Civil. Respectful. Intelligent. Thoughtful. Challenging.

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 38, 39, 40

Reply to topic
Donray
First Post
PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:34 am  KINDS and ADAPTATION Reply with quote

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.
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 391: Wed Sep 11, 2019 7:01 am
Reply

Like this post
Diagoras wrote:
A few things:

Firstly, you possibly didn’t understand my criticism of the study you cited. It’s a mathematical model, not an experimental observation. I asked whether it had been compared with actual observed large population studies. Since the authors acknowledge the large number of biological factors affecting population changes over time, it would be useful to compare the real world with their model. You are very fond of calling for ‘direct’ evidence when it suits, I notice. Why not in this instance?


Firstly, I acknowledge that this paper, in and of itself, is theoretical but it is an analysis, comparison and confirmation of the results of numerous research papers as referenced. It is not an extrapolation based upon an a priori but rather a summary of such results and how they confirm the accuracy and consistency of the mathematical model.

Quote:
Why can you assign this? This is nothing more than you dismissing evidence without basis.

Au contraire, I am dismissing a ‘basis’ that has no ‘evidence’. If the current number of species is 8.7 million which supposedly constitutes only 1% of all species that have ever existed, that would require that (approx.) 861.3 million species have become extinct. What evidence do you have to show that 861.3 million species ever existed? It is certainly not in the fossil record? What evidence is there of these supposed 861.3 million different species? What is the evidence for this figure? Or is it just extrapolation according to the a priori of ToE?

Quote:
Thirdly, I love how you had to add ‘according to evolutionary thinking’ when you are citing fossil evidence to disprove the importance of Tiktaalik. Either your evidence is sound, in which case you don’t need to imply the dates could be wrong, or it isn’t- in which case you shouldn’t even bring it up. Why not agree with me about the true age of those fossils and save yourself a lot of mental gymnastics?


No, the purpose of my referencing the paper that I did was to show that evolutionary or naturalistic scientists no longer accept Tiktaalik as the transitional they once did.
My addition of “according to evolutionary thinking”, being the a priori of the paper, was to clarify that I don’t accept ‘evolutionary thinking’ and its require timescale of millions and billions of years. I believe the tetrapods and Tiktaalik were concurrent species occupying different environmental niches. Unfortunately, in the past, after earlier citing evolutionary based papers, some members have later accused me of contradicting myself by thinking in ‘millions of years’ here and only ‘thousands of years’ there. I’m just citing actual evidence from the author’s standpoint, not that I agree with the a priori behind it. Hope that clears it up.

Have a good day!
Still small

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
MPG Recipient Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 392: Thu Sep 12, 2019 1:01 am
Reply

Like this post (1): brunumb
[Replying to post 391 by Still small]

Before I address your responses, I would like to point out that your persistent use of the phrase a priori isn’t helping to advance the debate. I went backwards through the thread to page 30 to try and tally the number of occasions you’ve included it in your posts. The first mention of it that I’ve seen was in post 314. From then on, we have had:

Post 325: 5 instances
Post 331: 1 instance
Post 334: 3 instances
Post 352: 3 instances
Post 354: 1 instance
Post 355: 4 instances
Post 383: 1 instance
Post 385: 2 instances
Post 387: 1 instance
Post 391: 4 instances

I’m not the only one to have noticed this. You were called on it roughly halfway through that posting period:
DrNoGods wrote:

You've used a priori many times before with the implication that science can be interpreted in different ways, and it is just a matter of that interpretation that is important.

Let’s clear up what we mean when we use the phrase ‘a priori’.

The a priori fallacy occurs when someone decides ahead of time what the conclusion to an argument is, then either only considers evidence that supports that conclusion, or, twists what evidence there is to support their predetermined conclusion.

You appear to be using it differently, as an attack on scientific enquiry by equating basic propositions (axioms) with assumptions (hypotheses). For example, the axiom that gravity exerts a force of 9.8Nm-2 can be incorporated into hypotheses of how planets and galaxies move in relation to each other. Think of science as having to keep answering a child who asks, “Ah, but how do we know that?” Once you get to the most ‘solid’, known facts about the physical world, you can be more confident of using them as your ‘building blocks’ for testable hypotheses. And of course, the more successful the hypothesis in predicting experimental results, the more axiomatic the underlying assumptions become. Thus, our ability to predetermine where a particular planet will be several years in the future, by applying axioms of orbital mechanics.

