KINDS and ADAPTATION

Donray · Post by **Donray** » Sat Oct 06, 2018 12:34 pm

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 â€œkinds of animalsâ€� 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.

Post by **DrNoGods** » Thu May 02, 2019 10:13 am

[Replying to post 286 by Still small]

Besides the numerous spelling mistakes and covering only part of the article by Humphreys...

Do you actually defend this Humphrey's "paper" as ESG does? If you do then it means you believe his first two claims that the Earth started out as a ball of pure H2O, and that god came along and aligned all of the H atom nuclear spins to create the starting magnetic field (I'll ignore his other assumptions of a 6000 year old earth and a single exponential decay ... no need to throw those in given the first two).

Do you accept Humphreys' first two assumptions in that "paper"? Do you think that is science? Do you believe that just because he coincidentally arrived at some numbers close to correct values from these initial assumptions that this validates his "theory" (ie. the end justifies the means, regardless of the means)?

EarthScienceguy · Post by **EarthScienceguy** » Thu May 02, 2019 10:20 am

[Replying to DrNoGods]

I made no such statements. And you continue to defend Humphreys' nonsense. Justify the following Humphreys' assumptions:

1) The Earth is 6000 years old.

2) The Earth's magnetic field strength decays as a single exponential.

3) The Earth started out as a ball of H2O.

4) God aligned all of the H atom nuclear spins to create the initial starting field.

Until you can do that ... all 4 of them ... you have no case. I would add "try again", but you've yet to justify any of these initial assumptions, or even try once. Just one of these assumptions being false would negate anything he may come up with, but the fact that all 4 of them are demonstrably false completely destroys his "theory." Yet you continue to try and defend it as legitimate.

1st. I am not sure if you understand how bankrupt your position is on origins.

The only way to have a rational universe in which you and I are real entities with hopes, dreams and will to choice is to start with the above assumptions. (except for #2 see post 276).

All naturalist theories end with everything we see not being real. According to naturalist theories everything is nothing more than random energy in a boltzmann brain. The Boltzmann brain paradox is called a paradox because we can calculate what should happen but it seems at least that some totally different happen. Or we are random energy on the face of an event horizon.

So first you have to explain to me how we are real without these assumptions. We can assume these assumptions are true simple because we are here as separate entities capable of individual thought and feelings. There are no naturalist theories that predict this. So how can we be real.

And before you bore us all with you montra of how science has not reached that point yet. It does not matter what you believe about science. Do not bring your faith in to it.

The problem any scientific theory has is it has to describe why do the laws of thermodynamics describe a universe which predicts a Boltzmann brain. Just like Einstein's theory of relativity had to describe the why Newton's equations could predict motion.

This is a problem for naturalist theories.

Post by **DrNoGods** » Thu May 02, 2019 10:35 am

[Replying to post 289 by EarthScienceguy]

All naturalist theories end with everything we see not being real. According to naturalist theories everything is nothing more than random energy in a boltzmann brain. The Boltzmann brain paradox is called a paradox because we can calculate what should happen but it seems at least that some totally different happen. Or we are random energy on the face of an event horizon.

Of course, and as usual, you change the subject and resort to rambling about origins. Perfectly predicatable. So you can't justify any of Humphreys' assumptions. Got it.

EarthScienceguy · Post by **EarthScienceguy** » Thu May 02, 2019 11:04 am

[Replying to post 290 by DrNoGods]

Of course, and as usual, you change the subject and resort to rambling about origins. Perfectly predictable. So you can't justify any of Humphreys' assumptions. Got it.

you still don't get it. The Earth was created at creation so the origin of the universe and the creation of the Earth happened at the same time.

EarthScienceguy · Post by **EarthScienceguy** » Thu May 02, 2019 11:08 am

[Replying to post 291 by EarthScienceguy]

Of course, and as usual, you change the subject and resort to rambling about origins. Perfectly predictable. So you can't justify any of Humphreys' assumptions. Got it.

I don't have to.

You can try to insinuate some sort of intellectual high ground by demanding that I justify humphreys assumptions but it is Naturalist that have the problem with justifying their assumptions not creationist.

Creationist theories actually make correct predictions and naturalist theories do not.

Post by **DrNoGods** » Thu May 02, 2019 11:14 am

[Replying to post 291 by EarthScienceguy]

you still don't get it. The Earth was created at creation so the origin of the universe and the creation of the Earth happened at the same time.

Even if this were true (you're out by about 9 billion years), it has no relation to the questions you keep evading. Justify Humphreys' claim that the Earth started out as a ball of H2O, and that god aligned all of the H atom nuclear spins to create the starting magnetic field. These are crucial to his "theory", and since you can't even remotely justify them (and neither could Humphreys ... he didn't even try) you keep jumping to a different subject as you always do when cornered on one of these nonsensical creationist's claims.

There is no scientific justification for these claims by Humphreys, no evidence whatsoever that they could possibly be true, and therefore anything he derives from these assumptions is complete garbage. It's that simple.

Post by **DrNoGods** » Thu May 02, 2019 11:26 am

[Replying to post 292 by EarthScienceguy]

I don't have to.

Naturalist have the problem not creationist.

I think this capitulation speaks for itself, so I won't bother asking again.

EarthScienceguy · Post by **EarthScienceguy** » Thu May 02, 2019 12:08 pm

[Replying to post 293 by DrNoGods]

Even if this were true (you're out by about 9 billion years), it has no relation to the questions you keep evading. Justify Humphreys' claim that the Earth started out as a ball of H2O, and that god aligned all of the H atom nuclear spins to create the starting magnetic field. These are crucial to his "theory", and since you can't even remotely justify them (and neither could Humphreys ... he didn't even try) you keep jumping to a different subject as you always do when cornered on one of these nonsensical creationist's claims.

There is no scientific justification for these claims by Humphreys, no evidence whatsoever that they could possibly be true, and therefore anything he derives from these assumptions is complete garbage. It's that simple.

Say this 10000 times, it still does not negate the fact that Humphrey's theories make accurate predictions. Both his flood magnetic field predictions about the earth and his predictions about the magnetic fields of all created bodys in space.

He made his predictions before measurements were made. Wish as much as you want. He even dervies an equations so that anyone can calculate the magnetic field of any created body. If that is not a testable theory I do not know what is.

EarthScienceguy · Post by **EarthScienceguy** » Thu May 02, 2019 12:45 pm

[Replying to post 294 by DrNoGods]

You want to discuss Humphreys assumptions start a new thread. I will discuss them. That discussion is way outside this topic.

Post by **DrNoGods** » Thu May 02, 2019 1:45 pm

[Replying to post 296 by EarthScienceguy]

You want to discuss Humphreys assumptions start a new thread. I will discuss them. That discussion is way outside this topic.

No need wasting time on that. This dead horse has been beaten enough already. You capitulated with the comments I quoted in post 294 from your post 292 (before you edited it ... twice). Humphreys' assumptions cannot be justified from a (real) scientific perspective, and/or are demonstrably false.