Where is your evidence creationists?

[selfinflikted]

Then I submit it takes more faith to believe your way, than it does mine.

How on earth does it take more faith to say "I don't know" than "Goddidit?"

 

[AV1611VET]

Depends. What is this 'it'? The Big Wobble?

Anything -- since you said, "I don't know".

I think you're mistaken as to what it is I believe,

It's hard to mistake someone saying, "I don't know."

... what I call 'science', and what I call 'religion'.

Suit yourself, but don't expect me to agree.

If you want to call what you believe 'science' -- fine -- just don't call what you believe 'science' and what I believe 'religion' and expect me to agree.

Don't take your beef with someone else out on me.

If the shoe fits, wear it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh goody.... yet another newbie creationist coming here and telling us what is and is not science. Scientists determine what is science.. not lying professional creationists like those who made the website you linked.

Yup -- you guys make your own rules, don't you?

That's like letting bartenders determine what constitutes alcoholism.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Anything -- since you said, "I don't know".

I said "We don't know" to a very specific question (namely, "But what causes the expansions and contractions and why?").

It's hard to mistake someone saying, "I don't know."

And yet, you've managed to do it quite spectacularly. Again, "I don't know" was in response to a specific question.

Suit yourself, but don't expect me to agree.

As I wasn't talking to you in the first place, that suits me fine.

If you want to call what you believe 'science' -- fine -- just don't call what you believe 'science' and what I believe 'religion' and expect me to agree.

I've known you for a good few years now, and the day we agree on anything will be the day Satan skates to work.

 

[AV1611VET]

I said "We don't know" to a very specific question (namely, "But what causes the expansions and contractions and why?").

Here's your post, as I saw it:

But what causes the expansions and contractions and why? There had to be energy...so what created that energy?

As I've said before, we don't know.

I assumed you were responding to the second question.

 

[AV1611VET]

How on earth does it take more faith to say "I don't know" than "Goddidit?"

Saying "I don't know", while believing nature did it over God is, to me, exercising more faith.

 

[JediMobius]

I am a deist of sort who support evolution in principle. I realize there is much detail that needs to discovered.

If organisms do not evolve from other organisms than that means that they have to pop into existence. Creationists also argue that the evidence for evolution is weak or not there at all, but has anyone ever observed a living organism just pop into existence? No. The entire concept is rather silly, yet this this what creationists must believe if they do not accept evolution. If not then explain. If you do believe god makes organisms pop into existence then provide me with evidence.

No one has ever seen a living organism evolve to become a different species either, but there is evidence.

Different creationists argue different things about evolution, so the argument presented here is a bit of a straw man. Also, by arguing by an appeal to ridicule, you've presented a red herring as well. The other problem is one of equivocation. The term "evolution" encompasses more than one idea, and is either broad or vague until defined.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've known you for a good few years now, and the day we agree on anything will be the day Satan skates to work.

Then Hell -- to you -- must be 95% ice?

 

[CabVet]

Then I submit it takes more faith to believe your way, than it does mine.

Au contraire my friend! Belief requires more faith! Not knowing doesn't require belief.

 

[Split Rock]

Yup -- you guys make your own rules, don't you?

That's like letting bartenders determine what constitutes alcoholism.

No its like:

Letting engineers determine what constitutes engineering.
Letting plummers determine what constitutes plumming.
Letting doctors determine what constitutes medical practice.

We don't have a problem...science works. You guys have the problem.

 

[Split Rock]

Saying "I don't know", while believing nature did it over God is, to me, exercising more faith.

How does it require more faith?? You guys just don't make any sense. This is why we always talk across each other here.

 

[JediMobius]

See what I mean? They use "creation" itself as proof, but it can be perfectly well explained by a natural process.

"Perfectly" is a stretch. No natural process has been shown to assemble amino acids into living organisms, or even create the amino acids in the first place. (Of course, this is not evolution per se, so let's try not to de-rail.) All the basic body plans found in nature today did not appear gradually, but suddenly, in the (pre)cambrian era, founding the diverse "lineages of almost all animals living today." Further, most of the organisms in the fossil record before this time either died out (no longer passing on genetic information) or persisted relatively similarly (bacteria, plankton, and algae). This is contrary to the Darwinian tree of life, and common ancestry from one living organism to many over time. (So primates may have common ancestry with other primates, but the idea that primates and fish have common ancestry is not represented in the cambrian explosion.) Also, natural selection is problematic in that genetic mutation tends to cause problems rather than aid survival and adaptation. For that matter, I'd like to see actual examples of mutations increasing fitness, if anyone can provide links, as well as evidence that a change in genotype can provide a new phenotype rather than variations on existing phenotypes.

 

[JediMobius]

There are billions of people on earth who believe in god and the theory of evolution. The notion that this has anything to do with doubters is simply baseless.

Once again, if god makes all living things pop into existence then how come we have no evidence or eye witnesses of it? Notice that even Christian creationists who believe this don't ever mention it. You would think there would be reports all over the world of people walking around then 'poof' from nowhere springs a new organism, but it never happens.

