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.
KINDS and ADAPTATION
Moderator: Moderators
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2226
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 44 times
- Contact:
Post #161
[Replying to post 157 by DrNoGods]
Humphreys is not the only creationist that has made accurate predictions.
With regards to Humphreys maybe once would be lucky. But after several accurate predictions then even if you believe his assumptions to be incorrect you have to have a reason why one could use these assumptions and still get correct result.
Whether you like the assumptions or not. These assumptions yield correct results, when no naturalistic theory did and they continue to yield correct results. Why.
Walt Brown predicted water would be found below major mountain peaks. He predicted that the rocks on comets would be rounded. He predicted that the water found on mars would be salt water. All from his theory of the flood.
PREDICTION 8: By 2020, satellites in low-earth orbits will predict the location of major earthquakes several days beforehand. They will do this by measuring electrical changes in the ionosphere that are produced by piezoelectric voltages building up in stressed rock around the focus of the coming earthquakes. If the focus is above the crossover depth, which is 220 miles below the earth’s surface, upward escaping magma may also produce detectable heat around the epicenter days beforehand.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/12 ... arthquakes[/quote]
Humphreys is not the only creationist that has made accurate predictions.
With regards to Humphreys maybe once would be lucky. But after several accurate predictions then even if you believe his assumptions to be incorrect you have to have a reason why one could use these assumptions and still get correct result.
Whether you like the assumptions or not. These assumptions yield correct results, when no naturalistic theory did and they continue to yield correct results. Why.
Walt Brown predicted water would be found below major mountain peaks. He predicted that the rocks on comets would be rounded. He predicted that the water found on mars would be salt water. All from his theory of the flood.
PREDICTION 5: The 346 whales fossilized in Peru and the 80 fossilized whales found in Chile are just the tip of the iceberg. Similar fossil graveyards will be found along the western base of the Andes and Rocky Mountains. (In 1976, an 80-foot-long baleen94 whale, fossilized in diatomaceous earth, was found in Lompoc, California, “standing� on its tail.95)PREDICTION 4: The crystalline rock under Gibraltar, the Bosporus and Dardanelles, and the Golden Gate Bridge will be found to be eroded into V-shaped notches. (This prediction, first published in 1995, was confirmed for the Bosporus and Dardanelles in 1998102 and for Gibraltar in 2009103 and 2018.104).
PREDICTION 8: By 2020, satellites in low-earth orbits will predict the location of major earthquakes several days beforehand. They will do this by measuring electrical changes in the ionosphere that are produced by piezoelectric voltages building up in stressed rock around the focus of the coming earthquakes. If the focus is above the crossover depth, which is 220 miles below the earth’s surface, upward escaping magma may also produce detectable heat around the epicenter days beforehand.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/12 ... arthquakes[/quote]
PREDICTION 38: Asteroids are rock piles, often with internal ice acting as a weak glue.9 Large rocks that began the capture process are near the centers of asteroids and comets.
Four years after this prediction was published in 2001 (In the Beginning, 7th edition, page 220), measurements of the largest asteroid, Ceres, found that it does indeed have a dense, rocky core and a mantle primarily of water-ice.10
On 23 January 2014, it was announced that two jets of water vapor were discovered escaping from Ceres at a combined rate of 13 pounds per second.
PREDICTION 39: Most of the rocks (pebble-size and larger) comprising asteroids and comets will be found to be rounded to some degree. (This rounding occurred as the rocks tumbled and were eroded in the powerful fountains of the great deep, just as rocks are tumbled and rounded in fast flowing streams.)
The European Space Administration announced on 18 December 2014 that very large, rounded boulders—1 to 3 meters in diameter—are stacked “layer upon layer� “all over� Comet 67P. [See Figure 182 on page 344.] They jokingly call them dinosaur eggs, and believe they could be the basic building blocks that clumped together to form� comets.11
I could go on. But I think you are getting the point.PREDICTION 43: A deep, penetrating impact on a large asteroid, such as Ceres, will release huge volumes of water vapor. (This prediction has now been confirmed.9 See Figure 188.)
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2226
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 44 times
- Contact:
Post #162
[Replying to post 158 by benchwarmer]
Answered on post 160Well, all laws I'm aware of are based on observation and verifiable data.
I'm aware of NO creationist theories that can make accurate predictions. Any I've seen work backwards from what we see NOW, posit some nonsense, and then end with "godidit". Can any of them be used to actually predict something, run an experiment, then see the prediction come true? Please enlighten us.
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2226
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 44 times
- Contact:
Post #163
[Replying to post 159 by Donray]
I have answered this already but I can go through this again.
I have answered this already but I can go through this again.
