Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Quartermass' "The Theory of Evolution" Thread

Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2013 10:19:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A quote from the NatGeo source he used:

The study demonstrates that a lot of change happens in island environments, said "Andrew Hendry, a biology professor at Montreal's McGill University.

What could be debated, however, is how those changes are interpreted"whether or not they had a genetic basis and not a "plastic response to the environment," said Hendry, who was not associated with the study.

There's no dispute that major changes to the lizards' digestive tract occurred. "That kind of change is really dramatic," he added.

"All of this might be evolution," Hendry said. "The logical next step would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes." "


http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk...

At the time of this post, the reply count is about 140, and I'm sure MANY rabbit trails have occurred during his thread, as usually happens and I don't want thread hijack since his whole point is on why Evolution can be called a theory.

I want to focus on the claim that many make that Evolution is proven, or so close to it that it can be assumed correct.

The lizards transplanted underwent significant physical change internally, externally, and behaviorally, according to the article. They even had organs not present in the original population mere decades later. But evolution requires the addition or substitution of genes that were not present decades before. No genetic tests were taken of either population to show if the new organs arose out of a recessive gene that was already present when the experiment began. If the genes were already present for fully functional organs, structures, and dispositions before the transplant to the island, no true Evolution occurred. Neither does the article say if tests have been done to see if environmental stimuli during the lizard's development encourage the emergence of different organs/structures, compared to a control lizard raised in it's original habitat.

The experiment has value to science, but as an experiment to prove Evolution, it remains incomplete.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2013 8:11:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/10/2013 10:19:21 PM, Skynet wrote:
But evolution requires the addition or substitution of genes that were not present decades before.

A given instance of evolution does not necessarily require that, it is merely something that must happen in the system at some point. The whole 'new information' gibberish is just that; gibberish. Any mutation is 'new' information to the genome in which it occurs, even if it had previously been present in a past generation, because so long as it was not present in the individual(s) in question then it is new information for that particular genome. Otherwise we would be in the absurd position where one individual develops a trait and therefore any other parallel or subsequent occurrence of the gene is not 'new' information even to the genome in which it arose.

More importantly, definitionally mutations requires that a substitution or addition of genetic information take place. If there were a recessive gene involved in this example, it should be fairly obvious in genetic analysis, even of the post-mutation organism. You seem eager to assume that it is, despite the fact that there are MANY examples of that not being the case at all.

The experiment has value to science, but as an experiment to prove Evolution, it remains incomplete.

It's just as well there have been many thousands of other experiments that help build the case. There's absolutely no worth in pointing out that one example out of countless examples isn't persuasive proof on its own. It isn't supposed to be, it's just another grain of sand on the beach.

As an aside, I fully expect the next creationist backstep to be "well only some creatures can evolve, but not the higher mammals", as it becomes clearer and clearer that individual cases are undeniably proven even from a position of outright delusion and god of the gaps has to move house again. Last time it was the macro/micro false dichotomy. Next it'll be some sort of asinine "theory of types" distinction between species that are 'allowed' to evolve and those that cannot. It's depressingly predictable and a strong case of diminishing returns; the arguments become more convoluted and forced, which in turn makes them more specialised and therefore difficult to mesh with other areas of science. Already we've got a couple of the hardier fruitcakes on here denying stellar nucleosynthesis because it requires the same conceptual apparatus and practical processes as evolution and therefore must be wrong.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2013 8:48:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/10/2013 10:19:21 PM, Skynet wrote:


I want to focus on the claim that many make that Evolution is proven, or so close to it that it can be assumed correct.


If you wish to evaluate evolution as a theory then I would say that you need to look at all the evidence no just focus on one experiment.

Why do you wish to narrow the focus to just this experiment? I have to say that makes me suspicious of your motives. Do you have a personal agenda or is this a genuine discussion of science? Is this going to become another evolution vs creation shouting match?

Seeing as I question your motives then I ought to say that I am a believer in evolution and generally feel science is the best way to gain answers about the natural world. Or if you prefer I am a self confessed member of the church of scientism.

The experiment has value to science, but as an experiment to prove Evolution, it remains incomplete.

I agree. I think that no single experiment could be sufficient to prove evolution. But I would say that this experiment is supportive of elements of evolution. The animals had changed and it is likely that this has happened in response to their new environment by natural selection.

Has a new species formed? Probably not. Have new genes been created? Not enough information has been gathered.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2013 5:26:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/11/2013 8:11:15 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 11/10/2013 10:19:21 PM, Skynet wrote:
But evolution requires the addition or substitution of genes that were not present decades before.

A given instance of evolution does not necessarily require that, it is merely something that must happen in the system at some point. The whole 'new information' gibberish is just that; gibberish. Any mutation is 'new' information to the genome in which it occurs, even if it had previously been present in a past generation, because so long as it was not present in the individual(s) in question then it is new information for that particular genome. Otherwise we would be in the absurd position where one individual develops a trait and therefore any other parallel or subsequent occurrence of the gene is not 'new' information even to the genome in which it arose.

If I understand your point, you're saying that it's evolution if the organism is taking advantage of a previously unused recessive gene. If the species had always had this useful gene from the beginning of the species, but never used it, it would not be Evolution, but adaptation within the species. If the species of lizard on the mainland was once a totally different organism in the past, became what it is on the mainland, then moved to the island and became another creature altogether, and not just another variety of the same species of lizard, that would probably be Evolution. There's no way that could be tested in a 30 year experiment.

More importantly, definitionally mutations requires that a substitution or addition of genetic information take place. If there were a recessive gene involved in this example, it should be fairly obvious in genetic analysis, even of the post-mutation organism. You seem eager to assume that it is, despite the fact that there are MANY examples of that not being the case at all.

I'm just saying no genetic testing has been cited, and it's even implied it hasn't been done yet. My main point is, this experiment is too incomplete to be a very strong piece of evidence for Evolution, as Quartermass claimed.

