KINDS and ADAPTATION

[Donray]

EarthScienceguy wrote:

I believe in adaptation not evolution. Adaptation says that organisms change because of heredity not mutations.

God created kinds of animals. So yes He only created one species of humans.


In another topic when I asked EarthScienceguy what he believed instead of evolution he wrote back the above. I asked him several times to explin his theory and he incapable of explanation and debate of his theory.
I would like to find from any Christians that believes like EarthScienceguy something about this belief and some proof using known fossils and how these fit in.
How do you explain Homo neanderthalensis (the Neanderthal) and The Denisovans that both had sex with modern humans? If you are from Europe for your background you have some Neanderthal DNA.

Since this theory uses “kinds of animals� that a lot of creationist do could someone list all the kinds that were on the ark and then the list of animals, insects, bacteria, etc that these kinds adapted into. Are you with a lot of the undereducated people that think the world is less then 10K years old?

What is adaptation and not evolution? Does it have anything to due with DNA changing? Could someone point out all the articles that support this theory? I would hope that there is a list of science articles that shows your science of adaptation of kinds on the ARK to all the diversity we have.

I would like to have a debate on this theory since Christians like to debate evolution we should have this debate also.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 95 by Danmark]

I must have missed your 'age of the Earth' proof.
Anyway, you are suggesting science took a wrong turn in the 17th, 18th Centuries and needs to go back to being Bible based? BTW, I believe it is obvious error to claim science grew out of Christianity. Science is an entirely knew way of determining reality. Instead of divine revelation and faith, science is based on empirical observation. It is the opposite of faith based epistemology.
Or are you claiming Paul was a scientist?

I am claiming that the world view shifted during the enlightenment. During the enlightenment men shifted their view of God. emphasized human reason, scientific empiricism, simultaneously discounting what was spiritual, supernatural, and consequently biblical. Philosophers no longer look to God as the explanation for the world, but rather sought to account for everything in rationalist, naturalistic, and in deistic terms. Philosophers like Voltaire, Locke, Hume.

As men began to place themselves above God and their own reason over Scripture, it was not long until rationalism gained access into the church through its claim to academic elitism – denied the inspiration of Scripture, denied the inerrancy of the Bible....

Up to this point, agreed. The problem is that "supernatural" equals magical. Man simply questioned the faith based supernatural claims and found no basis for any of it. No longer is there a need for superstition, magic, and supernatural explanations. The result has been a technological revolution as man sought reality rather than religion.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 96 by DrNoGods]

And please tell us what "special characteristics" man has that can't be explained 100% by the evolution of a more advanced brain, which developed in stages starting with the smaller and less capable brains of earlier primates, and earlier animals before primates arose. There is nothing else, besides our advanced brains, that is "special" about humans. Many other animals have heads with a brain inside, eyes, ears, noses, torsos with legs and arms, finger and toes, body hair, live-born young, etc. And many of these animals are far stronger and faster than humans, with better hearing and eyesight, etc.

You are exactly correct in saying that some are physically better than humans. Very few humans would be able to live out in the wild alone. So there is no reason for anyone to think that man would become dominant. Man was created to rule over the animals of the field. Genesis 9:2 says that God put a fear of man into animals so that man could rule over them.

The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered.

Man could never have dominated over all living creatures without God putting the fear of man in all living creatures.

But this will not always be the case. Near the end the time animals will no longer have a fear of man.

And I looked, and behold, a pale horse! And its rider’s name was Death, and Hades followed him. And they were given authority over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by wild beasts of the earth. Rev. 6:8

The only thing "special" about humans is that we evolved a large and complex brain that is about 80% neocortex, and which is capable of abstract thought far beyond any other animals. But this in no way suggests that humans are special creatures created by a god ... it only shows that we developed the necessary mutations, reinforced by natural selection, that allowed growth and complexity of the brain organ. It isn't complicated when you think about it, and no reason to invent explanations when we have one that works, and has been positively demonstrated to be valid in the real world.

Oh, you mean the duplication and mutations that we don't see in nature. Well, we may see them but usually that kind of mutation is very deleterious. Yea that is real believable. Stepping out on faith on that one aren't you.

Life itself is complicated. Life is so complicated that man cannot reproduce life even if he wanted to with all of the technology he has invented. So please you may have some sort of leg to stand on if there was some sort of working model of abiogenesis, but there is not. Consequently there is no logical way for you to say that life is not complex.

