Jump to content


For Evolutionists: What Evidence Would Prove Creation To You?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
82 replies to this topic

#41 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 22 December 2008 - 03:28 PM

Things that are designed are produced and machined with tools.   Living things aren't made, they reproduce.

View Post

...and this is how much more complex then anything we can conceive of?Posted Image

#42 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 22 December 2008 - 03:55 PM

This is your problem.  Scientists don't look at reproducing living things as being designed.

View Post

Real scientists do.

#43 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 22 December 2008 - 04:36 PM

Real scientists do.

View Post


I think he meant to say evolutionists not scientists. :lol:

CTD, do you have a couple of good quotes of evolutionist hand waving and candor regarding how they fight themselves not to discuss things from a design perspective?

What a foolish contortion. Even Richard Dawkins concedes to design. He just grapples for his darling evolution to be the designer through random chance, oops, I mean time and necessity. :lol:

Of coarse things "look" designed what do you expect to see as we dance to our DNA? You can dance if you want to.

#44 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 23 December 2008 - 02:18 AM

Sounds like a bit of a cop out to say “Oh, no… That’s a separate field of science”. If evolution were true, it would have to deal with that “moment” before life came into existence as well, because its existence is predicated not only on its origins but its claim to randomness (which there is no empirical evidence for either).

View Post


I would agree. Any support foundation of evolution is a part of evolution. Because if it's needed for evolution to happen, then it is not separate.

It's like tryig to claim that tires are so differently made from the cars they go on. So they are not needed to make it go. And that would be wrong to assume.

#45 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 23 December 2008 - 03:53 AM

I think he meant to say evolutionists not scientists. :D

I don't. But it's not worth arguing.

CTD, do you have a couple of good quotes of evolutionist hand waving and candor regarding how they fight themselves not to discuss things from a design perspective?

Sorry, no. A good quotemeister could probably find a few, but that's a rare variety.

What a foolish contortion. Even Richard Dawkins concedes to design. He just grapples for his darling evolution to be the designer through random chance, oops, I mean time and necessity. :o

Of coarse things "look" designed what do you expect to see as we dance to our DNA? You can dance if you want to.

View Post

And what's oft overlooked is that when Dawkins says design is "only an illusion", he has the burden of proof to demonstrate it.

#46 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 23 December 2008 - 01:03 PM

I would agree. Any support foundation of evolution is a part of evolution. Because if it's needed for evolution to happen, then it is not separate.

View Post


I wrote this once before, but thought it might help to post it again.

Suppose you believed that weather was caused by God, Zeus or some other deity, and wanted to debate with a meteorologist. It would be fair to ask all sorts of questions about where storms come from, where wind comes from, why temperatures go up and down.

But if you asked the question, "But where does the oxygen come from?", the meteorologist would probably tell you that was not part of meteorology. He might have an idea about where oxygen came from on our planet, but meteorology already assumes an atmosphere.

In standard evolutionary theory, one assumes that one starts with a self-replicating organism of some sort. Evolutionary theory is about how populations of self-replicating organisms change and diversify over time. It brings in genetics, the fossil record, biology, and statistics into the problem. However, evolutionary theory focuses on populations of organisms that already replicate. It is not about where the first self-replicating organisms come from.

The theories on the orgins of the first self-replicating organism is a great topic, and is certainly worthy in a general discussion of origins, but it is a different discussion. The rules and the science behind abiogenesis are quite different than the rules and science behind evolution. Evolution is about selection and relative survival in populations or living organisms. Abiogenesis is about natural chemical bonds, primordial soup, chance combinations, natural affinities, catalysts etc. This science is more speculative, with much less evidence. Much of this line of science is about what is possible rather than what happened.

One accepted fact among scientists in this field is that the first good evidence of cellular life appears around 3.5 billion years ago, and then life stayed primarily single cell for another 3 billion years or so (Eukaryotic cells appearing about 1.7 billion years back). Scientific models of abiogenesis must begin with those facts or they must provide evidence that those facts are wrong.

Anyway, I just wanted to help you understand why most evolutionary scientists think of these as two separate problem. Although both are good problems and both are fair game in discussions of origins.

I am not asking you to agree with this was of thinking. I just wanted to show how most scientists see the two problems.

James

#47 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 23 December 2008 - 02:20 PM

Hi Jame,

I enjoyed your candor. I don’t know about others but I really think I do understand what you’re saying and this is what’s causing the problems in this explanation.

Suppose you believed that weather was caused by God, Zeus or some other deity, and wanted to debate with a meteorologist. It would be fair to ask all sorts of questions about where storms come from, where wind comes from, why temperatures go up and down. 
But if you asked the question, "But where does the oxygen come from?", the meteorologist would probably tell you that was not part of meteorology. He might have an idea about where oxygen came from on our planet, but meteorology already assumes an atmosphere.

