Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[Jimmy D]

Read and take notice of the evidence from the One who created the Moon.

I think you mean "ones".

A man by the name Mundilfari “the one moving according to particular times” from Midgard had two children, they were so shiny and beautiful that he decided to call his son Mani “Moon”, and his daughter Sol “Sun”.

The Gods were so furious by this arrogance, that they took both of them and put them up in the sky. Sol would ride in a chariot that is pulled over the sky by two horses Árvakr “Early awake” and Alsviðr “Very quick”. Under the chariot, there is a figure “Svalinn” it holds a shield, that protects the earth below from the flames.

Mani is only pulled by one horse Aldsvider Mani stole two children from Midgard, to help him drive his chariot, their names are Bil and Yuki. They are pursued by two wolfs from a giant, Sköll “Treachery” and Hati “Hate” each day, Hati would take a small bite out of the Moon, but the Moon would get away and heal itself again. These two wolves will one day catch the sun and the moon, which will happen at Ragnarök.

 

[OzSpen]

Perhaps you did not see the title of this thread?

How about you direct me to ANY evidence of a deity creating a fully grown adult human middle eastern male from dust of the ground no more than 10,000 years ago.

I wrote not a word about 10,000 years. That's your straw man - again.

 

[Jimmy D]

I wrote not a word about 10,000 years. That's your straw man - again.

View attachment 214975

Good man! So what's your take on creationism?

 

[tas8831]

Evolism is the False Religion of Evolution. It's believers, with NO evidence, preach the idiotic idea that Humans descended from the common ancestor of Apes. Beware their evil teaching since there is a more terrible punishment awaiting those who offend little children who believe in Jesus, by forcing this view on them in Public Schools. Jesus speaks of their more terrible punishment. Mar 9:42

Phew!

It is a good thing that neither I nor any other degreed scientist that studies evolution or those
who advocate for it (such as those on this forum) are adherents to such a religion.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[tas8831]

I wrote not a word about 10,000 years. That's your straw man - again.

Hmmm...

Strawman....

Sort of like implying that evolutionists claim that human and apes are the same species?

 

[OzSpen]

Evolism is the False Religion of Evolution. It's believers, with NO evidence, preach the idiotic idea that Humans descended from the common ancestor of Apes. Beware their evil teaching since there is a more terrible punishment awaiting those who offend little children who believe in Jesus, by forcing this view on them in Public Schools. Jesus speaks of their more terrible punishment. Mar 9:42

A person on another forum stated that he invented the word evolism. This is what he stated:

yeah, I spelt it right: evolism. a term I just invented (hopefully) and which I will define for the purpose of this thread. I will put working definitions for creation and christianity here too

Evolism - the belief that the universe and life in it originated from "scientific" processes. ie, the universe began at the Big Bang; life began in a primordal pool of organic chemicals; man evolved from "lesser" primates, which evolved from prehistoric mammals over millions of years (source).​

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Are you really disputing natural selection and that organisms adapt to their environment? I thought even creationists accepted at least that much...

I mean, I could probably bury you under links to scientific papers demonstrating as much, but would there be any point?

I dispute natural selection for macro-evolution as I don't know of any evidence of transition species from ape-like animals to human beings.

I accept natural selection for micro-evolution as the evidence supports it. When I was a kid growing up on cane farms around Bundaberg, Qld, my Dad supported (and so do I) the natural selection that the experimenters were engaged in at the Bundaberg Sugar Experiment Station, to develop new varieties of sugar cane. This is change within the species. It was NOT change from sugar cane to gum trees (macro-evolution).

Oz

 

[tas8831]

I dispute natural selection for macro-evolution as I don't know of any evidence of transition species from ape-like animals to human beings.

1. That is great - but what does this really have to do with the topic of the thread:

Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

...And it is always... ALWAYS... 'arguments' against evolution. [just as you did!]

NEVER arguments FOR creation/ID.

Analogies to human activity, bible verses, 'problems' with evolution - none of these, not one of them, is evidence FOR creation or ID.


It is almost as if creationists have admitted to themselves, subconsciously, that they cannot actually offer any positive supporting evidence FOR their mere beliefs, and are content to simply attack 'the other.'​

2. "I don't know of any evidence of transition species from ape-like animals to human beings"

So what?

I don't know of any evidence for the tribal deity of Christianity 'creating' a human male from the dust of the ground. Do you have any?

If you do, present it, for that would actually address the topic of the thread.

 

[In situ]

No evidence was generated.

The creation week consisted of a series of miracles over a period of six days that raised the level of mass/energy in the universe from zero to what it is now.

Are you saying it is mere a coincident the Big Bang theory accurately predicted how the universe looks like today, such as the present of red-shift and the 3K background radiation, the matter distribution, the ratio between different elementary element etc, etc, etc, etc etc .... ? Is all this - all of it - just a huge coincident or are you saying all physicists are incompetent and just got it all wrong?

 

[Speedwell]

I dispute natural selection for macro-evolution as I don't know of any evidence of transition species from ape-like animals to human beings.