The experiment has value to science, but as an experiment to prove Evolution, it remains incomplete.

It's just as well there have been many thousands of other experiments that help build the case. There's absolutely no worth in pointing out that one example out of countless examples isn't persuasive proof on its own. It isn't supposed to be, it's just another grain of sand on the beach.

I've heard of this beach, but never seen it, so I'll take the evidence one grain at a time as I find it. If I were a woman, I may be able to do several grains at a time.

As an aside, I fully expect the next creationist backstep to be "well only some creatures can evolve, but not the higher mammals", as it becomes clearer and clearer that individual cases are undeniably proven even from a position of outright delusion and god of the gaps has to move house again. Last time it was the macro/micro false dichotomy. Next it'll be some sort of asinine "theory of types" distinction between species that are 'allowed' to evolve and those that cannot. It's depressingly predictable and a strong case of diminishing returns; the arguments become more convoluted and forced, which in turn makes them more specialised and therefore difficult to mesh with other areas of science. Already we've got a couple of the hardier fruitcakes on here denying stellar nucleosynthesis because it requires the same conceptual apparatus and practical processes as evolution and therefore must be wrong.

I don't know about any of that last part, other than it's a lot of speculation on what someone else's positions will be in the future. I don't read scientific papers for my day job. Just because I'm Creationist doesn't mean I am aware of all the most current debates, nor does it mean I take all the most well known positions on any given topic.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2013 5:39:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/11/2013 8:48:38 AM, chui wrote:
At 11/10/2013 10:19:21 PM, Skynet wrote:


Is this going to become another evolution vs creation shouting match?

If this is judged on loudness of shouting, I will lose.
And I am not accusing you of shouting, I'm just saying if it comes to that, I won't really participate, and please don't assume that anything you have read on here has been said with anger.

I want to focus on the claim that many make that Evolution is proven, or so close to it that it can be assumed correct.


If you wish to evaluate evolution as a theory then I would say that you need to look at all the evidence no just focus on one experiment.

Why do you wish to narrow the focus to just this experiment? I have to say that makes me suspicious of your motives. Do you have a personal agenda or is this a genuine discussion of science? Is this going to become another evolution vs creation shouting match?

Well, I'm a detail oriented person, so reading all the claimed evidence at the same time doesn't work for me. I take it one piece at at time, and I need to start somewhere. I'm not a professional scientist, it's just a hobby, so I chose a case I was interested in and could understand thoroughly.

Seeing as I question your motives then I ought to say that I am a believer in evolution and generally feel science is the best way to gain answers about the natural world. Or if you prefer I am a self confessed member of the church of scientism.

The experiment has value to science, but as an experiment to prove Evolution, it remains incomplete.

I agree. I think that no single experiment could be sufficient to prove evolution. But I would say that this experiment is supportive of elements of evolution. The animals had changed and it is likely that this has happened in response to their new environment by natural selection.

Has a new species formed? Probably not. Have new genes been created? Not enough information has been gathered.

I understand and agree with most everything except the part that contradicts the rest: "I would say that this experiment is supportive of elements of evolution." It is too incomplete to do so.
I brought this article up because an Evolutionist DID claim it as strong evidence of Evolution.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2013 8:42:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/11/2013 5:26:01 PM, Skynet wrote:
If I understand your point, you're saying that it's evolution if the organism is taking advantage of a previously unused recessive gene. If the species had always had this useful gene from the beginning of the species, but never used it, it would not be Evolution, but adaptation within the species. If the species of lizard on the mainland was once a totally different organism in the past, became what it is on the mainland, then moved to the island and became another creature altogether, and not just another variety of the same species of lizard, that would probably be Evolution. There's no way that could be tested in a 30 year experiment.

My point is that evolution happens within species, as well as being a mechanism that causes them to differentiate. You are not actually pointing out that evolution doesn't happen; you are pointing out that it does.

I'm just saying no genetic testing has been cited, and it's even implied it hasn't been done yet. My main point is, this experiment is too incomplete to be a very strong piece of evidence for Evolution, as Quartermass claimed.

I would agree that it is not yet a strong piece of evidence. However, it shows all the signs of becoming one with further study, as previous examples of the same thing have shown that to be the case.

I've heard of this beach, but never seen it, so I'll take the evidence one grain at a time as I find it. If I were a woman, I may be able to do several grains at a time.

You've... never seen a beach?

I don't know about any of that last part, other than it's a lot of speculation on what someone else's positions will be in the future. I don't read scientific papers for my day job. Just because I'm Creationist doesn't mean I am aware of all the most current debates, nor does it mean I take all the most well known positions on any given topic.

It is only speculation, but it is informed by observed trends and an understanding of the thought processes that underlie such. The fact that you are a creationist is very strongly indicative of you most certainly taking those positions, because those positions are only held and promoted by a certain kind of person following a particular agenda. You may not read scientific papers for a day job - nor do I - but that doesn't mean that putting some time into doing so outside of your day job won't make you better informed.

And, just to clarify, I don't mean better informed as 'will definitely agree with me'. I just mean better informed.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 11:19:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/11/2013 8:48:38 AM, chui wrote:
At 11/10/2013 10:19:21 PM, Skynet wrote:


I want to focus on the claim that many make that Evolution is proven, or so close to it that it can be assumed correct.


If you wish to evaluate evolution as a theory then I would say that you need to look at all the evidence no just focus on one experiment.


And how do you do that, other than to take experiments one at a time? I think, in fact, that this is one of the differences between a scholar and an amateur. Humans are great at seeing patterns, but sometimes the patterns are imposed, not intrinsic.

