a hilarious field or quasi knee jerk science based on a philosophy at best...it all evolved because evos said so no matter what they find or falsify.

Any creationist camp has more to offer than this.......At least creationists use science to back initial theories, rather than knee jerk change them in response to every falsification like evos do. eg Junk dna proves evolution and so does functional non coding dna. You could prove man evolved from something like a chimp now you can use the exact same fossils to prove man evolved from something nothing like a chimp at all. Hilarious! but not scientific

 

[Loudmouth]

Here is look at carbon dating with another view

Given the short 14C half-life of 5730 years, organic materials purportedly older than 250,000 years, corresponding to 43.6 half-lives, should contain absolutely no detectable 14C.

You will need to support this assumption in three ways:

1. Show that 14C is not produced in situ. Remember that 14C is produced in the atmosphere due to incoming radiation. There are sources of radiation in ground as well.

2. Show that the sample does not absorbe 14C from the atmosphere.

3. Show that 14C is not introduced during the measurement procedure itself.

From what I have seen, trace amounts of 14C are introduced in all three areas highlighted above. This puts a limit on the upper end of 14C dating, usually around 45,000 years before present.

You evolutionists need an old earth for evolution to have had time to do its thing.

Good thing that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old then.

However the inescapable truth is that the earth is not as old as you would like to think it is afterall.

That is an oft repeated lie, not a truth.

Evolutionists have no fossils that demonstrate the transition between kinds which validates creationists predictions generally.

What features would a fossil need in order to be transitional?

In my view, Erectus is an ape and I can demonstrate this,

Humans are apes as well. What prevents H. erectus from being transitional? The only things you cite are the differences between H. erectus and modern humans which is exactly what we should see in a transitional.

Now I say creationists, in particular the YECS, have much more substantiation for their theory than evolutionists have for theirs.

You can say it all you want, but you fail to present the evidence every time.

 

[Loudmouth]

The various camps have their stable assertions.

It is the existence of several camps that hold contradictory claims which makes creationism unstable. You cite one camp that thinks orangutans are more closely related to humans than the other apes in contradiction to other scientists who think chimps are more closely related to humans. You cite this disagreement as instability. Neither camp has changed its mind, and yet you still cite this as instability. So why the double standard when it comes to creationism?

After 150 years evolutionary theory has done summersaults with the only stability seen is their insistence that no matter what data is found it must prove evolution.

That is precisely how you describe creationism. You claim that they are working on the details as new data comes in, but that all creationists agree that God did it somehow at some time in the past. So why the double standard?

Again they stick with their individual assertions and look for verifying data, unlike evolutionists that have an anything goes style science.

Those individual assertions contradict each other. Again, this is instability as defined by you.

I'd say with no transitional human or chimp fossils; birds, tetrapods, verterbraes in a mess all trying to prove one theory of evolution you are in a mess. While the various creationist remain stable.

What criteria are you using to determine if a fossil is transitional?

Darls, each creationist view holds their view as stable and none demonstrate the revolving door of evolutionary science that falsifies current thinking on an ongoing basis.

Then why do you cite disagreements between scientists as instability within the theory of evolution? Why the double standard?

Evolution is the only science that uses straight out falsifications of current thinking as further back up to support itself and calls this science.

So you are saying that scientific hypotheses should be unfalsifiable? Really?

Any creationist camp has more to offer than this.......At least creationists use science to back initial theories, rather than knee jerk change them in response to every falsification like evos do.

Really? Have you seen the list of arguments that creationists should not use over at Answers in Genesis?

Arguments Creationists Should Avoid - Answers in Genesis

Talk about instability. They have changed their mind on all of those arguments.

eg Junk dna proves evolution and so does functional non coding dna.

Neither proves evolution. I have dealt with this before. What evidences evolution is the pattern of homology between sequences of DNA, regardless of their function.

You could prove man evolved from something like a chimp now you can use the exact same fossils to prove man evolved from something nothing like a chimp at all. Hilarious! but not scientific

Sorry, but you made this up from whole cloth.

 

[Orogeny]

The 150 years thing is your worst nightmare as what you have is 150 years of instability and change. Even today, after 150 years, evolutionists are still unable to answer how, when, where or why of evolution.

Seriously?

How: Preservation of beneficial mutations and elimination of detrimental mutations through natural selection
When: The last ~3.5 billion years, now, and in the future.
Where: Pretty much everywhere on the surface of the earth, and a whole lot of places below the surface too.
Why: Because environmental selection pressures change.

See how easy that was? Next time you have a point to make, be sure you're not just imagining it.

 

[Phred]

So you creationists say that because you think you can find mistakes in some science someplace that means creationism must be true.

Ahem. I claim Shenanigans!!! Ahem.

