Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Both evolutionists and creationists have some tenets in their theories that they won't change. Evolutionists won't change that macro-evolution occurred, and creationists won't change that complex species were created right from the start and only vary in certain ways allowed by characteristis already in the species (and thus do NOT go from fish to man). Mechanisms are proposed for both theories. If the scientific evidence doesn't support the posed mechanism, then a different mechanism is developed. That's why the current evolutionary theory is Neo-Darwinism; because the expected transitional fossils weren't found, the theory of punctuated equilibrium was posed. Do you see what I mean? Evolutionists were NOT willing to throw out macro-evolution when the fossil evidence didn't fit it!! Instead, they proposed another MECHANISM for how macro-evolution occurred. Same for creationists - they are not willing to throw out the creation characteristics of what we see, but they CAN change a proposed mechanism if it doesn't fit the data.

But that's not true - we HAVE found transitional fossils. We just haven't found ALL the transitional fossils - and with the complexity for fossils to form - I doubt we will find all of them. We have and will find enough which will indicate a progressive change in animals (take the dinosaurs with the beginnings of feathers which have recently been found).

Creationists just don't want to connect the dots. They want to think of a species as being unchanging and their own little island. It's like seeing three frames of an animation of a person walking. The missing frames aren't there - but if you study it - you can see the movement of the foot forwad, then on the ground and then behind. You should be able to visualise the missing frames - and that's what evolution has to do. We're looking at an animation with some of the frames missing.

Thanks, JD, for telling me that, because I was starting to think our differing opinions had started to make you dislike me But now I feel better. My in-laws only had a few hours, that's why they wanted to see Ground Zero - a pretty important and solemn site in the history of our country.

I agree. If you're ever in the area or your parents-in-law are - I'll be happy to show you around. And no - I don't let difference of opinions cause me to dislike or hate someone. I judge people by how they treat me - not by what they're political beliefs, religious beliefs, etc are.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Sheeana
Ah, Cirdan, my favourite partner-in-crime. Would you like the piece of chocolate I found in my cereal?

YAAA!!!

*does little Snoopy dance*

glad to have our resident anthropology goddess in the house

er... ahem... back to the subject...

from Guns, Germs, and Steel

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
I sure the deleterious effects of sin on DNA would be very easy to test in a laboratory situation. But seriously, it defies logic since the long lives are post-sin.

sentence 1 - Do you really think so? I'd be interested to see what you suggest!
I didn't suggest that particular experiment because it is unscientifically testable/proveable. But experiments on genetic load/burden ARE testable, would you agree? I only mentioned sin as the philosophical reason behind why we might see shorter lifespans.

sentence 2- Perhaps I didn't word my post well enough. We were talking about long lifespans, and the Biblical model shows longer lives, on the average, closer to Adam and Eve. Yes, the long lives are post-sin - of course they are, since no one died before sin came along! But there is a slow progression towards shorter life-spans as we get further along in time.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But there is a slow progression towards shorter life-spans as we get further along in time.

When all the facts point to the opposite as true?

[Rían]

(this is WAY OT, but it's too serious to ignore, IMO)

Originally posted by MasterMothra
i too have read the "case for christ". i enjoyed reading it, but it in no way delivered any concrete evidence or logical reasoning to make me believe there is a god, or that jesus was his son. the book is written as though the author went on a mission to prove that jesus was a myth and that while making this book he saw the light and was transformed. this is simply not true. lee strobel was a practicing christian by the time he began writing this book.

MM, did you even read the introduction?!?! Did you read the title?!?! Good grief, he clearly states that it was the change he saw in his wife's life after she became a Christian that caused him, in his words, to launch "an all-out investigation into the facts surrounding the case for Christianity." And his experience as an investigative reporter helped him to form opinions about if the evidence was good or not. I think you're thinking of someone else - I never got the impression that Strobel went on a mission to prove that Jesus was a myth! Where did you get that impression? He just says that that was what he previously thought, but he had never seriously looked into the evidence on the side of Christianity. Could you please look at the intro again and tell me if you agree with me?

mr strobel also leads us to believe that he was a hard nosed skeptical journalist. well, if this were true, then wouldnt he include critics of christian apologists in his interviews? wouldnt it be more objective and effective for his case to provide both sides, then tell why he chose one side over the other?