The phrase "a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link" comes to mind, or Edison's observation that genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. Evolution is an interesting idea, but can you really build the 4 billion year chain back to inanimate matter? I think not. We have links, no one disputes that, but I think it's frankly absurd to infer a complete chain from the few links we have.
This space for rent.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 11:42:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/10/2013 10:19:21 PM, Skynet wrote:
A quote from the NatGeo source he used:

The study demonstrates that a lot of change happens in island environments, said "Andrew Hendry, a biology professor at Montreal's McGill University.

What could be debated, however, is how those changes are interpreted"whether or not they had a genetic basis and not a "plastic response to the environment," said Hendry, who was not associated with the study.

There's no dispute that major changes to the lizards' digestive tract occurred. "That kind of change is really dramatic," he added.

"All of this might be evolution," Hendry said. "The logical next step would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes." "


http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk...

At the time of this post, the reply count is about 140, and I'm sure MANY rabbit trails have occurred during his thread, as usually happens and I don't want thread hijack since his whole point is on why Evolution can be called a theory.

I want to focus on the claim that many make that Evolution is proven, or so close to it that it can be assumed correct.

The lizards transplanted underwent significant physical change internally, externally, and behaviorally, according to the article. They even had organs not present in the original population mere decades later. But evolution requires the addition or substitution of genes that were not present decades before. No genetic tests were taken of either population to show if the new organs arose out of a recessive gene that was already present when the experiment began. If the genes were already present for fully functional organs, structures, and dispositions before the transplant to the island, no true Evolution occurred. Neither does the article say if tests have been done to see if environmental stimuli during the lizard's development encourage the emergence of different organs/structures, compared to a control lizard raised in it's original habitat.

The experiment has value to science, but as an experiment to prove Evolution, it remains incomplete.

I would say that the experiment's value in proving evolution depends on how one is using the word "evolution", and what they're trying to show.

Creationists and evolutionists both agree that organisms can adapt to their environment. I call it AV, adaptation and variation. Others call it micro, horizontal evolution, etc. It's a well documented scientific fact of biology, and this is another good example for it.

Where we disagree is that the above type of "evolution", is used to extrapolate into the other kind of evolution, which is the theory of universal common ancestry, UCA. Evolutionists see the two as one continuous fluid process, a synthesis of both theories into one. Creationists agree with AV/micro, but deny that UCA happens. So in order to have any semblance of a rational discussion, we need to clarify how the evolutionist is using the proposed evidence.

If one wants to use this experiment to try and show that organisms can turn into different organisms, given millions of years, then its value as evidence for that is nil. In fact, I would argue that an organism being able to adapt to its environment rapidly, refutes the idea that they will change into different kinds of organisms, or requires millions of years. Why would they need any further change if they can adapt well to their current environment?? Obviously, natural selection will favor those who are well adapted, so I don't see a way for a mutated or deformed version of the well-adapted examples to get off the ground.

Granted, the cecal valves seem to be a new development, and my guess would be that there is a genetic component, but they are nothing more than flaps, a growth of tissue, that open and close to slow down the digestive process. I see no problem with the digestive system of an organism making adaptations like this, to different food sources. We've seen it with nylonase, e. coli, etc. We see it in many species of newborn offspring as well. They require milk or formula until their digestive systems can adapt to more solid forms of adult foods.

As for the other structure alleged as new, the expanded gut, obviously an expansion of an already existing structure is not a new structure, nor a sign of evolutionary change. The middle age spread in many human males is proof of that.

It seems to frustrate evolutionists when the facts are pointed out, that a lizard is still a lizard, or a bird is still a bird. Evolutionists seem to see every little difference between organisms as evidence that they are becoming something fundamentally different, but there is no evidence to support that extrapolation, and this experiment fails in that regard, as well. It is further evidence that although organisms can display a wide variety within kinds, they will always bring forth fundamentally the same kind of organism. Creationists see all of these examples as failures for the theory of UCA, and further evidence for AV only.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 11:55:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/11/2013 8:11:15 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 11/10/2013 10:19:21 PM, Skynet wrote:
But evolution requires the addition or substitution of genes that were not present decades before.

A given instance of evolution does not necessarily require that, it is merely something that must happen in the system at some point. The whole 'new information' gibberish is just that; gibberish. Any mutation is 'new' information to the genome in which it occurs, even if it had previously been present in a past generation, because so long as it was not present in the individual(s) in question then it is new information for that particular genome. Otherwise we would be in the absurd position where one individual develops a trait and therefore any other parallel or subsequent occurrence of the gene is not 'new' information even to the genome in which it arose.

More importantly, definitionally mutations requires that a substitution or addition of genetic information take place. If there were a recessive gene involved in this example, it should be fairly obvious in genetic analysis, even of the post-mutation organism. You seem eager to assume that it is, despite the fact that there are MANY examples of that not being the case at all.

The experiment has value to science, but as an experiment to prove Evolution, it remains incomplete.

It's just as well there have been many thousands of other experiments that help build the case. There's absolutely no worth in pointing out that one example out of countless examples isn't persuasive proof on its own. It isn't supposed to be, it's just another grain of sand on the beach.

As an aside, I fully expect the next creationist backstep

What back step?? This is yet another example of adaptation and variation within an organism, and yet another piece of evidence to show that what we see in nature should be taken at face value, it is what it is. It is a lizard adapting to its environment, and bringing forth more lizards. Nothing more can be gleaned from the evidence, and further extrapolations are not warranted. Creationists are not taking a "back step".

to be "well only some creatures can evolve, but not the higher mammals", as it becomes clearer and clearer that individual cases are undeniably proven even from a position of outright delusion and god of the gaps has to move house again. Last time it was the macro/micro false dichotomy. Next it'll be some sort of asinine "theory of types" distinction between species that are 'allowed' to evolve and those that cannot. It's depressingly predictable and a strong case of diminishing returns; the arguments become more convoluted and forced, which in turn makes them more specialised and therefore difficult to mesh with other areas of science. Already we've got a couple of the hardier fruitcakes on here denying stellar nucleosynthesis because it requires the same conceptual apparatus and practical processes as evolution and therefore must be wrong.
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 11:57:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hmm, not backstepping? I guess...

