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: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Post #151
[Replying to post 137 by Donray]
This is simply not true. I have put forward many creationist theories on how God created the universe. Creationist theories make better predictions than naturalistic theories. Is there a naturalistic theory that predict the magnetic field of planets and galaxies, no. Was there any naturalistic theory that predicted rounded boulders on comets, no. Was there any naturalistic theory that the water on Mars would be salt water, no. Is there a naturalistic theory that can explain what appears to be the remains of an atomic explosion on Mars, no. Creation theory can explain all of these and more.
Creationist do look for God in creation because God tells us that we can see his hand in creation so that there will be no man without excused.
The mechanism for evolution is duplication and then mutation a mutation of that duplication. This would be the only type of mutation what would allow the organism to retain all of the information that it had before the mutation. The problem is these are some of the most deleterious types of mutations. Even if there was one beneficial type of mutation and then mutation, of which I do not know of any, the mutations coming after would have to be deleterious. That is if the present is the key to the past.
This is what creationist object to. This type of series of mutations in impossible and we do not see this type of change in nature, anywhere. So why would anyone believe that it happens when it cannot and does not.
We believe in what we can see and prove. That is the whole entire reason Christians invented the scientific method in the first place. To see how God created and cares for the world in which we live.
Naturalistic theories believe that laws of nature had to be broken to produce everything that we see. Laws like conservation of mass and energy and the law of biogenesis,even laws of probability. All these laws seem to be suspended in naturalistic theory.
Creationist believe in God's laws of nature. So why would we be interested in theory that breaks laws of nature.
Another favorite argument of evolutionist was junk DNA. Creationist said the same thing. Just wait till science advances enough and you will see that what you are calling junk is not really junk. And once the genome was mapped we began to see that this junk DNA was not really junk.
So I am not impressed by you saying things like "we know this happen". No you do not "know that this happen".
What I know is that birds were created a day before dinosaurs were created and they belong to two entirely different kinds.
Again, Both Earthunscienceguy and Stillsmallbrained can only try to discredit Evolution and CANNOT begin to discuss there theory of creation by there invisible sky god.
This is simply not true. I have put forward many creationist theories on how God created the universe. Creationist theories make better predictions than naturalistic theories. Is there a naturalistic theory that predict the magnetic field of planets and galaxies, no. Was there any naturalistic theory that predicted rounded boulders on comets, no. Was there any naturalistic theory that the water on Mars would be salt water, no. Is there a naturalistic theory that can explain what appears to be the remains of an atomic explosion on Mars, no. Creation theory can explain all of these and more.
Creationist do look for God in creation because God tells us that we can see his hand in creation so that there will be no man without excused.
Theology is the queen of the sciences. The Bible is the only truly reliable source of wisdom. The Bible tells us that man was made special. Man is his own kind. Man did not adapt or evolve from anything. And I have defended this many times on this site and others.Both have admitted that they cannot even name one KIND and trace it through there ADAPTATION theory. The have no idea what there god crated that ADAPTED (another word of evolved) into modern humans.
These types can only try though there science to discredit real science.
The mechanism for evolution is duplication and then mutation a mutation of that duplication. This would be the only type of mutation what would allow the organism to retain all of the information that it had before the mutation. The problem is these are some of the most deleterious types of mutations. Even if there was one beneficial type of mutation and then mutation, of which I do not know of any, the mutations coming after would have to be deleterious. That is if the present is the key to the past.
This is what creationist object to. This type of series of mutations in impossible and we do not see this type of change in nature, anywhere. So why would anyone believe that it happens when it cannot and does not.
We believe in what we can see and prove. That is the whole entire reason Christians invented the scientific method in the first place. To see how God created and cares for the world in which we live.
I did answer this. I was one of my topics I put forward to debate.They cannot answer any question about their sky god nor how it created things.
We have many creationist that are published and we have our own review process because we have different original assumptions on origins.They (CREATIOISTS) have been unable to even come up with a published and reviewed paper that show how any of an original KIND ADAPTED into many different things we have today. They cannot even state what there sky god created that adapted into modern humans. After all, why would god created something like man when it said it created something in the sky gods image. The sys god does not look like a modern human, so what did god create? They don't know. ALL they can do is try to disprove science.
Naturalistic theories believe that laws of nature had to be broken to produce everything that we see. Laws like conservation of mass and energy and the law of biogenesis,even laws of probability. All these laws seem to be suspended in naturalistic theory.
Creationist believe in God's laws of nature. So why would we be interested in theory that breaks laws of nature.
Birds are a different kind than dinosaurs and they did not turn into birds. An argument that evolutionist used to use was vestige organs. These organs had no value to the human body because they are a remnant from previous evolutionary advances. And you know what creationist said? Just wait till science advances enough and you will see that they do specific functions in the body. That argument is no longer used by evolutionist because vestige organs have been found to have function in the body.They (CREATIONISTs ) cannot even give a time line when they sky god created things. They have no idea what they need to say that would agree with the bible nd also science. For example it appears god created birds and no dinosaurs, but we know that dinosaurs evolved into birds. So again could the two creationist address this issue?