The flood is when most of the fossils were laid down.You or your creationist buddy Mr small brain cannot even come up with time line of when your created what life and how all the fossils fit your time line. ALL you are capable of doing is saying the everything is created by magic.
Yes I did man is his own kind.Thus far not one KIND has been mentioned and what animals were ASAPTED from this KIND.
I gave a whole list of kinds earlier in this thread. I am not sure what is left to defend besides that. Unless you are saying that you do not believe in the laws of modern genetics.You are all BS with nothing to back up your theory of creation. You just try to change subject because you are unable to debate your own theory of KINDS and ADAPTATION.
Oh I like this one. The laws of nature or the laws that God put into place to govern matter and energy in an adiabatic universe. "Miracles" can occur when God adds energy to His adiabatic universe at specific points on our timeline. It only happens at that point in time because God is only adding energy to the universe at that point in time.Please explain what are the laws of nature. Is magic one of the laws of nature? Are Miracles one of the laws of nature?
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2226
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 44 times
- Contact:
Post #165
[Replying to post 163 by Donray]
Man came from the blueprint that God had of man and all other forms of life that He created during creation week.
Did you even read my post above. I differentiate between natural laws and God adding energy to the universe. I do not deny that God does miracles. Yes He does miracles. I just describe how He does do miracles. God adds energy to the universe system. With regards to a man He fashioned a man by adding energy into the universe and man became a living soul. So at the creation of man God also added another attribute to the universe that it it did not have before man. The soul of a man. Our body does resemble that of other animals on earth. But what makes man his own kind is the soul God placed in him. Nothing else in all of creation is like man.Please explain exactly how your sky god created a man from mud and use only natural laws. No magic.
Man came from the blueprint that God had of man and all other forms of life that He created during creation week.
-
DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2719
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1645 times
Post #166
[Replying to post 160 by EarthScienceguy]
You're missing the point again,. The reason he got a few numbers close (while completely missing others, like why Venus has no magnetic field) has already been explained ... pure coincidence.
Do you really believe that the planets started as balls of H2O and that god magically aligned all of the H nuclear atom spins? Or that the universe is only 6000 years old as Humphreys also assumed in his little paper? These are all demonstrably wrong, therefore everything he derives from these assumptions is meaningless. It doesn't matter if he coincidentally got some numbers close. Why you can't see this obvious problem is what is mind boggling.
All the other examples you gave are similar. Just creationists using known results to try and backtrack a scenario to make biblical fairy tales compatible with modern science. Gullible people believe their formulations because they want to, and can't accept that the old religious tales are nothing but myth and allegory. Fortunately these people are in the huge minority and have no impact on how real science is done, although some religious politicians try.
But after several accurate predictions then even if you believe his assumptions to be incorrect you have to have a reason why one could use these assumptions and still get correct result.
You're missing the point again,. The reason he got a few numbers close (while completely missing others, like why Venus has no magnetic field) has already been explained ... pure coincidence.
Do you really believe that the planets started as balls of H2O and that god magically aligned all of the H nuclear atom spins? Or that the universe is only 6000 years old as Humphreys also assumed in his little paper? These are all demonstrably wrong, therefore everything he derives from these assumptions is meaningless. It doesn't matter if he coincidentally got some numbers close. Why you can't see this obvious problem is what is mind boggling.
All the other examples you gave are similar. Just creationists using known results to try and backtrack a scenario to make biblical fairy tales compatible with modern science. Gullible people believe their formulations because they want to, and can't accept that the old religious tales are nothing but myth and allegory. Fortunately these people are in the huge minority and have no impact on how real science is done, although some religious politicians try.
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
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2226
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 44 times
- Contact:
Post #167
[Replying to post 165 by DrNoGods]
Naturalist have no theory. You really believe that we are a computer program or random energy. Or a universe that started as a dense ball of matter that somehow escaped becoming a black hole like all equations say should happen. So you must believe the impossible that somehow maybe by coincidence that this matter expanded to form the universe that we live in. We certainly do not see anything like this today.
With regards to Humphrey's theory you have to specify what part of the universe is 6000 years old. Because the Bible was written with the Earth as the 0 point on the time scale and at the center of the universe.
I understand the point you are trying to make. But I do not believe in coincidences. I understand that those that believe in naturalism do. But God has produced a rational world in which cause and effect are in place.You're missing the point again,. The reason he got a few numbers close (while completely missing others, like why Venus has no magnetic field) has already been explained ... pure coincidence.
Naturalist have no theory. You really believe that we are a computer program or random energy. Or a universe that started as a dense ball of matter that somehow escaped becoming a black hole like all equations say should happen. So you must believe the impossible that somehow maybe by coincidence that this matter expanded to form the universe that we live in. We certainly do not see anything like this today.
