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.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 20 by DrNoGods]

Convincing huh? They basically conclude that although the results of radiometric dating are remarkably consistent and yield the same ~4.6 billion year old earth, these measurements cannot be correct because they contradict the ~6000 year old age the bible suggests. And since the bible is the "word of god" and therefore cannot be incorrect, the radiometric dating results must be wrong by definition because they do not yield the "true" age implied by biblical chronology.

Yup. That's their Statement of Faith for ya.
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. "

[Still small]

Yup. That's their Statement of Faith for ya.
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. "

Do these contradictions to the ‘scriptural record’ of which you speak also include such claims -
- that energy (and matter) can neither be created nor destroyed by natural means - The Law of Conservation of Energy,
or
- In nature, (= by natural means) life only comes from life - The Law of Biogenesis,
or
- Cell Theory - The three tenets to the cell theory are as described below:
1. All living organisms are composed of one or more cells.
2. The cell is the basic unit of structure and organization in organisms.
3. Cells arise from pre-existing cells

Or do these contradictions to the ‘scriptural record’ only apply to that of the Naturalist/Materialist religion.

Have a good day!
Still small

[Bust Nak]

Or do these contradictions to the ‘scriptural record’ only apply to that of the Naturalist/Materialist religion.

This is where the so called "Naturalist/Materialist religion" have the typical religion beat. When we find contradictions to the our so called "scriptural record," we change the "scripture" to fit the facts.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 22 by Still small]

Do these contradictions to the ‘scriptural record’ of which you speak also include such claims -
- that energy (and matter) can neither be created nor destroyed by natural means - The Law of Conservation of Energy,

If ever that happened, and it could be confirmed as happening, then yes, that law would be overturned. Unlike the Statement of Faithers, there is no holy book saying that the Law of Conservation of Energy is and shall always be considered true, even if evidence is found in the future that contradicts it.

Or do these contradictions to the ‘scriptural record’ only apply to that of the Naturalist/Materialist religion.

It might shock you to hear this, but if there is such a religion, I want no part in it. I want no part in a group or organisation that is anything at all like a religion, where there are dogmas that are not allowed to be questioned.
I question dogmas.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 22 by Still small]

Do these contradictions to the ‘scriptural record’ of which you speak also include such claims -
- that energy (and matter) can neither be created nor destroyed by natural means - The Law of Conservation of Energy,

If ever that happened, and it could be confirmed as happening, then yes, that law would be overturned. Unlike the Statement of Faithers, there is no holy book saying that the Law of Conservation of Energy is and shall always be considered true, even if evidence is found in the future that contradicts it.

Amen brother!

Those who don't understand science assume it's like religion in that it cannot rewrite and/or update ideas based on the latest observations of reality.

I wonder how many theists would continue to claim their holy books are correct if God himself appeared to them and explained their bibles are full of errors. They would probably assume God was the Devil and continue blindly following their book.

[Still small]

[Replying to post 14 by Still small]

Maybe one should check the veracity of what one refers to as ‘absolute fact� as opposed to an understanding that is based on a priori for the interpretation of the evidence.

My comments are not based on any a priori assumptions or teachings that I don't understand and am blindly believing. We know from radiometric dating and other methods that the earth is far older then 6,000 - 10,000 years.

Firstly, let me say, I thought this thread was supposed to be about “KINDS and ADAPTATION�. Hopefully, after we have dealt with this matter, we may return to the OP for Donray’s sake as he seemed most determined in getting an answer to that topic.

You say that your ‘comments are not based on any a priori assumptions’ then you go onto to espouse the reliability of such dating methods as radiometric dating.
For these methods to work as a clock, the following 4 criteria must be fulfilled:
1. The decay constant and the abundance of the parent element must be known accurately.
2. There must have been no incorporation of daughter element into the mineral at the time of crystallization or a leak of the daughter element from the mineral following crystallization.
3. The system must have remained closed for both parent and daughter elements since the time of crystallization.
4. The relationship between the data obtained and a specific event must be known.

Let’s look at point 1 - knowing decay constant accurately. Do decay rates of particular elements vary? The usual ‘assumption’ is “NO� but is this really the case? Researchers at Stanford and Purdue Universities explain in their paper that nuclear decay rates do vary. At present, they suspect it to be neutrinos from the Sun but are unsure. While some may argue that the variations are only small (as currently measured), not knowing the actual cause, there is no certainty as to the scale of effects in the past. So, is your reliance upon radiometric dating based on the (mistaken) assumption that nuclear decay rates are constant?

