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
Post #2
It appears that Erathscience guy does not know how to explin his KINDs and ADPATATION theory that would replace evolution. And I guess no one else supports his theory.
Or cannot any explin what KINDs are as mentioned in the bible? Supposedly the ark did not have two of every animal or insect has they would not fit along the food needed so I understand that some Christians say the ack had Kinds of animals. Yet no one Christian can defend this and state what the kinds are.
Or cannot any explin what KINDs are as mentioned in the bible? Supposedly the ark did not have two of every animal or insect has they would not fit along the food needed so I understand that some Christians say the ack had Kinds of animals. Yet no one Christian can defend this and state what the kinds are.
-
Bust Nak
- Savant
- Posts: 9855
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Post #3
For what it's worth, EarthScienceguy said this in another thread:
EarthScienceguy wrote: It is a field of study called BARAMINOLOGY.
https://creationresearch.org/current-st ... aminology/
-
Neatras
- Guru
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
- Location: Oklahoma, US
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #4
[Youtube][/Youtube]
Claims of baraminology:
One would have to know nothing about population genetics to claim that all life on earth (humans included) went through two extreme (<50 breeding pair) bottlenecks in the last 8,000-10,000 years. Unremarkable in its own way, creationists on this forum have a habit of decrying population genetics as either a hoax or simply not worth studying. After all, if they've never heard of it in all their time, then it can only be a sinful diversion from the holy path.
And this is sort of the pattern we see emerge.
Creationists, when putting forward their arguments in favor of magic and sorcery, come up with whatever answer they think excuses the total lack of evidence found in historical data. They then act as if that made-up answer is the be-all end-all factor that means they have the debate won and locked... But what they never do is plug their made-up answer into their own models to watch their claims crumble and fall down around them. And so when the fears of common ancestry rears its head over the horizon, the answer is simple: Make up a field of science called baraminology and declare it the rival. But since they don't put in the work to make it fit into our model of reality (read: That which is real and not made up), it falls to actual scientists to pull apart the rhetoric and lies.
In recent years, the problem of bottlenecks has finally reached the upper echelon of creation scientists... or at least, the upper echelon with respect to the rest of the group. So what did they do? They proposed baranomes. The idea that the first two created animals of a "kind" (still no real effort put in to define them) were "front-loaded" with all the genes that we see in all animals claimed to be descended from those first two. That means the first two members of the "horse kind" had the genes for every structure; stripes, and hooves, and different sizes, etc. And these were all "hyper-bundled" together by god almighty so that when each "kind" started having more kids, they branched off and lost whole chunks of genes until they were diverse enough to look as they do now. So now while the modern horse will have its own set of genes, the zebra will have genes for stripes, with some overlap with other horses. It's the claim of "baraminologists" that the first "horse kind" member had all the horse genes, and all the zebra genes, but only passed down the horse genes to horse kin, and the zebra genes to the zebra kin.
This, unsurprisingly enough, is total make-believe and has absolutely no evidence in support of it. We've never observed even the remotest example of "baranomes" in nature, nor do creationists want there to ever even be experiments or studies on it. They are more than happy to make up yet another excuse, that all baranomes have hermetically sealed themselves off from further extreme degradation because... something something... Uhh... I'm not sure really, I think they're still working on their excuses. But they swear to us that baranomes solve the pesky problem of how we can have two hyper-incestuous bottlenecks in human history without everyone looking inbred: The incest broke apart the baranomes and now we have all the different ethnic groups on the planet! (But don't ask them to do anything like involve math or actual predictions!)
Yet while this baranomic degradation (and other pseudo-science like genetic entropy) was supposed to have taken at a hyper-accelerated rate between 10,000 years ago and... Oh, I don't know, we can throw creationists a bone and say that all that stopped sometime in the last 300 years to just barely evade our measuring devices... Now it's completely invisible. Imagine that.
Once again, creationists have not actually taken the time to plug their made-up answers into even their own models. They have done nothing to address the hyper-evolution following Noah's Flood, the hyper-degradation of "baranomes" and the sudden halting of any and all "genetic entropy" since the time we've invented magnifying glasses.
