Youtube is on to me

Here are my personal thoughts on Creationism vs Evolution:

• I like science because it doesn't dictate what is, rather, it uses observation and theories to try and describe the world
• Evolution, like other theories, aren't perfect, nor do they pretend to be, they are simply science's best guesses
• There isn't any real empirical evidence for Creationism other than "things exist" and "Bible says so"

Does this mean Creationism can't be real and Evolution can't be wrong? No, but I put my money on Evolution at this point in time.

 

Even if Evolution turns out to be bogus, the ideas behind it is already proving to be quite useful to us, and likely will continue to be:

https://singularityhub.com/2016/12/...simple-rules-can-make-machines-more-creative/

"In 2006 NASA put an evolutionary algorithm to work to design X-band antennae to allow satellites to measure the Earth’s magnetosphere. Traditionally this kind of antenna would involve a helical design, but the devices created by the algorithm looked more like a series of bent paper clips. And impressively, it took just 10 hours to complete the initial antenna design process."

~



"MarI/O is a program made of neural networks and genetic algorithms that kicks butt at Super Mario World."

 

Sure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

This E.Coli experiment shows how the bacteria evolves against anti-biotics and they have been observed to grow in size to accomadate this new genetic information:



I am sure you will say "it's still bacteria" and miss the point again that it is gradual and slow, and you don't suddenly go from fish to monkey.

Of course, part of the problem here is definitions. You want some specific concrete lines of X became Y but that isn't how it works. All beings, under the theory of evolution, is in a state of evolution. We as humans decide when a new species is classified based on certain criteria, but in the big picture we are all just part of the evolutionary chain.

~

Now, we've answered a lot of your questions and provided a lot of examples and points of discussion, so now back at you, can you furnish evidence of God creating a new species?

 

This is actually pretty cool:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/150911-blind-cavefish-animals-science-vision-evolution/

"New animals have ignored the warning “use it or lose it” as spectacularly as the Mexican blind cavefish (Astyanax mexicanus), which no longer has eyes.

Now scientists may have solved the riddle of why the fish lost their eyes in the dark.

With food so scarce in caves, the animals have to save their energy—and being sightless gives them a major boost, according to a team from Sweden's Lund University. (Read more about this peculiar fish on our freshwater blog.)

The researchers cracked the puzzle by looking at members of the same fish species that live aboveground, in rivers of Texas and Mexico, and which have perfect vision."

~

This one is a particularly good example of how evolution isn't just about "simple to complex" but simply change and adaptation. Sometimes it makes things more complex, other times it makes things less complex.

~

This article was pretty interesting too, talking about flies in a lab:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-surprising-origins-of-evolutionary-complexity/

"Unlike standard evolutionary theory, McShea and Brandon see complexity increasing even in the absence of natural selection. This statement is, they maintain, a fundamental law of biology—perhaps its only one. They have dubbed it the zero-force evolutionary law.

The Fruit-Fly Test

Recently McShea and Leonore Fleming, a graduate student at Duke, put the zero-force evolutionary law to the test. The subjects were Drosophila flies. For more than a century scientists have reared stocks of the flies to use in experiments. In their laboratory homes, the flies have led a pampered life, provided with a constant supply of food and a steady, warm climate. Their wild relatives, meanwhile, have to contend with starvation, predators, cold and heat. Natural selection is strong among the wild flies, eliminating mutations that make flies unable to cope with their many challenges. In the sheltered environment of the labs, in contrast, natural selection is feeble.

The zero-force evolutionary law makes a clear prediction: over the past century the lab flies should have been less subject to the elimination of disadvantageous mutations and thus should have become more complex than the wild ones.

Fleming and McShea examined the scientific literature for 916 laboratory lines of flies. They made many different measures of complexity in each population. In the journal Evolution & Development, they recently reported that the lab flies were indeed more complex than wild ones. Some of the insects had irregular legs. Others acquired complicated patterns of colors on their wings. The segments of their antennae took on different shapes. Freed from natural selection, flies have reveled in complexity, just as the law predicts."

 

First, I feel this just proves the mechanicism behind Evolution works. To prove that Creationism itself is real, I feel you'd have to create a new species from scratch without using existing building blocks - which would "prove" that it can happen independent of the mechanicisms of Evolution (you have to start somewhere, right?). Unless we are saying that God created the rules behind Evolution and can use them himself (just as humans can), in which case then Evolution is real, but you'd still have to show that God created the rules to justify Creationism (otherwise God is just a being who happens to live within the confines of the rules of the universe, rather than being its architect).
Second, this argument is saying "God exists, therefore what God does is real." It's not a valid argument.
Third, I don't see how your examples prove God's involvement in the process. The fact that humans can "play God" doesn't prove God did it. Also, this point is basically the same as the first point. It is arguing that since design exists that God's involvement exists which does not logically follow.

All in all, the basic premise behind everything you said seems to boil down to: "stuff exists, so God must have done it" which isn't proof at all.

 

One thing to keep in mind for people in general.

Remember that there's a difference between the two ideas.

Evolution is arguing the HOW. You can believe in Evolution and still believe that God created the ideas behind it or that God doesn't exist, etc. (Or, as phdstax suggests, that God also has a hand in the process.)

Creationism (depending on which specific brand of it a person subscribes to), may or may not allow for Evolution, and may be arguing the WHO more so than the HOW in some instances. Creationism doesn't exist without a Creator.

Evolution is also less concerned with the beginning and more about what is happening, while Creationism is heavily vested in the beginning and who started it.

So in some discussions, this becomes a bit problematic if one side is talking HOW and the other is talking WHO.

 

SIDE NOTE:

I believe in eternal time. There is no proof that time never existed nor stopped existing. As far as we can observe, time has always existed and will continue to exist whether we are around or not.

I don't believe that existence has a beginning nor end, nor does it require either of those things. The need for causality is a human desire, not a universal requirement.

Which is why I don't particularly feel that Creationism works for me - because it is answering a question I don't need to ask.

 

Your fault in logic is that you have offered no actual proof of the creator but claim that you have. This is typical of religious arguments. By offering evidence of the mechanicsms you simply show the mechanism works and not who created them.