You can't go backwards when you're holding the goalpost.
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 12:44:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 11:57:04 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
Hmm, not backstepping? I guess...

You can't go backwards when you're holding the goalpost.

The goalpost is in the same place it has been for a very long time. I didn't plant it there, I'm simply leaning on it. Maybe it wouldn't appear to be moving if you guys would quit running around in circles like a chicken with its head cut off, trying to refute what a kind is. Sometimes watching evolutionists is like watching a monkey try to screw a football.

You guys should quit worrying about trying to argue about kinds, and stop using it to hide behind. Don't worry about my theory, don't worry about the goalposts or where they are. Just prove YOUR OWN theory. That's it, that's all you need to do. Show that all biological life forms evolved from a single common ancestor. Sounds simple enough.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 1:04:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 11:57:04 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
Hmm, not backstepping? I guess...

You can't go backwards when you're holding the goalpost.

Sorry if my last post sounds harsh, I didn't mean it to be. It's just that I keep hearing from people about moving the goalposts and I don't see where they've been moved. The only answer I can come up with for that is that evolutionists think they have proven something significant when they haven't, so they assume that they have eclipsed some threshold that THEY put in place, and accuse creationists of moving it.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 2:20:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 1:04:26 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 11/12/2013 11:57:04 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
Hmm, not backstepping? I guess...

You can't go backwards when you're holding the goalpost.

Sorry if my last post sounds harsh, I didn't mean it to be. It's just that I keep hearing from people about moving the goalposts and I don't see where they've been moved. The only answer I can come up with for that is that evolutionists think they have proven something significant when they haven't, so they assume that they have eclipsed some threshold that THEY put in place, and accuse creationists of moving it.

Right, I think the root of argument is the lack of ability to demonstrate evolution. They're upset with us for not accepting the limited evidence - if they had more substantial evidence we wouldn't have to argue about the chicken scratch.
This space for rent.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 3:49:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 2:20:49 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/12/2013 1:04:26 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 11/12/2013 11:57:04 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
Hmm, not backstepping? I guess...

You can't go backwards when you're holding the goalpost.

Sorry if my last post sounds harsh, I didn't mean it to be. It's just that I keep hearing from people about moving the goalposts and I don't see where they've been moved. The only answer I can come up with for that is that evolutionists think they have proven something significant when they haven't, so they assume that they have eclipsed some threshold that THEY put in place, and accuse creationists of moving it.

Right, I think the root of argument is the lack of ability to demonstrate evolution. They're upset with us for not accepting the limited evidence - if they had more substantial evidence we wouldn't have to argue about the chicken scratch.

Exactly. I sometimes wonder if they ever look at the evidence they're about to present and wonder how we're going to perceive it. Seems to me that if they did that, they would see that what they're presenting is exactly what we said is going to happen.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 4:19:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 2:20:49 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/12/2013 1:04:26 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 11/12/2013 11:57:04 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
Hmm, not backstepping? I guess...

You can't go backwards when you're holding the goalpost.

Sorry if my last post sounds harsh, I didn't mean it to be. It's just that I keep hearing from people about moving the goalposts and I don't see where they've been moved. The only answer I can come up with for that is that evolutionists think they have proven something significant when they haven't, so they assume that they have eclipsed some threshold that THEY put in place, and accuse creationists of moving it.

Right, I think the root of argument is the lack of ability to demonstrate evolution. They're upset with us for not accepting the limited evidence - if they had more substantial evidence we wouldn't have to argue about the chicken scratch.

Demonstrate creation, then. Oh wait, you can't.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 10:13:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 4:19:41 PM, drhead wrote:
At 11/12/2013 2:20:49 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/12/2013 1:04:26 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 11/12/2013 11:57:04 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
Hmm, not backstepping? I guess...

You can't go backwards when you're holding the goalpost.

Sorry if my last post sounds harsh, I didn't mean it to be. It's just that I keep hearing from people about moving the goalposts and I don't see where they've been moved. The only answer I can come up with for that is that evolutionists think they have proven something significant when they haven't, so they assume that they have eclipsed some threshold that THEY put in place, and accuse creationists of moving it.

Right, I think the root of argument is the lack of ability to demonstrate evolution. They're upset with us for not accepting the limited evidence - if they had more substantial evidence we wouldn't have to argue about the chicken scratch.

Demonstrate creation, then. Oh wait, you can't.

Creation, unlike Evolution, is a fixed event in history, not an ongoing process. It was an event in history, not a repeatable chemical reaction. God created the different creatures and they reproduce after their kind, and it was recorded in a document called Genesis. The historical accuracy of the Bible is our best evidence, and observations of the physical world back it up. For instance, we do not see organisms evolving into anything other than another unique individual or breed of the same type of organism when we look for current Evolution. The Bible says creatures were sent forth to increase after their own kind, and that's exactly what we see.

This is the point of this thread.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 10:36:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago

My point is that evolution happens within species, as well as being a mechanism that causes them to differentiate. You are not actually pointing out that evolution doesn't happen; you are pointing out that it does.

I think we may have a communication problem. I see simple adaptation from a lizard in the species adapted to one place, then lizards that come from it that adapt to another place. Evolution that I'm talking about would be one organism becoming another, like a reptile becoming a bird, or a bear becoming a walrus.
What the experiment would need to show to be strong evidence for Evolution, is that the ability of these new structures to occur was not already present in the mainland lizards....and frankly that these new structures weren't PLANNED by anyone. I hold that God engineered these latent characteristics into the lizards to allow them to better thrive.
That might seem like a preposterous thing to have to disprove from your perspective, but if something was engineered by an intelligence, it is generally obvious to us, and easily testable. And maybe you balk at being challenged to disprove something, but that's exactly what I am attempting to do with this thread, disproving something by providing evidence of a contrary fact.

