Creationists, please provide evidence

[SkyWriting]

...Also, we haven't looked for single celled life on other planets... ever. There are plans to do so in the future but we haven't be able to yet. Europa in particular shows great promise for such a mission.

There is no point in continuing to look for life off the earth.
There is no evidence for it to be a possibility.
What kind of kooky people look for something that isn't there?

 

[PolyHedral]

There is no point in continuing to look for life off the earth.
There is no evidence for it to be a possibility.
What kind of kooky people look for something that isn't there?

Have you checked? How can you know if you haven't?

 

[painted wolf]

There is no point in continuing to look for life off the earth.
There is no evidence for it to be a possibility.
What kind of kooky people look for something that isn't there?

If it were up to people with this attitude, Europeans would never have crossed the Atlantic.

wa:do

 

[McBell]

What kind of kooky people look for something that isn't there?

Do you really want to go there?
Cause I can present examples like looking for love in a doomed relationship, looking for trust in an untrustworthy person...

 

[Gunfingers]

looking for love

I used to work with a girl with the last name Love. This was when I was in the military, so everyone called everyone else by last name. If I needed her for something I'd go and say "Hey, have you seen Love?" Then someone would say "She's not here" and I'd loudly lament that I was looking for Love in all the wrong places.

I spent a lot of time hoping I'd catch someone disparaging her, so I could admonish them for giving Love a bad name.

 

[camanintx]

There is no point in continuing to look for life off the earth.
There is no evidence for it to be a possibility.
What kind of kooky people look for something that isn't there?

Are you seriously suggesting that the conditions for life don't exist anywhere else in the universe but here?

 

[Astrid000]

Are you seriously suggesting that the conditions for life don't exist anywhere else in the universe but here?

I think the point is that so far there has been none found anywhere that has been confirmed. One can only speculate on what is or is not out there. There is no need to suggest that conditions of life do not exist anywhere in the universe. Scientists have provided research as to how life can live in extreme conditions including anaerobic ones. They have also provided research that the seeds of life are strewen throught the universe, including proteins and water. Mars apparently had water. So far there is no confirmed life there and most certainly it does not appear to have gotten anywhere if there was. Mars does not have a lucky address. Whether or not Jupiters moons will have any life s speculative. Advanced intelligent life, less likely.

I wonder why life has not been found right here in our solar system. We have 4 terrestrial planets. As I said earlier the 4 of them were as inhospitable as each other to begin with. The earth is only the way it is because a number of factors came together in an amazing way to produce life on this planet. I still think my initial asssertion of earths lucky address is applicable. Not only is our address in the universe wonderful , the processes that occured to bring about the earth were also required just as it happened to result in a planet that can support life. This remains one evidence for creation, at least for now.

One evolutionist refute to creationism is that all life has similar mtdna. Now with more information on horizonatal gene transfer it appears many cells came into existence and transfered genes. There are methods for this. 2 require a virus to be present and others require genetic material around to uptake. One requires contact.

This appears to confirm, although theoretically, that all the primitive cells that arose were all much the same. If they were greatly different genetically surely genetic material would not have been able to cross the species barrier. So one may conclude from this information that all life that arises is going to be much the same and able to transfer genes accross species barriers and is not necessarily a result of common descent. Creationists use refutes of current evolutionary evidence as well as assertions of their own based on what is observed.

Then there is minimum viable population that suggests around 5,000 individuals is required to sustain a population from becoming extinct. From this one may conclude that many cells must have come into existence and were so similar they could transfer genetic material across barriers, if there were any barriers and other sorts of genetic material around.

Other proof of creation lies in the fossil record. When a creationist sees a bushy tailed squirrel like creature it is more likely to be a kind of squirrel as opposed to an ape and human ancestor. When a creationist sees Ambulocetus Natans that looks like a crocodile then it is more likely a crocodile than an intermediate deer or ape. So for creationists they see their kinds appearing in the fossil record much as they should be and not as common ancestors or intermediates.

Another example of fossil evidence supporting the creation is the skeletons of your intermediates in the human line. Take KNM-ER 1470, Homo Habilis and Turkana Boy, the skulls are much the same.

