Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[Speedwell]

When I consider the human body and the nature of the universe (as discovered by astronomy), I understand how the universe and human beings are 'wonderfully made'.

yet you categorically deny to God the power to use evolution as His tool.

 

[AV1611VET]

yet you categorically deny to God the power to use evolution as His tool.

His tools work much faster and better than what's in Darwin's toolbox.

 

[Gene2memE]

Anyone with a slight knowledge of biology knows that the human heart, lungs, kidneys and brains are exquisitely designed.

Anyone with a slight knowledge of biology knows that the human heart, lungs, kidneys and brains are products of hundreds of millions of years of biological evolution.

You must be trying to kid me to say that evolution answers the appearance of design issues.

And yet, it does.

I find it laughable that intelligent scientists are so fixated on the evolutionary methodology that ScienceDaily can report: 'Researchers are providing a new explanation as to why life remained as little more than slime for a billion years, before rapidly diversifying in the 'Cambrian explosion of life' (source).

Life was a lot more than slime prior to the Cambrian. That's a nice pop-science article, but the truth is a lot more complicated. Trace fossils indicate animal predator/prey relationships stretch back at least 750 million years, and possibly as far as 1.2 billion.

The pre-Cambrian (Ediacaran) biota were diverse, including at least eleven different phyla (some of which are no longer existent), and all sorts of interesting creatures. There were the protoarticula, giant protozoans, various bag/blob lifeforms, siphonophores, rangeomorphs, erniettomorphs, cnidarians, worms, and soft-bodied proto-arthropods. All at 560-540 million years ago.

What's really cool is that some of the Ediacaran biota may have lacked the Hox genes, which regulate bilateral symmetry. So they're asymmetric.

New Ediacaran fossils are quite rare, as most are soft bodied, meaning that they didn't preserve very well. Cambrian life features hard shells, which means they're preserved with much greater frequency.

There are a couple of reasons why we see an 'explosion' at the onset of the Cambrian. There was a mass extinction, which opened up a lot of niches to new exploitation. There was a new evolutionary innovation (hard structures), which opened up new niches AND started an 'arms race'. There were new environmental conditions that opened up new ecological niches.

Rapid morphological radiations aren't that unusual in the history of the planet. Its just that the Cambrian is the best known, the most diverse (possibly) and still mysterious (as evidence remains fragmentary, because we're dealing with an event that happend more than 500 million years ago).

We have that choice OR human beings are made by God in his image. I know which evidence I'm going with.

I'll go with the one that doesn't start by assuming its conclusion, and then working backwards from that, distorting painstaking research into the natural world done over nearly two centuries.

 

[Aman777]

Humans evolved from earlier primates.

False, since Humans (Adam) was made the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4-7 Every other living creature was made on the 5th Day from water. Gen 1:21 Humans did NOT evolve from ANY other living creature because we were FIRST made. Amen?

 

[gaara4158]

Historical science includes an examination of the historical evidence for the historical Jesus. Do you accept this?

Yes, paleontology, archaeology, cosmology are valid sciences, but I have to be very discerning in uncovering the presuppositions (often evolutionary) that underlie those pursuing research in those disciplines. Many assume evolutionary processes and seek to find them.

My 482 pp dissertation involved uncovering the presuppositions and methodology of an historical Jesus scholar. If I need to do it for him and people need to do it for my research, I must do it for your discipline and those in paleontology, archaeology, and cosmology.

I will not fall for what scientists in paleontology, archaeology, and cosmology find without an investigation into their presumptions.

From what I've read of your posts here, you are not open to considering ALL of the evidence.

Oz

What evolutionary presuppositions underlie cosmology, praytell? And paleontology? Archaeology? Geology?

History is known through an examination of literature and written records as well as through the historical sciences. As for Jesus, most historians agree the character is based on at least one real-life historical figure. I’m sure you know more about that than I, having authored a 400+ page dissertation on the topic.

 

[OzSpen]

I'm not here to teach you how evolutionary biology works. If you want a starting point: Welcome to Evolution 101!

And then go from there...

You didn't answer my questions. In case you missed them, here they are again: Who said? Who made those primates and the primates before them?

 

[OzSpen]

Anyone with a slight knowledge of biology knows that the human heart, lungs, kidneys and brains are products of hundreds of millions of years of biological evolution.

You deflected to another topic, even though you used similar words. You dished up a red herring fallacy, which is ' Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument'

We can't have a rational conversation when you engage in this kind of fallacious reasoning.

