creationism, where is the evidence???!!! i see none

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

It would actually suggest the opposite, that the process is based on some random factors - including environmental and genetic. A guiding hand, on the other, well, hand, would tweak these organisms to perfection so that such a mechanism would not be needed, resulting in stable populations that don't overpopulate - a very different model from the actual rise and fall population systems that actually exist.

I'm sorry but I disagree.

Given an area of research that is still in its infancy, Artificial Intelligence, it is already apparent that everything, including the environment and especially genetics, plays into the equation of its programming.
Computer models can already show evidence of Adaptive Behavior as AI begins to Evolve

So it is very likely the same can be said about Man, unless you dare to selectively snuff this science.

As for your question about randomness, what is it exactly?
I remember reading years ago about a debate amongst computer scientists as to how true random numbers would be generated. Sure any microproccessor can generate pseudo-random numbers but these cannot be considered truely random because there is still some level programming required and usually relies on some sort of timing mechanism from an internal/external clock source.

Even you must admit something as random as a fractal always contains some element of design. Not only that, but you can continue to zoom in forever and still get cool patterns. It's like its own unique Universe.
Why is that?



I don't understand why Evolutionist seem to put Darwin on a pedestal. I'm not knocking Charlie but the study of Darwinism needs to be revisited because it is based on 100+ year old science. Having been around for a little over one hundred years, it is much like the old CRT technology that only until very recently has finally EVOLVED, (sorry, couldn't help it) into LCD and plasma flat panels.

To put it mildly, Darwin needs an overhaul!

I have said many times on these threads that both Science and the Bible are correct in many regards, and both must be considered if we are to ever crack the code of this mystery. Creationists and Evolutionists must both be able and willing work together to find the real truth.

Darwinian principles of random mutations and natural selection. Evidence like this caused some scientist this past year to suggest that Darwin’s “Tree-of-Life” model should be discarded and replaced with a “Biological Big Bang” model.

... scientific evidence is now indicating life bears the hallmarks of both. The information content present in living systems can only be explained by design, while biological systems also appear to have been designed to adapt to their environment through variation and natural selection.

I think it’s becoming clear that Darwinism is on the verge of one of the greatest challenges it has faced in many decades.

Full article here

...also worth mentioning, Top 10 Darwin and Design News Stories for 2007

Darwin's work has been overhauled considerably. That's why we have the modern synthesis.

Heh, I see you're quoting from an ID site. They've been crying 'Waterloo' for years. IDers can't even publish science in their own journals. It's as vacuous as YEC.



[edit on 2-1-2008 by melatonin]

I have a hard time believing that God could have created all life and the complex nature of dna. The early atmosphere of Earth took billions of years to evolve into an atmosphere suitable to sustain life. The idea of God is not supported by one single shred of scientific evidence. In fact there isn't enough evidence to support a theory let alone a fact. Evolution may be flawed but it's the only way at this point to explain man's existence.

I find it hard to believe that random chance created life. The chances are almost impossible. Evolutionists and creationists alike believe this fact. Therefore it is more probable to believe there is a creator. The top notch scientists in the world are looking for aliens in space. So whether it is God or aliens people think there is higher life form out there. Why are people so rejected to God but not aliens? The same scientists that believe in evolution are spending billions of dollars looking for aliens. Why can't there be a God? God provides the most probable answer to life's complexity and causation.

Another proof of creation is that all of life had to start all at once. If oxygen was present in the atmosphere when the first cells formed they would have just oxidized. Evolutionists countered this by saying there was no oxygen in the atmosphere billions of years ago. This poses another problem because the UV light would have destroyed all the ammonia and the cell would die anyways. If there is no oxygen then there would be no ozone layer to block the UV light. This shows that cells couldn't evolve with oxygen or evolve without oxygen.
Do not forget what the odds of a simple protein forming from the correct amino acids are.

"Mathematicians generally agree that, statistically, any odds beyond 1 in 10 to the 50th (1:10^50) have a zero probability of ever happening ("and even that gives it the benefit of the doubt")"

Also, remnants of oxygen remains have been discovered in some rocks that are assumed to have formed billions of years ago. Petrified trees have also been found standing through the geological column supposed to be millions of years old. This evidence alone destroys evolution and proves that life was created in a short period of time. God.
The Bible says the flood occured about 4500 years ago. Is it a coincidence that the oldest living tree in the world is about 4300 years old?