View Post

Would you agree that a common problem in this debate is mixing mechanism and agency as though they are interchangeable?

In standard evolutionary theory, one assumes that one starts with a self-replicating organism of some sort.

View Post

Again, I appreciate the candor. Many evolutionists, especially atheistic evolutionists refuse to acknowledge their assumptions because assumptions imply faith. However, you aren’t going far enough…

Evolutionary theory is about how populations of self-replicating organisms change and diversify over time.

View Post

…here is another assumption, the assumption that ALL living organisms have a common decent due to common ancestry, or more correctly one or a small handful of common ancestors with simple beginnings; something such as; a bacterium (which ain’t simple).

It brings in genetics, the fossil record, biology, and statistics into the problem.

View Post

It may bring them in but the explanations are ad hoc and just-so-stories that have no demonstratable end, just imagination super-imposed on certain evidence while ignoring others.

However, evolutionary theory focuses on populations of organisms that already replicate. It is not about where the first self-replicating organisms come from.

View Post

Yes, but as long as the recipient of evolutionary theory and its stories is non-the-wiser, the origin of species is implied to be known scientifically by this process of speciation.

The theories on the orgins of the first self-replicating organism is a great topic, and is certainly worthy in a general discussion of origins, but it is a different discussion. The rules and the science behind abiogenesis are quite different than the rules and science behind evolution.

View Post

Then why do high-school and college kids in America today think that the observations of speciation is just one small step from solving the origins dilemma? It’s because the public gets all these things mixed together as scientific and aren’t being taught how to think critically on these matters. Forums like these are a God send.

I have no clue why the counter-arguments to evolution seem so dangerous to people like Eugenie Scott. What do you think? If origins is unknowable by the scientific method why is it mixed in with things that we can test and demonstrate scientifically? Is the desire to get people to assume that one works like the other? That seems a little deceptive to me.

Evolution is about selection and relative survival in populations or living organisms.

View Post

Then why as the man and principle behind the theory based on a book called “Origin of Species” I believe your above statement is true, in this one sense. That it is true that the science end of the evolution endeavor studies variations but evolutions purpose is to explain origins not how things simply change over time.

Abiogenesis is about natural chemical bonds, primordial soup, chance combinations, natural affinities, catalysts etc. This science is more speculative, with much less evidence. Much of this line of science is about what is possible rather than what happened.

View Post

I enjoy your candor, again. It is appreciated. However, this is not how it is usually presented. It is presented as an endeavor that is so close to solving this naturalist’s pipe dream that you can hold your breath until the solution because it’s that close.

BTW, what if they did make life in the laboratory? Do you know what it would prove? It would prove that it takes intelligence and design and purpose to make life.

One accepted fact among scientists in this field is that the first good evidence of cellular life appears around 3.5 billion years ago, and then life stayed primarily single cell for another 3 billion years or so (Eukaryotic cells appearing about 1.7 billion years back). Scientific models of abiogenesis must begin with those facts or they must provide evidence that those facts are wrong.

View Post

This is an assumption based on the contrived geologic column. Which is constructed to supplement uniformitarianism, a byproduct of philosophical naturalism.

Anyway, I just wanted to help you understand why most evolutionary scientists think of these as two separate problem. Although both are good problems and both are fair game in discussions of origins.

I am not asking you to agree with this was of thinking. I just wanted to show how most scientists see the two problems.

View Post

I just wanted to show that this is not how the public is given this information in school. Eugenie Scott, Ken Miller, and the ACLU are struggling diligently to maintain that this is a science verses religion debate. It's really two religions, or worldviews, hashing it out and if and when the public starts getting a sense that this is indeed true, we will finally see this debate go to the next level because people will start turning there critical thinking on, rather then just believe that people in lab coats don't have biases and worldviews that distort and color their interpretations of the evidence.

Adam

#48 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 23 December 2008 - 03:12 PM

One accepted fact among scientists in this field is that the first good evidence of cellular life appears around 3.5 billion years ago, and then life stayed primarily single cell for another 3 billion years or so (Eukaryotic cells appearing about 1.7 billion years back). Scientific models of abiogenesis must begin with those facts or they must provide evidence that those facts are wrong.


Evidence of metalurgy dating back to 2.8 billion years.Fossils cant survive the heat and pressure of the precambrian,but metal artifacts can.

Posted Image


Over the past several decades, South African miners have found hundreds of metallic spheres, at least one of which has three parallel grooves running around its equator.

The spheres are of two types--"one of solid bluish metal with white flecks, and another which is a hollow ball filled with a white spongy center" (Jimison 1982).

Roelf Marx, curator of the museum of Klerksdorp, South Africa, where some of the spheres are housed, said: "The spheres are a complete mystery. They look man-made, yet at the time in Earth's history when they came to rest in this rock no intelligent life existed. They're nothing like I have ever seen before" (Jimison 1982).