Again, look at the TITLE OF THE BOOK. Strobel assumes that many people don't think Christianity is true, BUT HAVEN'T LOOKED INTO THE CASE FOR IT in a vigorous manner. I would agree with him. The book was NOT titled "a comparitive study for proofs for and against Christianity", was it? So please don't charge deception, which it seems like you're doing.

oh yeah, did i forget to mention that mr strobel is a pastor at Willow Creek Community Church, a church that has over 30,000 members. that would be a lot of people to let down if they actually found out the truth about their existence.

And there's a PROBLEM with that? If someone becomes a Christian, why shouldn't they want to become a pastor? What's your point here?

Originally posted by Lizra
Gee! I didn't know all that. Shame on him! I really thought he was a hard nosed reporter awed and changed by it all! I hate it when people try to manipulate *information* to suit their agenda. I bought and read that book because I seek the truth, plain and simple, whatever it my be. I consider my lifetime very important (to me at least! ), and I want to base my decisions on how I lead my life, on truth. (Same as when I vote! It's hard to do! )

Same thing, Lizra - please re-read the intro (and the TITLE!), and you will find there is no deception.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by samwise of the shire
The flood DID leave marks. It's called sedimentary rock, and it is found over all the earth. And sediment, unless I am mistaken is formed when layers of different things like mud, sand, rocks, pebbles etc build up on top of each other. And it can happen over time, but it can also happen QUICKLY...and rivers, or any water for that matter carry stuff like that...it's called the rivers load.

Well, since there is a bit of a lull here I think we need to disabuse everyone one this notion of sedimentary rocks as just dirt. These are known as the clastic sedimentary rocks. The problems with trying to speed up the process are several.

An entire class of sedimentary rock are chemical and biological in nature. Limestones are formed primarily from corals but also may include a wide variety of hard-shell invertebrates.

Evaporites, rock made of the various salts of the ocean precipitated out at unique points of saturation for each (NaCl, NaSO4, CaSO4, etc) during evaporation of landlocked seas (like the Dead Sea).

These non-clastic sedimentary rocks are often interbedded with clastic sedimentary rocks. For them to be rapidly deposited would require extremely bizarre circumstances. Corals growing at absurd rates, seas drying up in the middle of a global flood, diatoms breeding and dying in the blink of an eye.

Examples of these types of mixed deposits can be identified all through the geologic column. Non single event like a great flood can accommodate these occurances.

[wahine]

NIV translation

--Khamul

Okay, being raised in a religious family, the NIV is bad from that viewpoint. It takes out verses of salvation through grace rather than works and baptism.

I apologise, but I was ingrained with an intolerant streak.

Anyway--

Proof of the flood? To advocate the devil (or god rather) I read an article a while back about a whale fossil found, the whale was in a dive like position and layers upon layers of rock then sand and mud and sediment (or whatever) were found. The whale was in perfect condition.

By evolutionary standards the perfect petrification of the whale would be impossible because the layers of rock--by there time tables--were all millions of years older than all the other layers.

The only explanation would be a QUICK rising of water, and a rapid increase of turbulance, thus causing mud slides and such. The flood is the perfect oppurtunity for such.

[wahine]

Can creationists present positive scientific evidence that the world was created less than 10,000 years ago. Scientific evidence would include for example a geological formation that would positively indicate that the world was less than 10,000 years old.

Along those lines, the creationist could present scientific evidence that:

All animals and plants were created at the same time in the recent past.

That a global flood took place in the recent past

That all animals and plants radiated from a Common Point of origin in the Middle East in the recent past

That olive trees can regenerate and grow new leaves within a few weeks of immersion in a global flood

That eight people can effectively care for 16,000 animals on a ship for a year

That a wooden ship of the dimensions of the ark could actually be built given Bronze Age tools and would be sea worthy.

