Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This is an unprofitable statement because you give me no example of my 'creating statements without evidence'. I'm not going to go searching. It's up to you to provide my statements without evidence, including the post number.

#1457. You said that USincognito didn't provide any evidence, but he did.

 

[OzSpen]

OK, that's what you believe, we get it. I made the mistake of taking your question seriously, as if you really didn't know that the theory of evolution rules out such possibilities as sugar cane evolving into gum trees. My bad.

You don't need the theory of evolution to rule it out. The Scriptures rule it out.

Your cynicism towards me is noted.

 

[OzSpen]

#1457. You said that USincognito didn't provide any evidence, but he did.

Not so!

 

[Speedwell]

You don't need the theory of evolution to rule it out. The Scriptures rule it out.

How do you know that sugar cane and gum trees don't belong to the same "kind?"

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not so!

The Nile isn't just a river in Egypt.

 

[OzSpen]

The Nile isn't just a river in Egypt.

Did I say that????

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Did I say that????

You denied that USincognito gave you evidence. He clearly did. You denied his evidence. Denial.

 

[OzSpen]

How do you know that sugar cane and gum trees don't belong to the same "kind?"

Sugar cane: Genus Saccharum (iNaturalist)



Eucalyptus (gum tree): Genus Eucalyptus (iNaturalist)



Oz

 

[OzSpen]

You denied that USincognito gave you evidence. He clearly did. You denied his evidence. Denial.

You didn't answer my question. If you continue to do this, I will not respond further.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You didn't answer my question. If you continue to do this, I will not respond further.

Oh, I misunderstood. My bad.
Virtually every post you have added to this thread has been unsubstantiated and unevidenced, with you relying on appeals to emotion and your own incredulity about what the theory of evolution says to try and prove your points, and when it's been pointed out that you're wrong, you just double down and act rude.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Oh, I misunderstood. My bad.
Virtually every post you have added to this thread has been unsubstantiated and unevidenced, with you relying on appeals to emotion and your own incredulity about what the theory of evolution says to try and prove your points, and when it's been pointed out that you're wrong, you just double down and act rude.

If you point out his failings he'll threaten to report you then start ignoring you. But he'll never produce any evidence that isn't bible verses.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you point out his failings he'll threaten to report you then start ignoring you. But he'll never produce any evidence that isn't bible verses.

Par for the course unfortunately.

 

[Ancient of Days]

Been away for a while, come back and see the same 'arguments' against evolution.

And it is always... ALWAYS... 'arguments' against evolution.

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.' This is true, whether the creationist is a one-line snark master, or a verbose citation and quote bombing autodidact.

The same can be said of you. The burden of proof lies with you! Why don't you disprove the bible is true and that creation never happened.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The same can be said of you. The burden of proof lies with you! Why don't you disprove the bible is true and that creation never happened.

tas8831 is making a negative claim. You can't prove a negative, only a positive. The people who make the claims that there is evidence for creationism and intelligent design have to be the ones to provide evidence for their claims.

 

[OzSpen]

No, that's merely a piece of friendly advice based on years of experience with pastors who think they're "debunking" evolution.

Yes I did in the portion of my post you excised in this response. Instead of copy and pasting it here, I'll just reiterate my refutation in a few bullet points.

1. Nebraska "man" was never claimed to be a human or human ancestor. Porcine molars are very similar to primate molars and it was mistakenly identified as that of an athropoid ape. It was not a fraud. As for the drawing, again, that was by a newspaper artist, not a scientist and Osborne, the promoter of the tooth, said of it, "a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate".

2. Piltdown was a fraud, but was questioned as early as 1913, a year after it was announced. It was also not widely accepted by German, French and American scientists. Finally Creationists didn't expose the fraud. it was exposed because more and more legitimate finds, including Taung child and Mrs. Ples contradicted the "big brain first" story that Pitldown suggested.

3. Ramapithecus, like Nebraska was a mistake, not a fraud, and like Piltdown, the mistake was realized because of more complete specimens were found showing that Sivapithecines were not human-like at all.

USinc,

I'll comment on one example only: Nebraska Man. Your claim is that it 'was never claimed to be a human or human ancestor'. This is a false statement as it was used by Clarence Darrow in defense of evolution at the Scopes Monkey Trial, Dayton TN, 1925.

The sedimentary layers in which the tooth of Nebraska Man was found in
Nebraska, originally were understood to have been from the time of the Pliocene. This has been re-classified in more recently as Miocene by geologists.

About 5 years after Harold J Cook, consulting geologist of Agate, Nebraska, found this single, small, water-worn tooth in Nebraska in 1917, he sent it to Henry Fairfield Osborn for identification on the 14th of March 1922. Osborn at that time was the President of the American Museum of Natural History in New York.

He was renowned as a vertebrate palaeontologist and he hastily replied. He did this without conducting extensive studies on the tooth. He was excited about his conclusions. Within a month of receiving the tooth, Osborn declared this tooth looked 100% anthropoid (human). His announcement to the American public was that this was the first American anthropoid ape What a name he gave it -- Hesperopithecus haroldcookii (Osborn 1922).

