creationism, where is the evidence???!!! i see none, page 5
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times


reply posted on 1-1-2008 @ 08:06 PM by ppkjjkpp
Originally posted by mamasita


My evidence is pretty much self explanatory and you either don't want to or can't refute it. For example, there are no intermediate fossils, missing links evolutionists are looking for. There should be millions. This proves that creation had to happen.

[edit on 1-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]


no it is not self explanatory! yet again i'm asking you to tell me why they are proof - u cant just say human eye and say thats proof! you have to tell me why you think that is proof.
as for fossils - do you have any idea how rare fossils are?! do you know how little archeologists get paid?! you try digging all day to find bones and fossils - its hard work! finding gold is easier but i'm not rich! you can hardly say anything about missing links - we have found enough evidence to support the theory of our evolutionary ladder. thats probally the reason why scientists accept evolution - i watch documentaries all the time and evolution is on all the time - based as a fact not a theory - i dont see anything about creationism - thats because its no longer accepted



ok when the archeologists get paid more and can find the transitional fossils let me know.
well the grand canyon and other gorges globally don't support the evolutionary ladder of life at all! www.gennet.org...
just because the majority of people believe someting doesn't mean it's right. Everyone thought the earth was flat before. Even before we discovered a round earth it was the bible that had said it was round.


reply posted on 1-1-2008 @ 08:32 PM by melatonin
Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
well the grand canyon and other gorges globally don't support the evolutionary ladder of life at all! www.gennet.org...


OK, I had a read of that link. Not good at all. This was rather silly:

To add insult to injury, the Kaibab Limestone layer at the very top of our "ladder of life" shows the only evidence to be found in the Canyon of fossilized sponges! This is embarrassing to evolutionists, because sponges are a loose collection of living cells that are believed to be the first multicellular organisms to have evolved on earth.

www.gennet.org...

Do sponges exist now? Would you be really surprised if someone 100 million years from now found fossils of sponges in the layers we are laying down currently?

I think his issue is portraying evolution as a 'ladder of life'. Probably better to see it as a 'big-bushy thing of life'.



reply posted on 1-1-2008 @ 08:54 PM by ppkjjkpp
I guess you've never heard of Tiktaalik. That's one of the most recent ones. There are loads of intermediates, the problem is that you just haven't bothered looking in the right place. Creationist websites tend to not be the best source for material about evolution.

I'll let Dr Ken Miller discuss transitionals for you - he's a real scientist with a real PhD, unlike Mr Hovind. This shows one of your assertions to be incorrect:



[edit on 1-1-2008 by melatonin]

tiktaalik is just a species of fish. Some fish can walk on land and be out of water for a while like some catfish. Those limbs look more like fins and are much smaller than expected for that size of body. So how many fossils do evolutionists consider missing links now. There should be a lot more than one or two.
I don't follow Hovind. I think for myself and follow the evidence.


reply posted on 1-1-2008 @ 09:03 PM by mamasita
reply to post by ppkjjkpp


ok now i think you're ignoring my question!
you were supposed to back up your "evidence"
obviously you can't....


reply posted on 1-1-2008 @ 09:08 PM by ppkjjkpp
[edit on 1-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]


reply posted on 2-1-2008 @ 01:42 AM by Heronumber0
mamasita,

I just want to restore a bit of balance again. If Creationists want to argue for a principle and important piece of evidence it would come from the creation of DNA. This incredible and ubiquitous molecule carries all the code for a living organism. People who don't believe in God would have to account for the presence of an error correcting molecule which is proofread for accuracy and provide a good explanation for how it came about.

This mutation debate is driving me mad! A one base mutation can lead to serious genetic disease even if that person carries a hundred other neutral mutations. There are more genetic diseases with negative outcomes for individuals than positive benefits - even melatonin reluctantly admitted that.

There are so many negative mutations in humans that it is unlikely to see where their genes would dominate in a population. I would refrain from saying more to show sensitivity to people who have these mutations.

In order for a positive mutation to become distributed widely, it needs a large scale event with many deaths of 'weaker' genes like the Black Death. Geneticists can correct me on this if I am wrong but positive mutations would tend to have a positive efect in small populations where there is not a great deal of immmigration or emigration and the effects would be diuted in a large population making them like any other feature.

At the least, you should weigh and consider the evidence and the facts.