I find it incredulous that you revert to fallacies to avoid dealing with the reliable biblical evidence for creation.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

yet you categorically deny to God the power to use evolution as His tool.

False! See #1269, which probably I was writing when you wrote your post.

Nevertheless, I had given you not evidence to demonstrate that I categorically deny God's power to use evolution to create. I've never hinted at that. Are you going to apologise to me for the lies you here tell about my view?

Oz

 

[pitabread]

You didn't answer my questions.

I did, just not in the way you wanted.

 

[OzSpen]

What evolutionary presuppositions underlie cosmology, praytell? And paleontology? Archaeology? Geology?

This example demonstrates the evolutionary presuppositions in cosmology:

Within our solar system we have been able to send probes to make observations. For example, NASA’s Deep Impact probe1 shot a 370 kg copper bullet into a comet2 and measured the spectra3 of the ejected material. And the European Space Agency (ESA)’s Rosetta spacecraft landed a robotic lander, Philae, on a comet4 and made, for the first time, direct measurements of the surface constituents. These types of measurements, you could say, are very similar to what the experimentalists do in their laboratories. But the Rosetta mission’s objectives, excerpted from the ESA website, highlight the type of science involved (emphases added):

Rosetta’s prime objective is to help understand the origin and evolution of the Solar System. The comet’s composition reflects the composition of the pre-solar nebula out of which the Sun and the planets of the Solar System formed, more than 4.6 billion years ago. Therefore, an in-depth analysis of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko by Rosetta and its lander will provide essential information to understand how the Solar System formed.​

These are their basic underlying assumptions. This statement makes it clear that the scientists who carried out the mission believe that the solar system evolved out of a solar nebula originating more than 4.6 billion years ago. That is their untestable primary assumption. It is not testable by what they dig out of the surface of the comet, but rather they believe the measurements of that comet material will help them understand the origin of the solar system within their original (There's cosmology and then there's real science).​

Your presuppositions, that you have demonstrated in this thread, seem to blind you to the evolutionary basis of, say, contemporary cosmology.

I've finished with providing evidence to you.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I did, just not in the way you wanted.

 

[Astrophile]

See the evidence for Creation & Intelligent Design (ID) here: Is intelligent design the same as creationism?

Here is a quote from your link:

the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

Do you in fact accept that the 'Cambrian explosion' occurred approximately 530 million years ago, and therefore that biological diversity originated hundreds of millions of years before the origin of human beings and even the origin of primates?

 

[Jimmy D]

You didn't answer my questions. In case you missed them, here they are again: Who said? Who made those primates and the primates before them?

Their parents.

 

[Astrophile]

Anyone with a slight knowledge of biology knows that the human heart, lungs, kidneys and brains are exquisitely designed.

Do you think that the heart, lungs, kidneys and brains of chimpanzees are exquisitely designed?

 

[Speedwell]

False! See #1269, which probably I was writing when you wrote your post.

Nevertheless, I had given you not evidence to demonstrate that I categorically deny God's power to use evolution to create. I've never hinted at that. Are you going to apologise to me for the lies you here tell about my view?

#1269 was Aman's post.

As to lies, no. I have not told any intentional falsehoods about your views. If I have mistated them I apologize for that, but I was under the distinct impression that you rejected evolution as a possible explanation for our origins.

 

[Astrophile]

Rosetta’s prime objective is to help understand the origin and evolution of the Solar System. The comet’s composition reflects the composition of the pre-solar nebula out of which the Sun and the planets of the Solar System formed, more than 4.6 billion years ago. Therefore, an in-depth analysis of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko by Rosetta and its lander will provide essential information to understand how the Solar System formed.
These are their basic underlying assumptions. This statement makes it clear that the scientists who carried out the mission believe that the solar system evolved out of a solar nebula originating more than 4.6 billion years ago. That is their untestable primary assumption. It is not testable by what they dig out of the surface of the comet, but rather they believe the measurements of that comet material will help them understand the origin of the solar system within their original [assumption.] (There's cosmology and then there's real science).

The conclusion that the planets, asteroids, comets, etc. developed from a solar nebula that originated about 4.57 billion years ago is a conclusion drawn from the evidence, not an untestable assumption. It is based on radiometric dating of terrestrial, lunar and Martian rocks and of meteorites, on studies of the physics and chemistry of meteorites, and on observations of young stars associated with dense interstellar clouds.

Here is another quotation from your link.