I truly wish I could present the strongest argument creationists have to offer; then I could tear it down bit by bit. But they don't even have that much to offer.
And the problems only keep mounting from here! The fact that creationists can't even define their baramins means that all it takes is putting a creationist in his desk at elementary school and walking him through each known step of connecting two species under a common ancestor (and each one they grant) will eventually cause them to declare some extremely surprising things, such as all cats being related, all dogs being related to cats, and even connecting hippos and whales. They try so hard to find the "monobaramin" from which no further ancestry can be derived. But the more they try, the more they fail and mask their failure with obfuscating language. And by the end of it, what have they accomplished? Shooting themselves in the foot while evolutionary biologists very cleanly demonstrate that the only "monobaramin" that could be said to truly exist is the tree of life itself, from which all life commonly descends.
So if Earthscienceguy is perfectly willing to defend his claims, he ought to give us some clean boundaries. If he wants to throw pseudoscience into the ring with baraminology, he should at least give us the pleasure of showing just how far the field of "science" can go in categorizing life on earth. Not just making up broad-brush excuses for why his mythology fails to be correct about any scientific claim it makes.
Claims of baraminology:
- Classifies animals into groups called "created kinds" or "baramin."
- Kinds cannot interbreed and have no evolutionary relation to one another.
One would have to know nothing about population genetics to claim that all life on earth (humans included) went through two extreme (<50 breeding pair) bottlenecks in the last 8,000-10,000 years. Unremarkable in its own way, creationists on this forum have a habit of decrying population genetics as either a hoax or simply not worth studying. After all, if they've never heard of it in all their time, then it can only be a sinful diversion from the holy path.
This, in response to a statement of fact that population genetics disagrees with Noah's Flood. Minimum viable population sizes, the user claimed, are not a real concept to be studied. Simply a word trap.marakorpa wrote: [Replying to post 24 by Neatras]
No, not really. You are doing the same thing you 'convict' me of, you try to make word traps, impossible situations that have never been studied, simply because in the system of life, are not important enough to contemplate on.
And this is sort of the pattern we see emerge.
Creationists, when putting forward their arguments in favor of magic and sorcery, come up with whatever answer they think excuses the total lack of evidence found in historical data. They then act as if that made-up answer is the be-all end-all factor that means they have the debate won and locked... But what they never do is plug their made-up answer into their own models to watch their claims crumble and fall down around them. And so when the fears of common ancestry rears its head over the horizon, the answer is simple: Make up a field of science called baraminology and declare it the rival. But since they don't put in the work to make it fit into our model of reality (read: That which is real and not made up), it falls to actual scientists to pull apart the rhetoric and lies.
In recent years, the problem of bottlenecks has finally reached the upper echelon of creation scientists... or at least, the upper echelon with respect to the rest of the group. So what did they do? They proposed baranomes. The idea that the first two created animals of a "kind" (still no real effort put in to define them) were "front-loaded" with all the genes that we see in all animals claimed to be descended from those first two. That means the first two members of the "horse kind" had the genes for every structure; stripes, and hooves, and different sizes, etc. And these were all "hyper-bundled" together by god almighty so that when each "kind" started having more kids, they branched off and lost whole chunks of genes until they were diverse enough to look as they do now. So now while the modern horse will have its own set of genes, the zebra will have genes for stripes, with some overlap with other horses. It's the claim of "baraminologists" that the first "horse kind" member had all the horse genes, and all the zebra genes, but only passed down the horse genes to horse kin, and the zebra genes to the zebra kin.
This, unsurprisingly enough, is total make-believe and has absolutely no evidence in support of it. We've never observed even the remotest example of "baranomes" in nature, nor do creationists want there to ever even be experiments or studies on it. They are more than happy to make up yet another excuse, that all baranomes have hermetically sealed themselves off from further extreme degradation because... something something... Uhh... I'm not sure really, I think they're still working on their excuses. But they swear to us that baranomes solve the pesky problem of how we can have two hyper-incestuous bottlenecks in human history without everyone looking inbred: The incest broke apart the baranomes and now we have all the different ethnic groups on the planet! (But don't ask them to do anything like involve math or actual predictions!)