Another favorite argument of evolutionist was junk DNA. Creationist said the same thing. Just wait till science advances enough and you will see that what you are calling junk is not really junk. And once the genome was mapped we began to see that this junk DNA was not really junk.
So I am not impressed by you saying things like "we know this happen". No you do not "know that this happen".
What I know is that birds were created a day before dinosaurs were created and they belong to two entirely different kinds.
No one needs to discredit evolution. Evolution discredits itself. We simply point out how it discredits itself.So, how about responding to the main topic instead of showing your lack of knowledge about your religion with trying to discredit evolution?
-
Bust Nak
- Savant
- Posts: 9861
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Post #152
Don't be so sure of that, we know it works sometimes.EarthScienceguy wrote: The name Evolutionary algorithm. Algorithm. An algorithm is a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer.
An evolutionary algorithm is following a set of rules to change the conditions in the program. Let me randomly change some code in that evolutionary algorithm of yours and I am sure in no time at all that it will not be working.
You are not taking into account of the pain of debuging an evolutionary program when it behave unexpectedly.I wish that you could randomly change code and make some new program. It would be a whole lot easier than writing it.
Post #153
[Replying to post 146 by Still small]
OK, what have you said about your creation belief that one could debate??
You have no idea how your creation idea works from some KIND you can identify. 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?
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? If 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?
I asked if creationists like you know that birds evolved from dinosaurs and you don't answer that type of question.
I asked for a timeline on your creation theory and you are unable to provide. So, it is kind of hard to debate that.
So, tell me what have described of your creation theory that you think can be debated?
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.
So, tell me what you and me could debate about your creationist theory?
OK, what have you said about your creation belief that one could debate??
You have no idea how your creation idea works from some KIND you can identify. 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?
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? If 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?
I asked if creationists like you know that birds evolved from dinosaurs and you don't answer that type of question.
I asked for a timeline on your creation theory and you are unable to provide. So, it is kind of hard to debate that.
So, tell me what have described of your creation theory that you think can be debated?
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.
So, tell me what you and me could debate about your creationist theory?
Post #154
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.
How can one debate a person that believes in a god that can do anything? It could take male horses and overnight make that a male and female pair of Hippos.
The sky god is also a prankster and messes with radioactive dating.
Of course, both StillSmall and EarthScienceGuy belive that their god can do anything magic and therefore making things out of mud and making woman from rib and then allowing the rib to grow back is just a wave of its magic wand.
These people (creationists) can only try to discredit science. They cannot defend their beliefs. They cannot even state there beliefs.
They cannot give a timeline of when their god did things. The bible as we know is not a reliable source for any kind timeline.
They say they will debate their creationism theory but cannot come up with one thing that can be debated.
So, all that the SamallMinded and the Science guy that belive in magic a]can do is try to discredit evolution.
How can one debate a person that believes in a god that can do anything? It could take male horses and overnight make that a male and female pair of Hippos.
The sky god is also a prankster and messes with radioactive dating.
Of course, both StillSmall and EarthScienceGuy belive that their god can do anything magic and therefore making things out of mud and making woman from rib and then allowing the rib to grow back is just a wave of its magic wand.
These people (creationists) can only try to discredit science. They cannot defend their beliefs. They cannot even state there beliefs.
They cannot give a timeline of when their god did things. The bible as we know is not a reliable source for any kind timeline.
They say they will debate their creationism theory but cannot come up with one thing that can be debated.
So, all that the SamallMinded and the Science guy that belive in magic a]can do is try to discredit evolution.
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Post #155
[Replying to Donray]
Where did the universe come from according to any theory?
Do you believe in a theory that does not break laws of nature?
Where did life come from according to any theory?
Do you believe in any theory of life that does not break laws of Nature?
The universe is exists and life exists those are observed facts. So how is it that we exist.
The only theory that does not break the laws of nature is creationism.
Where did the universe come from according to any theory?
Do you believe in a theory that does not break laws of nature?
Where did life come from according to any theory?
Do you believe in any theory of life that does not break laws of Nature?
The universe is exists and life exists those are observed facts. So how is it that we exist.
The only theory that does not break the laws of nature is creationism.
-
benchwarmer
- Guru
- Posts: 2343
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
- Has thanked: 2005 times
- Been thanked: 781 times
Post #156
An invisible, made up being poofing the universe into existance with no evidence of said being does not break the laws of nature? I'm not sure what laws of nature you think you know, but they must be pretty interesting.EarthScienceguy wrote: The only theory that does not break the laws of nature is creationism.
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Post #157
[Replying to post 155 by benchwarmer]
Creationist have theories that can make accurate predictions that naturalistic theories cannot make. Like the magnetic fields of planets, stars and galaxies. We have theories that give the a logical description for the CMB. Unlike naturalistic theories.
It is modern cosmology that describes a universe "Poofing" into existence.
I'm not sure what laws of nature you think you know, but they must be pretty interesting.