This premise is based on the assumption that a supernatural event acts in the same way as a natural process. However, though natural processes tend to act with relative consistency over time, there is no basis to assume that a supernatural event should follow the same rules as a natural process. Quite the opposite, by definition a supernatural event is not subject to any of the natural laws. Therefor, the fact that we don't see speciation ex nihilo has no bearing on the possibility of one instance of mass speciation ex nihilo.

Now, if anyone believes that every single species in each phylum came into existence in this fashion, the argument holds. However, Judeo-Christian proponents of intelligent design such as myself (creationist in a narrower sense) posit the creation of phylum groups which then adapted and speciated, so there is no 'poof' for each new species.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

"Perfectly" is a stretch. No natural process has been shown to assemble amino acids into living organisms. (Of course, this is not evolution per se, so let's try not to de-rail.)

Aminos to monomers, monomers permeate lipid membrane bubbles, those monomers combine into chance assemblages of polymers, some of which are inevitably self-replicating, and from there evolution can take its course.

All the basic body plans found in nature today did not appear gradually, but suddenly, in the (pre)cambrian era, founding the diverse "lineages of almost all animals living today."

Define 'sudden'. If you're referring to the 'Cambrian explosion', it's worth pointing out that this 'explosion' took tens of million years, and is primarily typified by the appearance of hard body-plans. Extant body-plans may well have evolved much earlier, but until they could readily fossilise, they wouldn't appear in the fossil record. Come the Cambrian explosion and your body plans are now fossilising - which would show a 'sudden' appearance in the fossil record.

Indeed, according to this source, the Cambrian explosion is no more 'explosive' than any other point in the history of Animalia - it's not that anything special happened with regard to how quickly new body plans were developing, but rather the explosion simply represents the evolution of hard body parts. As evidence accumulates, we see a bigger picture, and the 'explosion' turns out to be nothing of the sort.

Further, most of the organisms in the fossil record before this time either died out (no longer passing on genetic information) or persisted relatively similarly (bacteria, plankton, and algae).

Define "relatively similarly". Bacteria are one of the most diverse groups of organisms on the planet. Just because they're small and unicellular doesn't mean they haven't changed.

This is contrary to the Darwinian tree of life, and common ancestry from one living organism to many over time.

How in the world did you conclude that?

(So primates may have common ancestry with other primates, but the idea that primates and fish have common ancestry is not represented in the cambrian explosion.)

Not really: the ancestors of primates during the Cambrian explosion were fishes.

Also, natural selection is problematic in that genetic mutation tends to cause problems rather than aid survival and adaptation. For that matter, I'd like to see actual examples of mutations increasing fitness, if anyone can provide links, as well as evidence that a change in genotype can provide a new phenotype rather than variations on existing phenotypes.

There are two examples I like the best: nylon-eating bacteria, and Lenski's citrate-eating E. coli. Both show clear instances of the evolution of novel, hitherto non-existent traits.

 

[JediMobius]

The proof is all around us, friend.
When the doubters accept God, all doubts are deleted, friend.

Certainly, all creation shows the works of God's hand, but I don't hold to the rest of this. Doubt is a necessary component of faith. It's the ability to trust God in the face of doubts that defines faith. Doubts cannot simply be deleted by acceptance of God, they must be wrestled by faith over time, and even then, new doubts will appear to once again challenge faith.

 

[JediMobius]

By the way, what natural process governs and/or causes all these other natural processes?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Certainly, all creation shows the works of God's hand, but I don't hold to the rest of this. Doubt is a necessary component of faith. It's the ability to trust God in the face of doubts that defines faith. Doubts cannot simply be deleted by acceptance of God, they must be wrestled by faith over time, and even then, new doubts will appear to once again challenge faith.

There Is No Proof For God - Typical Christian Nonsense - YouTube

 

[selfinflikted]

Saying "I don't know", while believing nature did it over God is, to me, exercising more faith.

I don't understand how you arrive at that conclusion, but ok den.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

By the way, what natural process governs and/or causes all these other natural processes?

Physics and chemistry.

 

[Split Rock]

"All the basic body plans found in nature today[/URL] did not appear gradually, but suddenly, in the (pre)cambrian era, founding the diverse "lineages of almost all animals living today."

I think you mean the Cambrian, which btw covers millions of years.

"Further, most of the organisms in the fossil record before this time either died out (no longer passing on genetic information) or persisted relatively similarly (bacteria, plankton, and algae).

There were also jellyfish, worms, etc. The Edicarians seemed to have died out, but it isn't clear if some were indeed ancestral to Cambrian species.

"This is contrary to the Darwinian tree of life, and common ancestry from one living organism to many over time. (So primates may have common ancestry with other primates, but the idea that primates and fish have common ancestry is not represented in the cambrian explosion.)

How could common ancestry of primates and fish have been represented in the Cambrian? There weren't even any vertebrates in existance, only primitive chordates. BTW... where were all the vertebrates???

" Also, natural selection is problematic in that genetic mutation tends to cause problems rather than aid survival and adaptation.

No. Beneficial mutations are selected for and tend to increase in a population, while detrimental mutations are selected against. That is precisely what Natural Selection does.

"For that matter, I'd like to see actual examples of mutations increasing fitness, if anyone can provide links, as well as evidence that a change in genotype can provide a new phenotype rather than variations on existing phenotypes.

Sure. I have one in the archive:
http://www.christianforums.com/t3309652/