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.

[Still small]

The zim.com link takes me to a website for commercial scale international shipping.

Funny that! Must be an old link.

ldolphin.org links to (and presumably) endorses websites like carm.org, ICR, etc which have statements of faith...which are a giant no no for me and others here on DC'N'R.

I’m not sure about the ‘endorses’ claim, especially when the first line on the website says -
“Links are not in any special order, some are slightly sorted. Naturally I don't agree with everyone on everything--theologically, philosophically, or scientifically.� (Emphasis added)

rae.org...doesn't have those problems, just from taking a brief glance through the website.
David's home page tells me it has moved, but not to where.

Oops, I thought I’d corrected that homepage address. Try this one -

David Plaisted’s Home Page

As it is though, you'll have to excuse me for saying what to your eyes may be an Ad Hominem fallacy. I cannot trust what David Plaisted puts out, not when he links to groups that endorse literally anti-scientific thinking like carm.org and ICR.

Yes, while it does seem like an “Ad Hominem fallacy�, you’re forgiven. One gets used to it as it is a frequently used argument from anti-creationists to avoid dealing with any scientific argument that may be presented. Now, before you start, one cannot argue whether the material presented is ‘scientific’ or not until one studies and investigates it. With ‘consensus science’, most, whom hold to the same worldview, just accept it without any or little further investigation. Even the ‘peer-review’ process is performed by those of the same worldview. (Though, admittedly, this probably holds true for both sides, whether naturalistic materialists or creationists. - it pays to check it for oneself)

Groups like those literally promise to omit, delete, or distort data gathered in order to support their presupposed, predetermined conclusions. (Emphasis added)

I have tried to access the various websites you mentioned for information regarding this matter. Can you quote and link some that do “literally promise to omit, delete, or distort data gathered in order to support their presupposed, predetermined conclusions�?
Is it “literally� or could this just be, either your biased interpretation of the statement or just something which anti-creationist authors and websites claim (without support).

As for “creationist sources�, being those which hold to a creationist worldview as opposed to a naturalistic materialist worldview, here (besides others) are some which I often refer -

The True.Origin Archive

�The question of origins is plainly a matter of science history—not the domain of applied science.  Contrary to the unilateral denials of many evolutionists, one’s worldview does indeed play heavily on one’s interpretation of scientific data, a phenomenon that is magnified in matters concerning origins, where neither repeatability, nor observation, nor measurement—the three immutable elements of the scientific method—may be employed.  Many proponents of evolutionism nevertheless persist in claiming exclusive “scientific� status for their popularized beliefs, while heaping out-of-hand dismissal and derision upon all doubters, spurning the very advice of Darwin himself.
This site is one answer to such unreasonable—and unscientific—practices...�

Especially this page -

List Of 1494 Articles Supporting Biblical Creation - (though, I haven’t actually counted them to verify the “1494� but I have checked the author’s credentials of those which I have read.)


TASC

�Mission Statement
TASC's mission is to rebuild and strengthen the foundation of the Christian faith by increasing awareness of the scientific evidence supporting the literal Biblical account of creation and refuting evolution.
Strategy Statement
TASC endeavors to show Christians and others in the Triangle area that the facts of science are consistent with the Biblical account of origins and inconsistent with the evolutionary worldview. We do this by offering speakers, books, videos, movies, and slides for churches, civic groups, campus organizations, and schools; hosting creationist seminars and debates; sponsoring creationist films on local-access cable TV; holding periodic meetings; and engaging in other activities to promote faith in the Biblical account of origins. TASC is also chartered to do original and library research on projects that have bearing on one or more aspects of origins, and to publish other media in order to communicate the good news of faith in our Creator God.� (Emphasis added)

As always, it’s wise to check the author’s credentials for any material to which you refer.

Have a good day! (and good read)
Still small

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 41 by Still small]

List Of 1494 Articles Supporting Biblical Creation - (though, I haven’t actually counted them to verify the “1494� but I have checked the author’s credentials of those which I have read.)