Creationist could prove the items by actually going out in the field and doing archeological expeditions with the goal of locating for example kangaroo fossils in say Pakistan or Indonesia. They could actually build an ark, using Bronze Age technology, staff it, stock it with supplies of their choice, and 16,000 animals of their choice, and sail it. They could try to locate Precambrian layers of rock in which, for example, reptiles, mammals, birds, and fish all appear at once. They could locate through research that biological barrier which prevents micro- evolution from becoming macroevolution.
-----

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by wahine
Proof of the flood? To advocate the devil (or god rather) I read an article a while back about a whale fossil found, the whale was in a dive like position and layers upon layers of rock then sand and mud and sediment (or whatever) were found. The whale was in perfect condition.

The whale story has been debunked. It was a fossil, laying parallel to the plane of deposition, that was later tilted by the uplift of California. Another "big fish" story about the one that got away.

[afro-elf]

Originally posted by wahine
Can creationists present positive scientific evidence that the world was created less than 10,000 years ago. Scientific evidence would include for example a geological formation that would positively indicate that the world was less than 10,000 years old.

Along those lines, the creationist could present scientific evidence that:

All animals and plants were created at the same time in the recent past.

That a global flood took place in the recent past

That all animals and plants radiated from a Common Point of origin in the Middle East in the recent past

That olive trees can regenerate and grow new leaves within a few weeks of immersion in a global flood

That eight people can effectively care for 16,000 animals on a ship for a year

That a wooden ship of the dimensions of the ark could actually be built given Bronze Age tools and would be sea worthy.

Creationist could prove the items by actually going out in the field and doing archeological expeditions with the goal of locating for example kangaroo fossils in say Pakistan or Indonesia. They could actually build an ark, using Bronze Age technology, staff it, stock it with supplies of their choice, and 16,000 animals of their choice, and sail it. They could try to locate Precambrian layers of rock in which, for example, reptiles, mammals, birds, and fish all appear at once. They could locate through research that biological barrier which prevents micro- evolution from becoming macroevolution.
-----

Hey Kid, I am impressed. Behind those cocnuts lies....er behind that Hawaiian babe exterior lies the mind of a critical thinker.

Kudos. That was one of the most succint and effecient rebuttals I have come across.

[wahine]

*hides dictionary*

Thank you! *bows*

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Both evolutionists and creationists have some tenets in their theories that they won't change. Evolutionists won't change that macro-evolution occurred, and creationists won't change that complex species were created right from the start and only vary in certain ways allowed by characteristis already in the species (and thus do NOT go from fish to man). Mechanisms are proposed for both theories. If the scientific evidence doesn't support the posed mechanism, then a different mechanism is developed. That's why the current evolutionary theory is Neo-Darwinism; because the expected transitional fossils weren't found, the theory of punctuated equilibrium was posed. Do you see what I mean? Evolutionists were NOT willing to throw out macro-evolution when the fossil evidence didn't fit it!! Instead, they proposed another MECHANISM for how macro-evolution occurred. Same for creationists - they are not willing to throw out the creation characteristics of what we see, but they CAN change a proposed mechanism if it doesn't fit the data.

Neo-Darwinism has nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium; it refers to the synthesis between genetics and evolution theory- one of the great confirmations of Darwin.

As has been pointed out, Darwin knew nothing of the genetic basis for inherited characteristics that would produce the raw differences for natural selection to act on, and subsequent discoveries could have easily falsified his theory.

That over and over again the findings of genetics have supported the theory of evolution - random mutations, inheritability, nested hierarchies, the molecular clock, cladistics- is incredibly powerful evidence in it's favour.