I've heard of this beach, but never seen it, so I'll take the evidence one grain at a time as I find it. If I were a woman, I may be able to do several grains at a time.

You've... never seen a beach?
"it's just another grain of sand on the beach."
The metaphorical beach of proof made up of grains of [good] evidence.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 10:55:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 10:13:47 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 11/12/2013 4:19:41 PM, drhead wrote:
At 11/12/2013 2:20:49 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/12/2013 1:04:26 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 11/12/2013 11:57:04 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
Hmm, not backstepping? I guess...

You can't go backwards when you're holding the goalpost.

Sorry if my last post sounds harsh, I didn't mean it to be. It's just that I keep hearing from people about moving the goalposts and I don't see where they've been moved. The only answer I can come up with for that is that evolutionists think they have proven something significant when they haven't, so they assume that they have eclipsed some threshold that THEY put in place, and accuse creationists of moving it.

Right, I think the root of argument is the lack of ability to demonstrate evolution. They're upset with us for not accepting the limited evidence - if they had more substantial evidence we wouldn't have to argue about the chicken scratch.

Demonstrate creation, then. Oh wait, you can't.

Creation, unlike Evolution, is a fixed event in history, not an ongoing process. It was an event in history, not a repeatable chemical reaction.

I take this as a concession that you will never be able to witness creation.

God created the different creatures and they reproduce after their kind, and it was recorded in a document called Genesis.

Then who witnessed it?

The historical accuracy of the Bible is our best evidence, and observations of the physical world back it up. For instance, we do not see organisms evolving into anything other than another unique individual or breed of the same type of organism when we look for current Evolution. The Bible says creatures were sent forth to increase after their own kind, and that's exactly what we see.

In shorter intervals of time, this is what would be observed by evolution. The average person only lives to be 70 years or so, which isn't enough time for any one person to see any major evolution. In addition, if creation is true and is one historical event as you claim, then that would mean that ALL "kinds" would have been created at the same time. We don't see this in the fossil record. We see "kinds" that are gradually less complex the further back we look in the fossil record. We have used radioactive dating on these fossils, and surprise, surprise - we see that there is a chronology among them (one that goes back well over 10,000 years). Again, why would you place all of your faith in the recorded observations of one person who lived several millenia ago versus what we have been able to piece together from the fossil record more recently with our understanding of chemistry and biology?

This is the point of this thread.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
v3nesl
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 7:29:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 4:19:41 PM, drhead wrote:
...

Demonstrate creation, then. Oh wait, you can't.

We can demonstrate creation, to a greater degree than evolution.

Humans create things all the time. Deliberate genetic modification has been going on since the biblical Jacob, at least. GMOs are part of modern life, and are the products of intelligent design.

So, we can neither create an ecosystem from scratch, nor evolve one. But we can create far more substantial things in the lab than can be evolved. So the mechanism of creation is far more established than that of evolution.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 7:39:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 10:55:08 PM, drhead wrote:
...

In shorter intervals of time, this is what would be observed by evolution. The average person only lives to be 70 years or so, which isn't enough time for any one person to see any major evolution.

So, both evolutionists and the Bible ask people to believe in what no one has ever seen.

In addition, if creation is true and is one historical event as you claim, then that would mean that ALL "kinds" would have been created at the same time. We don't see this in the fossil record.

Well, this is a fair enough observation, though I don't think the fossil record is quite what you think it is.

As I've said, I personally tend toward the 'gap theory' of Genesis 1, where "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" stands apart from "and the earth was formless and void". It seems to me that the six days are a much narrower focus, beginning with an existing solar system and a water covered earth (So day 5 is parenthetical). I would have no problem with the idea that God spent a few billion years laying down a supply of fossil fuels. I'm not offering that as a hypothesis, just saying that once you don't take the Genesis week as the beginning of everything, all sorts of possibilities open up. Clearly God himself didn't start in Genesis 1, and I see no reason to think he wasn't doing things before he started with us.
This space for rent.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 11:25:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago

Demonstrate creation, then. Oh wait, you can't.

Creation, unlike Evolution, is a fixed event in history, not an ongoing process. It was an event in history, not a repeatable chemical reaction.

I take this as a concession that you will never be able to witness creation.

Um, yes. Just as you will never witness the fall of Tyre, the assassination of Julius Caesar, or DaVinci at work in his workshop. They are events that already happened, not on-going processes.

God created the different creatures and they reproduce after their kind, and it was recorded in a document called Genesis.

Then who witnessed it?

God did, and He has walked and talked with people through history: Adam, Noah, Enoch, Moses, etc. God is not known to many, but he is not unknown to everyone.

Many of the historical claims and prophesies made in the Bible are empirically testable, so it is possible to know that what God says is accurate.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 11:29:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 11:25:09 PM, Skynet wrote:

Demonstrate creation, then. Oh wait, you can't.

Creation, unlike Evolution, is a fixed event in history, not an ongoing process. It was an event in history, not a repeatable chemical reaction.

I take this as a concession that you will never be able to witness creation.

Um, yes. Just as you will never witness the fall of Tyre, the assassination of Julius Caesar, or DaVinci at work in his workshop. They are events that already happened, not on-going processes.

God created the different creatures and they reproduce after their kind, and it was recorded in a document called Genesis.

Then who witnessed it?

God did, and He has walked and talked with people through history: Adam, Noah, Enoch, Moses, etc. God is not known to many, but he is not unknown to everyone.

Many of the historical claims and prophesies made in the Bible are empirically testable, so it is possible to know that what God says is accurate.