We wrote to Roelf Marx for further information about the spheres. He replied in a letter dated September 12, 1984: "There is nothing scientific published about the globes, but the facts are: They are found in pyrophyllite, which is mined near the little town of Ottosdal in the Western Transvaal. This pyrophyllite (Al2Si4O10(OH)2) is a quite soft secondary mineral with a count of only 3 on the Mohs' scale and was formed by sedimentation about 2.8 billion years ago. On the other hand the globes, which have a fibrous structure on the inside with a shell around it, are very hard and cannot be scratched, even by steel." The Mohs' scale of hardness is named after Friedrich Mohs, who chose ten minerals as references points for comparative hardness, with talc the softest and diamond the hardest ...Forbidden Archaeology

Mystery Spheres Stump California Space Institute?

Stones, which are found in rock scientists say are billions of years old- and which rotate on their axes, captured the attention of Mr. John Hund of Pietersburg fifteen years ago....

While playing with the stone on a very flat surface at a restaurant one day, Hund realized it was very well balanced. He took it to the California Space Institute at the University of California to have tests done to determine just how well balanced it was. "It turned out that the balance is so fine, it exceeded the limit of their measuring technology and these are the guys who make gyrocompasses for NASA.

The stone is balanced to within one-hundred thousandths of an inch from absolute perfection," explains Hund. Nobody knows what these stones are.

One NASA scientist reportedly told Hund that they do not have the technology to create anything as finely balanced as this. He said the only way that either nature or human technology could create something so finely balanced would be in zero gravity.


www.s8int.com/page9.html


Enjoy.

#49 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 23 December 2008 - 03:32 PM

Evidence of metalurgy dating back to 2.8 billion years.Fossils cant survive the heat and pressure of the precambrian,but metal artifacts can.

Posted Image

Enjoy.

View Post


You know, I knew nothing about the abundance of out-of-place-artifacts (Oop Art) until I heard the defense of Young Earth Creationism.

It's not the evidence that disturbs Christians, it's the suppression of it that disturbs.

#50 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 23 December 2008 - 04:29 PM

Evidence of metalurgy dating back to 2.8 billion years.Fossils cant survive the heat and pressure of the precambrian,but metal artifacts can.

Posted Image
Over the past several decades, South African miners have found hundreds of metallic spheres, at least one of which has three parallel grooves running around its equator.

The spheres are of two types--"one of solid bluish metal with white flecks, and another which is a hollow ball filled with a white spongy center" (Jimison 1982).

Roelf Marx, curator of the museum of Klerksdorp, South Africa, where some of the spheres are housed, said: "The spheres are a complete mystery. They look man-made, yet at the time in Earth's history when they came to rest in this rock no intelligent life existed. They're nothing like I have ever seen before" (Jimison 1982).

View Post

Oh, that's just the illusion of design. Natural selection creates many things which superficially appear to be designed.

#51 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 23 December 2008 - 04:43 PM

Oh, that's just the illusion of design. Natural selection creates many things which superficially appear to be designed.

View Post


I've linked this before but I'll link it again:

Qsymb6UxWM0

#52 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 24 December 2008 - 04:53 PM

Edit: I can't get that link to open. (There I got it to work, disregard this statement)
Thanks. I'd say I wasn't fishing, but I was.  <_<

View Post


So how did you get on with your reading?

#53 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 24 December 2008 - 08:50 PM

I wrote this once before, but thought it might help to post it again.

Suppose you believed that weather was caused by God, Zeus or some other deity, and wanted to debate with a meteorologist. It would be fair to ask all sorts of questions about where storms come from, where wind comes from, why temperatures go up and down.

But if you asked the question, "But where does the oxygen come from?", the meteorologist would probably tell you that was not part of meteorology. He might have an idea about where oxygen came from on our planet, but meteorology already assumes an atmosphere.

In standard evolutionary theory, one assumes that one starts with a self-replicating organism of some sort. Evolutionary theory is about how populations of self-replicating organisms change and diversify over time. It brings in genetics, the fossil record, biology, and statistics into the problem. However, evolutionary theory focuses on populations of organisms that already replicate. It is not about where the first self-replicating organisms come from.

The theories on the orgins of the first self-replicating organism is a great topic, and is certainly worthy in a general discussion of origins, but it is a different discussion. The rules and the science behind abiogenesis are quite different than the rules and science behind evolution. Evolution is about selection and relative survival in populations or living organisms. Abiogenesis is about natural chemical bonds, primordial soup, chance combinations, natural affinities, catalysts etc. This science is more speculative, with much less evidence. Much of this line of science is about what is possible rather than what happened.

