[__ Science __ ] Noahs Flood explained and Evolution refuted.

[Barbarian]

So this relies on evo assumptions to be true.

Evidence. Assumptions are for YE creationists, not science. Even honest YE creationists admit it:

Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to
accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE Creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Start at evo, conclude at evo.

Nope. See above. You started with the assumption of YE, and you concluded YE.

Circular reasoning.

Yep. You can find Wise's paper at Creation.com. Read and learn.

 

[Barbarian]

But then HOW can you assert that humans did not evolve from monkeys then?

As your fellow YE creationist Kurt Wise admits, the transitional forms in the fossil record are very good evidence for this...
Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the
horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.
ibid

Maybe you should do some reading and find out why Dr. Wise (who does not accept macroevolution) admits that there is very good evidence for the evolution of hominids from other apes (not monkeys).

I see that people actually do believe that man descended from apes/monkeys.

As Dr. Wise makes clear, no one who knows the evidence thinks humans evolved from monkeys. That's a creationist superstition.

But we both know that 'monke into man' is false.

Now you do. You're seeing a lot of things for the first time. Hang on.

 

[Barbarian]

Hitler was an evolutionist, no doubt.

Actually, Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan showed that Hitler's notions of racial purity and eugenics were not only morally objectionable; they were scientifically false. On the other hand, the founders of the creationist movement in America were often eugenicists.

Much more troubling, however, are Tinkle’s opinions of almost 30 years later, in his book “Heredity. A study in science and the Bible” published in 1967, while Tinkle was the Secretary of the Creation Research Society. In its chapter “The prospect for eugenics”, far from having abandoned his support for the practice, Tinkle sounds more radical about it. He writes positively about sterilization for the “feeble-minded” (carefully classified as “morons”, “imbeciles” and “idiots”) and people with other hereditary conditions. Sterilization in a male, he says “is a simple operation”, and “in a girl or woman, [it] is as serious as removal of the vermiform appendix” [11, p. 139]. While he admits that it is impractical to sterilize all “defectives”, he still thinks it’s worth a shot when possible:

Dr. West, meet Dr. Tinkle, Creationist eugenicist

pandasthumb.org

It's not just Tinkle; as late as the 1990s, YE creationist Dr. Henry Morris was writing drivel about the supposed spiritual and intellectual inferiority of black people.

"Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they were eventually displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.”
ICR co-founder Henry Morris, The Beginning of the World, 1992

This is not to say that YE creationists are all racists today. Probably, most of them are not. Certainly many of them have entirely rejected the racist foundations of YE creationism. But people like Tinkle gave the Nazis a lot of intellectual support when it was needed.

So much for the belief that "God used evolution"

Few people pay any attention to the ideas of Hitler, Morris, and Tinkle nowadays.

 

[Barbarian]

You're just making up stories now.

This, coming from one who thinks nonhumans can be humans.

If you feel that you have to lie about what I think, isn't that a pretty good sign that you know you're wrong?

 

[Barbarian]

I already gave you the defitiion of the Biblical 'kind', which was the Family taxa.

The Hominidae, whose members are known as the great apes or hominids, are a taxonomic family of primates that includes eight extant species in four genera: Pongo; Gorilla; Pan; and Homo, of which only modern humans remain.

Hominidae - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So you think that humans and chimpanzees are the same kind? That's what you just told us.

You sure about that?

 

[Barbarian]

estion: DO YOU ACCEPT THINGS SIMILAR TO SAYING "THE WHOLE WORLD"? Yes or No.

So you think the flood was SIMILAR to a worldwide flood? All you have to do, is add a few things to God's word to make it what you'd like it to be.

But that's not a very good idea. Why not just accept it as He gave it to us?

 

[Barbarian]

But then HOW can you assert that humans did not evolve from monkeys then? if you dont have a testable def.?

I have one. I'm just pointing out that Paul can't come up with one, because anywhere he draws the line, it produces impossible problems for YE creationism.

Hint: Do they look similar? If so then they almost certainly belong to the same kind.

This is how people assumed whales are fish and bats are birds. You've confused analogy with homology.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

So, according to you, the group of all animals without backbones is both 1) a group of animals, and 2) not a group of animals!

No.

LOL

Oh, nice try. Sorry, though: it wasn't a question. Blowing more Darwinistpeak smoke in my face is not going to hide the glaring fact that you contradict yourself by saying that the group of all animals without backbones is not the group of animals that it is. Also, that taxonomic group -- the group of all animals without backbones -- happens to be the group of all animals that are neither ancestors nor descendants of any of the animals constituting the group of all animals with backbones. For you to deny that the group of all animals without backbones is a taxonomic group is for you to deny that the group of all animals without backbones is a group. Here are some other taxonomic groups:

• all pickup trucks that are Fords
• all pickup trucks that are Fords and have the letter L on the license plates
• all pickup trucks that are not Fords
• all pickup trucks that are Fords or Chevrolets
• all Ford vehicles that are not pickup trucks

Notice, also, these two, different taxonomic groups:

• all taxonomic groups
• all taxonomic groups Barbarian denies to be taxonomic groups

 

[Barbarian]

So, according to you, the group of all animals without backbones is both 1) a group of animals, and 2) not a group of animals!

