CREATIONISTS; what proof do you have of creation? (all welcome to answer)?

Question

considering theres a bucketload for evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent - a list from wiki), what is there for your "intellegent" design?

to the "show me something thats evolving"

did you not click the link provided? dumbo.

sintori - did you not click on my link or something?

One example of evolution at work is the case of the hawthorn fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, also known as the apple maggot fly, which appears to be undergoing sympatric speciation.[7] Different populations of hawthorn fly feed on different fruits. A distinct population emerged in North America in the 19th century some time after apples, a non-native species, were introduced. This apple-feeding population normally feeds only on apples and not on the historically preferred fruit of hawthorns. The current hawthorn feeding population does not normally feed on apples. Some evidence, such as the fact that six out of thirteen allozyme loci are different, that hawthorn flies mature later in the season and take longer to mature than apple flies; and that there is little evidence of interbreeding (researchers have documented a 4-6% hybridization rate) suggests that this is occurring. The emergence of the new hawthorn fly is an example of evolut

(cont from previous)

ion in process.

(cheers to wiki)

and sorry about my mispelling, typing rather fast.


and yes, annoting creationists is turning into my new hobby.

poppy: its to do with part one pof my code:

1. do not strike first, let them do that.

which they have.

my questions are the returning agenda.

besides, they kinda fascinate me. each one i meet seems to get stupider and stupider!

so far nobody has given me any proof. which defeats he object of the question somewhat.

Answer 1

I notice not one single real answer. This is my main problem with the Creationist/ID crowd.

They expect YOU to obey the laws of reality, reason, logic and civility...while they refuse to answer, refuse to apply logic, refuse to be reasonable....and then claim their idea which has never been supported by any proof or evidence is 100% equal in validity to the opposition which allows people to attack it to expose flaws and keeps getting supported by evidence in the process.


"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead"
Thomas Paine




primoa1970> 1) Well I don't think anyone has God's word..since all religious texts have so much BS in them..I have too much faith in God to think it had anything to do with any of those cruddy books.
2) Jesus may or may not have been...I personally don't think so
3) There are mountains of evidence to prove+support Evolution that have been combed over and over again for over 100 years...so it is your turn to either put up or back off.


luvdalz68> Young Earth has been proved false multiple times by multiple methods such as paleomagnetism and radioactive dating (they use multiple types such as U/Pb, Rb/Sr which can be paired with other methods as verifications) so a) 100% false, b) 100% false, c) 75% false (leaving room for doubt cause we should always doubt..that's what science is about), or d) 100% false


angelo> I will give you that there were holes in DARWIN'S theory mostly due to holes in fossil record but since then the gaps have been filled in a lot...The Theory has become more refined to what actually happens......and every single teacher I have ever spoken to, heard of who teaches science teaches Evolution....so I gotta say I do not agree with you. Also I read Darwins Black Box...a book full of intelligent sounding false information

Recon > I disagree with you..I think you are wrong


chas_chas_123> Um you need to learn more about DNA...DNA can do lots of things..humans had 2 pairs that fused together to make 1 pair..biologists have in a lab cut up DNA and watched it make new things...there has been data showing DNA could be added to during any mutation DURING replication! Your argument that mutation causes only neutral or loss is not true as any random accident/mistake/etc during replication can create multiple strings of DNA, and we know they can fuse, and they can form into new shapes to create new instructions (biologists use this method to help create medicines)....so gotta say I disagree with you and that I think your argument is based off old information that is no longer valid

Answer 2

Sintori asks for evidence of any animal that is currently evolving.
The African elephant was hunted almost to extinction for its tusks. In recent years, and for the first time in history, some African elephants are being born without tusks - so that they will not be hunted and will therefore perpetuate the species.
And there's more; until recently, African elephants always gave birth to a single calf. In the last four years there have been several examples of twins being born.
Evolution is natures way of adapting to circumstances and conditions for survival.
I hope that this is a satisfactory response to your challenge Sintori.

Answer 3

GLY: if you're interested, read the postulations about "RNA world". I'm not saying they've got it figured out, yet, but in the RNA world the Decoding mechanism evolves first, not as a decoding machine, but as a self replicating molecule on its own. Remember, just because we don't know how something works yet, doesn't mean we won't someday. We no longer think lightning comes from the Hammer of Thor, after all. Happy Thor'sday.

Answer 4

I think you misudnerstand the nature of the creation/evolution debate.

Everyone has exactly the same evidence. It is a question of how we interpret it.

Unfortunately many evolutionists point to examples of natural selection or speciation and then call this evolution.

The Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution (molecule to man) requires a good deal more than that. It requires the creation of an enormous amount of information. NDT says this came about via mutations - yet all observe mutations are lossy or neutral. There is no observed mechanism to drive the alleged NDT.

In fact most evidence is explained very poorly by NDT and is much better explained by the Creationist interpretation.
For example the world is covered by sedimentary rocks, laid down by water, containing billions of dead creatures - exactly what one would expect from the Biblical account of the Flood.
You don't create a fossil by burying a creature slowly! Evolution does not explain the fossil record which shows stasis of kinds, along with extinction. It certainly does not show evolution of one kind of animal to another - which is what Darwin expected it would show.

Evolution is easily refuted in so many ways.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4013/

Answer 5

One of you asked for evidence of something evolving. Bacterium and MRSA is the answer.

Another one of you asked for burden of proof. You cannot disprove a negative, burden of proof lies with you I'm afraid (Bertand's teapot analogy).

Some other people picked up on one spelling mistake. This is an ad hominem attack which has nothing to do with the question; and it also comes from hypocrites with grammar mistakes.

edit: chas, natural selection goes hand in hand with evolution. And mutations can result in a gain of function, they're known as "gain of function mutations" (suprisingly). We see it microbiology labs nearly everyday.

Answer 6

C'mon people! Seriously - it’s not a matter of “their evidence vs. ours.” In regard to the whole evolution/creation/ID debate - we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.
It's the INTERPRETATION of these evidences that are different - not the facts themselves. All scientists have the same observations—the same data—available to them - and all evidence must be interpreted. The facts do NOT speak for themselves. Until we get this point settled - we're not gonna get anywhere close to an actual discussion .

Answer 7

You should read "The Evolution Cruncher" by Vance Ferrell. It contains thousands of scientific facts that support a young Earth, a global Flood and intelligent design. I used to be a hardcore atheist and evolutionist before I did investigated creation science, and I eventually dropped evolution like a hot potato. All the so-called "mountains of evidence" that the evolutionist claims to support his theory is nothing but a house of cards. They either a) are hoaxes long since disproven, b) outright lies, c) misinterpretations of scientific facts, or d) support creation.

Answer 8

what proof does anyone have for anything? There is no "proof" of evolution, there are just bits of evidence which support the *theory* of evolution. Personally I believe in evolution, but I think you're getting a little carried away with this idea of "proof".

Answer 9

Look at anything, ex: the human body...logical design went into creating it...not just random chance. The entire world is to scientifically arranged to prove theories of evolution.

Answer 10

You must be kidding. Don't tell me that you believe that nonsense they teach in schools about evolution! There are so many scientific facts that contradict Darwin's theory that teachers won't even discuss those facts. Try reading the book "Darwin's Black Box".