Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[tas8831]

Then perhaps you need a course on Creationism 101; as does the OP?

I need no such thing, thank you.

Anyone asking why there is no evidence for creation either doesn't understand creationism, doesn't understand evidence, or both.

Anyone writing such a thing hopes that nobody sees through their ruse, perhaps even himself.


If you are implying that creationism is accepted on Faith alone, fine - that would make you the one honest creationist.

But to imply that others do not understand evidence, given the content of your posts, is simply absurd.

 

[tas8831]

Then I submit it's the nature of evidence you don't understand.

"Witnessing" is not evidence. The use of uncorroborated personal anecdotes is not evidence. The belief that the bible is "inspired" is not evidence.

But please tell us what 'evidence' is.

 

[tas8831]

If I'm not mistaken wouldn't a good argument or evidence against evolution point to creationism?

Do you accept the converse (or inverse, I can never keep those straight)?

What other option would there be? Is there a third party? Its either creationism or evolution, right? If creationism is outside the realms of our science then science can neither prove or disprove it. therefor to make an argument for creationism would be to argue against evolution because evolution is in the realms of science.

I don't think creationism is outside the realm of science. While specific creation acts may be, even such acts would leave evidence.

 

[tas8831]

You are being very disingenuous.
Your OP is quite provocatively untrue.

LOL!

Here we go...

As for evidence that creation by God is true, we are surrounded by it.
Open your eyes and your mind to the truth of creation.
Not only the marvels of this planet and its life but also a wonderful universe of ever
revealing complexities.
I do not need to defend creation for it is a given truth, unfortunately not seen nor believed by
those that are blind.

As for evidence that evolution by RM&NS is true, we are surrounded by it.
Open your eyes and your mind to the truth of evolution.
Not only the marvels of this planet and its life but also a wonderful universe of ever
revealing complexities.
I do not need to defend evolution for it is an obvious truth, unfortunately not seen nor accepted by those that are blind.


See what i did there?

But thanks for the condescension!

No actually it is evolutionists who have a hard time defending their myths and fairytales that
all this came from nothing because it: could? wanted to? by chance?
The day evolutionists can show me some real tangible evidence that can prove the myth of
the evolution of life, species and myself, I will show you little green men on Mars.

Sorry, but your post is exactly the sort of thing I lamented in the OP.

You can start here:

Welcome to Evolution 101!

and work you way up.

Deprogramming starts with one step.

 

[tas8831]

You guys are so so righteous and smug.

"I do not need to defend creation for it is a given truth, unfortunately not seen nor believed by those that are blind."

Yet in the end you have no evidence.
After 200 years of Darwinism there is still no real tangible evidence for evolution.
Your "evidence" is still only supposition and a fanciful hypothesis at best.
At worst it is the deliberate and fraudulent manufacture of false science to give some
credence to a lie.
Nothing has changed since the Piltdown Man Hoax ... it still continues with another fraud 'Lucy'

Wow.

Try another link, just to dip your toes in the pool:

Khan Academy

 

[AV1611VET]

If you are implying that creationism is accepted on Faith alone, fine - that would make you the one honest creationist.

Is there any other way to accept it?

 

[tas8831]

The absolute beauty and truth of the creation is that I and millions of others can actually know,
experience and interact with the Creator.

I do not believe any of that.

Your feelings and assertions and anecdotes do not impress me.

I guess evolutionists can venerate the dead bones of Charles Darwin, but its not the same.

No, we do not venerate anything.

Funny that the religious are always so quick to drag science down to their level, then pretend that their religion is the best...

 

[tas8831]

here is one of them:

My favorite argument for the existence of God

The existence of god and evidence for creationsm are not the same thing.

Fail.

and there are many more. by the way: basiclaly we have only 2 options. so if we falsified one option (evolution) we left with creation.

Do you accept the converse?

 

[tas8831]

Every test for life from nonlife has failed and has been effectively falsified so testing is not your standard in the first place.

First, I am not sure what you mean by "test".

Second, abiogenesis is NOT a part of the theory of evolution.

Arguing against abiogenesis is not arguing against evolution, no matter how much mental gymnastics one performs.

 

[tas8831]

In the end show me the real evidence. Not just theory and speculation.
I want to see some real empirical observable transitional evidence
from non-life to life ... from simple to more complicated ... from unicellular to multicellular ...
from one species to another species... show me the evolution of the liver, the heart, the kidneys,
the cardio-vascular system, the central nervous system and our spinal cords, the pancreas ...
I wanna see it for myself. Then I'll believe.

1. No, you would not believe.

2. As most creationists do when their 'amazing rhetoric' does not convince anyone that they are serious or informed, you are demanding the absurd and to throw your absurdity back at you...

3. Show me the bones of all humans from Adam to you and I will believe.
and not just any bones- complete skeletons.

 

[tas8831]

Always with the excuses.

I feel the same way when asking creationists for evidence.

 

[tas8831]

Apologetics Press - Of Apes and Men: Chromosome 2 in Humans and the Chimpanzee
There are problems with this explanation. First, this hypothesis openly assumes that the chromosomal fusion took place after humans supposedly split from the apes in the proposed evolutionary tree. Allegedly at some point in the past, a human ancestor’s DNA underwent a genetic fusion between two of its chromosomes. This event occurred in no other species. Does this provide evidence that humans share a common ancestor with apes? No.

OK, this is too much...


The fusion of chromosome 2 in humans is NOT and NEVER WAS presented as evidence that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor.