If you're going to assert the existence of empirically testable claims, then just state them already so I don't have to make one-sentence replies like this.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 11:43:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 11:29:29 PM, drhead wrote:
At 11/13/2013 11:25:09 PM, Skynet wrote:

Demonstrate creation, then. Oh wait, you can't.

Creation, unlike Evolution, is a fixed event in history, not an ongoing process. It was an event in history, not a repeatable chemical reaction.

I take this as a concession that you will never be able to witness creation.

Um, yes. Just as you will never witness the fall of Tyre, the assassination of Julius Caesar, or DaVinci at work in his workshop. They are events that already happened, not on-going processes.

God created the different creatures and they reproduce after their kind, and it was recorded in a document called Genesis.

Then who witnessed it?

God did, and He has walked and talked with people through history: Adam, Noah, Enoch, Moses, etc. God is not known to many, but he is not unknown to everyone.

Many of the historical claims and prophesies made in the Bible are empirically testable, so it is possible to know that what God says is accurate.

If you're going to assert the existence of empirically testable claims, then just state them already so I don't have to make one-sentence replies like this.

Ezekiel chapters 36-37, written during the beginning years of the Babylonian Captivity. It was prophesied that Israel and Judah would be regathered after the dispersion from all nations, (not just Persia, as happened under Nehemiah and Ezra), and be one independent nation again. The land would be a desolate waste, but would become fertile again, as did happen in the 40's. This happened after WWII, the Jews were given a homeland, and not just a province under the control of Persia, Greece, or Rome, as had happened earlier.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 11:51:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 11:43:35 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 11/13/2013 11:29:29 PM, drhead wrote:
At 11/13/2013 11:25:09 PM, Skynet wrote:

Demonstrate creation, then. Oh wait, you can't.

Creation, unlike Evolution, is a fixed event in history, not an ongoing process. It was an event in history, not a repeatable chemical reaction.

I take this as a concession that you will never be able to witness creation.

Um, yes. Just as you will never witness the fall of Tyre, the assassination of Julius Caesar, or DaVinci at work in his workshop. They are events that already happened, not on-going processes.

God created the different creatures and they reproduce after their kind, and it was recorded in a document called Genesis.

Then who witnessed it?

God did, and He has walked and talked with people through history: Adam, Noah, Enoch, Moses, etc. God is not known to many, but he is not unknown to everyone.

Many of the historical claims and prophesies made in the Bible are empirically testable, so it is possible to know that what God says is accurate.

If you're going to assert the existence of empirically testable claims, then just state them already so I don't have to make one-sentence replies like this.

Ezekiel chapters 36-37, written during the beginning years of the Babylonian Captivity. It was prophesied that Israel and Judah would be regathered after the dispersion from all nations, (not just Persia, as happened under Nehemiah and Ezra), and be one independent nation again. The land would be a desolate waste, but would become fertile again, as did happen in the 40's. This happened after WWII, the Jews were given a homeland, and not just a province under the control of Persia, Greece, or Rome, as had happened earlier.

And how does this apply to evolution?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 7:43:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 10:36:44 PM, Skynet wrote:
I think we may have a communication problem. I see simple adaptation from a lizard in the species adapted to one place, then lizards that come from it that adapt to another place. Evolution that I'm talking about would be one organism becoming another, like a reptile becoming a bird, or a bear becoming a walrus.

We do not have a communication problem; you do not understand and/or are not using the scientific definition of the term. At no point has evolutionary theory suggested that a bear gave birth to a walrus or anything of the sort and, to be honest, I refuse to believe anyone is actually so stupid as to think that it has.

What the experiment would need to show to be strong evidence for Evolution, is that the ability of these new structures to occur was not already present in the mainland lizards....and frankly that these new structures weren't PLANNED by anyone. I hold that God engineered these latent characteristics into the lizards to allow them to better thrive.

No, that is utter rubbish and demonstrates that you have NO idea how the scientific method operates. You can hold what you want - although I'd advise taking that metaphorically rather than literally, since Medic has turned up in the thread - but that doesn't make it true or coherent as a criticism. All evolutionary science needs to do is show that there is a proposed mechanism that fits the evidence we have. It has done this and the headless chicken response of hardline religious groups is equal parts depressing and hilarious.

That might seem like a preposterous thing to have to disprove from your perspective, but if something was engineered by an intelligence, it is generally obvious to us, and easily testable. And maybe you balk at being challenged to disprove something, but that's exactly what I am attempting to do with this thread, disproving something by providing evidence of a contrary fact.

It is not only a preposterous thing to have to disprove, it is a fundamentally impossible thing to disprove and could be said about ANY theory. At all. It is an entirely unscientific statement. Your failure to understand scientific method is further highlighted by the fact that you've completely missed the point that every single experiment done regarding evolution is designed specifically to try and falsify the theory.

You've provided no evidence and no contrary facts. All you've done is show you don't understand evolutionary biology and the scientific method in general.

The metaphorical beach of proof made up of grains of [good] evidence.

No, that isn't even nearly what I was talking about. Think: how do beaches form?