Ultimately the Creationists will point to DNA and creation of the single cell as highly unlikely evolutionary events. I think this will be the evolution vs Creationist battleground of the future.


reply posted on 2-1-2008 @ 02:43 AM by apex
Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
evidence for creation:
earth's magnetic field is young


How do you know it is young? Further, it is known it has changed direction in the past, since magnetic rocks have different alignments depending on when they were formed at plate boundaries.
Past field reversals can be and have been recorded in the "frozen" ferromagnetic (or more accurately, ferrimagnetic) minerals of solidified sedimentary deposits or cooled volcanic flows on land. Originally, however, the past record of geomagnetic reversals was first noticed by observing the magnetic stripe "anomalies" on the ocean floor. Lawrence W. Morley, Frederick John Vine and Drummond Hoyle Matthews made the connection to seafloor spreading in the Morley-Vine-Matthews hypothesis which soon led to the development of the theory of plate tectonics. Given that the sea floor spreads at a relatively constant rate, this results in broadly evident substrate"stripes" from which the past magnetic field polarity can be inferred by looking at the data gathered from simply towing a magnetometer along the sea floor. However, because no existing unsubducted sea floor (or sea floor thrust onto continental plates, such as in the case of ophiolites) is much older than about 180 million years (Ma) in age, other methods are necessary for detecting older reversals. Most sedimentary rocks incorporate tiny amounts of iron rich minerals, whose orientation is influenced by the ambient magnetic field at the time at which they formed.source


the human eye

Dawkins had a great explanation in "The God Delusion", actually, something about starting off with a single photoreceptive cell, then extending to more and eventually getting an 'eye'. consider, when eyes were first evolving no one else had any, so animals with them had a massive advantage.


reply posted on 2-1-2008 @ 03:02 AM by mamasita
reply to post by Heronumber0


ok first of all you might want to check wat this thread is about before you criticise me - you obviously dont know wat your talking about. not only have i not mentioned mutations in this thread nor is it wat its about.
this is about creationists having a chance to bring forward evidence after so many posts are out claiming we have no evidence but not bringing any of theirs forward.
secondly are you wondering how single celled organisms were first formed? because if it is i can tell you the main theories on this.
until then your on the wrong topic.


reply posted on 2-1-2008 @ 03:37 AM by Heronumber0
reply to post by mamasita


I have not insulted you at all. I am puzzled by your bizarre response because I don't think you have clearly read what I have written. Nevertheless, let me state it again. Let's forget about mutations although they are the basic driving force of evolution theory. Creationists will point to the Creation of DNA and the single cell as unlikely natural events. I may not know what I am talking about but it is a complex task to look back billions of years - I bow to your superior knowledge here. Yes, you are right, I do need to educate myself more and I look forward to your enlightening comments. Thank you.

[edit on 2/1/2008 by Heronumber0]


reply posted on 2-1-2008 @ 05:12 AM by mamasita
reply to post by Heronumber0


i'm not acting superior but i too am confused by your reply. mutation is not the driving force of evolution, your thinking of natural selection.
you must also be talking about how single celled organisms were first created - well they are believed to b started many ways and have been re-created in labs. this is made up by the right chemical make up in hot springs and a lightning strike and wala - you have life at its most simple of forms ie bacteria and blue green algae.
how ever i made this thread to ask what evidence creationists have - there are already many other threads asking evolutionists what evidence we have so please keep this topic on track.


reply posted on 2-1-2008 @ 10:26 AM by dizziedame
reply to post by Solarskye

Solarskye thank you for your post. As I read every word in this thread I became upset and angry. Not at the subject matter but the members reminded me of young school children fighting.

No one knows exactly how we came about. We all have our theories. I can't understand why the evolutionist get so snippy and almost seem bitter. I see creationist willing to consider different theories but the evolutionist take their theory as the only possible way we came into existence.

This question may never be answered in our lifetimes. Why can't we all continue to study and search for answers and not get bogged down in hateful discussions. I don't believe that is a possibility as it really seems it is a fight between christians and atheist.

We that believe in God do not hate nor disbelieve in the scientific community. Our creator was certainly an expert scientist.

I just had to put my nickles worth in this discussion however I will not argue with anyone as it solves nothing. It only makes the gap larger between the parties involved.


reply posted on 2-1-2008 @ 10:48 AM by Solarskye
reply to post by dizziedame


You are welcome dizzie. It's just hard for me to accept anyone's theory just because it's all theory. It's ok to believe what you want to believe, but when discussing it turns into debating who's right or wrong about evolution and creatism it's a losing battle both ways.


reply posted on 2-1-2008 @ 11:24 AM by Solarskye
We all evolve and will keep doing so but evolution doesn't mean we were made because of it. Look at the elephant man or retardation. That's part of mutation that isn't in all of us. I'm not gonna argue with your beliefs so we disagree on this subject. It's worth reading both sides and is why I came to this thread. Thank you for your thoughts and ideas about evolution and creationism. Here's the definition of theory.

The word theory has a number of distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion.


In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.


In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statement "It's not a fact, it's only a theory." True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.


Source
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>    ^^TOP^^



EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?
  Posted 19 days ago with 24 member flags
"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
  Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags
The meaning or point of existence or life
  Posted 12 days ago with 2 member flags
Sand Castles and Science
  Posted 11 days ago with 2 member flags