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
I find it hard to believe that random chance created life. The chances are almost impossible.

Good day, ppk.

First up, do you think it is 'random chance' that 4Na + 4H20 ----> 4Na0H + 2H2^?

If oxygen was present in the atmosphere when the first cells formed they would have just oxidized. Evolutionists countered this by saying there was no oxygen in the atmosphere billions of years ago.

Aye, there is copious evidence that much of the earth's oxygen was first produced by some of the first organisms. However, this is geology, not evolutionary biology or abiogenesis.

This poses another problem because the UV light would have destroyed all the ammonia and the cell would die anyways. If there is no oxygen then there would be no ozone layer to block the UV light. This shows that cells couldn't evolve with oxygen or evolve without oxygen.

Depends how the cells developed really. Maybe it was under the ocean. Maybe by some other process. Moreover, UV has actually been shown to aid the selection of nucleic acids.

Research article
Survival of the fittest before the beginning of life: selection of the first oligonucleotide-like polymers by UV light
Armen Y Mulkidjanian1,2 , Dmitry A Cherepanov1,3 and Michael Y Galperin4

BMC Evolutionary Biology 2003, 3:12doi:10.1186/1471-2148-3-12

Published: 28 May 2003

Abstract
Background
A key event in the origin of life on this planet has been formation of self-replicating RNA-type molecules, which were complex enough to undergo a Darwinian-type evolution (origin of the "RNA world"). However, so far there has been no explanation of how the first RNA-like biopolymers could originate and survive on the primordial Earth.

Results
As condensation of sugar phosphates and nitrogenous bases is thermodynamically unfavorable, these compounds, if ever formed, should have undergone rapid hydrolysis. Thus, formation of oligonucleotide-like structures could have happened only if and when these structures had some selective advantage over simpler compounds. It is well known that nitrogenous bases are powerful quenchers of UV quanta and effectively protect the pentose-phosphate backbones of RNA and DNA from UV cleavage. To check if such a protection could play a role in abiogenic evolution on the primordial Earth (in the absence of the UV-protecting ozone layer), we simulated, by using Monte Carlo approach, the formation of the first oligonucleotides under continuous UV illumination. The simulations confirmed that UV irradiation could have worked as a selective factor leading to a relative enrichment of the system in longer sugar-phosphate polymers carrying nitrogenous bases as UV-protectors. Partial funneling of the UV energy into the condensation reactions could provide a further boost for the oligomerization.

Conclusion
These results suggest that accumulation of the first polynucleotides could be explained by their abiogenic selection as the most UV-resistant biopolymers.

www.biomedcentral.com...

Do not forget what the odds of a simple protein forming from the correct amino acids are.

"Mathematicians generally agree that, statistically, any odds beyond 1 in 10 to the 50th (1:10^50) have a zero probability of ever happening ("and even that gives it the benefit of the doubt")"

Heh, 1:10^51 is not zero probability, it's 1:10^51. Given it would be very very unlikely.

However, I'd like to see the working on that probability calculation. I'm sure it's normal poor creationist maths - tornado in the junkyard stuff.

Petrified trees have also been found standing through the geological column supposed to be millions of years old. This evidence alone destroys evolution and proves that life was created in a short period of time. God.

Eh? Pertified polystrate trees, therefore god?

Is there a logical connection there? Is this similar to 'polystrate telephone poles, therefore god'?



The formation of polystrate trees is quite well-understood.

The Bible says the flood occured about 4500 years ago. Is it a coincidence that the oldest living tree in the world is about 4300 years old?

Depends whether you ignore the dead ones with counted rings. Prometheus was over 5000 years old. If we use the full extent of bristlecone knowledge, we can push back to around 8000yrs.

Pinus longaeva is generally regarded as the longest-lived of all sexually reproducing, nonclonal species, with many individuals known to have ages exceeding 4000 years. Due to the resinous wood and extremely cold and arid habitat, decay of dead wood is extremely slow, and wood on the ground in some stands has ages exceeding 10,000 years. This has permitted building a continuous chronology of more than 8,000 years, which in turn has been used to calibrate the radiocarbon timescale. The species has been widely used in dendroclimatic reconstruction and in several classic studies of timberline ecology.

www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de...