Yet while this baranomic degradation (and other pseudo-science like genetic entropy) was supposed to have taken at a hyper-accelerated rate between 10,000 years ago and... Oh, I don't know, we can throw creationists a bone and say that all that stopped sometime in the last 300 years to just barely evade our measuring devices... Now it's completely invisible. Imagine that.
Once again, creationists have not actually taken the time to plug their made-up answers into even their own models. They have done nothing to address the hyper-evolution following Noah's Flood, the hyper-degradation of "baranomes" and the sudden halting of any and all "genetic entropy" since the time we've invented magnifying glasses.
I truly wish I could present the strongest argument creationists have to offer; then I could tear it down bit by bit. But they don't even have that much to offer.
And the problems only keep mounting from here! The fact that creationists can't even define their baramins means that all it takes is putting a creationist in his desk at elementary school and walking him through each known step of connecting two species under a common ancestor (and each one they grant) will eventually cause them to declare some extremely surprising things, such as all cats being related, all dogs being related to cats, and even connecting hippos and whales. They try so hard to find the "monobaramin" from which no further ancestry can be derived. But the more they try, the more they fail and mask their failure with obfuscating language. And by the end of it, what have they accomplished? Shooting themselves in the foot while evolutionary biologists very cleanly demonstrate that the only "monobaramin" that could be said to truly exist is the tree of life itself, from which all life commonly descends.
So if Earthscienceguy is perfectly willing to defend his claims, he ought to give us some clean boundaries. If he wants to throw pseudoscience into the ring with baraminology, he should at least give us the pleasure of showing just how far the field of "science" can go in categorizing life on earth. Not just making up broad-brush excuses for why his mythology fails to be correct about any scientific claim it makes.
Post #5
From what I gather, Baraminolygy once used reproductivity as criteria, but now they look for "discontinuation" between animals. This is because they can't disprove speciation, and the existence of ring species.
Wert seems to think evolutionary "familia" just about hit a baramin or kind. He admits himself that there is obscure where the line between baramins go (no definition). It really seams like they take the evolutionary three of life and put the lines where it suits them.
Wert seems to think evolutionary "familia" just about hit a baramin or kind. He admits himself that there is obscure where the line between baramins go (no definition). It really seams like they take the evolutionary three of life and put the lines where it suits them.
Post #6
Notice that no Christina including Earthscienceguy can defend there belief in creation.
All uneducated people try to do is say the Evolution is wrong. Of course they don't want to even try to explin other humans that have lived in the past, they don't want to explin why the bible never mentions dinosaurs or that birds evolved from them. They cannot except that even if they belive the their god created life,it could have just created a single cell and let evolution handle the rest. The belive that there sky god looks like us and created man to look like him. Of course a sky god would not look anything like a human therefore why would it created man?
All uneducated people try to do is say the Evolution is wrong. Of course they don't want to even try to explin other humans that have lived in the past, they don't want to explin why the bible never mentions dinosaurs or that birds evolved from them. They cannot except that even if they belive the their god created life,it could have just created a single cell and let evolution handle the rest. The belive that there sky god looks like us and created man to look like him. Of course a sky god would not look anything like a human therefore why would it created man?
-
Aetixintro
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 918
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:18 am
- Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
- Has thanked: 431 times
- Been thanked: 27 times
- Contact:
Post #7
[Replying to post 6 by Donray]
No. There is no need for Christians to say that evolution is wrong like that.
Rather, we're looking at Baraminology for several reasons:
1. Spurious existence.
2. Kinds of animals are more straight upward through history than diagonal by mutations.
3. The stress that's supposed to emulate course of history may be nothing more than voodoo, blood magic, monkey business as threats to nature, people or animals in order to effectuate Freak Nature effects which are not part of science nor the natural course of evolution.
4. Palaeontology, to so-called proofs, may be nothing more than effects or Freak Nature themselves by using "morphology" on people or "shapeshifters" or "changelings" in order to make them create the wanted fossil according to the cheating crazy scientist.