You man all of the hoax fossils that evolutionist have tried to put forward. That proof. Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo Neanderthalensis all were modern men. Australopithecus is still out because there is conflicting fossil evidence, translated means that there has not been enough fossils found to make a conclusion about Australopithecus.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 101 by Danmark]

Up to this point, agreed. The problem is that "supernatural" equals magical. Man simply questioned the faith based supernatural claims and found no basis for any of it. No longer is there a need for superstition, magic, and supernatural explanations. The result has been a technological revolution as man sought reality rather than religion.

The problem is it did not work out for them, hence the need for postmodernism. The need to throw off the limits of rationalism and the movement into the metaphysical. Truth is relative, morality is relative. Relativity is the result of the failure of rationalism. Man has concluded that there is no truth except for the truth that is relative to him.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 99 by DrNoGods]

You're missing a very fundamental point. Science and the scientific method are based on observations, experiment and testing, etc. to find definite answers to questions via these processes. Everything that modern science claims to be "known" (such as a heliocentric solar system, spherical earth, age of the earth, etc.) are derived from measurement and observation. They are not simply made up out of thin air.

Heliocentric solar system, spherical earth, age of the earth, Interesting list you put forward here. Heliocentric solar system, yes Galileo did see the moons orbiting Jupiter dispelling the long term scientific belief put forward by Aristotle. Spherical Earth was first calculated by the Greeks and then confirmed in the current age by men traveling into space.

Now the last one cannot be observed because no study has been around for a billion years. And I will start a new thread here soon about why this could not possible be true. I will look forward to your comments on that.

In contrast, religion is purely made up by men, who have concocted literally thousands of gods over the millennia. Not one of these creatures has ever been demonstrated to exist. Biblical "scripture" has no validity at all. It is simply the writings of ancient, scientifically illiterate men who had no science available to guide their thinking. So it was natural for them to make up stories. There is no comparison to these old writings of fiction, and modern science.

You can't possibly "know" that any particular god exists, or that a place called heaven exists, etc. These concepts are purely imagined by man and there is zero evidence to the contrary. Never has been.

But Jesus said he was God and it can be proved that he lived on the Earth in fact listed below are 12 facts that even liberal scholars have to agree with.

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.

2. He was buried.

3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.

4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).

5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).

6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.

7. The resurrection was the central message.

8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.

9. The Church was born and grew.

10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.

11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).

12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

[postroad]

[Replying to post 104 by EarthScienceguy]

Why would I believe the accounts in the Bible if you don't believe their testimony on the the earth being flat?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 104 by EarthScienceguy]

Heliocentric solar system, spherical earth, age of the earth, Interesting list you put forward here. Heliocentric solar system, yes Galileo did see the moons orbiting Jupiter dispelling the long term scientific belief put forward by Aristotle. Spherical Earth was first calculated by the Greeks and then confirmed in the current age by men traveling into space.

Good. So you agree that science is what proved the heliocentric view and showed that the Earth was not the center of the universe. Progress.

Now the last one cannot be observed because no study has been around for a billion years. And I will start a new thread here soon about why this could not possible be true. I will look forward to your comments on that.

There's no need for a human to have witnessed something before it can be confirmed to be true. So that is a nonstarter to begin with. If whatever you are going to throw out in this new thread starts out with a claim that radiometric dating is not valid then it is also dead in the water from the get go. I hope you can muster up something better than that tired, old creationist's argument.

But Jesus said he was God ...

Well then. So did David Koresh, Jim Jones and countless other con artists and charlatans. 2000 year old stories don't prove anything ... they are just stories. I don't doubt that a hippy preacher called Jesus was running around the middle east 2000 years ago claiming to be a divine person, or that this person may have been crucified by the Romans. But it is a huge stretch to go from that to "knowing" that there is a god, or a heaven, or that humans have afterlives, etc. That is a giant leap of faith, which is of course why you and many other people believe these things. Faith (and possibly hope).

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 102 by EarthScienceguy]

Man was created to rule over the animals of the field. Genesis 9:2 says that God put a fear of man into animals so that man could rule over them.