And then another 2000 for oaks:

Oak is a highly preferred species to use in dendrochronology - in fact, the longest continuous tree-ring chronology anywhere in the world was developed in Europe and is currently about 10,000 year in length. This chronology is providing scientists new insights on climate over the past 10,000 years, especially at the end of the last Glacial Maximum.

That's 10,000 years just using a few trees. Of course, we have ice-cores, varves, calcites/corals, radiodating, and astronomy which can push back a little bit past that, a few billion to be precise.

We're still at the level of 'not eviluzion, therefore creation' at points in your post though, eh? I guess providing evidence for YEC dates is the most salient for your argument. But that was discarded even before Darwin's theory.

[edit on 3-1-2008 by melatonin]

A really well-done documentary on the History Channel, 'How the Earth Was Made' goes into incredible detail with great graphics (especially in HD) and describes the processes more briliantly than I could, in a forum like this.

The program touches on geology and plate tectonics, biology and vulcansim. Again, it is done in 90 minutes or so...a daunting task when you consider that it is incorporating 4.5 Billion years of history into an educational and informative show. I suppose the inclination to cling to 'Creationism'...or it's new cousin, 'Intelligent Design' is borne out of a desire to want things simple; some, instead of being intellectually challenged to think about the immensity of the time-span involved, are lured instead to a 'faith-based' ideology, since in human time scales it seems easier to comprehend.

Thanks for a great thread mamasita.

Humans clone things. We geneticaly know how to manipulate plants and animals. We manipulate physical reality by creating our own glass, and plastic and other elements. And we can control natural things...

Creationism is happening NOW, that is our proof that SOMETHING designed us and created us. If HUMANS can do it, then why not something more smart than humans?

The biggest mistake in all history is to think God is a person. God is just the substance we are all made of. When it comes down to it, and if I had to scientificly prove God existed and created humans, I would simply ask you to tell me what everything is made out of. You will tell me quarks and leptons and whatever else.. well, those are small particles of God himself. You, Me, All things are made of God. God made all things in its own image.

What you see, is God, what you feel, is God. If you added up all substances in the entire universe. If you added together all the electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks, leptons, positrons, and all of the particles that create our entire universe, THE SUM OF ALL WOULD EQUAL 0NE! G0D

reply to post by ALLis0NE


OK, ALLisONE,

Beautiful theory. We are all part of the wonder of everything.

Now that you have presented your opinion, how about some evidence to bolster your claim?

No disrespect intended here, it's just that this has been a long-proclaimed rant that is about Faith, and Faith alone. Not science.

BTW, science is not dependant on Faith. Science is rigorous, tested, experimented and peer reviewed. Faith is, well....Faith.
The Human heart is capable of many things, long before we learned how to manipulate genes and 'clone', or any of the other things you fallaciously pointed to in your post to claim that we are somehow 'created' because we can now 'create'. Backwards logic, that....

Before we had technology, we had Love, Art, and Compassion. Higher sentient traits, but only slightly better than some of the 'higher' apes. I daresay some of our cousins, as in the Bonobo, exhibit many Human-like traits, except, maybe, for the ability to deceive...

[I'm human, misspelled the darn word! Fixed now...]


[edit on 3-1-2008 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by melatonin


Unfortunately this is not an example of evolution, macro or micro. The team doing the research implemented the change into the protein; it did not occur naturally. This research would then be proof that evolution "requires" the intervention of an intelligent (divine) being (human/god - in this case a human) to facilitate the evolutionary cycle/progression.

-Euclid

reply to post by weedwhacker


Science is proliferated by what can be considered "blind-faith" by many. Science is only capable of categorizing, quantifying and observing things and/or processes. It is not able to understand them and thus is only able to create generalized theories of what is being categorized, quantified and observed.

As an example:

The sun as a thermo-nuclear chain reaction - theory
Macro Evolution - Theory
General Relativity - Theory
Physics in general - Theory
Stings/m-Branes - Theory

Science is nothing but theories that generally describe what the scientist observe.

As an example: No one can tell me what "electricity" is, not even a scientist. What is electricity? We can use it, generate it, store it, manipulate it; but NO ONE KNOWS "WHAT IT IS.

Scientist (and their lessor, uninformed minions known as skeptics/athiests) from all appearances and perspectives lack the ability, or capability, to think outside of their "faith" and blindly believe what ever theory Science presents to them is fact.