One accepted fact among scientists in this field is that the first good evidence of cellular life appears around 3.5 billion years ago, and then life stayed primarily single cell for another 3 billion years or so (Eukaryotic cells appearing about 1.7 billion years back). Scientific models of abiogenesis must begin with those facts or they must provide evidence that those facts are wrong.

Anyway, I just wanted to help you understand why most evolutionary scientists think of these as two separate problem. Although both are good problems and both are fair game in discussions of origins.

I am not asking you to agree with this was of thinking. I just wanted to show how most scientists see the two problems.

James

View Post


If we take two ideas, abiogenesis and evolution. And eliminate how abiogenesis works. Would evolution still work if it's beginning of life, that supposetly evolved, was no longer explainable?

Now the example you leave about weather involves laws of physics. Evolution has it's own laws.

#54 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 24 December 2008 - 10:00 PM

So how did you get on with your reading?

View Post


I got a little side tracked. I want to look at it closer but what I've seen is as I expected. I intend on giving you a full report, though, give me some time because I want to carefully consider everything it says because the observations are interesting and noteworthy. <_<

#55 Black Cat

Black Cat

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 66 posts
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • The Hague

Posted 28 December 2008 - 09:48 AM

Would evolution still work if it's beginning of life, that supposetly evolved, was no longer explainable?

View Post


Yes. Evolution is not connected to the origin of life.

#56 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 28 December 2008 - 11:01 AM

I can do better than that, I can refer you to the research here : Phagotrophy by a flagellate selects for colonial prey: A possible origin of multicellularity

I did like the bacteria meeting sketch ;) I was laughing out loud when the bacteria were asking around for a sphincter :o

View Post


Hi Jason,

Sorry, it took so long for me to get back to you on this.

It's an interesting trait that bacteria can form small colonies that have some unique cooperative properties but this is a far cry from a multi-celled organism. There is no consistency and there isn't a new defined creature that is reproducing with organs and specialized function, unless I missed something.

Do you really find something like this promising when the overwhelming evidence says that bacteria are severely limited and out of all the organisms we have today they should be the best Guinea pigs for evolution (high multiplication rate)?

Here is a great article:

http://www.icr.org/a...eyond-bacteria/

#57 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 29 December 2008 - 12:44 AM

Hi Black Cat,

Yes. Evolution is not connected to the origin of life.


Why did the father of evolution "Charles Darwin" call his book "The Origin of Species"?And why did he think it was important to write about a simple life form being created in a primordial ooze?

I think modern day Darwinists try to brush it aside as a seperate science because they have no idea how to explain it.



Thanks.

#58 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 31 December 2008 - 08:48 PM

I would agree. Any support foundation of evolution is a part of evolution. Because if it's needed for evolution to happen, then it is not separate.

View Post


It’s the circular reasoning of evolution… Or maybe the evolution of circular reasoning. I think evolutionists would gain a lot of creditability if they would admit to the many faith statements built into their model.


It's like tryig to claim that tires are so differently made from the cars they go on. So they are not needed to make it go. And that would be wrong to assume.

View Post


And yet, the whole time denying the design that goes into the tires and the car!

#59 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 31 December 2008 - 08:56 PM

Oh, that's just the illusion of design. Natural selection creates many things which superficially appear to be designed.

View Post


So natural selection is a creative force now? Doesn’t that “beg the question” for a designer?

It never ceases to amaze me how, when you read papers, articles and journals on evolution, the writers speak of how evolution (or “Natural Selection”) does this, makes that (or in this case “creates many things”) as if evolution were a sentient being? That it has a life force of its own….

Does anyone else get the feeling that there’s a little theological license being applied to the evolutionary model here?

#60 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 01 January 2009 - 12:49 AM

So natural selection is a creative force now? Doesn’t that “beg the question” for a designer?

It never ceases to amaze me how, when you read papers, articles and journals on evolution, the writers speak of how evolution (or “Natural Selection”) does this, makes that (or in this case “creates many things”) as if evolution were a sentient being? That it has a life force of its own….

Does anyone else get the feeling that there’s a little theological license being applied to the evolutionary model here?

View Post

It's just evolutionists fulfilling scripture by worshiping their own creation. It's funny how coincidences pop up in life. I used the phrase "deification of natural selection" in my thread on 'natural selection', and within a week or two I came across the very same phrase. Darwin & Huxley discussed it in their day.

It is a consequence of believing in evolutionism, and nobody seems to find a way around it. Although some might like to find a solution, most prefer to pretend the problem doesn't exist. In a way, I can understand the latter. So long as a god is false, they don't seem to care very much. Why bother with such a trivial issue in the first place? There's only one God that must be avoided, and discussing this trivial matter too much would only highlight hypocrisy and disenchant the weaker followers.

I suppose it would be better to continue this discussion
in the appropriate thread. Creativity requires thought, and those who deny it at the front door must sneak it in some other way.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users