As a renowned palaeontologist, Osborn associated this tooth with human beings but he added: 'It would be misleading to speak of this Hesperopithecus at present as like the known anthropoid apes; it is a new and independent type of Primate and we must seek more material before we can determine' (source).

In what way was Nebraska Man used to support evolution? Remember the Scopes evolution trial in Dayton, Tennessee in 1925? Scopes was accused of teaching evolution in the school in Dayton and Clarence Darrow was the lawyer who defended him, using Nebraska Man as an example of scientific evidence for descent of human beings.

William Jennings Bryan, a creationist, was faced with this plethora of 'scientific experts who used the 'facts' of Nebraska Man. Mr. Bryan found this difficult to respond to, noting that this evidence was scanty and he asked for more time to consider the evidence. What did the 'experts' do, except to scoff at Bryan.

Mockery was showered on Bryan by the 'experts'. Why wouldn't they? They were the scientific authorities and Bryan was the supposed novice and they deluged him with arguments in favour of evolution. So there was scoffing by the scientific establishment as the evolutionary evidence had been presented, one piece being Nebraska Man.

I won't be kidded into believing your statement that 'Nebraska "man" was never claimed to be a human or human ancestor'. The Scopes Monkey Trial disproves your statement.

But, what exactly was the scientific proof for Nebraska Man? The answer was a tooth that was later found to be a pig's tooth. So fake news in 1925 was used to push the evolutionary agenda.

Molecular biologist, Dr Michael Denton, concludes his exposẻ of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis with:

Whatever view we wish to take of the current status of Darwinian theory, whatever the reasons might be for its undoubted appeal ... there can be no doubt that after a century of intensive effort biologists have failed to validate it in any significant sense. The fact remains that nature has not been reduced to the continuum that the Darwinian model demands, nor has the credibility of chance as the creative agency of life been secured.

‘The failure to validate the Darwinian model has implications which reach far beyond biology....

The entire scientific ethos and philosophy of modern western man is based to a large extent upon the central claim of Darwinian theology that humanity was not born by the creative intentions of a deity but by a completely mindless trial and error selection of random molecular patterns. The cultural importance of evolution theory is therefore immeasurable, forming as it does the centrepiece, the crowning achievement, of the naturalistic view of the world, the final triumph of the secular thesis which since the end of the middle ages has displaced the old naïve cosmology of Genesis from the western mind....

‘The influence of evolutionary theory on fields far removed from biology is one of the most spectacular examples in history of how a highly speculative idea for which there is no really hard scientific evidence can come to fashion the thinking of a whole society and dominate the outlook of an age. Considering its historic significance and the social and moral transformation it caused in western thought, one might have hoped that Darwinian theory was capable of a complete, comprehensive and entirely plausible explanation for all biological phenomena from the origin of life on through all its diverse manifestations up to, and including, the intellect of man. That it is neither fully plausible, nor comprehensive, is deeply troubling. One might have expected that a theory of such cardinal importance, a theory that literally changed the world, would have been something more than metaphysics, something more than a myth.

Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century (Denton 1985:357-358, emphasis added).​

Oz

Works consulted

Denton M 1985. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. London: Burnett Books / in USA, Adler & Adler.. [Denton has a follow-up book in 2016, Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis.]

Osborn, H F. 1922. Hesperopithecus, the first anthropoid primate found in America. American Museum Novitates, vol 37:1–5. Part of the article also is available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1085108/pdf/pnas01893-0015.pdf.

 

[OzSpen]

You denied that USincognito gave you evidence. He clearly did. You denied his evidence. Denial.

That has zero to do with the Nile River not being on in Egypt. That's your invention about me.

 

[OzSpen]

Indeed. Can a blind, self-righteous fool mutate into an intelligent, educated thoughtful human. I suspect the probablity is low. What do you think?

Are you ridiculing me?

 

[OzSpen]

Oh, I misunderstood. My bad.
Virtually every post you have added to this thread has been unsubstantiated and unevidenced, with you relying on appeals to emotion and your own incredulity about what the theory of evolution says to try and prove your points, and when it's been pointed out that you're wrong, you just double down and act rude.

Warden,

This is a false accusation from you.

For evidence I have provided previously, see examples#1447 and #1450. I'm not going to go through this very lengthy thread to demonstrate that I've provided evidence over and over, but you and others reject it.

But you erect this straw man:

• 'Virtually every post....
• unsubstantiated and unevidenced...
• Appeals to emotion...
• My incredulity about ToE. Molecular biologist, Dr. Michael Denton, provides lots of evidence that caused him to write 368pp, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985). Thirty years after that publication the evolutionary crisis continues and he has documented it in, Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis (Seattle: Discovery Institute Press, 2016, 354pp).
  
• you just double down and act rude. That's flaming me.

Oz

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That has zero to do with the Nile River not being on in Egypt. That's your invention about me.

Did you honestly not understand what I was saying?

 

[OzSpen]

If you point out his failings he'll threaten to report you then start ignoring you. But he'll never produce any evidence that isn't bible verses.

Bungle,

Why are you gossiping about me to another poster? If you have an issue with me, please speak with me directly. I will not respond again o this kind of goading.

Oz