How many of that 1494 are actually peer-reviewed papers published in legitimate scientific journals? I randomly clicked on about 10 and none of those 10 were. Are there actually ANY?

The biblical creation account is known to be completely false in terms of time frame (if you take biblical chronology literally), sequence of events, method (eg. woman came from man's rib), and many other aspects of the story. The probability that it happened as described in the bible is literally zero. This is not debatable in modern times. If 1494 "articles" claim otherwise, they are not based on any modern science, and my guess is not one of these articles is an actual peer-reviewed science paper published in a reputable journal. If there are any, I'd like to read them. Can you point one out?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 41 by Still small]

I have tried to access the various websites you mentioned for information regarding this matter. Can you quote and link some that do “literally promise to omit, delete, or distort data gathered in order to support their presupposed, predetermined conclusions�?
Is it “literally� or could this just be, either your biased interpretation of the statement or just something which anti-creationist authors and websites claim (without support).

Sure. From ICR.org,


The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.
(emphasis mine)

The biblical record of primeval earth history in Genesis 1-11 is fully historical and perspicuous,

ICR cannot employ scientists who publish research that disagrees with the above. If any of their staff did publish research that disagreed with the above, they'd have a contradiction, a conflict with established dogma, and they can't allow for that.

From Carm

The Bible is the Word of God and its original manuscripts are free from errors and contradictions. It is the one and only infallible, authoritative, and trustworthy rule for faith and life,
The Bible is to be taken as literally as possible except where obviously figurative. Genesis, for example, is literal, and Adam and Eve were actual people.
Also, we are to refute false doctrines, false religions, and whatever else might contradict the word of God,

My stance on Statements of Faith

I want you to think about something. Imagine if there was a secular scientific group that held that Charles Darwin's book, On the Origin of Species, was infallible, free from error and authoritative, and to be taken as literally as possible. Imagine if they had that on their website, declared it their Statement of Faith.
Would you trust them to put out unbiased, objective research? Would you trust them to report on any research they perform honestly, to give you (the reader) all the facts, all the data they gather? Would you trust this group, let's call them Darwinists, to not twist things to suit their presupposed, predetermined "truth"?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 43 by rikuoamero]

For some reason, when I posted the previous post (no 43), it ended up completely blank. I took out the URLs, which I will put here.

https://www.icr.org/tenets

https://carm.org/statement-faith

viewtopic.php?t=32772

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 41 by Still small]

Mission Statement
TASC's mission is to rebuild and strengthen the foundation of the Christian faith by increasing awareness of the scientific evidence supporting the literal Biblical account of creation and refuting evolution.

This is the same thing, the same biased purpose to what it is they do. Instead of following the evidence where it leads them (even if it leads to evolution), they instead predetermine that a literal Biblical account is true, and then go out to do "research" that supports that view.

and engaging in other activities to promote faith in the Biblical account of origins.

Not do research that leads where it leads. To promote a predetermined view.

It's incredibly odd to me. That people like yourself think black is white, up is down...and that openly promising to promote a predetermined conclusion is somehow following the scientific method, doing objective unbiased research.

[Still small]

How many of that 1494 are actually peer-reviewed papers published in legitimate scientific journals? I randomly clicked on about 10 and none of those 10 were. Are there actually ANY?

Oh, you mean that supreme gold standard of scientific excellence for research? That pillar of scientific objectivity?(😂🤣😂) Why? Firstly, the peer-review system, as is, is highly overrated whereas realistically it is often openly bias and consensus based as opposed to being ‘objective’. Thus giving rise to comments such as -

“Largely because of this antagonism to openness and evaluation, there is a great lack of good evidence either way concerning the objectivity and validity of peer review. What evidence there is does not give confidence but is open to many criticisms. Now, Peter Rothwell and Christopher Martyn have thrown a bombshell. Their conclusions are measured and cautious, but there is little doubt that they have provided solid evidence of something truly rotten at the core of science.� (Emphasis added) -(link)

and -
“However, although there is widespread consensus among scientists that peer review is a good thing, there are remarkably little data that the system works as intended. In fact, studies of peer review have identified numerous problems, including confirmatory bias, bias against negative results, favoritism for established investigators in a given field, address bias, gender bias, and ideological orientation . . . . However, if reviewers prevent authors from any discussion of controversial or speculative viewpoints or if editors are overzealous in screening manuscripts for perceived newsworthiness or consistency with prevailing dogma, there is a danger of blurring the distinction between peer review and censorship.� -(link).


Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, admits this can be a real problem:
‘The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.’ (Horton, R., Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion, and crack-up, Medical Journal of Australia )

And as admitted by Professor Evelleen Richards, in a TV interview -
‘Science … is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as ‘truth’ is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment in time … [Scientists] are not really receptive or not really open-minded to any sorts of criticisms or any sorts of claims that actually are attacking some of the established parts of the research (traditional) paradigm — in this case neo-Darwinism — so it is very difficult for people who are pushing claims that contradict the paradigm to get a hearing. They’ll find it difficult to [get] research grants; they’ll find it hard to get their research published; they’ll, in fact, find it very hard.’
(Professor Evelleen Richards, Science Historian, University of NSW, Australia, Lateline, 9 October 1998, Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

As far as your reference to “published in legitimate scientific journals�, are you referring only to those journals which conform to your particular worldview or paradigm? Whilst not all, many of the articles were published, after peer-review, in journals such as the Journal of Creation. A number of the 1494 articles are published in an abstract format similar to that in www.phys.org with links to the actual papers.
Unfortunately, there are many instances of bias when accepting articles for publication such as the case of Dr Russ Humphreys, a physicist from Sandia National Laboratories. And outright discrimination as in the case of Dr. Richard Sternberg, an evolutionary scientist and Research Associate at the National Museum of Natural History.
Now, I believe that you have stated elsewhere that you were involved in selecting reviewers. Are not peer reviews supposedly carried out by persons knowledgeable in the area covered by the submitted paper, “experts in their field�, I believe you said. When choosing reviewers, were they selected randomly, or by whether they would be biased either toward or against the paper, possibly in alignment with your initial bias. Should one only accept creation paradigm based papers peer reviewed by scientists who hold to a naturalistic/materialistic/anti-creation/atheistic paradigm? If so, you should only accept papers based on a naturalistic/materialistic/anti-creation/atheistic paradigm which are peer reviewed by those holding to a creationist paradigm, else you could be accused of being hypocritical. Hence the procedure of creationist papers being peer reviewed by creationist and naturalistic/materialistic papers peer reviewed by naturalistic materialists. One’s worldview determines how the evidence is interpreted. And, again, as you have expressed elsewhere, once published, they are exposed to the greater community to review and comment.

The biblical creation account is known to be completely false in terms of time frame (if you take biblical chronology literally), . . .

This would depend on what you consider to be the literal biblical chronology.

sequence of events, method (eg. woman came from man's rib), and many other aspects of the story. The probability that it happened as described in the bible is literally zero.

This is a clear indication of your bias. Now, don’t get me wrong, my comment is not meant to be insulting or disparaging. Everyone has a bias to some extent or other, depending upon one’s worldview. The level of bias can be from ‘normal’, (acceptable) where one doubts a particular position but is willing to research and assess both sides of an argument, to extreme bias which is often expressed in ridiculing or disrespectful comments such describing a process which one doesn’t (at this point) understand as ‘magic’ or a possible Supreme Creator or Designer as a ‘sky daddy’ or similar. Would it be right or appropriate to refer to such areas as the possible naturalistic cause of the Big Bang or the Inflation period in Big Bang cosmology as ‘magic’ or just ‘unanswered questions’. Why don’t naturalistic materialists refer to the unknown process of ‘living matter from non living matter by natural means’ as ‘magic’. Hypocrisy is often the greatest destroyer of civil debate. Those of extreme bias usually will dismiss any other position, refusing to check out any material presented solely because it comes from an opposing view.

This is not debatable in modern times.

“not debatable�! Really! Don’t tell the moderators that, else they may have to delete the last 38 pages, each with thousands of post just in this “Science and Religion� sub-forum. While it may be true that some are so biased and close-minded not to consider another point of view and interpretation of the evidence (which goes for both sides) but many are still willing to be ‘challenged’. Oft times, when faced with new evidence, one needs to research their own position further. In my case, many times my worldview understanding has been enhanced when needing to research further.

If 1494 "articles" claim otherwise, they are not based on any modern science, and my guess is not one of these articles is an actual peer-reviewed science paper published in a reputable journal. If there are any, I'd like to read them. Can you point one out?

I must commend you on your ability to speed read, I mean 1494 articles in what appears to be just over 24 hours. That is impressive! Or was this comment based on your biased opinion with the belief that you couldn’t possibly be wrong. Try this one which I have recently been reading and show me where the science is wrong. It was peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal. Not that you might consider it so but that would be due more to your bias than to falsified ‘modern science’. It may assist you to see an alternate interpretation of the evidence. If you’d prefer, I’ll find one on a subject with which you are familiar and you can try to objectively review it.

Have a good day!
Still small

[Still small]

Sure. From ICR.org,


The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.
(emphasis mine)

The biblical record of primeval earth history in Genesis 1-11 is fully historical and perspicuous,

ICR cannot employ scientists who publish research that disagrees with the above. If any of their staff did publish research that disagreed with the above, they'd have a contradiction, a conflict with established dogma, and they can't allow for that.

From Carm

The Bible is the Word of God and its original manuscripts are free from errors and contradictions. It is the one and only infallible, authoritative, and trustworthy rule for faith and life,
The Bible is to be taken as literally as possible except where obviously figurative. Genesis, for example, is literal, and Adam and Eve were actual people.
Also, we are to refute false doctrines, false religions, and whatever else might contradict the word of God,

So your claim of “literally promise to omit, delete, or distort data gathered in order to support their presupposed, predetermined conclusions� was false and as suspected, based purely upon your biased interpretation of the statement or just something which anti-creationist authors and websites claim. At least these sites are upfront about their worldview position. And there is no promise, literal or otherwise, to ‘omit, delete, or distort data gathered’. What is clear, is that the evidence will be interpreted according to a particular worldview or paradigm. This is no different to naturalistic materialists interpreting the evidence according to their paradigm. The difference being that the naturalistic materialists try to give the impression that their’s is the only paradigm, thus assumed as ‘scientific fact’.

My stance on Statements of Faith

I want you to think about something. Imagine if there was a secular scientific group that held that Charles Darwin's book, On the Origin of Species, was infallible, free from error and authoritative, and to be taken as literally as possible. Imagine if they had that on their website, declared it their Statement of Faith.
Would you trust them to put out unbiased, objective research? Would you trust them to report on any research they perform honestly, to give you (the reader) all the facts, all the data they gather? Would you trust this group, let's call them Darwinists, to not twist things to suit their presupposed, predetermined "truth"?

Many did think it “was infallible, free from error and authoritative� and promoted it as such. Many like Thomas Henry Huxley, Alfred Russel Wallace, etc. That was until a number of holes appeared in the story and they’ve been trying to patch it up with numerous changes, deletions and addition such as neo-Darwinism, punctuated equilibrium, etc, ever since.

Have a good day!
Still small

[Still small]

[Replying to post 41 by Still small]

Mission Statement
TASC's mission is to rebuild and strengthen the foundation of the Christian faith by increasing awareness of the scientific evidence supporting the literal Biblical account of creation and refuting evolution.

This is the same thing, the same biased purpose to what it is they do. Instead of following the evidence where it leads them (even if it leads to evolution), they instead predetermine that a literal Biblical account is true, and then go out to do "research" that supports that view.