I accept natural selection for micro-evolution as the evidence supports it. When I was a kid growing up on cane farms around Bundaberg, Qld, my Dad supported (and so do I) the natural selection that the experimenters were engaged in at the Bundaberg Sugar Experiment Station, to develop new varieties of sugar cane. This is change within the species. It was NOT change from sugar cane to gum trees (macro-evolution).

Oz

What prevents "micro-evolution" from accumulating into "macro-evolution?"

 

[In situ]

I dispute natural selection for macro-evolution as I don't know of any evidence of transition species from ape-like animals to human beings.

Are you saying if you do not find a transition for [insert your favorite example] then the whole theory is invalid? Unfortunately lack of knowledge is not evidence to dispute already established knowledge.

Btw, to dispute something is more than mere an opinion on a subject. Do you have evidence to dispute it with, and if so what is it beside your lack of knowledge about the issue at hand?

 

[In situ]

What prevents "micro-evolution" from accumulating into "macro-evolution?"

Strong willpower.

 

[OzSpen]

What prevents "micro-evolution" from accumulating into "macro-evolution?"

Show me the evidence today of ape-like fossils becoming fossils of human beings. I'm waiting!

 

[OzSpen]

Are you saying if you do not find a transition for [insert your favorite example] then the whole theory is invalid? Unfortunately lack of knowledge is not evidence to dispute already established knowledge.

Btw, to dispute something is more than mere an opinion on a subject. Do you have evidence to dispute it with, and if so what is it beside your lack of knowledge about the issue at hand?

What is your definition of 'theory' when applied to evolutionary science?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you saying it is mere a coincident the Big Bang theory accurately predicted how the universe looks like today, such as the present of red-shift and the 3K background radiation, the matter distribution, the ratio between different elementary element etc, etc, etc, etc etc .... ? Is all this - all of it - just a huge coincident or are you saying all physicists are incompetent and just got it all wrong?

As I understand it, red shift is a product of the Doppler Effect, which can be demonstrated by standing on a street corner and having a car with a shrewdness of scientists in it go by while laying on the horn.

Again, as I understand it, the red shift only shows the universe to be expanding.

Something God told us long before any glory-grabbing whitecoat confirmed it.

 

[Jimmy D]

Show me the evidence today of ape-like fossils becoming fossils of human beings. I'm waiting!

I thought that this was a thread dedicated to the total lack of evidence for creationism / ID.

People in glass houses and all that.

 

[Astrophile]

Show me the evidence today of ape-like fossils becoming fossils of human beings. I'm waiting!

Ardipithecus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Australopithecus sediba, Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus.

How do you explain this succession of fossils except as the result of descent with modification, i.e. evolution?

 

[Ophiolite]

I dispute natural selection for macro-evolution as I don't know of any evidence of transition species from ape-like animals to human beings.

There is no need for you to be ashamed of your ignorance. Shame would only be appropriate if you rejected the opportunity to correct that ignorance. Here are two popular treatments that should go a long way to correcting the deficiency.

• Robe DeSalle and Ian Tattersall "Human Origins - What Bones and Genomes Tell Us About Ourselves" Texas A&M University Press 2008 ISBN:978-1-58544-567-7
• Donald Johanson and Blake Edgar "From Lucy to Language" Simon & Schuster 2006 ISBN:978-0-7432-8064-8

I have deliberately chosen two older works, since you should be able to acquire these second hand at a reasonable price. While details may have changed in the intervening decade and a half, the central point of your ignorance - apparent absence of transitional forms - is fully addressed.

 

[OzSpen]

There is no need for you to be ashamed of your ignorance. Shame would only be appropriate if you rejected the opportunity to correct that ignorance.

Oph,

Here you did not respond to the content of what I wrote. Sounds like you want me to believe what you wrote about my understanding, so you can blame me for my 'ignorance'. You have committed an Argument from Ignorance Fallacy.

We cannot have a reasonable conversation when you resort to this erroneous reasoning.

Oz

 

[Ophiolite]

Oph,

Here you did not respond to the content of what I wrote. Sounds like you want me to believe what you wrote about my understanding, so you can blame me for my 'ignorance'. You have committed an Argument from Ignorance Fallacy.

We cannot have a reasonable conversation when you resort to this erroneous reasoning.

Oz

Well, we cannot have a reasonable conversation if you don't write what you mean. You very clearly state that you "don't know of any evidence of transition species from ape-like animals to human beings." There you are declaring your ignorance. In black and white. With great clarity. Indeed, it is this self declared ignorance that leads you to "dispute natural selection for macro-evolution".

You are the one guilty of perpetrating the Argument from Ignorance. You have declared something is the not the case purely because you do not know of any evidence for it.

But we are in agreement on one thing. There is no point in furthering the discussion. For my part this is because a) you do not clearly express your meaning; b) you do not understand the Argument from Ignorance Fallacy; c) you are, indeed, ignorant of the evidence for human evolution, but - apparently - have no interest in correcting this.

Good luck with that approach.