Puntuated equilibrium:

PE is founded on positive evidence
Because they feel that PE was concocted to "explain away" a purported lack of transitional fossils, some critics have maintained that Eldredge and Gould based their theory of PE on negative evidence. This is a strange argument, however, since the paper where they first proposed PE was completely based on two independent paleontological studies (on pulmonate gastropods and on Phacopsid trilobites), which they described in detail with extremely good temporal resolution. Using positive evidence, these studies showed stasis and rapid evolution that supports the PE model. Furthermore, Gould and Eldredge's second PE paper also extensively analyzed well-resolved paleontological evidence in support of their hypothesis.

That said, PE indeed was hypothesized to explain paleontological discontinuities, but specifically discontinuities between species only, not major taxa. Even young earth creationists hold that "microevolutionary" processes result in new species from closely related species, like the various gastropods, trilobites, and equids considered in the two PE papers. As the authors clearly state,

"PE is a model for discontinuous tempos of change at one biological level only: the process of speciation and the deployment of species in geological time." (Gould and Eldredge 1977, p. 145)


Gould has made their position regarding transitional fossils unambiguously clear time and again. From one of his books of collected essays, Gould says,

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups." (Gould1983)

http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~theobal/PE.html

As for the supposed differences between the 'mechanism' of microevolution and macroevolution, it exists nowhere except in the imagination of the creationists.

Macroevolution is simply the accumulation of enough changes to cause a division into two species; the fact that here are many recorded instances where biologists are unable to satisfactorily classify separate species is enough to show that the creationist ideas of fixed species are false.

It is up to the creationists to show a mechanism that prevents changes from accumulating- we wait with bated breath.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by wahine
Creationist could prove the items by actually going out in the field and doing archeological expeditions with the goal of locating for example kangaroo fossils in say Pakistan or Indonesia. They could actually build an ark, using Bronze Age technology, staff it, stock it with supplies of their choice, and 16,000 animals of their choice, and sail it. They could try to locate Precambrian layers of rock in which, for example, reptiles, mammals, birds, and fish all appear at once. They could locate through research that biological barrier which prevents micro- evolution from becoming macroevolution.
-----

Excellent!!

But why do scientific research when you can lobby state governments, threaten textbook printers, campaign for education board elections and hold public debates with the shotgun approach (and it's notable that YECs refuse to debate when the subject would be restricted to one particular aspect that could be explored in depth).

I've lived through two Kuhnian scientific revolutions- the acceptance of plate tectonics in geology, and the Big Bang in astronomy.

In neither case did the proponents of what were initially scorned and rejected theories (the very term Big Bang originated as an insult by Steady- Stater Fred Hoyle) resort to the tactics of Creationists.

Instead they performed years of research, accumulated evidence from many sources and fields, strengthened their paradigm - and won the scientific debate.

[GrayMouser]

And since this is supposed to be evidence for creationism (and by default YEC ) how about a timeline
answering a few questions like giving dates for the Creation, the Flood, the extinctions of the of the various flora and fauna etc.

For example, were extinct animals on the Ark, or did they become extinct before that? All of them, or only some? Which ones? The fossil record should clearly show that- after all it's only a couple of thousand years.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
When all the facts point to the opposite as true?

I'm sorry, I was in great haste and got sloppy towards the end of the post. What I meant was that from the ages listed early in the OT (up to the 900s) to the present, there has been a decrease. I proposed genetic burden/load as the mechanism behind the decrease.

Now lifespans have been increasing over a relatively recent period of time as a result of better scientific understanding of principles of hygeine, nutrition, etc. (see people, I like science! as long as it doesn't improperly extrapolate theories ), but they are relatively small increases; IOW, I don't believe the advances in nutrition, etc. will ever be enough to overcome the negative effects around us and get us back to lifespans of 900 years.

[Rían]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Neo-Darwinism has nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium; it refers to the synthesis between genetics and evolution theory- one of the great confirmations of Darwin.

Whoops, my mistake, GM - thanks for pointing it out. I was in great haste yesterday and got sloppy, as pointed out above. I do indeed know that Neo-D means the switch to genetic mutations as the raw material for change.