The Evolution of Early Man

It appears to some creationists that both of these specimens are apes. Likewise Rudolphensis has been reconstructed to look very ape like. This article shows the reconstruction

Man's Earliest Direct Ancestors Looked More Apelike Than Previously Believed

So as far as the theoretical goes a creationist may claim that all these fossils that you have found as support for human ancestry way back to past Ardi, are simply apes. They may well be the same species showing huge sexual dimorphism demonstrated in many non human primates. Regardless of whether or not Turkana Boys arms are really his and regardless of any possible errors in piecing his bones together from fragments, the skull disqualifies this fossil as being human. Other research suggests Turkana Boy did not have sophisticated speech which is in line with its being a variety of ape, even if it does not resemble current species.

Below is a link that speaks to the sexual dimorphism that has become apparent in Homo Erectus.

New Kenyan Fossils Challenge Established Views On Early Evolution Of Our Genus Homo

As you know a cat can look like a dog. Yet in real life one can distinguish a dog from a cat easily and so does the DNA. Similarly, an ape is an ape and a human a human and if these creatures were alive today they may well look distincly ape or distinctly human, regardless of what the fossils appear to indicate.

Additionally an assumption based on creation, rather than common descent, assumes 3.8myo human footprints, human metatarsels, and such the like, as being evidence of Human inhabitation and close existence with other species. The bible speaks to this, rather than these being attributed to an ape like Lucy. Feet are sadly lacking in all these fossils and foot reconstruction is assumed.

So here again an interpretation of the fossil record re mankind could be: The fossil record supports the appearance of a variety of apes up until 200,000 ya when mankind suddenly appeared as per biblical creation.

For me it really depends on how you interpret the fossil record or genomic data.

Is creation a metaphysical belief? I don't know. However there is some apparent creationist interpretive substance that may be compared to the evolution of evolutionary theory.

 

[zemelo.franky]

Not only is our address in the universe wonderful , the processes that occured to bring about the earth were also required just as it happened to result in a planet that can support life. This remains one evidence for creation, at least for now.

That is terrible evidence and this logic is the reasons "atheists" don't go away. You're talking about the Anthropic Principle, which is an indirect way of admitting "I can't wrap my head around the concept of 13.5 billion years."

Now with more information on horizonatal gene transfer it appears many cells came into existence and transfered genes. There are methods for this. 2 require a virus to be present and others require genetic material around to uptake. One requires contact.

Please post the references for this material. And an explanation for what exactly you are trying to say.

This appears to confirm, although theoretically,

"This is true - it's not true, but it's true..."

that all the primitive cells that arose were all much the same. If they were greatly different genetically surely genetic material would not have been able to cross the species barrier.

Okay, so what I get from this is the logic, "All original cells were similar if not the same - if they were different they would not be the same." I agree.

So one may conclude from this information that all life that arises is going to be much the same and able to transfer genes accross species barriers and is not necessarily a result of common descent.

Actually, the conclusion from that argument is that all life shares a common ancestor.

...

Is creation a metaphysical belief? I don't know. However there is some apparent creationist interpretive substance that may be compared to the evolution of evolutionary theory.

Evidence of creation is identical to evidence of absolutist evolution - there isn't any. As to your argument - ...?

 

[painted wolf]

I think the point is that so far there has been none found anywhere that has been confirmed. One can only speculate on what is or is not out there. There is no need to suggest that conditions of life do not exist anywhere in the universe. Scientists have provided research as to how life can live in extreme conditions including anaerobic ones. They have also provided research that the seeds of life are strewen throught the universe, including proteins and water. Mars apparently had water. So far there is no confirmed life there and most certainly it does not appear to have gotten anywhere if there was. Mars does not have a lucky address. Whether or not Jupiters moons will have any life s speculative. Advanced intelligent life, less likely.

You are ignoring the very simple fact that we haven't actually looked for life yet. Biomarkers, yes... but if life doesn't have our chemistry that's not really useful.

I wonder why life has not been found right here in our solar system. We have 4 terrestrial planets. As I said earlier the 4 of them were as inhospitable as each other to begin with. The earth is only the way it is because a number of factors came together in an amazing way to produce life on this planet. I still think my initial asssertion of earths lucky address is applicable. Not only is our address in the universe wonderful , the processes that occured to bring about the earth were also required just as it happened to result in a planet that can support life. This remains one evidence for creation, at least for now.

No it doesn't. It's an argument from ignorance.

One evolutionist refute to creationism is that all life has similar mtdna. Now with more information on horizonatal gene transfer it appears many cells came into existence and transfered genes. There are methods for this. 2 require a virus to be present and others require genetic material around to uptake. One requires contact.

We can trace HGT and identify the source... this doesn't refute ancestry.