Also, could you disprove that it wasn't me that started it all off and I'm speaking from a position of informed authority? Perhaps I'm god trying to get some sense into your head before it's too late and you're beyond redemption? Can you disprove these possibilities?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 4:39:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Creationist: "There is no evidence for evolution"
Evolutionary biologist: "Yes there is, look at a,b,c,d,e,f,g.....h,I,j,k,l...."
Creationist: "That doesn't count"
Evolutionary biologist: "umm why is that?"
Creationist: "Because it isn't evidence for exactly the type of evidence I want, show me big changes"
Evolutionary biologist: "you mean evolution over a long period of time? We have lots of evidence of that, just look at a b c d e f g h I......."
Creationist: "that doesn't count either"
Evolutnary biologist: "umm, why not?"
Creationist: "because we don't see it happening."
Evolutionary biologist: "of course we don't see it happening before our very eyes,evolution is a many thousands of years long process"
Creationist: "exactly, no evidence"
Evolutionary biologist: "um, no. That's not the case, we have lots of evidence of everything that is required for evolution, and lots of evidence of how it has played out, exames, evolutionary pathways and explanation of many thousands of different aspects id different organisms including from fossiles to DNA"
Creationist: "I can't see it, ergo no evidence. Show me one kind turning into another"
Evolutnary biologist:"ahh we have lots of that, here is all the examples of speciation. A key prediction of evolution"
Creationist:"that doesn't count"
Evolutionary biologist:"umm why not?"
Creationist:"because that's not a kind"
Evolutionary biologist:"umm, it is a new species. Define kind"
Creationist:"it's like a species"
Evolutionary biologist:"go on.."
Creationist:"no,no that's it"
Evolutionary biologist:"I just showed you speciation...."
Creationist:"exactly, not a kind"
Evolutionary biologist:"you said kind was a species"
Creationist:"like a species, except when it's something different"
Evolutionary biologist:"so you can't give me a definition?"
Creationist:"does it matter, you can't provide any evidence. And to be honest evolution states that one species gives birth to another"
Evolutionary biologist:"so let me get this right all the masses upon masses genetic, fossile, logical, mathematical evidence for evolution, as well as the innumerable studies, explanations, examples, definitions and general dont count because something that evolution doesn't say happen hasn't been observed to happen?"
Creationist:"like I said, no evidence."

Basically, one side is having a scientific discussion, the other is saying a lot of "that doesn't count" and "the world is like x because I say so" with not a lot of actual, you know, justification.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 8:25:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 11:51:39 PM, drhead wrote:
At 11/13/2013 11:43:35 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 11/13/2013 11:29:29 PM, drhead wrote:
At 11/13/2013 11:25:09 PM, Skynet wrote:

Demonstrate creation, then. Oh wait, you can't.

Creation, unlike Evolution, is a fixed event in history, not an ongoing process. It was an event in history, not a repeatable chemical reaction.

I take this as a concession that you will never be able to witness creation.

Um, yes. Just as you will never witness the fall of Tyre, the assassination of Julius Caesar, or DaVinci at work in his workshop. They are events that already happened, not on-going processes.

God created the different creatures and they reproduce after their kind, and it was recorded in a document called Genesis.

Then who witnessed it?

God did, and He has walked and talked with people through history: Adam, Noah, Enoch, Moses, etc. God is not known to many, but he is not unknown to everyone.

Many of the historical claims and prophesies made in the Bible are empirically testable, so it is possible to know that what God says is accurate.

If you're going to assert the existence of empirically testable claims, then just state them already so I don't have to make one-sentence replies like this.

Ezekiel chapters 36-37, written during the beginning years of the Babylonian Captivity. It was prophesied that Israel and Judah would be regathered after the dispersion from all nations, (not just Persia, as happened under Nehemiah and Ezra), and be one independent nation again. The land would be a desolate waste, but would become fertile again, as did happen in the 40's. This happened after WWII, the Jews were given a homeland, and not just a province under the control of Persia, Greece, or Rome, as had happened earlier.

And how does this apply to evolution?

It doesn't directly. I was providing verifiable evidence of the fulfillment of a prophesy from the Bible. The fulfillment/non-fulfillment of a prophetic claim is a good litmus test for a source (the Bible) making such a claim. If the Bible is found to be historically accurate, it should be considered a good source for historical knowledge. If it is PROPHETICALLY accurate, then that is quite something else. Biblical Creation claims that the Universe came from a non-material, supernatural source (God). I realize this is a hard concept to accept if you don't even believe there is anything beyond the material/energy universe. Clear evidence of the fulfillment of multiple prophesies would be one of the few tests I can think of that could be made against the Bible from a modern Atheistic/Agnostic perspective to verify whether or not the supernatural is plausible. If the supernatural God is plausible through a falsifiable test of his own words, then it is possible that supernatural Creation also occurred.

It is round-a-bout, but one reason people like you and I have so many yelling matches, as you correctly pointed out, is that we start from such different basic assumptions about the Universe that seem nonsensical to the other. But we still both live in the same world, so I have located a common point we can both put our minds around: A falsifiable test of whether or not recorded historical events occurred.

This is a test that requires no belief, except in the results of the investigation on your part, no matter how strange they may be.

The test is: Did the prophecy from Ezekiel get fulfilled, and was there any way the prophet would have known that it would have occurred exactly as he said 2500 years (approx) later?
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 8:44:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 4:39:35 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Creationist: "There is no evidence for evolution"
.....
Creationist:"like I said, no evidence."

Basically, one side is having a scientific discussion, the other is saying a lot of "that doesn't count" and "the world is like x because I say so" with not a lot of actual, you know, justification.

A straw man argument. You did the speaking for both of us. I brought up one instance that someone else brought up on another thread, and pointed out how it is not great evidence, but an incomplete experiment if it's purpose is to provide strong evidence for evolution. If you actually want to bring forward a,b,c, d, etc., do so rather than just saying that evidence a,b,c,d,etc. exists. If you do not, you expect me to have blind faith in your position.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 9:14:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 7:43:23 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 11/12/2013 10:36:44 PM, Skynet wrote:
I think we may have a communication problem. I see simple adaptation from a lizard in the species adapted to one place, then lizards that come from it that adapt to another place. Evolution that I'm talking about would be one organism becoming another, like a reptile becoming a bird, or a bear becoming a walrus.

We do not have a communication problem; you do not understand and/or are not using the scientific definition of the term. At no point has evolutionary theory suggested that a bear gave birth to a walrus or anything of the sort and, to be honest, I refuse to believe anyone is actually so stupid as to think that it has.