5. Evolutionary theory of Darwin seems to ignore the listing of The Fantastic Phenomena or of Freak Nature as Accounts of Reality on Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/notes/lukas-f- ... 606236984/, that's not so square as uninformed people would like to have it!
Basically, either way, Baraminology or Evolutionary Theory of Darwin, I don't care. However, in the name of science, all theories deserve a discussion. Making a serious one is considered honour, indeed!
Of course, the whole thing can be OR gate tested (Quantum Computing) and have the status as indicative of truth or evidence, straight.
Good?
No. There is no need for Christians to say that evolution is wrong like that.
Rather, we're looking at Baraminology for several reasons:
1. Spurious existence.
2. Kinds of animals are more straight upward through history than diagonal by mutations.
3. The stress that's supposed to emulate course of history may be nothing more than voodoo, blood magic, monkey business as threats to nature, people or animals in order to effectuate Freak Nature effects which are not part of science nor the natural course of evolution.
4. Palaeontology, to so-called proofs, may be nothing more than effects or Freak Nature themselves by using "morphology" on people or "shapeshifters" or "changelings" in order to make them create the wanted fossil according to the cheating crazy scientist.
5. Evolutionary theory of Darwin seems to ignore the listing of The Fantastic Phenomena or of Freak Nature as Accounts of Reality on Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/notes/lukas-f- ... 606236984/, that's not so square as uninformed people would like to have it!
Basically, either way, Baraminology or Evolutionary Theory of Darwin, I don't care. However, in the name of science, all theories deserve a discussion. Making a serious one is considered honour, indeed!
Of course, the whole thing can be OR gate tested (Quantum Computing) and have the status as indicative of truth or evidence, straight.
Good?
I'm cool! 
- Stronger Religion every day! Also by "mathematical Religion", the eternal forms, God closing the door on corrupt humanity, possibly!
- Stronger Religion every day! Also by "mathematical Religion", the eternal forms, God closing the door on corrupt humanity, possibly!Post #8
[Replying to post 7 by Aetixintro]
When you say theory, are you talking about theory as a simple idea, or as a scientific theory, as in a hypothesis that have survived peer review? Those are not the same, an idea is a wild guess, a theory is the highest achievement an idea can reach in science.
How I understand stand it, Baraminology isn't really disputing evolution. It accept that populations change over time and diversify (often call it micro evolution). Baraminology dispute Common descent and to a degree speciation.
Basically, either way, Baraminology or Evolutionary Theory of Darwin, I don't care. However, in the name of science, all theories deserve a discussion. Making a serious one is considered honour, indeed!
When you say theory, are you talking about theory as a simple idea, or as a scientific theory, as in a hypothesis that have survived peer review? Those are not the same, an idea is a wild guess, a theory is the highest achievement an idea can reach in science.
How I understand stand it, Baraminology isn't really disputing evolution. It accept that populations change over time and diversify (often call it micro evolution). Baraminology dispute Common descent and to a degree speciation.
Post #9
[Replying to post 7 by Aetixintro]
Could you at least document how humans and apes and monkeys evolved from some primitive "KIND"?
See https://www.britannica.com/science/human-evolution for the type of documentation I would be looking for.
Also, could you provide where this theory was published for review?????
Could you at least document how humans and apes and monkeys evolved from some primitive "KIND"?
See https://www.britannica.com/science/human-evolution for the type of documentation I would be looking for.
Also, could you provide where this theory was published for review?????
Post #10
I guess no Christain cannot logical discuss they replacement for Evolution. They come up with things that are not related to science and cannot even discuss these.
It seems all Christians can do is try to say Evolution is false with no idea how there replacement for it works.
Typical Christians that just knock down things that are ageist there religion but cannot justify there religious beliefs.
So far not one Christain can discuss there belief in adaptation and kinds.
It seems all Christians can do is try to say Evolution is false with no idea how there replacement for it works.
Typical Christians that just knock down things that are ageist there religion but cannot justify there religious beliefs.
So far not one Christain can discuss there belief in adaptation and kinds.