The truth is skeptics/athiests have just as much "faith & belief" that their beloved theories are "truth" as much as any fanatical muslim believes that if they strap a bomb to their chest and blow up a bunch of infidels that they will get harem of virgins to enjoy in their afterlife.

-Euclid

[edit on 3-1-2008 by euclid]

Originally posted by euclid
Unfortunately this is not an example of evolution, macro or micro. The team doing the research implemented the change into the protein; it did not occur naturally. This research would then be proof that evolution "requires" the intervention of an intelligent (divine) being (human/god - in this case a human) to facilitate the evolutionary cycle/progression.

The link to my post throws me back to the study about APO-milano in people.

Are you talking about the therapy derived from APO-milano? The APO mutation in the milano families has been traced back to a single individual a couple hundred years ago.

That research does nothing to support creationism, intelligent or otherwise. Is this like a chewbacca defence or something?

[edit on 3-1-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


it doesn't support evolution either. But I see what I did.... I selected the wrong "reply to" link when I posted. But it doesn't change anything in my statements

-Euclid

[edit on 3-1-2008 by euclid]

Originally posted by euclid
it doesn't support evolution either.

-Euclid

Errrm, so a new beneficial mutation which has spread from a single italian dude, through his descendents is not evidence of evolution?

OK, first, do you know what evolution is?

Why am I having to do this? Is this more deflection? It's like where's wally-dence in this thread.

[edit on 3-1-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by ppkjjkpp


No where in the bible does it say that the flood occured 4500 years ago.

I agree with some of what you said though; things do not "evolve" into other things. A lizard is a lizard; it does not become a bird. An ape did not become a modern man. A furry little rodent did not become a whale. It is ridiculous to assume it.

-Euclid

reply to post by melatonin


Of course I know what evolution is; I own the "Origin of the Species". I have read it several times.

Humans have existed in their current biological configuration for a very long time. One recent article I read indicated that "science" is again obliged to push-back the date that "homo sapiens sapiens" first came into existence. In the million years that we have existed in this same configuration there has not been an indication of humans evolving into another species. Evolution is the movement of one genus into another; that is Darwin's theory. I would say "you" don't know what evolution is and I don't know why I have to explain it to you.

-Euclid

Originally posted by euclid
In the million years that we have existed in this same configuration there has not been an indication of humans evolving into another species.

I'm not surprised.

I'm quite confused now. We do have evidence of many other new species evolving, suppose that will have to do until we get the time machine.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by euclid
In the million years that we have existed in this same configuration there has not been an indication of humans evolving into another species.

I'm not surprised.

I'm quite confused now. We do have evidence of many other new species evolving, suppose that will have to do until we get the time machine.

Sorry.... there is absolutely no evidence of one species becoming another species. If you're referring to fossils that resemble current critters; I would hardly call that proof. It is akin to a UFO enthusiast proffering a picture of a UFO or crop circle as proof of aliens/reptilians et cetera.

-Euclid

Originally posted by euclid
Sorry.... there is absolutely no evidence of one species becoming another species.

We have evidence of new species evolving. We can even see new species forming right now. The Ensatina 'ring' is a good example.

Originally posted by euclid
reply to post by ppkjjkpp

 

No where in the bible does it say that the flood occured 4500 years ago.

I agree with some of what you said though; things do not "evolve" into other things. A lizard is a lizard; it does not become a bird. An ape did not become a modern man. A furry little rodent did not become a whale. It is ridiculous to assume it.

-Euclid

It does not specifically say that but if you count back the generations you will arrive at about that time. Back to the years of Noah. I also said 'about'. Give or take a couple hundred years. The Bible has been proven to be historically accurate.

[edit on 3-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]

Originally posted by euclid
reply to post by ppkjjkpp

 

No where in the bible does it say that the flood occured 4500 years ago.

I agree with some of what you said though; things do not "evolve" into other things. A lizard is a lizard; it does not become a bird. An ape did not become a modern man. A furry little rodent did not become a whale. It is ridiculous to assume it.

-Euclid

It does not specifically say that but if you count back the generations you will arrive at about that time. Back to the years of Noah. I also said 'about'. Give or take a couple hundred years. The Bible has been proven to be historically accurate.

[edit on 3-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]