[Natashasuw]

The purpose of this thread is to provide a place for creationists to present the scientific evidence for creationism. After 1,400+ posts on another thread, no one was able to provide any such evidence.

The basic ground rules are these. The evidence must be scientific, it must be falsifiable, and it must be positive evidence FOR creationism. Evidence AGAINST evolution is NOT evidence for creationism. To see why not, Google "False Dichotomy" and read any of the first four or five entries. The evidence cannot take the form of personal incredulity or credulity, so "I believe it" is not a valid argument.

The evidence must be sourced. "Preliminary studies" (i.e., newsletter articles) from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and Answers in Genesis (AIG) won't cut it. It SHOULD be peer-reviewed and published by a legitimate publisher or Journal, but given the level of scholarship in the creationist community, that might be too much to expect.

Have I forgotten anything?

I'll be back periodically to bemoan the fact that the poor creationists haven't got any evidence. I'm sure I'll have plenty of company.

[Anydayhybeall]

I'll be back periodically to bemoan the fact that the poor creationists haven't got any evidence. I'm sure I'll have plenty of company.

I'll pull a Humber!

"Almost 15 hours and still no reply. I must be right! Thank you Jesus. Thank you Lord!"

[bixlewlyimila]

I'll pull a Humber!

"Almost 15 hours and still no reply. I must be right! Thank you Jesus. Thank you Lord!"

Don't forget to invoke the legions of silent followers who secretly agree with everything you write.

[citicroego]

Don't forget to invoke the legions of silent followers who secretly agree with everything you write.

Perhaps Dig could misrepresent an email exchange with a ID/creationist. I am thinking something along the lines of, "William Dembski apologized to me, twice."

[DEMassteers]

Don't forget to invoke the legions of silent followers who secretly agree with everything you write.

"If only ONE of you finds any value in my humble posts, email me on the side, and I'll continue. If no one does, I'll leave, and then return with legions of trolls, sockpuppets and meatpuppets to slay you all!

"Hey, where'd the Gimp go? Wheres my Front Runner? Bring out the gimp!"

[T1ivuQGS]

Perhaps Dig could misrepresent an email exchange with a ID/creationist. I am thinking something along the lines of, "William Dembski apologized to me, twice."

Humber (almost) apologized to me (twice).

Once was for lying about the "Harvard Prize" and the other was for lying about Steve Gould.

Well, OK, in neither case would his ego let him apologize, but he did admit in one case that he had made an error (but not really, because if things happen in the right way down the line, he will be wrong, but since they haven't happened that way yet, technically, if you stretch things, he might be partly right. No lie! Look it up!)

And in the case of Gould, he still thinks that if you follow the SENSE of Gould, and don't get hung up on Gould's actual words (especially those that directly contradict Humber's interpretation), thump your Bible three times fast and let out a lusty "Praise Jesus," then Humber isn't wrong at all.

So, OK, Humber hasn't apologized for ANY of his lies. He's Humber. He doesn't have to. God is made in His image. All he has to do is rustle up a bunch of trolls from Philadelphia Freedom and strut around the room with his thumbs under his armpits claiming that he really is right, you know. The rest of us just need to get our minds right.

.

[Goseciwx]

Perhaps Dig could misrepresent an email exchange with a ID/creationist. I am thinking something along the lines of, "William Dembski apologized to me, twice."

We go go on a road trip to Bethlehem, yell at Micheal Behe's house and say we beat 'em up.

[majestictwelve]

We go go on a road trip to Bethlehem, yell at Micheal Behe's house and say we beat 'em up.

Sweet, I could say I steadied him while you were waylaying him. The silent readers will think that we are bad ass!

[legal-advicer]

Paul G. Humber, with his usual flair for careful reasoning posted four threads today attempting to "prove" the Biblical Creation myth.

All four were based on Harum Yahya's laughable Atlas of Creation.
(This was the book whose first edition illustrated a "caddis fly" as part of an argument for creationism. the fly in question, however, was not even an insect. It was a fishing fly! You could see the hook!).

All of Humber's posts failed to offer proof of creationism for the following reasons:

1. Yahya's examples were all of animals or plants that were not supposed to have evolved in the last 30-50 million years. However, Yahya apparently did not indicate which species of animals or plants he was illustrating. Therefore it is impossible to check up on him.

2. Periods of stasis are the norm in the evolution of most organisms. The concept of Punctuated Equilibrium (PE) with which Humber is quite familiar, postulates stasis (equilibrium) punctuated by relatively brief (10 million or so year-long) bursts of accelerated evolution. In another thread, Humber said that he believed that what Stephen J. Gould said about PE was true. Now he seems to have conveniently forgotten!

3. PE is now the dominant paradigm for the evolution of life. As a result periods of up to 50 million years without change in a particular species is no challenge at all to paleontologists and evolutionary biologists. They actually serve to support the central tenets of PE, and therefore support an evolutionary explanation.

4. Yahya states that some of these plants and animals were unchanged for more than 50 million years! That's almost 1,000 times as long as Humber claims that the Earth has existed. Which is it, Paul? You can't have it both ways, at least not in the real world.

Therefore, Humber's four attempts to offer scientific proof for creationism failed pathetically. In fact, they serve to bolster current evolutionary thought.

Humber will go far in the creationist community with such wild, illogical ravings. Perhaps he should seek "professional help."

Evolution 4
Creationism 0

Note: the threads in question have now been merged, apparently by a moderator.

[gundas]

Wow...Day 4 and not a peep from the creationists! You wouldn't think that scientific evidence of creationism would be that hard to find. Unless, of course, there isn't any! LOL!

