Here's your chance!?

Question

Creationists are always clamoring about how they have evidence for "intelligent design" and evidence contradicting evolution. Well here is your chance, show it to me. What is your evidence? I want links to websites (I would prefer peer reviewed papers). I want hard science, no reference to faith or the bible, or any holy book for that matter. That form of closed reasoning does not answer anything. For those who do not know what that is, here is an example:

Theist: "The bible is true"

Atheist: "How do you know"

Theist: "The bible says the bible is true"

Atheist: "Wow"

See if you could do what Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron could not. What is your evidence?

I know what the closed argument is, I was trying to show an example in the hopes I would not get one, it is a fallacy and does not answer anything.

Here are your answers Chrisn 35 res:

1. That proves "intelligent design"? That proves we are different species, if you accept sexual reproduction as a means for distinguishing species.

2. Again...what? Cells do not "decide" what to be, take biology.

3. Which species? If they were truly weak, they would not be here, they are suited to live how they are...how do you know they are weak?

4. These are getting old. Chameleons can change skin color, so what are you trying to say about the skin color thing? Animals do not "choose" to be have different traits.

5. http://uplink.space.com/attachments/499583-liger.jpg

That is a real live Liger...Lion mated with a Tiger.

They get it from meat? Cows are herbivores, you know nothing of biology do you?
http://chemistry.about.com/cs/howthingswork/a/aa122703a.htm

Alighieri:

I disagree, I know science is true because of mountains of mutually supporting evidence, not a book written by power hungry men. So no, it is not closed reasoning. Science has been wrong about many things, every scientist will admit that, but it is by no means closed reasoning.

Alighieri:

I disagree, I know science is true because of mountains of mutually supporting evidence, not a book written by power hungry men. So no, it is not closed reasoning. Science has been wrong about many things, every scientist will admit that, but it is by no means closed reasoning.

John 1:1:

You are wrong.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

There is plenty of evidence for human evolution. Also, evolution does not attempt to answer the origins of life, merely how it has become so diverse.

Answer 1

It is not my intent to try to prove or disprove "intelligent design", or anything else.
Rather my goal is to tell you that God is saying to you
"Here's YOUR chance! Believe in and accept My Son or the wrath of God abides on you!"

It would be a shame to go to Hell just because you thought you were smarter than God.

Answer 2

I believe in evolution and I am a Christian. Figure that out!! Well I believe in evolution to a point ( We are taller and our feet bigger than they used to be, and we do adapt and change to our environment) However, there are questions I have about both. I will be interested to read some of the replies you get.
Some of the bodies complex systems such as the clotting of blood, eyesight, the immune system, the vesicular transport system. And then there are the bombardier beetle, and so many other specialized species like the hummingbird, woodpecker and thousands of others.
And then there are the simple systems that have not changed. The fish still eat the plankton. There is still an order to the food chain. And then there are those pesky questions like where did the first grain of dust come from? And does DNA change? These are some questions in the book "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael J. Behe . It is a very detailed book and a good read.

EDIT:

Sorry, I put my source above instead of below! I think this book at least proves that Darwin's theory is not sufficient enough to explain life. There is that little gap between nothing and something that has always troubled me. Maybe if anybody can answer that ...and sources would be nice also.

Answer 3

Well Skippy you are a demanding little troll aren’t you. Evidence of ID: Look around, it is everywhere. And evolution is fine with me… to a point. We see from fossil evidence that species did in fact evolve and there is some evidence that natural selection may have played a role, there is also evidence of man tampering with that evolution by selective breeding.

Where evolution breaks down is when someone attempts to use it to support the creation of human life. I hate to be the one to bust your bubble but, there is no evidence that man evolved from some other species or common species; plant or animal. All fossil record of evolution is within species.

“Nor shall I discuss the various definitions which have been given of the term species. No one definition has satisfied all naturalists; yet every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when he speak of a species. Generally the term includes the UNKNOWN element of a distinct act of creation. The term ‘variety’ is almost equality difficult to define: but here community of descent is almost universally implied, though it can rarely be proved.” [Emphasis mine] Origin of Species: Part 11 Harvard Classics by Charles Darwin Published 2004 Kessinger Publishing Science 560 pages ISBN 0766181774 Chapter 2, pg 58

Darwin defends his theory well, however, no where do I see him use words other than “conclusion” “conviction” in its defense. In other words he does not describe it as “FACT” and he presents no such evidence because it is not available.

Answer 4

Yep, you got what you expected. As of this posting, no one has offered any proofs for ID other than trying to poke holes in evolution or by attempting to convert you/us to religion.

And I think that one guy had his fingers in his ears all through freshman Biology saying "LALALALA". I am astounded he thinks that if related species should be able to mate. He obviously doesn't know the definition of 'species.'

Answer 5

Did you happen to notice your own closed reasoning. You determine that science is true, why, because science says so. People place belief and faith in what they choose, be it a Bible, or a peer-reviewed journal. Asking someone to "prove" creationism without faith is just as useless as asking a biologist to "prove" evolution without science.

Answer 6

Whenever I've asked creationists this, they almost always try to prove creation by disproving evolution. However, most, if not all, of their arguments are invalid; it's clear that they've either never studied evolution or just don't understand it. If they did, they'd believe it. There are quite a few theists in this world that believe in evolution. Unfortunately, there will always be a few fundies.

Answer 7

Monkeys are not compatible with humans for reproduction. Yet we are supposed to be related.

A cell with no brain can not decide to be anything other than what it is.

Weak species among us when survival of the fittest is supposed to be the golden rule of evolution.

Leopard can not change his spots so how does a animal choose to be different.

Other animals are not reproductively compatible across other species.

Cows are vegetarians and when forced to eat meat they do not evolve they get mad cow's disease.

Give me a response on these and then we could go on with more.

Answer 8

A true Bible Thumper and lond winded!

Answer 9

Creationism/Intelligent Design relies all too heavily upon attempting to poke holes in evolutionary theory (usually embarrassingly).

That's because they know Creationism/ID is NOT science; it is religion, and the emperor is stark naked. They don't realize that even if they were to succeed, it does not make their stance correct by default.

Answer 10

I know the Bible is true because is it the most historically accurate document of all time. We have more manuscripts of the Bible than we do the Illiad, and they're all closer to the original than any of the Illiad's manuscripts are to its original. And this is true of any historical document.

In other words, based on how other historical documents are judged, the Bible has more credibility than anything else. It's more historically accurate that the flood happened than Confucious existed.