However, just take out my incorrect use of "Neo-D" in my post, and please re-read it. Evolutionists will NOT give up the idea of macro evolution.

As has been pointed out, Darwin knew nothing of the genetic basis for inherited characteristics that would produce the raw differences for natural selection to act on, and subsequent discoveries could have easily falsified his theory.

Yes, and that's why the current theory is neo-D. That's fine. Again, that was a sloppy mistake on my part. Considering all the posts I make here, I'm bound to slip up sometime

That over and over again the findings of genetics have supported the theory of evolution - random mutations, inheritability, nested hierarchies, the molecular clock, cladistics- is incredibly powerful evidence in it's favour.

Random mutations - yes, the VAST majority being either neutral or harmful. No evidence of beneficial mutations with increase in information, which would be req'd for changes up the line (species to genus to family, etc). . One cannot point to neutral and bad mutations and say "because these types of mutations occur, THEREFORE beneficial and information-gaining mutations also occur. It's an incorrect conclusion to draw. I think the best possible conclusion would be that "PERHAPS beneficial and information-gaining mutations MIGHT occur", wouldn't you agree?
However, if there were no observed mutations AT ALL, then I would agree that the mechanism of mutations must be abandoned. But just because negative and neutral mutations have been observed does not give you the logical right to assume beneficial ones; would you agree?
Inheritability - good only if you can achieve a beneficial mutation.

As for the supposed differences between the 'mechanism' of microevolution and macroevolution, it exists nowhere except in the imagination of the creationists.

Then why do they have 2 different names? Come on, now, GM, there must be SOME difference, right? I would say it's because one may be observed, and one has never been observed, for starters.

Macroevolution is simply the accumulation of enough changes to cause a division into two species; the fact that here are many recorded instances where biologists are unable to satisfactorily classify separate species is enough to show that the creationist ideas of fixed species are false.

I don't know of anywhere where creationism says that all species must be easily classify-able, do you? But creationism DOES claim that fish (or fish-type creatures) don't turn into people. Evolution DOES claim this, doesn't it?

It is up to the creationists to show a mechanism that prevents changes from accumulating- we wait with bated breath.

Nope; it's usually up to the person that makes the claim, such as macro evolution, to show the mechanism; wouldn't you say? If you disagree, then I say that the mechanism for different animals, etc. appearing is by special creation for God, and I "wait with bated breath" for you to show a mechanism that prevents this claim

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
...see people, I like science! as long as it doesn't improperly extrapolate theories ..

And how does Creationism not improperly extrapolate theories? By the way - the cause of the Space Shuttle Columbia is a THEORY. They have pieced together items, did tests and come up with a theory. Anything that you can not observe is a theory and is based on the evidence at hand. They will never be able to say 100% that it was the piece of foam which caused the shuttle to break up on reentry - but you can't dismiss the theory just because no one was up there to actually SEE it happen.

If Creationism is true then why doesn't a new species just pop out of no where on my lawn?

[Sheeana]

What about sickle cell anaemia then? And most mutations are NEUTRAL. Neither harmful, nor beneficial.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I don't know of anywhere where creationism says that all species must be easily classify-able, do you? But creationism DOES claim that fish (or fish-type creatures) don't turn into people. Evolution DOES claim this, doesn't it?

Nope. It states that we share a common ancestor with the fish.

This thread is rapidly turning into another "evolution" thread. Could we divert back to the topic at hand? I believe that we're waiting on evidence to be posted?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sheeana
Nope. It states that we share a common ancestor with the fish.

This thread is rapidly turning into another "evolution" thread. Could we divert back to the topic at hand? I believe that we're waiting on evidence to be posted?

I agree and I'm waiting for proof where god isn't mentioned or a higher power. I want to see the proof that man just appeared out of no where - as we are. I think it would be very difficult - unless all the early hominid fossils are ignored.

I think it's up to the creationists to prove creation and they can't - not withouth bringing religious belief into it.