What? Proof of Creationism You Say?

[Venomshocker 0]

I guess we can then safely say that there isn't any.

No I admit there is no proof of creationism, but you must admit there is also no proof of EVOLOUTION!!!

And just because there is no current proof dosent mean it did not happened. Otherwise by your argument creationism and evoloution are both wrong. Your contradicting yourself.

Edited May 17, 2004 by Venomshocker

[Chauncy 7]

I see the proof of evolution everyday, it is beginning to look like a universal law.

Everywhere I look I see things being not as they used to be, things that started out with rough beginnings and evolved to their present form.

Even an idea, plan, equation, rumor all have their rough beginnings then evolve from that point. Cities were once towns, that were once villages that were once camps.

Our sciences evolve, arts, and philosophies.

We see viruses evolving to become immune to our medicines, this is a very real fact!!

The human mind has evolved in my opinion as well.

There are lots of examples of micro-evolution that have the potential to turn into macro-evolution.

And it also seems that species only evolve to a point that allows for maximum survival in their environment. If these changes don't take place then the species ceases to exist. Once evolved to the point of ensured survival what need for evolution is there. Unless of course new changes were introduced to insite adaptation(micro-evolution), then over time, if successful, and the species has adapted with whatever suitable changes, this would be macro-evolution.

Proof of evolution lies in the fact that the species that exist today actually do exist today!

[Stellar 1,402]

you must admit there is also no proof of EVOLOUTION!!!

Why should we admit to something that's not true?

[Venomshocker 0]

You have proof of evolution Stellar? You think you can prove speciation for me?

[Stellar 1,402]

Well, I'm not going to do it myself over the internet, look it up for yourself. I've posted many many many LARGE texts on this forum and I'm not about to make another long one educating you. I'll leave you with this though, micro evolution has been proven and new species have appeared recently. Those are 2 of the biggest things IMO. Also, you may wanna look up the abiogenesis experiment too.

[Venomshocker 0]

I dont believe you can prove speciation. I have talked to many many people, about this, just check the evolution vs. Creationism thread. No one has been able to prove speciation. And if your so sure there is proof I challenge you to present it. If you dont Ill assume you have no proof, and your just bluffing.

[Stellar 1,402]

go look it up for yourself. I'll post some limited things on new species right now though cuz I have a spare 5 minutes.

Some new species:

Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread. [Van Valen and Maiorana 1991]

A new species of mosquito, Culex molestus, isolated in London's underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens. [London Times 1998; ASTMH 1998]

Drosophila melanogaster populations evolved reproductive isolation as a result of contrasting microenvironments within a canyon. [Korol et al. 2000]

A lineage of 13-year cicadas is reproductively isolated from the 17-year cicada it derived from by reproductive timing, and it is genetically distinct also from another 13-year cicada in the same region. [Chin 2000]

and some other cool things

In several Canadian lakes, which originated in the last 10,000 years since the last ice age, stickleback fish have diversified into separate species for shallow and deep water [schilthuizen 2001, 146-151]

Cichlids in Lake Malawi and Lake Victoria have diversified into hundreds of species. Lake Malawi in particular originated in the 19th century and has about 200 cichlid species [schilthuizen 2001, 166-176].

A Mimulus species adapted for soils high in copper exists only on the tailings of a copper mine that did not exist before 1859 [Macnair 1989].

[Venomshocker 0]

Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread.

Uh , I dont see a new species.

A new species of mosquito, Culex molestus, isolated in London's underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens. [London Times 1998; ASTMH 1998]

Heres another quote from that very same article:

indicating that the genetic differences are now so great that the ones underground are well on their way to becoming a separate species.

"On their way to a new species", is not a new species. The article is misleading,and using the term speciation incorrectly and there is no proof of a new species formed.

Drosophila melanogaster populations evolved reproductive isolation as a result of contrasting microenvironments within a canyon. [Korol et al. 2000]

No new species formed her either, check out this , i think its half way down the page. Section 5.3.2

http://www.alternativescience.com/talk-ori...speciations.htm

A lineage of 13-year cicadas is reproductively isolated from the 17-year cicada it derived from by reproductive timing, and it is genetically distinct also from another 13-year cicada in the same region. [Chin 2000]

The key phrase here is, "genetically distinct ". You cant possibly pass that off as speciation. All living things are genetically distinct!

In several Canadian lakes, which originated in the last 10,000 years since the last ice age, stickleback fish have diversified into separate species for shallow and deep water [schilthuizen 2001, 146-151]

If some stickleback fish like deep water and some like shallow water, that dosent mean they are a different species!!!

The heading on the last two quotes you quoted reads "Evidence of speciation occurs in the form of organisms which exist only in environments that didn't exist a few hundreds or thousands of years ago."

Humans live in enviroments that they didnt live in hundreds of years ago, i.e. Astronauts. All animals adapt to their enviroments, so do humans, this is hardly proof of speciation!