The difference here is that my worldview is based on the biblical truth that God, the Creator, created the universe about 6,000 years ago. It was not the result of an accident or a quantum fluctuation of some imagined/postulated vacuum or a big bang of any sort. Rather it was the result of plan and purpose as God told us in the Bible.

This quotation shows that the debate is not between two scientific hypotheses both of which are supported by physical evidence; it is a debate between a number of scientific theories supported by physical evidence on the one hand and a theological doctrine based only on a particular interpretation of the Bible (and a minority interpretation at that) on the other.

 

[pitabread]

View attachment 213686

's funny, I could have sworn this was a discussion and not a pop quiz. :/

At any rate, your answers will be found by learning about the process of biological evolution. Assuming you actually care, but I suspect that you don't.

 

[gaara4158]

This example demonstrates the evolutionary presuppositions in cosmology:

Within our solar system we have been able to send probes to make observations. For example, NASA’s Deep Impact probe1 shot a 370 kg copper bullet into a comet2 and measured the spectra3 of the ejected material. And the European Space Agency (ESA)’s Rosetta spacecraft landed a robotic lander, Philae, on a comet4 and made, for the first time, direct measurements of the surface constituents. These types of measurements, you could say, are very similar to what the experimentalists do in their laboratories. But the Rosetta mission’s objectives, excerpted from the ESA website, highlight the type of science involved (emphases added):

Rosetta’s prime objective is to help understand the origin and evolution of the Solar System. The comet’s composition reflects the composition of the pre-solar nebula out of which the Sun and the planets of the Solar System formed, more than 4.6 billion years ago. Therefore, an in-depth analysis of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko by Rosetta and its lander will provide essential information to understand how the Solar System formed.​

These are their basic underlying assumptions. This statement makes it clear that the scientists who carried out the mission believe that the solar system evolved out of a solar nebula originating more than 4.6 billion years ago. That is their untestable primary assumption. It is not testable by what they dig out of the surface of the comet, but rather they believe the measurements of that comet material will help them understand the origin of the solar system within their original (There's cosmology and then there's real science).​

Your presuppositions, that you have demonstrated in this thread, seem to blind you to the evolutionary basis of, say, contemporary cosmology.

I've finished with providing evidence to you.
View attachment 213685
Oz

Oz, you have to understand this. I’m not out here trying to land a “gotcha” with these questions. When I ask for evidence, I’m asking because I don’t know how you’re coming to the conclusions you’re coming to. It’s common for creationists to feel needled by these hard lines of questioning, but they’re necessary when what you’re saying goes against the consensus of the scientific community. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

These are their basic underlying assumptions. This statement makes it clear that the scientists who carried out the mission believe that the solar system evolved out of a solar nebula originating more than 4.6 billion years ago. That is their untestable primary assumption. It is not testable by what they dig out of the surface of the comet, but rather they believe the measurements of that comet material will help them understand the origin of the solar system within their original (There's cosmology and then there's real science).

I thought by "evolutionary assumptions" you were referring to biological evolution, but apparently you're also including cosmic evolution. Makes a little more sense, but still wrong. The solar nebula model isn't an untestable assumption. It makes falsifiable predictions that are tested by collection of data on missions like Rosetta. Although it faces problems in some areas, it's the most widely-accepted model because it offers explanations for a variety of properties of the solar system. Seriously, do some research outside creationist websites every once and a while. You'd know this already.

Your presuppositions, that you have demonstrated in this thread, seem to blind you to the evolutionary basis of, say, contemporary cosmology.

Again, cosmology is not based on an assumption of evolution, cosmic or otherwise. Physical cosmology is a multidisciplinary field of study that makes no more assumptions than the basic assumptions of science (https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions). It's obvious to all of us that you accuse scientists of making undue assumptions because you know you're doing it and you're trying to level the playing field. Stop embarrassing yourself.

I've finished with providing evidence to you.

Well, you never started, but I can't say I'm surprised. Yawn.

 

[OzSpen]

Here is a quote from your link:

Do you in fact accept that the 'Cambrian explosion' occurred approximately 530 million years ago, and therefore that biological diversity originated hundreds of millions of years before the origin of human beings and even the origin of primates?

What was my topic???

See the evidence for Creation & Intelligent Design (ID) here: Is intelligent design the same as creationism?

I didn't ask about the Cambrian explosion. When you don't deal with the issue I raised, what is that reasoning called?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Their parents.

Who made the very first primates or slime?