[movlabk]

On another thread, using wishful thinking and a demonstrably limited understanding of both glacial geology and the process of fossilization, Paul Humber tried to demonstrate... ...well, exactly WHAT is unclear, but it smelled like he was trying to say that recent research in Antarctica supports creationism, or the flood, or some other discredited idea.

Reference to several texts on those subjects, written by people who actually know what they're writing about, proved him spectacularly wrong.

Evolution 5
Creationism 0

[DialOne]

Humber posted a claim that the red blood cell is the most complex molecule known. Even after it was pointed out that a cell is not a molecule, he posted the same claim again in a new thread (since taken down). Though the distinction between a molecule and cell is huge, it is a distinction Creation Science doesn't recognize.

[outsitWrord]

See Creation Science is True Science thread.

[BenWired306]

See Creation Science is True Science thread.

We're reposting accurate summaries of the evidence (and lack thereof) here.

[Andrew1978]

I've been reading James W. Valentine's On the Origin of Phyla (Chicago, 2004). Valentine looks at how and when the various phyla of the animal world evolved. The book is very technical and sometimes makes for slow reading, but in incorporates material from molecular genetics, EvoDevo, embryology, comparative morphology (the study of form), and paleontology.

Valentine spends about 50 pages on the nature of the fossil record. I thought that I would share the section headings from that chapter. It appears that he wrote the headings as an outline and then filled in the rest of the text. The headings give a good reasonably current perspective on the state of knowledge of the fossil record as it relates to early life on Earth.

The Fossil Record

The Stratigraphic Record is Incomplete in a Spotty Way
Sedimentary Rocks Are Accumulated and Preserved Episodically
Sedimentary “Completeness” Varies with the Resolution that is Desired
The Completeness of Sedimentary Sections is Independent of Their Ages

The Marine Fossil Record, while Incomplete, Yields Useful Samples pf a Rather Consistent Fraction of the Fauna
Local Fossils are Largely Durably Skeletonized and Time-Averaged
Many Local Faunas Are Required in order to Estimate Global Diversity at Times of High Environmental Heterogeneity
Jumping Preservational Gaps is Possible by Extrapolation between Rich Fossil Horizons
The known Geologic Ranges of Taxa are Sensitive to Their Fossil Abundances

There Are Ways of Coping With Incomplete Records
Taxonomic Completeness Increases at Higher Levels of the Taxonomic Hierarchy
Taxonomic Completeness Rises as Larger Bins Are Used to Increase Time-Averaging
Paleoecological and Biogeographic Completeness Increase at Higher Levels of the Ecological Hierarchy
Data from Coarser Units may be Tested by Local Fine-Scale Studies

The Neoproterozoic-Cambrian Fossil Record Provides the Only Direct Evidence of Early Metazoan Bodyplans
Satisfactory Definition and Dating of Late Neoproterozoic and Cambrian Rocks Have Been Accomplished only Recently
Criteria for Defining the Neoproterozoic-Cambrian Boundary Have Varied over the Years
The Age of the Late Neoproterozoic-Early Cambrian Sequence Has Been Established Chiefly by Precision Dating of Zircon Crystals
Late Neoproterozoic and Early Cambrian Geographies Were Very Different from Today’s
Knowledge of Late Neoproterozoic and Cambrian Faunas has Greatly Increased in Recent Decades
Late Neoproterozoic Fossils Include Enigmatic Soft-Bodied Forms and Traces
Earliest Cambrian Faunal Traces Indicate Increases in Body Size and in Biological Activities
Numbers of Crown Phyla Appear During the Cambrian Explosion
The Middle Cambrian Contains Spectacular Faunas, but No Crown Phyla Appear for the First Time
Fauna that Appear After the Explosion Are Soft-Bodied with One Exception (Bryozoa)
If All Phyla Were Present by the Close of the Explosion, Their Records Agree Well with Expectations Based on Their Preservabilites
The Lack of Neoproterozoic Fossil Ancestors of Living Phyla is Not Inconsistent with the Quality of the Fossil record

There is a Vast range of Hypotheses That Attempt to Explain the Cambrian Explosion
Perhaps there Was No Cambrian Explosion
The Explosion Was Due to Physical Changes in the Environment
The Explosion Was Due to Biological Changes in the Environment

In Sum, the Cambrian Fossils Imply an Explosion of Bodyplans, but the Underlying Causes Remain Uncertain The "Neoproterozoic" is what used to be referred to as Late Precambrian.

[11Pecepebra]

Observatory - Lizards Newly White, at White Sands in New Mexico - NYTimes.com

Watch Humber will try to say this PROVES Earth is much younger than previously thought.

[blackjackblax]

Well, the article does say the dunes formed 6,000 years ago

[formobilagsw]

Observatory - Lizards Newly White, at White Sands in New Mexico - NYTimes.com

Watch Humber will try to say this PROVES Earth is much younger than previously thought.

He'll say something like...

"Lizards don't normally sit on a blue background. Some lying evolutionist PUT them there. This proves that the entire study is invalid! Besides, it's micro-evolution, not macro-evolution... Show me something halfway between a grain of sand and a lizard..." etc.


.

[AnthonyKing]

He'll say something like...

"Lizards don't normally sit on a blue background. Some lying evolutionist PUT them there. This proves that the entire study is invalid! Besides, it's micro-evolution, not macro-evolution... Show me something halfway between a grain of sand and a lizard..." etc.


.

No. That is not what he will say. He will say something like this:

But it is still true to its KIND, and that kind is a lizard, exactly as God created them. Show me any evidence that the Lizard had become a Bear or a Whale.

[Vedun*]

No. That is not what he will say. He will say something like this:

But it is still true to its KIND, and that kind is a lizard, exactly as God created them. Show me any evidence that the Lizard had become a Bear or a Whale.

He'll ignore the fact that NATURE created the white one!