The fusion of chromosome 2 in humans EXPLAINS why modern humans and modern chimps have differing karyotypes, countering creationist desperation to the contrary.

And before you dig up some creationist propaganda declaring that such a fusion is impossible because this would render those with the fusion incapable of breeding with humans lacking it, please understand that there are mammalian species around today that MAINTAIN polymorphic karyotypes in their population, and that, to a certain extent, it is the genes that are present that are more relevant in fertilization than having an exact chromosome match.


Creationists cannot even seem to get their defensive posturing correct.

 

[tas8831]

Is there any other way to accept it?

No, since there is obviously no evidence for it, and no corroborating historical accounts for the miracles and sundry supernatural events depicted in the bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, since there is obviously no evidence for it, and no corroborating historical accounts for the miracles and sundry supernatural events depicted in the bible.

Looks like evidence whiners are SOL* then, eh?

* Short On Luck

 

[dmmesdale]

OK, this is too much...


The fusion of chromosome 2 in humans is NOT and NEVER WAS presented as evidence that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor.

You should aviod them absolutist statements.
Chromosome fusion
Introduction

All great apes apart from man have 24 pairs of chromosomes. There is therefore a hypothesis that the common ancestor of all great apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes and that the fusion of two of the ancestor's chromosomes created chromosome 2 in humans. The evidence for this hypothesis is very strong.

 

[Loudmouth]

You should aviod them absolutist statements.
Chromosome fusion
Introduction

All great apes apart from man have 24 pairs of chromosomes. There is therefore a hypothesis that the common ancestor of all great apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes and that the fusion of two of the ancestor's chromosomes created chromosome 2 in humans. The evidence for this hypothesis is very strong.

To be fair, humans could have been created with 24 pairs of chromosomes and then a chromosomal fusion happened after they were created. There is even a man with 22 pairs of chromosomes which came about through a very recent fusion:

The 44 Chromosome Man | Understanding Genetics

 

[pitabread]

I think a lot of the argument over the chromosome fusion had to do with some creationist claims that humans had to have been created with only 23 pairs of chromosomes. I've argued in the past with creationists that didn't believe that such a fusion was possible, even though there have even been a couple documented examples of modern humans with as few as 22 pairs of chromosomes.

edited: Here's an example of an old post from mark kennedy arguing against fusion.

In and of itself the fusion event doesn't explicitly 'prove' common ancestry. But it does explain how it's possible to go from 24 pairs down to 23 pairs of chromosomes.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think a lot of the argument over the chromosome fusion had to do with some creationist claims that humans had to have been created with only 23 pairs of chromosomes. I've argued in the past with creationists that didn't believe that such a fusion was possible, even though there have even been a couple documented examples of modern humans with as few as 22 pairs of chromosomes.

In and of itself the fusion event doesn't explicitly 'prove' common ancestry. But it does explain how it's possible to go from 24 pairs down to 23 pairs of chromosomes.

Exactly. The context of the argument can get lost at times.

 

[Loudmouth]

You guys are so so righteous and smug.
Yet in the end you have no evidence.

We have plenty of evidence, if you want to look at it.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[dmmesdale]

To be fair, humans could have been created with 24 pairs of chromosomes and then a chromosomal fusion happened after they were created. There is even a man with 22 pairs of chromosomes which came about through a very recent fusion:

The 44 Chromosome Man | Understanding Genetics

Does not prove anything since you are guessing. To be fair there was no common ancestor in the first place. It is all fiction with no more basis in reality then winged Pegasis. The link was provided and i could add to them. Your link show an anonymous person. We don't know who he is or his medical history. It is not subject to scrutiny or independent investigation. It is all faith. No where near convincing. From the previous link.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that evolutionists are correct and a distant human ancestor with 48 chromosomes did evolve into a new species with 46 chromosomes via the chromosome 2 fusion event. Did this event occur in a single individual or simultaneously in an entire population? Mutations of this nature are certainly rare, but they do occur occasionally. However, the probability that this mutation would occur simultaneously in multiple individuals is so staggeringly low that we can assume its impossibility. At best, the mutation occurred in a single individual. How then was it propagated from one individual to his or her offspring and eventually to every human? Chromosomal rearrangements of this nature are not easily passed to offspring. When mutations of this magnitude occur, they pose serious problems for an organism when the process of gamete production occurs. Gametes are the egg and sperm cells used to form a new individual during sexual reproduction. The process of generating gametes is a special form of cell division known as meiosis. During this process, a specific alignment of chromosomal pairs always occurs and is essential for meiosis. This alignment is dependent on the near-identical structure and sequence of chromosomal pairs. If an individual carries a mutation such as a chromosomal fusion, then he or she will often be unable to produce gametes, because meiosis will fail to occur properly due to improper alignment of the now non-identical chromosome pairs. Today, we know chromosomal fusion to be one cause of infertility. In some cases, meiosis can find a way to complete despite non-identical chromosomal pairs. However, the gametes that result, or the offspring produced by fertilization with these gametes, usually have a short lifespan due to genetic problems. Problems associated with chromosomal alignment lead to spontaneous miscarriages and genetic abnormalities such as Down’s Syndrome.

A third problem with the hypothesis of a chromosomal fusion in human ancestry lies in the complete absence of humans with 48 chromosomes. If it were true that a chromosomal split occurred in human evolution, then two distinct human groups would have been generated: one containing 48 chromosomes which were not altered by any genetic change, and a second containing 46 chromosomes including the fusion of chromosome 2