As for points 2, 3 & 4, rather than taking up massive amounts of space, this article will probably sum it up fairly well, as to the unreliability of various radiometric dating methods which you may have previously assumed to be otherwise.

I understand very well how radiometric dating works, and that is very reliable if done properly using uncontaminated samples.

Uncontaminated samples? How does one determine whether one’s sample is contaminated or not? Obviously, by whether the given age by the various methods fits with assumed, sorry, expected age so as to fit within a given theory. When the dating doesn’t fit, it is tossed aside under the assumption that it is contaminated.

This method alone proves that the earth is billions of years old (4.6 billion). I've dated several rock samples myself using mass spectrometers as well as spectroscopic techniques, and of course this is a common technique used in labs around the world for decades with consistent results (especially with meteorites).

So, what assumptions make up your a priori allowing you to assume that the results of radiometric dating are reliable? For example, are you assuming that the meteorites being measured were subjected to the same conditions as here, on Earth? Are you assuming that radiometric decay rates are the same throughout the Solar System/universe? Is it not possible that the mysterious process which has been shown to affect decay rates on Earth may have a greater or lesser effect due to their exposure to different ‘environments’? How can we know for certain? Even one of the researchers mentioned earlier said-

"We haven't known the solar neutrino to interact significantly with anything, but it fits with the evidence we've gathered as the likely source of these fluctuations," he (J.H. Jenkins) said. "So, what we're suggesting is that something that can't interact with anything is changing something that can't be changed.� (Emphasis added)

So, please don’t say that your ‘comments are not based on any a priori assumptions’. The very fact that you believe them to be ‘reliable’ is an assumption.

Now, what were we saying about “KINDS and ADAPTATION�?

Have a good day!
Still small

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 26 by Still small]

For these methods to work as a clock, the following 4 criteria must be fulfilled:
1. The decay constant and the abundance of the parent element must be known accurately.
2. There must have been no incorporation of daughter element into the mineral at the time of crystallization or a leak of the daughter element from the mineral following crystallization.
3. The system must have remained closed for both parent and daughter elements since the time of crystallization.
4. The relationship between the data obtained and a specific event must be known.

Isochron methods take care of some of these issues (eg. it is independent of the initial concentration of the daughter element). But if you're going to reference an article on a website who's tagline is "Exposing the Myth of Evolution", and actually take anything stated there seriously, there is obviously no point in trying to debate anything related to actual science here. So back to Kinds and Adaptations.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 27 by DrNoGods]

If in a few instances creationist discussion of anomalies in radiometric dating is based on a misunderstanding of the literature, there are plenty of other acknowledged anomalies that they could have used just as well.

At the end of the "Exposing the Myth" page, there is this little gem of a sentence.

If in a few instances creationist discussion of anomalies in radiometric dating is based on a misunderstanding of the literature, there are plenty of other acknowledged anomalies that they could have used just as well.

Make of that what you will.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 28 by rikuoamero]

Make of that what you will.

Looks like the usual tactic where they latch onto any anomaly, ambiguity, etc. and try to use the argument that one falsification of a hypothesis or theory is all that is needed to reject it, when the articles or results chosen are anything but verified or accepted by the scientific community. At the same time, they ignore the overwhelming number of results that support the issue without the presence of any anomalies or ambiguous conclusions, as if those didn't exist at all.

I have to believe these tactics are mainly for people who already share their beliefs, as an attempt to convince them that everything is OK and they can safely ignore those crazy and unreliable scientists. I seriously doubt any significant number of people are convinced by these pseudoscience practitioners.

[Still small]

At the end of the "Exposing the Myth" page, there is this little gem of a sentence.

If in a few instances creationist discussion of anomalies in radiometric dating is based on a misunderstanding of the literature, there are plenty of other acknowledged anomalies that they could have used just as well.

Make of that what you will.

You may have missed the very next sentence, being -

“All in all, I would much prefer creationist sources to the talk.origins FAQ and standard textbook treatments, which gloss over problems that specialists in the fields do not hesitate to admit, and present uniformitarianism, evolution, and radiometric dating as if these were beyond reproach.�

Make of that what you will.

Oh, and DrNoGods, I believe the same statement applies in reply to your Post 29, so ‘ditto’.

Have a good day!
Still small