When looking for sources on speciation, you have to read the articles very carefully, often " mating prefrences" or "genetic differences" or "enviromental adaptations"are passed off incorrectly as speciation. This is no way proves speciation.This is simply not sceintific and does not hold true.

I want evidence of a genetically new species(animal kingdom), that is genetically incapable of interbreeding with the species it came from. Like I mean, there is a new chromosone form, that cant line up with the previous species it came from.

Like if you tryed talking the sperm of a human being and tryed forcing it too mix with the ovarian egg of an ape, it wouldnt work because the chromosones dont line up.

I want evidence where the chromosones of an animal changed so much that it cant breed with its own kind any more and that that very same animal found a mate where the exact same thing occured and these two animals would then reproduce.

In short I want genetic proof of speciation. Then I will believe in evoloution.

Edited May 17, 2004 by Venomshocker

[tkr9 0]

I have proof of creationism. Horses. There's a place to put the saddle. Come on, didn't happen by accident, did it?

And may I remind the temporally minded that though the bible says God Created the World in Seven Days please note that God's time is not our time, and his seven days might have been the millennia needed.

As a Catholic who likes planitesmals, accretion and coalescence the more I look at the stunning and breathtaking way in which stars and solar systems are born, the more I know there is an artist out there of incredible skill.

[Chauncy 7]

I dont believe you can prove speciation. I have talked to many many people, about this, just check the evolution vs. Creationism thread. No one has been able to prove speciation. And if your so sure there is proof I challenge you to present it. If you dont Ill assume you have no proof....

Why do you want an example of speciation Venom?

I mean to me a specific example of speciation is impossible, indeed to ask for one is kind of a trick question.

Its generally excepted by science that speciation as such happens over time, more than a human life span. Your asking for the whole of speciation to be manifested in a single example......and to add insult to injury you want that example to have fell victim to the rarity of fossilization.......want to win the lottery too?

[bathory 1]

No one has been able to prove speciation.

yes they have, you just refuse to acknowledge the validity of the evidence:)

please oh please show us some evidence of Creation, remember, even if evolution is wrong, Creation Theory still has no legs to stand on!

[Venomshocker 0]

I dont refuse the validity of evidence at all. But evidence is just that:evidence. Not proof.I want proof. If there is no proof I might be inclined to believe in something that seems more probable.

The fact there is no proof of evolution is evidence for creationism.

Edited May 18, 2004 by Venomshocker

[Chauncy 7]

Venom proving evolution is like proving the wind blows......tell me how you know the wind blows?

[bathory 1]

THATS CRAZY TALK CHAUNCY

[Stellar 1,402]

A new species of mosquito, Culex molestus, isolated in London's underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens. [London Times 1998; ASTMH 1998]

Heres another quote from that very same article:

indicating that the genetic differences are now so great that the ones underground are well on their way to becoming a separate species.

Its still evidence of speciation. You cant expect a new species to evolve completely in our lifetime, it takes a very long time. A new species isnt just gonna pop out of thin air, its gonna be a divergance from another species. Both will resemble each other greatly, but at the end of the line, the first and last are completely different.

A lineage of 13-year cicadas is reproductively isolated from the 17-year cicada it derived from by reproductive timing, and it is genetically distinct also from another 13-year cicada in the same region. [Chin 2000]

The key phrase here is, "genetically distinct ". You cant possibly pass that off as speciation. All living things are genetically distinct!

Yes, within a certain limit. The genetical distinctity between each individual of a species and 2 species is not the same though.

In several Canadian lakes, which originated in the last 10,000 years since the last ice age, stickleback fish have diversified into separate species for shallow and deep water [schilthuizen 2001, 146-151]

If some stickleback fish like deep water and some like shallow water, that dosent mean they are a different species!!!

Its not that they like the deep and shallow water that seperates them, its their adaptations TO the depth of the water. Thats why they use the word "for" there in the end.

Humans live in enviroments that they didnt live in hundreds of years ago, i.e. Astronauts. All animals adapt to their enviroments, so do humans, this is hardly proof of speciation!

They adapt to their environment... its not speciation (Well actually, being born and living in space would make you a sub-human actually, because of the weightlessness affecting your growth). Adaptation to the environment, doesnt that go to some ends to be considered evidence for evolution?

A genetically new species? Alright. Pterodactyls and birds, (or whatever dinosaur evolved to the birds we have now). I know what youre going to reply to this, but you asked to show you a genetically new species

Another example would be a woully mammoth and an elephant.

And I know they're extinct and their DNA isnt around and stuff, but you asked about instances of species that arent able to mate with each other and we can agree that those cant cant we?

[tkr9 0]

Darwin did actually suggest that genetic (or rather features in his case as he didn't know of genes, Levi hadn't been born yet ) mutations were not random but the result of reactions to the external environment in the new generation. This would make more sense and would explain the rapidity of some evolutional changes.