Therefore, an important question you need to answer (if continuing to use the phrase ‘a priori’ is to have any value to the discussion) is: “What are the specific, fundamental scientific axioms relating to evolutionary genetics that you are claiming to be wrong?”

This is important, because otherwise, you’re simply saying (in effect), “ah, but your assumptions are wrong!” without clearly demonstrating either which assumptions you are referring to, or what exactly is wrong with them.

_______________________________________________________________

OK, back to your response above.

Quote:
Firstly, I acknowledge that this paper, in and of itself, is theoretical but it is an analysis, comparison and confirmation of the results of numerous research papers as referenced.

I know that. I looked at the references, which is why I asked the question. In fairness to you, it was rhetorical, but I was really just hoping that you’d consider other evidence that doesn’t necessarily support your conclusion.

Quote:
If the current number of species is 8.7 million which supposedly constitutes only 1% of all species that have ever existed, that would require that (approx.) 861.3 million species have become extinct.

We could perhaps go back and forth over who’s extrapolating more, but for the purpose of debate, we could agree on that figure if you like. After all, scientists know that plants and animals only fossilize under special conditions: usually in sedimentary rock, and almost never if the species lacks hard features like bone, shell, or teeth. They also know that a lot of fossils are lost to tectonic activity, and many more still are just impossible for us to access (depth, extreme environments). Therefore, the relatively miniscule number of fossilised species discovered would be expected to constitute only a small fraction of the total number of species that ever existed. Remember that this includes microbes, algae, zooplankton, fungii, etc. Not just the ‘animals’. Claiming that we should see 861.3m species of fossil is simply absurd.

And if anyone’s asking, “how could 861.3m species disappear?”, then have a read about ‘extinction events’ here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

Quote:
My addition of “according to evolutionary thinking”, being the a priori of the paper, was to clarify that I don’t accept ‘evolutionary thinking’ and its require timescale of millions and billions of years. I believe the tetrapods and Tiktaalik were concurrent species occupying different environmental niches.

<bolding mine>

OK, so please explain the logical steps you have used to reach this belief, and also demonstrate that this is not reached using a priori assumptions.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 393: Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:49 pm
Reply

Like this post
StillSmall cannot explin his belief in creation by an invisible wizard in the sky.

I have asked him several time to provide a timeline of what happen when and he cannot even do that. I have asked for a list of the animals (at least a few) that were on the ark and that "adapted" into todays with some fossil record and distribution path. Again the best that he comes up with is "I don't know, the wizard did it all".

All the StillSmall (and other creationists) do is try to discredit science through the use of bad articles written by other creationists.

Small cannot think for himself and answer question and just uses other creationist science fiction to make himself fell good about his beliefs. Like other Christians they have nothing to live for if there god is not real. After all, the only good thing for them is dying and getting to heaven.

Thus far creationists are unable to provide a test book that could be used to teach there belief at a college level.

StillSmall cannot answer even simple question about his belief without saying that he does not understand why or how his wizard does things, but he knows that his wizard can do anything so

Can you image being brainwashed by your parents and religious leaders into having belive your life is useless unless you belive in a god.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 394: Mon Sep 16, 2019 2:05 pm
Reply

Like this post
Quote:
Can you image being brainwashed by your parents and religious leaders into having belive your life is useless unless you belive in a god.


Yes. As a matter of fact I can. Being set free from this belief was very hard. I assume others live their lives in fear of a hell, or at least in a hope for a heaven.

If I was a god, and wanted to bless those that are good. I would favor those that are good for goodness sake over those that are scared or bribed into being good.

A 'good' atheist would have more integrity than a person acting good to please a god concept so they can avoid some punishment or achieve some end goal like a heaven. I have to wonder if believers ever consider this while feeling that atheists or those that don't worship their perferred god concept deserve to go to hell.

Maybe thats why the latest Pope says even atheists can go to heaven?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 38, 39, 40

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version