Any life that can exist outside of our universe would be different than life that lives according to the laws of this universe. So I am not sure why this would be a problem.An invisible,
made up being poofing the universe into existence with no evidence of said being does not break the laws of nature?
Creationist have theories that can make accurate predictions that naturalistic theories cannot make. Like the magnetic fields of planets, stars and galaxies. We have theories that give the a logical description for the CMB. Unlike naturalistic theories.
It is modern cosmology that describes a universe "Poofing" into existence.
I'm not sure what laws of nature you think you know, but they must be pretty interesting.
-
DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Post #158
[Replying to post 156 by EarthScienceguy]
The problem with these creationist "theories" is that they use completely made up assumptions with no basis in reality, and/or are based on a "god did it" claim which of course allows virtually anything at all to be explained without the need to justify it with experiment and observation (ie. like real science).
So although crackpots like Russell Humphreys can make predictions of magnetic field strengths from a combination of false assumptions (planets all started out as balls of H2O) and "god did it" claims (ie. god aligned all the H atom nuclear spins), these are virtually meaningless because his "theory" has no basis whatsoever in physical reality.
The fact that you continue to defend this kind of nonsense and can't understand the obvious reason why it is nonsense (as far as being legitimate science), discredits any other claims you may make about creationism no matter how fast you wave your hands.
Creationist have theories that can make accurate predictions that naturalistic theories cannot make. Like the magnetic fields of planets, stars and galaxies.
The problem with these creationist "theories" is that they use completely made up assumptions with no basis in reality, and/or are based on a "god did it" claim which of course allows virtually anything at all to be explained without the need to justify it with experiment and observation (ie. like real science).
So although crackpots like Russell Humphreys can make predictions of magnetic field strengths from a combination of false assumptions (planets all started out as balls of H2O) and "god did it" claims (ie. god aligned all the H atom nuclear spins), these are virtually meaningless because his "theory" has no basis whatsoever in physical reality.
The fact that you continue to defend this kind of nonsense and can't understand the obvious reason why it is nonsense (as far as being legitimate science), discredits any other claims you may make about creationism no matter how fast you wave your hands.
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
-
benchwarmer
- Guru
- Posts: 2343
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
- Has thanked: 2005 times
- Been thanked: 781 times
Post #159
Well, all laws I'm aware of are based on observation and verifiable data.EarthScienceguy wrote: [Replying to post 155 by benchwarmer]
Any life that can exist outside of our universe would be different than life that lives according to the laws of this universe. So I am not sure why this would be a problem.An invisible,
made up being poofing the universe into existence with no evidence of said being does not break the laws of nature?
Creationist have theories that can make accurate predictions that naturalistic theories cannot make. Like the magnetic fields of planets, stars and galaxies. We have theories that give the a logical description for the CMB. Unlike naturalistic theories.
It is modern cosmology that describes a universe "Poofing" into existence.
I'm not sure what laws of nature you think you know, but they must be pretty interesting.
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.
For example, can you start with a ball of water and end up with the makings of a planet? I look forward to your lab work and data with verifiable results.
If all you have is "godidit" that is hardly impressive or useful. i.e. what will god do if we have conditions X, Y, and Z? My guess is that you can't provide any useful prediction that can be tested and verified, thus no prediction of any import could be made. Feel free to prove me wrong and I will be amazed.
Post #160
[Replying to post 154 by EarthScienceguy]
Please explain what the laws of nature are. Is magic one of the laws of nature? Are Miracles one of the laws of nature?
You again cannot stick to the topic and want to change the subject. The subject of this thread is YOUR theory of KINDS and ADAMTATION. Not the discussion of the big bang or what created your god.
Thus far you want to explain creation as magic. Again, is magic one the laws nature and if so what type of magic can you do?
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.
Thus far not one KIND has been mentioned and what animals were ASAPTED from this KIND.
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.
Please explain what are the laws of nature. Is magic one of the laws of nature? Are Miracles one of the laws of nature?
You agin cannot stick to the topic and want to chnage the subject.
The subject of this thread is YOUR theory of KINDS and ADAMTATION. Not the disccusin of the big bang or whast crested your god.
Thus far you want explain crestion as magic. Again, os magic one the laws nature and if so what typr of magic can you do?
Please explain what the laws of nature are. Is magic one of the laws of nature? Are Miracles one of the laws of nature?
You again cannot stick to the topic and want to change the subject. The subject of this thread is YOUR theory of KINDS and ADAMTATION. Not the discussion of the big bang or what created your god.
Thus far you want to explain creation as magic. Again, is magic one the laws nature and if so what type of magic can you do?
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.
Thus far not one KIND has been mentioned and what animals were ASAPTED from this KIND.
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.
Please explain what are the laws of nature. Is magic one of the laws of nature? Are Miracles one of the laws of nature?
You agin cannot stick to the topic and want to chnage the subject.
The subject of this thread is YOUR theory of KINDS and ADAMTATION. Not the disccusin of the big bang or whast crested your god.
Thus far you want explain crestion as magic. Again, os magic one the laws nature and if so what typr of magic can you do?