Unfortunately, when one is seeking answers to the origin of, for example, life, we are looking at history, the past. Some scientists think that science can firmly answer questions about the past. But it can’t. Science directly tests only that which is observable and repeatable. History is neither. The best science can do is weed out unlikely scenarios. It is a matter of formulating possible scenarios and determining which is a better fit for the evidence. As the past event cannot be directly observed in the present, one determines which assumptions are required for a particular scenario (hypothesis). These assumptions are then tested and categorised into ‘impossible’, ‘possible’, ‘possible but improbable’ and ‘probable’. Then by a process of elimination, the various scenarios can be categorised into ‘impossible’, ‘possible’, ‘possible but improbable’ and ‘probable’. For example, one asks the question ‘Was life created or did life arise through natural (chemical and physical) means? One then formulates an hypothesis - Life arose through natural (chemical and physical) means when the basic elements essential for biochemical molecules combined via interactions over vast amounts of time from original conditions on Earth. These element, again over time, combined and formed replicating molecules, which over time formed . . . etc, etc.
Now the research begins. What is essential for this to occur? What are the assumptions? Are they ‘impossible’, ‘possible’, ‘possible but improbable’ and ‘probable’? Follow this process in this paper. Remove those scenarios with ‘impossible’ assumptions and weigh up the balance of ‘probable’s and ‘improbable’s. Then search for other sources of evidence. And then, again, as the actual event is unobservable and unrepeatable, it’s a matter of faith (either way).

and engaging in other activities to promote faith in the Biblical account of origins.

Not do research that leads where it leads. To promote a predetermined view.

Again, it’s a matter of sorting the ‘impossible’, ‘possible’, ‘possible but improbable’ and ‘probable’. Though, please remember, regardless of which side of the room you are on, one will always interpret the evidence in accordance to one’s worldview.

It's incredibly odd to me. That people like yourself think black is white, up is down...and that openly promising to promote a predetermined conclusion is somehow following the scientific method, doing objective unbiased research.

The ‘scientific method’ requires observation and repeatability. Historical events can not be directly observed and are not repeatable. It’s incredibly odd to me that people don’t seem to get that.

Have a good day!
Still small

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 47 by Still small]

So your claim of “literally promise to omit, delete, or distort data gathered in order to support their presupposed, predetermined conclusions� was false and as suspected, based purely upon your biased interpretation of the statement or just something which anti-creationist authors and websites claim.

No, it's the only way they can fulfill what it is they say they set out to do. They call this book (Holy Bible) the 'Word of God' and describe it as infallible. That's their predetermined, presupposed conclusion.
They then say that this book is superior to any and all evidence gathered ,whether gathered in the past or yet to be gathered in the future, or research conducted. They say they are commanded to refute false doctrines,
whatever else might contradict the word of God,.

Guess what might happen, might just happen, if they come across some piece of evidence, or conduct research that indicates that what they call the Word of God is false?
Why...they'll discard it. Omit it. Delete it. Distort it. If they didn't do any of those three things, then they might just do as other scientists do, or other historians, and have to put up on their website some sort of research that indicates for example...that there was no literal Adam and Eve.
And this is why I cannot trust Statement-of-Faithers. They literally promise not to put up research that contradicts their predetermined conclusion.

Many did think it “was infallible, free from error and authoritative� and promoted it as such. Many like Thomas Henry Huxley, Alfred Russel Wallace, etc. That was until a number of holes appeared in the story and they’ve been trying to patch it up with numerous changes, deletions and addition such as neo-Darwinism, punctuated equilibrium, etc, ever since.

This doesn't answer my question. I notice that you threw out a few names, but didn't actually give any evidence that the situation for those promoting the theory of evolution is anywhere near as bad as for Statement-of-Faith creationists.
Are there, or where there sites or groups that held Darwin's book in the same regard as Christian Creationists hold their Bible? Where there groups saying, literally saying, that Darwin's book is free from error and authoritative, superior to evidence/research? Where there groups promising publicly that their mission is to refute anything that contradicts their infallible book?
You didn't link anything. You didn't cite anything. This makes me think that you have nothing. The groups you link to have nothing, they are disingenuous and liars. Every single one of them.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 48 by Still small]

Nothing in this post actually means that one has to uphold a Bible, declare it to be true, no matter what one finds.