What is so hard to believe about that? God could have chosen to create the universe anyway He wanted. Science is simply an avenue to discover how He did choose to create the universe.Do you really believe that the planets started as balls of H2O and that god magically aligned all of the H nuclear atom spins?
Evidently it is not wrong because his assumptions were based on 6000 year old universe that produced correct results. Along with the other predictions. And none of his assumptions are demonstrably wrong.Or that the universe is only 6000 years old as Humphreys also assumed in his little paper? These are all demonstrably wrong, therefore everything he derives from these assumptions is meaningless. It doesn't matter if he coincidentally got some numbers close. Why you can't see this obvious problem is what is mind boggling.
With regards to Humphrey's theory you have to specify what part of the universe is 6000 years old. Because the Bible was written with the Earth as the 0 point on the time scale and at the center of the universe.
How is this possible when they were made before the discoveries?All the other examples you gave are similar. Just creationists using known results to try and backtrack a scenario to make biblical fairy tales compatible with modern science. Gullible people believe their formulations because they want to, and can't accept that the old religious tales are nothing but myth and allegory. Fortunately these people are in the huge minority and have no impact on how real science is done, although some religious politicians try.
-
DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2719
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1645 times
Post #168
[Replying to post 166 by EarthScienceguy]
Of course. He/she/it can do anything ... right? So why all the effort to try and make old religious tales compatible with modern science when in the end all you need to do is claim that "god did it" (as you just did) and that is the answer?
What?
The earth starting out as a ball of H2O is demonstrably wrong! Hard to argue with "god aligned all the H atom nuclear spins" though. After all, god can do anything he wants I hear.
So the earth was created at t=0, 6000 years ago, and is the center of the universe? Riiiiight. Why on earth do you call yourself "EarthScienceguy" and then make a statement like that. It is very opposite of science.
What is so hard to believe about that? God could have chosen to create the universe anyway He wanted.
Of course. He/she/it can do anything ... right? So why all the effort to try and make old religious tales compatible with modern science when in the end all you need to do is claim that "god did it" (as you just did) and that is the answer?
Naturalist have no theory. You really believe that we are a computer program or random energy.
What?
And none of his assumptions are demonstrably wrong.
The earth starting out as a ball of H2O is demonstrably wrong! Hard to argue with "god aligned all the H atom nuclear spins" though. After all, god can do anything he wants I hear.
With regards to Humphrey's theory you have to specify what part of the universe is 6000 years old. Because the Bible was written with the Earth as the 0 point on the time scale and at the center of the universe.
So the earth was created at t=0, 6000 years ago, and is the center of the universe? Riiiiight. Why on earth do you call yourself "EarthScienceguy" and then make a statement like that. It is very opposite of 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
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2226
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 44 times
- Contact:
Post #169
[Replying to post 167 by DrNoGods]
If others choose to describe a universe in which God did not create that is up to them. In fact that is what the Bible says that the nature of man is try to describe creation in such a way to exclude God. But science says that it is impossible unless you are one that believe in coincidences or miracles whatever it is you want to call them.
Like for example
There are 20 constants of nature whose values yields the universe that we know and love. But there is no reason why these constants should be the values that they are. String theory tried to explain why these constants have these values. I guess it did a little bit. Instead of being infinite string theory narrowed it down to only 10^500. Maybe it was just a coincidence that these constants were the values they were.
The expansion of the universe could have had one of three values. It could have been expanding to fast to allow the planets and stars to form. It could have been moving to slow and the universe would have collapsed back in on itself. There were many values that could produce a universe that was expanding to fast. There were many values that could have produced a universe that collapsed back on itself. There were very, very, very few values that would produce an expansion between these values that produce a universe like ours.
Big Bang theory predicts lithium should be the third most abundant element in the universe, but this is not the case. Do you know what the third most abundant element is? Oxygen is the third most abundant element in the universe. Can you think of a compound that has Oxygen in it? Wait a minute I think water is made of oxygen and hydrogen. Wow!!!! that sure is a coincidence isn't. The Bible says that everything we see is made of water.
2 Peter 3:5 "For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God,"
Quote:
And none of his assumptions are demonstrably wrong.
The earth starting out as a ball of H2O is demonstrably wrong! Hard to argue with "god aligned all the H atom nuclear spins" though. After all, god can do anything he wants I hear.
There is a lot of water on the earth. There is a lot of water in the universe. There is a lot of Hydrogen and oxygen in the universe when there should not be.
https://earthsky.org/space/largest-olde ... discovered
Q
If the earth is in the middle of the universe would place the Earth in a gravity well in which time here on the earth is not moving at the same rate as elsewhere in the universe.
If you are referring to the Judeo Christian God then you are speaking of a He. The effort is not in making Old religious tales compatible with modern science. The effort is to discover how God made the universe. By discovering how God made the universe we can discover more about God. That is the nature of science. It is not any different today. Every new discovery made describes the nature of God and how He made this universe in which we live.Of course. He/she/it can do anything ... right? So why all the effort to try and make old religious tales compatible with modern science when in the end all you need to do is claim that "god did it" (as you just did) and that is the answer?
If others choose to describe a universe in which God did not create that is up to them. In fact that is what the Bible says that the nature of man is try to describe creation in such a way to exclude God. But science says that it is impossible unless you are one that believe in coincidences or miracles whatever it is you want to call them.
Like for example
There are 20 constants of nature whose values yields the universe that we know and love. But there is no reason why these constants should be the values that they are. String theory tried to explain why these constants have these values. I guess it did a little bit. Instead of being infinite string theory narrowed it down to only 10^500. Maybe it was just a coincidence that these constants were the values they were.
The expansion of the universe could have had one of three values. It could have been expanding to fast to allow the planets and stars to form. It could have been moving to slow and the universe would have collapsed back in on itself. There were many values that could produce a universe that was expanding to fast. There were many values that could have produced a universe that collapsed back on itself. There were very, very, very few values that would produce an expansion between these values that produce a universe like ours.
Big Bang theory predicts lithium should be the third most abundant element in the universe, but this is not the case. Do you know what the third most abundant element is? Oxygen is the third most abundant element in the universe. Can you think of a compound that has Oxygen in it? Wait a minute I think water is made of oxygen and hydrogen. Wow!!!! that sure is a coincidence isn't. The Bible says that everything we see is made of water.
2 Peter 3:5 "For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God,"
Entropy says that it is not possible for a universe that like ours appears to be can exist. This is called the Boltzmann paradox. So naturalistic theories predict that matter and life is not possible. It is far more probable that we are radom energy in a Boltzmann Brain. But maybe there was another coincidence and somehow probability doesn't matter.Naturalist have no theory. You really believe that we are a computer program or random energy.
What?
Quote:
And none of his assumptions are demonstrably wrong.
The earth starting out as a ball of H2O is demonstrably wrong! Hard to argue with "god aligned all the H atom nuclear spins" though. After all, god can do anything he wants I hear.
There is a lot of water on the earth. There is a lot of water in the universe. There is a lot of Hydrogen and oxygen in the universe when there should not be.
https://earthsky.org/space/largest-olde ... discovered
Q
Humphrey's theory describes the Earth in a unique position in the universe. Look in any direction from the earth and the universe appears to be 13.8 billion light years. So any belief that the earth is not the center of the universe is an assumption of what lies beyond our ability to see.uote:
With regards to Humphrey's theory you have to specify what part of the universe is 6000 years old. Because the Bible was written with the Earth as the 0 point on the time scale and at the center of the universe.
So the earth was created at t=0, 6000 years ago, and is the center of the universe? Riiiiight. Why on earth do you call yourself "EarthScienceguy" and then make a statement like that. It is very opposite of science.
If the earth is in the middle of the universe would place the Earth in a gravity well in which time here on the earth is not moving at the same rate as elsewhere in the universe.
-
Danmark
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 12697
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #170
There are so many errors and false assumptions in your post, it would take too much time to do a comprehensive correction..., but to start with:EarthScienceguy wrote: If you are referring to the Judeo Christian God then you are speaking of a He. The effort is not in making Old religious tales compatible with modern science.
1. A basic problem you are having, which makes it more difficult to defend the Bible, is your refusal to acknowledge ANY cultural issues. For example, one could acknowledge the truth of the Bible without insisting that God is masculine. Indeed, the Biblical claim is that God is spirit and thus beyond gender designation. Many devout Bible based Christians acknowledge this; therefore, God is NOT a "He."
2. If the Bible represents truth, then a scientific search for truth will reveal God. One who truly seeks truth should not have to have any preconception about what the truth is; e.g. that there is a personal, masculine God who created everything.
3. Almost all religious scholars agree that the creation story in Genesis is not an attempt to provide a literal, factual description of the beginning of the world or universe. They also agree that the Biblical creation myth is taken from other, non Hebrew sources such as Sumerian mythology.
These points are not even debated by serious Biblical scholars. The claims you make are only made by non scholarly fundamentalist lay persons who have ZERO standing in the academic community.
Thus, I find your point of view and claims are based on both a poor understanding of science AND a poor understanding of Christian and Jewish scholarship.