Please tell that to the fruit flies and mosquitoes that don't seem to have any fear of me during the summer, or my dog, or my friend's horse who seems to really be unafraid of me, or some of the Galapagos creatures that have never seen humans and so aren't afraid of them. What about the fear humans have when confronted with an angry swarm of bees or a lion or some other animal capable of killing them? Did god also put the fear of animals into humans? Since humans ARE animals (mammals and primates, remember?) it isn't surprising that some creatures are afraid of others, and some are not.

Oh, you mean the duplication and mutations that we don't see in nature. Well, we may see them but usually that kind of mutation is very deleterious. Yea that is real believable. Stepping out on faith on that one aren't you.

No, I am simply believing that science has demonstrated to be the case. Brains developed over a very long period of time, and the human brain's evolution really started taking off about 2 million years ago. This we know from measuring the brain case volumes throughout the Homo line (habilis, erectus ... sapien), as well as their capabilities as judged by the artifacts they left behind. No need to "step out on faith" as there is genuine physical evidence available.

Life itself is complicated. Life is so complicated that man cannot reproduce life even if he wanted to with all of the technology he has invented. So please you may have some sort of leg to stand on if there was some sort of working model of abiogenesis, but there is not. Consequently there is no logical way for you to say that life is not complex.

Another completely out of context comment. I never said life wasn't complex, and the fact that humans can't go into a lab and create a living thing from nonliving materials is irrelevant. This obviously did happen at one point because life exists, and we have a good explanation for how it diversified once it did first appear (ie. evolution). Just because we can't yet explain HOW it happened, or go into a lab and do it now, has absolutely no bearing on the fact that via some mechanism life did appear on this planet, and that mechanism doesn't default to some kind of "god did it" creation event that most religions put forth.

You man all of the hoax fossils that evolutionist have tried to put forward. That proof. Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo Neanderthalensis all were modern men.

No, Homo habilis and Homo erectus were not "modern man." They are different species within the genus Homo. This is just another one of your completely unsupported declarations that is in conflict with science.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

Well then. So did David Koresh, Jim Jones and countless other con artists and charlatans. 2000 year old stories don't prove anything ... they are just stories. I don't doubt that a hippy preacher called Jesus was running around the middle east 2000 years ago claiming to be a divine person, or that this person may have been crucified by the Romans. But it is a huge stretch to go from that to "knowing" that there is a god, or a heaven, or that humans have afterlives, etc. That is a giant leap of faith, which is of course why you and many other people believe these things. Faith (and possibly hope).

Did David Koresh or Jim Jones raise from the dead? The Christianity is based not on the death of Christ but on the fact that He raised from the dead. It was this fact that changed men like Paul who was a sceptic not just the fact that Jesus lived.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 108 by EarthScienceguy]

Did David Koresh or Jim Jones raise from the dead? The Christianity is based not on the death of Christ but on the fact that He raised from the dead.

Who knows. Maybe they did the same thing this Jesus character did and magically ascended to "heaven." Did anyone see Jesus walking around after this supposed resurrection event to confirm that he was alive? Or was the story convenienty constructed so that it wasn't necessary to confirm his "raise from the dead"? This is inferred from a supposedly empty grave after entombment, ignoring simple possibilities like someone stole the body, or an animal drug it away, etc. When you're making up stuff to create a specific narrative, anything is possible.

There is no evidence whatsoever that any human being at any point in history has died and then came back to life. None. And we know this is biologically impossible if the person is genuinely, clinically dead. It is just another myth from an old book, with no evidence to support the story, and no other legitimate reason to believe it. "Raising from the dead" is not possible in the real world that we live in ... it is only possible in fictional stories.

[Danmark]

.... Heliocentric solar system, yes Galileo did see the moons orbiting Jupiter dispelling the long term scientific belief put forward by Aristotle. Spherical Earth was first calculated by the Greeks and then confirmed in the current age by men traveling into space.

Now the last one cannot be observed because no study has been around for a billion years.,..

But Jesus said he was God and it can be proved that he lived on the Earth in fact listed below are 12 facts that even liberal scholars have to agree with.

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.

2. He was buried....

According to your 'logic' about needing a billion year study, nothing can be proved, including the existence of Jesus because only 2000 years have gone by.

Re: Paul's claims of seeing Jesus, they were made only after he spent three days in a delirium after falling down and having nothing to eat or drink. It is hard to imagine a less reliable source claiming the existence of a supernatural event. The credulity for such a belief while denying the observable, natural fact of evolution reminds me of Jesus' reference to the Pharisees,
"You swallow camels while straining gnats."