KINDS and ADAPTATION

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Donray
Guru
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:25 pm
Location: CA
Been thanked: 3 times

KINDS and ADAPTATION

Post #1

Post by 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.

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Post #31

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 30 by Still small]

I did not miss the next sentence. I just wanted to highlight the one sentence that I did.

Out of curiosity, what exactly falls under the heading of "creationist sources"? Care to give us a few examples?
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Post #32

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 30 by Still small]
Oh, and DrNoGods, I believe the same statement applies in reply to your Post 29, so ‘ditto’.


Are you claiming that the number of published, peer-reviewed scientific journal articles challenging the validity of radiometric dating and evolution is NOT orders of magnitude less than the number of such papers supporting it? If so, I think you need to do a recount. The number of anomalous and ambiguous papers on these subjects, or papers challenging the scientific consensus, is miniscule compared to the supporting number, and that was my point in post 29.

There is no need for supporters of evolution and radiometric dating (to pick just these two topics) to rely on anomalous sources, ambiguous reports, or twisted interpretations to make their case. The huge majority of the observational data is consistent with the modern consensus views, which is of course why they are the consensus. Alternative viewpoints are not supported by such a wealth of observational data, so people who push these alternatives have had to create new organizations like AIG, ICR, CRS, etc. to create their own pseudoscience (along with their "statements of faith") to try and counter the overwhelming evidence against them. So far they aren't moving the needle, and I expect they never will because they are on the wrong side of what is actually observed in the real world and that is a big hill to climb for them.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
Still small
Apprentice
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:31 am
Location: Great South Land
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #33

Post by Still small »

rikuoamero wrote: Out of curiosity, what exactly falls under the heading of "creationist sources"? Care to give us a few examples?
I would hazard a guess that they may include such sources which the author refers to at the end of the article -

“In general, it’s good to read both sides of the story. So I continue to recommend the creation web sites, including the following:

http://www.rae.org (This has a good selection of links to other sites)
http://zim.com/gjlane/science.htm (Many links)

http://www.ldolphin.org/URLres.shtml (More links than you can ever visit.)

David Plaisted’s (the author’s) Home Page

Have a good day!
Still small

User avatar
Still small
Apprentice
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:31 am
Location: Great South Land
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #34

Post by Still small »

[Replying to post 32 by DrNoGods]

Did you actually read the article that was linked? Or were you so offended by the tagline that you just assigned it under the label of ‘pseudoscience’ in order to justify ignoring it? If you had read the material, you may have noted that Plaisted dealt with numerous dating methods and their shortcomings, including the Isochron anomalies, indicating that they, too, have a degree of variance. In another of his articles, he actually directs the readers to a separate website listing a number of anomalies in isochron dating methods. (Hopefully you won’t be offended by this website’s bias.)

Now, an interesting article I recently read, dealt with the idea that when anomalies arise which go against the current ‘scientific’ consensus, the current theory is not just tossed out and the search starts all over again. No, the scientific community looks at the anomaly seeking how to fit it into the current consensus. Such was the case with introducing things like the Inflation Period and hypothesising about Dark Matter and Dark Energy to explain other anomalies.
Unfortunately, those of differing opinions to the ‘current consensus’ are not afforded such luxury but are expected, when anomalies arise, to totally discard their own theories and return to the consensus, pleading for forgiveness. Yes, sometimes anomalies arise and time must be taken to seek how they may fit into the Creation theory. This, I believe, is what researchers such as Plaisted, Humphrey’s, Baumgardner, Sanford, etc do and then write articles explaining their position.

Now, where were we? Oh, yes, “Kinds and Adaptation�!

Have a good day!
Still small

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Post #35

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 33 by Still small]

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

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.

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.

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

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Post #36

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 34 by Still small]
Now, an interesting article I recently read, dealt with the idea that when anomalies arise which go against the current ‘scientific’ consensus, the current theory is not just tossed out and the search starts all over again. No, the scientific community looks at the anomaly seeking how to fit it into the current consensus. Such was the case with introducing things like the Inflation Period and hypothesising about Dark Matter and Dark Energy to explain other anomalies.
Unfortunately, those of differing opinions to the ‘current consensus’ are not afforded such luxury but are expected, when anomalies arise, to totally discard their own theories and return to the consensus, pleading for forgiveness. Yes, sometimes anomalies arise and time must be taken to seek how they may fit into the Creation theory. This, I believe, is what researchers such as Plaisted, Humphrey’s, Baumgardner, Sanford, etc do and then write articles explaining their position.


But there is a great difference between observing new things, or anomalies, and working on scientific explanations for them, and what the creationist websites and the people behind them do. Very different.

In real science, experiments are performed, new observations made, new theoretical analyses carried out, etc. to try and explain the new observation or anomaly. All of this is done openly and published for others to throw darts at, towards the goal of improved understanding. This keeps everyone involved "honest" in the sense of ensuring that things are done according to the scientific method, and are generally consistent with other scientific principles. Explanations must be supported by evidence, and be internally consistent. Open problems yet to be solved are noted as such and the research continues.

This is in stark contrast to what happens with creationist websites like AIG and ICR. Here they have predefined conclusions that (to them) are givens as they are extracted from a holy book that is deemed to be infallible. If experiments, measurements, observations, etc. are carried out and analysis disputes any of these "givens", their approach is to try and undermine whatever aspect of the experiments is needed to claim that the experiment or measurement is false. That is the goal. It is not to explain the observations as in real science, but to attack whichever scientific principle is responsible for disproving the biblical narrative.

The AIG articles on meteorite dating are a perfect example of this. They present comprehensive tables showing the remarkable consistency of the dates, then offer up completely made up nonsense to explain why they can't be correct (god decided to suddenly create new material with different radioactive decay rates, apparently for no reason other than to fool modern day science). Humphrey's utter nonsense that all the planets were created as balls of H2O with all the hydrogen atom nuclear spins aligned is even worse ... two completely fabricated initial conditions having no basis in reality whatsoever, yet people buy into it because of some coincidences on the numeric values of planetary magnetic fields. There is no comparison of this kind of stuff with actual science.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Donray
Guru
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:25 pm
Location: CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #37

Post by Donray »

I notice not one Christain has responded to my original post. All they can do is try to discredit evolution.

Are Christians so dumb that they do not understand what asked in the original post? Or, is it the Christians have no idea of what would replace evolution.

Not one Christian has explained where Neanderthals and other humans fit in there logic.

Guy Threepwood
Sage
Posts: 502
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 6:00 pm

Post #38

Post by Guy Threepwood »

DrNoGods wrote: [Replying to post 30 by Still small]
Oh, and DrNoGods, I believe the same statement applies in reply to your Post 29, so ‘ditto’.


Are you claiming that the number of published, peer-reviewed scientific journal articles challenging the validity of radiometric dating and evolution is NOT orders of magnitude less than the number of such papers supporting it? If so, I think you need to do a recount. The number of anomalous and ambiguous papers on these subjects, or papers challenging the scientific consensus, is miniscule compared to the supporting number, and that was my point in post 29.

There is no need for supporters of evolution and radiometric dating (to pick just these two topics) to rely on anomalous sources, ambiguous reports, or twisted interpretations to make their case. The huge majority of the observational data is consistent with the modern consensus views, which is of course why they are the consensus. Alternative viewpoints are not supported by such a wealth of observational data, so people who push these alternatives have had to create new organizations like AIG, ICR, CRS, etc. to create their own pseudoscience (along with their "statements of faith") to try and counter the overwhelming evidence against them. So far they aren't moving the needle, and I expect they never will because they are on the wrong side of what is actually observed in the real world and that is a big hill to climb for them.
Once again; peer pressure review is precisely what got the primeval atom labeled as 'religious pseudoscience' and 'big bang'- and Piltdown man and Phrenology labelled as 'undeniable science'

The far more interesting question, as always, is not who believes something, but whether or not that belief is actually true, would you not agree?

Donray
Guru
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:25 pm
Location: CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #39

Post by Donray »

[Replying to post 38 by Guy Threepwood]
Why don't you provide a reference to your incorrect facts about the atom and that science (I will take that you have support from the majority) thought the Piltdown Man was not a hoax.

Before I deem that Christens must lie to support their beliefs, I will give you a chance to prove that I am mistaken and you are not a liar.

So. let’s see your proof about you wrote.

User avatar
Still small
Apprentice
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:31 am
Location: Great South Land
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #40

Post by Still small »

Donray wrote: I notice not one Christain has responded to my original post. All they can do is try to discredit evolution.

Are Christians so dumb that they do not understand what asked in the original post? Or, is it the Christians have no idea of what would replace evolution.

Not one Christian has explained where Neanderthals and other humans fit in there logic.
Donray
May I direct your attention to this post -

“Still small"


Have a good day!
Still small

Post Reply