What the experiment would need to show to be strong evidence for Evolution, is that the ability of these new structures to occur was not already present in the mainland lizards....and frankly that these new structures weren't PLANNED by anyone. I hold that God engineered these latent characteristics into the lizards to allow them to better thrive.

No, that is utter rubbish and demonstrates that you have NO idea how the scientific method operates. You can hold what you want - although I'd advise taking that metaphorically rather than literally, since Medic has turned up in the thread - but that doesn't make it true or coherent as a criticism. All evolutionary science needs to do is show that there is a proposed mechanism that fits the evidence we have. It has done this and the headless chicken response of hardline religious groups is equal parts depressing and hilarious.

That might seem like a preposterous thing to have to disprove from your perspective, but if something was engineered by an intelligence, it is generally obvious to us, and easily testable. And maybe you balk at being challenged to disprove something, but that's exactly what I am attempting to do with this thread, disproving something by providing evidence of a contrary fact.

It is not only a preposterous thing to have to disprove, it is a fundamentally impossible thing to disprove and could be said about ANY theory. At all. It is an entirely unscientific statement. Your failure to understand scientific method is further highlighted by the fact that you've completely missed the point that every single experiment done regarding evolution is designed specifically to try and falsify the theory.

You've provided no evidence and no contrary facts. All you've done is show you don't understand evolutionary biology and the scientific method in general.

The metaphorical beach of proof made up of grains of [good] evidence.

No, that isn't even nearly what I was talking about. Think: how do beaches form?

Also, could you disprove that it wasn't me that started it all off and I'm speaking from a position of informed authority? Perhaps I'm god trying to get some sense into your head before it's too late and you're beyond redemption? Can you disprove these possibilities?

Evolution occurs at a genetic level. No genetic tests were made at the writing of the NatGeo article. It is not great evidence for Evolution, but an incomplete experiment if it is supposed to be great evidence for Evolution. That's all I'm really trying to say.

You tell me that I do not understand the subject, and am using terms incorrectly, and type "utter rubbish," strongly imply I provided no evidence to the contrary, though I think I am doing that, and you also say I do not understand the terms that I use. It sounds like you agree that there is a communication problem, but the first thing you said, " We do not have a communication problem..."
It seems we even have a different definition of communication problem. If our identical terms don't have the same definition, there's no way we don't have a communication problem.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2013 3:04:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 8:25:35 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 11/13/2013 11:51:39 PM, drhead wrote:
At 11/13/2013 11:43:35 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 11/13/2013 11:29:29 PM, drhead wrote:
At 11/13/2013 11:25:09 PM, Skynet wrote:

Demonstrate creation, then. Oh wait, you can't.

Creation, unlike Evolution, is a fixed event in history, not an ongoing process. It was an event in history, not a repeatable chemical reaction.

I take this as a concession that you will never be able to witness creation.

Um, yes. Just as you will never witness the fall of Tyre, the assassination of Julius Caesar, or DaVinci at work in his workshop. They are events that already happened, not on-going processes.

God created the different creatures and they reproduce after their kind, and it was recorded in a document called Genesis.

Then who witnessed it?

God did, and He has walked and talked with people through history: Adam, Noah, Enoch, Moses, etc. God is not known to many, but he is not unknown to everyone.

Many of the historical claims and prophesies made in the Bible are empirically testable, so it is possible to know that what God says is accurate.

If you're going to assert the existence of empirically testable claims, then just state them already so I don't have to make one-sentence replies like this.

Ezekiel chapters 36-37, written during the beginning years of the Babylonian Captivity. It was prophesied that Israel and Judah would be regathered after the dispersion from all nations, (not just Persia, as happened under Nehemiah and Ezra), and be one independent nation again. The land would be a desolate waste, but would become fertile again, as did happen in the 40's. This happened after WWII, the Jews were given a homeland, and not just a province under the control of Persia, Greece, or Rome, as had happened earlier.

And how does this apply to evolution?

It doesn't directly. I was providing verifiable evidence of the fulfillment of a prophesy from the Bible. The fulfillment/non-fulfillment of a prophetic claim is a good litmus test for a source (the Bible) making such a claim. If the Bible is found to be historically accurate, it should be considered a good source for historical knowledge. If it is PROPHETICALLY accurate, then that is quite something else. Biblical Creation claims that the Universe came from a non-material, supernatural source (God). I realize this is a hard concept to accept if you don't even believe there is anything beyond the material/energy universe. Clear evidence of the fulfillment of multiple prophesies would be one of the few tests I can think of that could be made against the Bible from a modern Atheistic/Agnostic perspective to verify whether or not the supernatural is plausible. If the supernatural God is plausible through a falsifiable test of his own words, then it is possible that supernatural Creation also occurred.

It is round-a-bout, but one reason people like you and I have so many yelling matches, as you correctly pointed out, is that we start from such different basic assumptions about the Universe that seem nonsensical to the other. But we still both live in the same world, so I have located a common point we can both put our minds around: A falsifiable test of whether or not recorded historical events occurred.

This is a test that requires no belief, except in the results of the investigation on your part, no matter how strange they may be.

The test is: Did the prophecy from Ezekiel get fulfilled, and was there any way the prophet would have known that it would have occurred exactly as he said 2500 years (approx) later?

So you feel that it is worth throwing out the thousands of observations which suggest evolution, in favor of one observation of a prediction coming true? This doesn't even go into the possible coincidental nature of this "prophecy", or that those involved in the prophecy could actively seek its fulfillment.

One instance of something being right is not enough to make it reliable by any means. I can say that 2+2=4 and that 3+6=5. I'm not right about 3+6 being 5 just because I stated 2+2=4 correctly. This would be related to a technique used by fortune tellers, where a rather likely event is predicted; however, in this case, the propaganda technique you have fallen victim to relies on making massive amounts of predictions knowing that one must occur.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian