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.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 179 by EarthScienceguy]

There are not any papers that make accurate predictions concerning the origins of the universe or life using naturalistic theories. That is my point.

I understand that you are changing the subject from the question about justification of Humphreys' claim that the Earth started out as a ball of H2O. It is clear you cannot offer any justification so are changing the subject to origins which have nothing to do with the original question (which was my point in the prior post).

But if there was a hypothesis for the origin of the universe that had made it to the status of theory (there technically isn't ... apart from the title of a television show the Big Bang "theory" is a hypothesis with an unresolved singularity issue), what is it supposed to predict? It is an explanation of how the universe may have come into existence. It, itself, is a prediction based on extrapolation (from the observed expansion of the universe), and current physics such as general relativity and its description of gravity.

Evolution is a different story. It has reached the status of theory because it is overwhelmingly supported by observations (fossil and genetic). We can also see it in action right now. The fact that people quibble about certain details does not negate the general theory, as creationists like to claim. And the claim that "naturalist theories" cannot predict anything is ridiculous. It is the very fact that chemistry, physics, mathematics, biology, geology and all the other "oligies" have been so successful at describing the behavior of nearly everything around us, and allowing accurate predictions, that these things underpin society and all technological innovations.

There is no such things as "creation theory." The creation myth of Genesis is a fairy tale description like the many other creation myths of other religions. What you call "creation theory" is just people trying to make that myth compatible with modern science and failing miserably. It doesn't predict anything. It takes observations and then twists facts and practices bad pseudoscience (like Humphreys balls of H2O) to try and make the case that the old myth is scientifically accurate.

But you've proven that you don't understand how real science works by the fact that you believe Humphreys' results on planetary magnetic fields are not simply coincidence. Planets did not start as balls of H2O, some god did not align all the H atom magnetic fields to produce a starting field value, and the solar system is not 6000 years old as needed to support his simple single exponential decay. Yet you are willing to buy his nonsense despite these known wrong assumptions, just because he gets a subset of numbers remotely close (while completely missing others). So it is easy to see how you would believe the other creation "scientists" peddling the same sort of nonsense ... you want to think the biblical creation story is true so ignore the faults in these creation "scientist" descriptions, and their wrong initial assumptions.

[Still small]

Since Still Small cannot respond to my last post. I take it that I am correct. You belive your god does its adaptation by its magic.

Oh, you were being serious in Post 152! I thought you were just being funny by trying to pull up some magic trick to imply that all my previous postings on this thread had disappeared. The rest of this post is just more rubbish on your part, so now let us go back to Post 152.

(But first, let me remind you of the last paragraph of my original response on this thread, being -

If by ‘debate’ you mean an open-minded discussion, I’m happy to be involved. But if you mean an outright ‘blue’ (argument) with the intent of ridicule, negativity and abuse (as is the habit of some posters on these boards), then I see no point. We’ll just have to wait and see.

So far your record isn’t too impressive.)

Now to Post 152 -

[Replying to post 146 by Still small]

OK, what have you said about your creation belief that one could debate??

I’ve said a great deal but, obviously, you choose to ignore it for fear that it may dispel your own beliefs.

You have no idea how your creation idea works from some KIND you can identify.

That is your claim, not mine. Then again, neither were you able to answer or explain the questions which I asked of you, being “Can you explain the existence of the singularity, a point where/when all the laws of physics breakdown? Can you explain what makes up dark matter and/or dark energy� Feel free to include your responses in your next post.

The only thing you do is say you have no idea what kinds your god created because it did not tell you. Is that correct? How do I debate this when you know nothing about KINDS?

Actually, I said that we were not given a list in scripture but that they are categorising them according to the principles of baraminology. (link) (This is much the same as evolutionists categorising species or do all the various animals, etc, come with little name tags as to its place within the Linnaeus system?). This idea is no different from naturalistic scientists describing and categorising species according to the ToE mythology.
But as a starting point on the listing of baramin, see here.

You seem to belive in the current theories of evolution since you point out articles that support evaluation but not necessarily Darwin’s theory of how evolution occurs. Or do you belive that your sky god controlled your "ADAPTATION"/evolution

Again, they are your words, not mine. If you wish to seriously debate this topic, please do not misquote or deliberately misconstrue that which I have posted. I believe I said that I believe in evolution (small ‘e’) be the process of “change in a population over time�. Now this may be by adaption via epigenetics or allele expression or even by some limited extent, mutation of existing DNA. What I don’t believe is the Theory of Evolution (Big ‘E’) where supposedly all life-forms come from a Universal Common Ancestor. Nor is there any supporting evidence for it, only speculation and extrapolation.

Or do you belive that your invisible sky god does control adaptation/evolution and you cannot show any examples of you ADAPTATION what is there to debate except the existence of your god? So, do you belive your god controls adaptation/evolution?

Did you actually read my post? If so, why do I need to explain it all again. I believe that God created all the original ‘kind’ with sufficient genetic information to allow for adaption to various environmental niches through gene expression via alleles and/or epigenetics. Adaptation is the reduction from general to specialised genetic information. It involves a loss of information, not a gain.
As for an example of adaptation, consider the Ursidae species (bears) which are all descended (as I believe) from one created kind represented by two animals on the Ark. Though being from the same kind and being able to interbreed, each species has adaptations for particular environmental niches. For example, “(t)he grizzly bear is an omnivore with a diet that includes roots, fruits and leaves. Its dentition is suitable for crushing plant material, with teeth having flat surfaces. It has long claws that are adapted for digging. When the weather is cold, it retreats into a cave and hibernates. It takes several weeks to activate the switch between normal and hibernate mode� whereas “Polar bears are superbly equipped for life in the Arctic freezer. Their fur has no pigment, giving camouflage in the snow. They have a double layer of fur: an undercoat made up of fine white hairs, and an outer coat of long guard hairs. These guard hairs are hollow; helping to promote buoyancy in swimming and improving heat insulation. The pelt, together with 10 cm of blubber, keeps the animal comfortable in the harshest environments. They eat seal meat almost exclusively and have an extraordinary ability to smell prey from a distance of 20 miles. Their long snout and neck allows them to probe ice holes and pull out seals. Fluffy paws act as snowshoes and short solid claws help grip the ice. Partial webbing between the toes helps in swimming. They can switch rapidly from alert hunter mode to hibernate mode. During the summer, when access to seals disappears, the polar bears eat very little, slow their heart rate, reduce body temperature, stop urinating and stop defecating. Yet, if food is found, they seem to be able to turn a switch and get back to normal mode in an instant. Their dentition is that of a carnivore, with sharp carnassial teeth for shearing off meat, and canine teeth that are long and also sharp. There is a very large stomach capacity, to enable them to gorge themselves with food when it is plentiful.� (link). Another example of a baramin is that of the Felid family (cats) as per this paper, On the Origin of Cats and Carnivores.

I asked if creationists like you know that birds evolved from dinosaurs and you don't answer that type of question.

I don’t remember you asking this question of me but if ever you do, I would answer it and my answer would be that you’d be wrong. You might want to argue the point but you may find it difficult as bird evolution is one of the most controversial areas in evolutionary paleontology as there are two main evolutionary theories. One group believes that birds evolved from tree-dwelling dinosaurs, whereas the other group insist that birds evolved from ground-running dinosaurs. Leaders of both groups have made extremely powerful (and sometimes acrimonious) criticisms of the other. I think they are both right in their criticisms—birds evolved from neither! Birds have always been birds.

I asked for a timeline on your creation theory and you are unable to provide. So, it is kind of hard to debate that.

Of whom did you ask? As for a basic summary of a timeline, read Genesis Chapters 1-11.

So, tell me what have described of your creation theory that you think can be debated?

Possibly the complete lack of scientific observational evidence of adaptation/evolution beyond the “kind�/Family boundaries as predicted by the Creation Theory.

The problem with trying to debate a person like you is that you belive in the bible god that can anything it wants whenever it wants. Therefor it could have created a kangaroo in Australia out of mud after the flood. Therefore, he created a kangaroo kind and you can ignore any other evidence to the contrary.

Firstly, just because you refuse to accept the existence of God and His ability does not prove you to be correct. Even Einstein had trouble accepting, at first, the expanding universe, not that I’m comparing you to Einstein.
Secondly, as far as God creating kangaroos out of mud after the flood, again I’d say you were wrong. God had ceased His creative acts at Day 6.

So, tell me what you and me could debate about your creationist theory?

Possibly the fact that observation evidence appears to support the creation theory.

Have a good day!
Still small

[Still small]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

Continuously parroting creationist websites doesn't provide any new information. Everyone is aware of their content already, as well as their motive (ie. to try and convince people that the biblical narrative is consistent with modern science). Try focusing on one point without jumping all over the place and changing the subject. (Emphasis added)

But the Biblical narrative does not contradict science.

EarthScienceguy, I believe the problem may be DrNoGods’ interpretation of our position (as emphasised). It should be -
“Try and show that modern science FACTS are consistent with the biblical narrative�

Have a good day!
Still small

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 182 by Still small]

“Try and show that modern science FACTS are consistent with the biblical narrative�

But this is not what creationists do. The sites ESG parrots intentionally discard scientific "facts" when they contradict biblical stories, then go to great lengths to offer up "alternative facts" that are consistent with the outcome they want. That is their entire game.

Do you actually believe that the Earth started out as a ball of H2O, and that god aligned all the H atom spins at t=0, 6000 years ago? ESG believes this not because it has any plausibility, or scientific support, but because Humphreys was able to hack some numbers that matched magnetic fields for a few planets despite making initial assumptions that are clearly complete garbage and at odds with science FACTS.

Explain how this approach is consistent with modern science FACTS. As for biblical stories themselves (as opposed to nonsense like Humphreys balls of H2O for planets), science FACTS disprove things like the creation account and the Noah's flood stories of Genesis, from so many different angles they cannot even remotely be considered valid from a science perspective. Ditto for modern humans (any human living during the last 6000 years is a modern human) living to 900+ years. Do you think that is compatible with science FACT? Explain how a modern human could live to 900+ years, and how that is consistent with biology.

I could go on and on, but the bible is full of this sort of (mis)information that is at odds with modern science "facts." There is no legitimate way to twist proper science to make it compatible with the biblical narrative, so the creationist websites have to resort to crackpots like Russell Humphreys inventing baseless new planet formation schemes, or miracles and other "god did it" explanations, to get around the fact that these old myths are not compatible with science. I don't think I am misinterpreting your positions ... you simply reject any science that contradicts the biblical narrative, purely for that reason. Rational analysis has nothing to do with it.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

Why do you do this same thing every time you can't answer a question? It is nothing but the standard creationist tactic of changing the subject completely and bringing up some unsolved scientific problem instead as a diversion ... the favorites being origin of the universe, origin of life, or dark matter and dark energy ... none of which have anything to do with explaining how the Earth started out as a ball of H2O which was the question.

Or, as you did in post 176, find some references to their being lots of H2O in the universe (a well known fact) and implying that this supports the Earth starting out as a ball of H2O. It doesn't. There is lots of carbon in the universe. Why didn't the Earth start out as a ball of carbon? The fact that there is lots of H2O in the universe does not imply that planets started out as balls of H2O. It is irrelevant to that question.

Plus, there are naturalist hypotheses for origin of the universe (it's called the Big Bang ... surely you've heard of this) and origin of life (eg. abiogenesis, panspermia, etc.). The fact that these issues are still open scientific questions in no way means that science is wrong on everything as you suggest ("made up stories"). But instead of addressing the original question, which you clearly cannot answer, you change the subject and start rambling about origins.

So you obviously have no credible response to support Humphreys' claim that the Earth started out as a ball of H2O. Just more hand waving and changing the subject, as usual. And neither did he ... it was an empty claim that truly was a "made up story." Yet you refer to the entire body of scientific knowledge, accumulated in countless papers and textbooks and supported by countless observations and measurements, making countless correct predictions of natural processes, as nothing but "made up stories." Your chosen handle is grossly misleading.

There are not any papers that make accurate predictions concerning the origins of the universe or life using naturalistic theories. That is my point. The only theory that makes accurate predictions is creation theory. And as new discoveries are made they fit seamlessly into the theory. That is a testimony to the strength of the theory. Since you have a "entire body of scientific knowledge, accumulated in countless papers and textbooks and supported by countless observations and measurements,." Why don't you document one of the correct predictions? I predict that each one of your "correct predictions" will be nothing more than a retrodiction if it does not also fit into creation theory.

There is not even consensus among scientist that the big bang theory is correct.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140401081 ... ement.org/

There is also no consensus on evolution.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... oad&id=712

Naturalistic theories of origins and evolution add nothing to our ability to understand the world around us, because they cannot make accurate predictions of anything. Prove me wrong if you can. This should be very easy.

Holy monkeys!
Let's try this approach shall we?

For the sake of debate, let's pretend that evolution, any sort of big bang and naturalism have been falsified and let's acknowledge that we don't know how the universe or life on earth came to be. Therefore there is zero reason to complain about, much less bring up these items.

So, I'm still curious, do you have a credible response to support Humphreys' claim that the Earth started out as a ball of H2O?

No complaints about the things listed above please as we all agree (at least for one post) that they have been shown to be false. What support do you have for your claim?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 180 by DrNoGods]

Without referencing bible verses ... provide some actual scientific references showing why it is even remotely feasible to believe that the Earth started out as a ball of H2O. Forgot god swooping in to align all the H atom nuclear spins by magic (as Humphreys' did). Simply provide some straightforward scientific evidence to show that just one planet (Earth) started out as a ball of H2O. After all, this should be trivial for "EarthScienceguy" ... right? ... science related to planet Earth. What could be simpler?

Why would I have to do this without referencing the Bible? I believe that God created the universe during creation week and that science is simply a vehicle that we use to discover how God created the universe. God made the quantum field that all matter is made from. He could have manipulated the quantum field to produce the matter that we today. Or changed elements by use of a z pinch. But do make no mistake about it creationist believe that God is the cause of universe.

But naturalist being men of great faith should understand that. Naturalist have all kinds of faith that science will one day find a solution to the universe problem.

Make no mistake, all theories indicate that energy had to be imputed from the outside.

Again Alan Guth in his "ground breaking" paper entitled "The Inflationary universe: A possible solution to the Horizon and Flatness problems" makes the following claim. "Thus, one must assume that the forces that created the initial condition were capable of violating causality."

Anyone who believes that the universe can be created without a cause has way more faith than I do. At least creation theory has a cause for our big ball of water.

This statement is still as true today as when Guth made this statement almost forty years ago. So faith is alive and well in the science community today, way more faith than evangelicals have.

Guth also makes this statement in his "groundbreaking" paper. "From Section II one can see that both problems (referring to horizon and flatness) could disappear if the assumption of adibadicy was grossly incorrect." And then he gives the new equation for entropy that he is proposing. Sp = (z3) (So) Where Sp is entropy present and So is entropy initial he is proposing. Later in his paper he assumes Z = Tr/Ts where Tr is the reheated temperature that the universe is heated to as a result of Ts the latent heat given off after cooling.

Guth entire original proof of inflation is based on the universe not being adiabatic. In an adiabatic system entropy is conserved. His entire proof is predicated on the assumption that the universe is not an adiabatic system. And yet today the universe is said to be an adiabatic system. If that is the case there is no answer for the horizon and flatness problem.

But Naturalist have faith that science will find a way.

If Tr/Ts does provide the energy for the increase in energy then one would expect that the expansion would be slowing. In fact that is was the assumption when the expansion rate of the universe was being measured in the 90's. This is why it was such a shock when it was discovered that the universe appears to be accelerating.

So inflation theory was totally destroyed. But naturalist have all kinds of faith and even came up with some fictitious energy that permeates the universe causing the expansion.

Yes naturalist have way more faith than Bible believing Christians. They believe in universes poofing into existence without cause, and make believe energy. If naturalist want to believe in the impossible that is up to me. I just do not have enough faith to do that.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 184 by Clownboat]

For the sake of debate, let's pretend that evolution, any sort of big bang and naturalism have been falsified and let's acknowledge that we don't know how the universe or life on earth came to be.

The big bang theory and evolution both have been falsified. But we do know how the universe and life came to be.

So, I'm still curious, do you have a credible response to support Humphreys' claim that the Earth started out as a ball of H2O?

No complaints about the things listed above please as we all agree (at least for one post) that they have been shown to be false. What support do you have for your claim?

What support are you looking for? And even that I really do not understand how that can be a criticism because the Big Bang theory starts with similar initial conditions.

I have already commented on some of the ways God could have formed the raw materials that we see on the earth.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 184 by Clownboat]

For the sake of debate, let's pretend that evolution, any sort of big bang and naturalism have been falsified and let's acknowledge that we don't know how the universe or life on earth came to be.

The big bang theory and evolution both have been falsified. But we do know how the universe and life came to be.

Funny, you just can't help yourself can you.

So, I'm still curious, do you have a credible response to support Humphreys' claim that the Earth started out as a ball of H2O?

No complaints about the things listed above please as we all agree (at least for one post) that they have been shown to be false. What support do you have for your claim?

What support are you looking for?

The best support you have for the claim will do.

And even that I really do not understand how that can be a criticism because the Big Bang theory starts with similar initial conditions.

Readers, notice how he cannot support the claim, and like every other creationist out there (exceptions to every rule), he can only attack and distract.

You will know them by their fruits!

I have already commented on some of the ways God could have formed the raw materials that we see on the earth.

I don't care about things you can imagine to be the case. You're in the science forum for after all. You should probably start with observations that would suggest the hypothesis being put forward.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 185 by EarthScienceguy]

Why would I have to do this without referencing the Bible?

Because under the rules of this subforum the bible cannot be used as evidence for a scientific claim (from "Science and Religion subforum guidelines"):

"While posters may certainly take positions based on religious doctrine, the Bible or other religious writings are not to be considered evidence for scientific claims."

As for the rest of the post, you're again just ranting about origins which you resort to every time you can't answer a question. Nothing in the post addresses the question about evidence, or credible scientific arguments, justifying Humphreys' claim that the Earth started out as a ball of H2O.

But no point continuing on that subject because you clearly have no answer and just keep diverting to origins over and over again as if that is the appropriate response to any question about creationist's claims ... regardless of whether the claim has anything to do with origins. At least you are consistent.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

I have shown time and time again how both evolution and big theory are both beliefs not based on observable data. That does not make testable predictions.

When theories based on Biblical ideas are based on actual falsifiable predictions that are not falsified.

Censor me then, if you cannot stand the heat.


Magnetic Field Data Confirm Creation Model

https://www.icr.org/article/magnetic-fi ... -creation/