First... if there are fifty thousand people in a stadium and one yells out that you are indeed a paltry wench I cannot find out who did it by finding one that did not do it. If you manage to disprove evolution you do not default to creationism.

Second... you haven't proven evolution false by a long shot. The multiple lines of proof extend far beyond just one area of evidence. If you shoot down carbon dating you still have evidence in at least 14 other areas to examine.

Third... in this thread as in others you're shooting down strawmen. Who cares if you don't see transitional fossils? I don't think you'd know a transitional fossil if one landed on your dinner table. Get this straight. No parents ever raised a child that they didn't know was theirs. Change is slight. Tiny. It takes generations for change to become apparent. You keep expecting a cat to give birth to a dog. If that happened evolution would indeed be false. Remember... taxonomic classifications are HUMAN constructs that we impose upon life in order to categorize it. Life is continuing variation. We see occasional snapshots of this variation through critters that have fossilized.

Imagine a loaf of bread with trillions of slices. The slices change shape as the loaf moves along but they can't ever be made of anything but bread. Now, you're handed ten slices from random spots along the loaf. What shape was the loaf? That's the game biologists play with the fossils they find. Every fossil is transitional. Everything alive today came from a previous organism. And that organism came from a previous organism. And that organism came from a previous organism. Since we see complete fossilized biospheres and they don't contain a single creature that's alive today we have to wonder... where did the creatures from yesterday go to? And where did the creatures that are alive today come from? Constant variation. Life evolves.

The answer is not, "God stepped in and poof! Magically changed everything to look like you see it." Nothing just appears. That's fantasy. Everything that's alive today is part of a giant chain of life. You're made of the same parts that all other primates are made from. And you're not all that different from any other mammal.

Creationists are like little kids trying desperately to make Goldilocks and the Three Bears real.

Hey, that gives me an idea...

 

[AV1611VET]

So you creationists say that because you think you can find mistakes in some science someplace that means creationism must be true.

It's the other way around, chief.

Creationism is truth, therefore science is wrong somewhere.

 

[RickG]

It's the other way around, chief.

Creationism is truth, therefore science is wrong somewhere.

However, what creationism finds wrong with is nothing but unsupported assertions, hand-waving and obfuscation. There is much written in the creationists literature attempting to discredit many different disciplines of science. With all that, there is not one single bit of original research performed by any creationist or creationist groups. Sure, they write a lot of papers, none of which are ever submitted to scientific publications. At least I've never found any, can you cite any?

 

[Mikecpking]

Now I say creationists, in particular the YECS, have much more substantiation for their theory than evolutionists have for theirs.

So in the face of scientific evidence that falsifies evolution and asides with YEC creationism why would an evolutionist, particularly a theistic evolutionist, not reconsider?

Hi Astridhere,
I used to be YEC 30 years ago, and I wanted to study geology to prove my point, but during the course, it became obvious that belief in a recent 6,000 year old earth was not supported by any of the field work we did. Too much has happened to the earth's crust which could never fit into 6,000 years and when one considers monuments like Stonehenge which was not far from where I used to live, the landscape has largely unchanged with even ditches still visible after 3,000 years of weathering.
So, one had to rethink how it all came to be and 15 years later, did theology and it was clear that Genesis chapeter 1 is a mere poem to remeber the Sabbath and the fact that God created everything with man as the pinnacle of his creation; but used the analogy of a working week and make the 7th day holy.

 

[Jazer]

Genesis chapeter 1 is a mere poem

In what way do you feel Gen is not accurate and does not reflect the truth?
What do you have to back up your opinion that OEC and GAP are not true?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

In what way do you feel Gen is not accurate and does not reflect the truth?
What do you have to back up your opinion that OEC and GAP are not true?

According to Genesis, on the Third Day, fruit-bearing trees come into existence. On the Fourth Day, the Sun comes into existence. This is contrary to a wealth of evidence that tells us that fruit-bearing trees came into existence 140 million years ago, and the Sun 4.55 billion years ago - i.e., in the reverse order that Genesis tells us - not to mention the simple fact that photosynthesising organisms like trees need sunlight to survive.

 

[CTD]

Creationists do not demand conflicting fantasies be taught as fact

 

[Orogeny]

Creationists do not demand conflicting fantasies be taught as fact

Right, just your one fantasy.

 

[Jazer]

[/color]It is the existence of several camps that hold contradictory claims which makes creationism unstable.

Not at all. YEC deals with the last 6,000 years. GAP deals with 6,000 to 12,900 years ago. OEC deals with 12,900 to 4.5 billion years ago. They all specialize in their own time frame. There is no contradiction.

 

[RickG]

Not at all. YEC deals with the last 6,000 years. GAP deals with 6,000 to 12,900 years ago. OEC deals with 12,900 to 4.5 billion years ago. They all specialize in their own time frame. There is no contradiction.

How does OEC view evolution?