This appears to confirm, although theoretically, that all the primitive cells that arose were all much the same. If they were greatly different genetically surely genetic material would not have been able to cross the species barrier. So one may conclude from this information that all life that arises is going to be much the same and able to transfer genes accross species barriers and is not necessarily a result of common descent. Creationists use refutes of current evolutionary evidence as well as assertions of their own based on what is observed.

this doesn't support creationism at all... Creationism proposes that all lineages were created ex nhilo as they are today. Thus no multicellular species are descended from primitive cells.

Then there is minimum viable population that suggests around 5,000 individuals is required to sustain a population from becoming extinct. From this one may conclude that many cells must have come into existence and were so similar they could transfer genetic material across barriers, if there were any barriers and other sorts of genetic material around.

I've already explained why this is false.

Other proof of creation lies in the fossil record. When a creationist sees a bushy tailed squirrel like creature it is more likely to be a kind of squirrel as opposed to an ape and human ancestor. When a creationist sees Ambulocetus Natans that looks like a crocodile then it is more likely a crocodile than an intermediate deer or ape. So for creationists they see their kinds appearing in the fossil record much as they should be and not as common ancestors or intermediates.

Then they are ignoring basic anatomy in favor of wild speculation.

Another example of fossil evidence supporting the creation is the skeletons of your intermediates in the human line. Take KNM-ER 1470, Homo Habilis and Turkana Boy, the skulls are much the same.

And yet so different in key areas, like brain size.

The Evolution of Early Man

It appears to some creationists that both of these specimens are apes. Likewise Rudolphensis has been reconstructed to look very ape like. This article shows the reconstruction

Man's Earliest Direct Ancestors Looked More Apelike Than Previously Believed

Again, they seem to be ignoring anatomy in favor of quick assumptions based on limited pictures rather than actually looking at the fossils. Turkana Boy for example is known from a nearly complete skeleton that is essentially human.

So as far as the theoretical goes a creationist may claim that all these fossils that you have found as support for human ancestry way back to past Ardi, are simply apes. They may well be the same species showing huge sexual dimorphism demonstrated in many non human primates. Regardless of whether or not Turkana Boys arms are really his and regardless of any possible errors in piecing his bones together from fragments, the skull disqualifies this fossil as being human. Other research suggests Turkana Boy did not have sophisticated speech which is in line with its being a variety of ape, even if it does not resemble current species.

This isn't theoretical, it's candyfloss.

Below is a link that speaks to the sexual dimorphism that has become apparent in Homo Erectus.

New Kenyan Fossils Challenge Established Views On Early Evolution Of Our Genus Homo

And this shows that Ardi clearly isn't remotely an H.erectus.

As you know a cat can look like a dog. Yet in real life one can distinguish a dog from a cat easily and so does the DNA. Similarly, an ape is an ape and a human a human and if these creatures were alive today they may well look distincly ape or distinctly human, regardless of what the fossils appear to indicate. [/qutoe] And if you look at the DNA humans and chimps are closer to each other than a Lion and a housecat. Making us, from a genetic standpoint, less distinct than two cats.

Additionally an assumption based on creation, rather than common descent, assumes 3.8myo human footprints, human metatarsels, and such the like, as being evidence of Human inhabitation and close existence with other species. The bible speaks to this, rather than these being attributed to an ape like Lucy. Feet are sadly lacking in all these fossils and foot reconstruction is assumed.

Incorrect, we have Australopithicine feet.
Complete Fourth Metatarsal and Arches in the Foot of Australopithecus afarensis

So here again an interpretation of the fossil record re mankind could be: The fossil record supports the appearance of a variety of apes up until 200,000 ya when mankind suddenly appeared as per biblical creation.

Yeah, and if you really wanted you could interpret it as having been created last Tuesday.... but not all interpretations are based in reality.

For me it really depends on how you interpret the fossil record or genomic data.

I would suggest interpreting based on actual real data.

Is creation a metaphysical belief? I don't know. However there is some apparent creationist interpretive substance that may be compared to the evolution of evolutionary theory.

It isn't testable so it isn't scientific. Just for a quick start.

wa:do

 

[camanintx]

Then there is minimum viable population that suggests around 5,000 individuals is required to sustain a population from becoming extinct. From this one may conclude that many cells must have come into existence and were so similar they could transfer genetic material across barriers, if there were any barriers and other sorts of genetic material around.

You need to learn more about binary fission and bacterial growth.