Re. Evidence for Creationism. Horse - place to put the saddle. Hello!

[X~File_Agent 0]

TKR9

Re. Evidence for Creationism. Horse - place to put the saddle. Hello!

Please tell me you're joking when you make this statement. This is the big leagues son...

The saddle was shaped to fit the horse. Not the horse to fit the saddle.

[Universal Absurdity 2]

i cannot understand why this debate is still going on

obviously, if you think we were created, then any other hominid species was also created, so that rules out evolution for you.

obviously if you believe in evolution, we came from apes, which explains the skeletons of humanoid/ape skulls and skeletons found. so that rules creation out.

if either side cant be convinced of the other then why bother? just agree to disagree. or come to a middle ground agreement on the subject.

i'm only posting because of my complete amazement that this thread is as alive as it is .

[tkr9 0]

Oh come off it. The saddle is merely a pad that spreads the rider's weight. Its shape is merely coincidental. The fact that its the perfect place to sit on a horse, with legs by the sensitive muscles that connect with the rear engine - the hind quaters, and that it's the strongest part of the horses back... don't challenge me on this one. I can argue the point til the next millennium. As far as I'm concerned when they said Allah created horses from the South Wind they weren't assessing evolutionary tendencies of desert horses.

Read my signature thingie if you consider arguing this point.

[X~File_Agent 0]

TKR9

The saddle is merely a pad that spreads the rider's weight. Its shape is merely coincidental.

There are no coincedences in intelligent design, this is a contradiction. Boy you're really confident about this horse thing. The saddle is made to make the riders rear end, feel comfortable. Without it, you would be in world of pain. Why use a saddle to distribute the weight if the horse was intelligently designed to fit humans.

From dictionary.com

1. A seat for a rider, -- usually made of leather, padded to span comfortably a horse's back, furnished with stirrups for the rider's feet to rest in, and fastened in place with a girth; also, a seat for the rider on a bicycle or tricycle.

2. A padded part of a harness which is worn on a horse's back, being fastened in place with a girth. It serves various purposes, as to keep the breeching in place, carry guides for the reins, etc.

Would you like me to continue.....

[tkr9 0]

The fact that its the perfect place to sit on a horse, with legs by the sensitive muscles that connect with the rear engine - the hind quaters, and that it's the strongest part of the horses back...

And that is what I call intelligent design of equines. As for being confident may I draw your attention again to my signature thing in green itallics! place to put the saddle merely reflects the design fact that the horses back, at that point, as outlined above in red (hopefully, I'm not too good with colour fonts on forums) is precisely the place for a rider to sit. Now that we guessed at sitting there shows we are bright yes, but it IS the perfect place to sit even before we contemplated it, one hell of a coincidence.

And did you know that the moon and sun are aligned in such a way that one precisely covers the other during eclipses, something that does not happen anywhere else in our solar system. It has not always been that way, and as the moon spirals on it will not always be that way. Funny it came along just when we needed it to so we could figure out countless things about the Universe around us. Helping hand perhaps? Too late at night, I'm getting flippant. Probably ended this strand as sensible for good!

And come on. Evolution design the arabian or andalusian. Da Vinci and Van Gogh couldn't conjure up something so beautifully constructed. I scarcely think genes could!

[Stellar 1,402]

you gotta be shittin me

[tkr9 0]

No, Alas not. If I were endeavoring to do as much I should use considerably stronger language and quite a different turn of phrase I can assure you.

Thank you by the by for that eminently informed contribution to the debate.

If we are to accept creationism and therefore God we have to accept that there is more to life than meets the eye. To have a passion makes one appreciate something beyond merely accepting its aesthetic beauty as a facet someone else might percieve. Appreciating beauty, nature, the night sky, music, falling in love, makes life a deeper experience than science can ever make it. Once you feel that there is more to the world you start to realise there is. Otherwise the alternative is to assume you are nothing more, and therefore have no more worth, than the particles which make up your genes, and if you are merely molecules, with no intrinsic value to anything other than people constructed of other molecules, it's either awfully depressing or, as it is in my eyes, inconceivable.

There is more the world because we can feel it. I see it in horses, you might somewhere else. Think outside the box Stellar.

[aquatus1 7,093]

I'll go as far as agreeing that the horse is among the most beautiful animals to grace the world today, but I can't help thinking that this argument about the perfect place to sit on a horse would be the same if the horse's rump had developed into the strongest part and was nice and soft to sit on.

[Stellar 1,402]

Sure, theres more to life than we know it, but I'm not just gonna assume creationism is right or even worship a God who does not have physical evidence supporting him. What you call intelligent design can also be accounted for with common sense and science. The horses back thing for example... that position is quite common on animals of the type. Same place is strong on a dog or a cat or any other similar species, the only difference is the size and ability of the horse which in turn makes it more efficiant to use than a chihuahua.