No. One is a phyletic taxonomic group and one a paraphletic group. Go back and read it again, carefully.

Oh, nice try. Sorry, though: it wasn't a question. Blowing more Darwinistpeak smoke in my face is not going to hide the glaring fact that you contradict yourself by saying that the group of all animals without backbones is not the group of animals that it is.

If you feel you have to pretend I said something I didn't say to make a point, isn't that a clue for all of us?

For you to deny that the group of all animals without backbones is a taxonomic group is for you to deny that the group of all animals without backbones is a group.

Here, you're assuming that all groups are taxonomic groups. Do you even read what you put up here?

Hint: learn what a paraphyletic group is. You actually were very helpful here, for those who might be confused about the terminology, giving me the opportunity to clarify your confusion.

 

[KV-44-v1]

This is how people assumed whales are fish and bats are birds.

Whales look so different from fish (blow holes, big, have bristly mouth to filter)
And bats are ugly little creatures, they have no feathers, in fact the only bird-ish resemblance is the wings.

And besides, what you cited Could be reality and make perfect sense under EvilLotion.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Assumptions are for YE creationists,

for OEE*
Phylogenetics as evidence for evo is circular reasoning, for example.
And ASSUMING that all the "millions years" passed with nothing to interfere.

three of the species level

Species level. Not family.

Traditional MacEvo still unproven!
But you think macroevo simply means 'speciation', but speciation is what is correct.
Traditional macroevo is what is spread by athiests and the worldly school system. It is what YEC pick a bone with.

See above. You started with the assumption of YE, and you concluded YE.

lol.

assuming that taxa should reflect evolutionary relationships.

STILL think i "assumed and arrived at YEC"??

 

[KV-44-v1]

As your fellow YE creationist Kurt Wise admits, the transitional forms in the fossil record are very good evidence for this...
Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the
horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.
ibid

Transitioning into WHAT?
Traditional evolution holds that there is no goal, it is a blind force.

 

[KV-44-v1]

evolution of hominids from other apes (not monkeys).

lemme guess, all the hominids were still primates and not people.
Kind after kind!

 

[KV-44-v1]

That's a creationist superstition.

we went over this-

Literally 0 evidence.

newscientist.com/question/humans-evolve-apes/
We know that our evolutionary tree first sprouted in Africa. We are sure that our closest living relatives are chimpanzees, and that our lineage split from theirs about 7 million years ago.


Your guys made it up. We simply refute their fodder.


science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/humans-descended-from-apes.htm :
Humans and modern apes, including chimpanzees, evolved from a now-extinct common ancestor.

^ This seems more along your lines, however.


Again, you boldly assert that it is our 'supersition'.
HOW IS IT A SUPERSITITION IF WE DON'T BELIEVE IT HAPPENED?

Now you do. You're seeing a lot of things for the first time. Hang on.

When did i ever actually think that man DID evolve from apes/monkeys/whatever primates ?

Actually, Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan showed that Hitler's notions of racial purity and eugenics were not only morally objectionable; they were scientifically false.

Quote?
Punnett? Like the guy who made the allele squares?
Do you mean Thomas Morgan, the fly guy (drosophila)?

Much more troubling, however, are Tinkle’s opinions of almost 30 years later, in his book “Heredity. A study in science and the Bible” published in 1967, while Tinkle was the Secretary of the Creation Research Society. In its chapter “The prospect for eugenics”, far from having abandoned his support for the practice, Tinkle sounds more radical about it. He writes positively about sterilization for the “feeble-minded” (carefully classified as “morons”, “imbeciles” and “idiots”) and people with other hereditary conditions. Sterilization in a male, he says “is a simple operation”, and “in a girl or woman, [it] is as serious as removal of the vermiform appendix” [11, p. 139]. While he admits that it is impractical to sterilize all “defectives”, he still thinks it’s worth a shot when possible:

What is the source text of the assertions of Panda's Thumb? Yes, it is from "Heredity. A study in science and the Bible", but I'd like to see the quote itself, l don't have the book.

Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they were eventually displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.”

Glad to see you put a quote.

Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others.

Unfortunate but accurate.

Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they were eventually displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.”

What is meant by mundane matters?
OK so people were displaced by others.
Your quote doesn't prove much.

This is not to say that YE creationists are all racists today. Probably, most of them are not.

Agreed.

racist foundations of YE creationism.

The only foundation it has is the Bible.
If there were many races of humans (there's only one as we all come from adam n eve) then racism might be accurate.
If EvilLotion were true, there would be many races of humans! The EvoEugenicists were just following the logical conclusion.
if YEC is accurate, rasism is illegitimate.

So you think that humans and chimpanzees are the same kind? That's what you just told us.

And I'm the one making up stories??
Evo is what would have us believe this.

assuming that taxa should reflect evolutionary relationships.

This is the nonsense of EVILLOTION!

Both times you cited Wikipedia, which ASSUMES that

assuming that taxa should reflect evolutionary relationships.

So under the NON-darwinized version of taxonomy, humans are a completely different kind.

I saw an article that asserted that Linnaeus' classification was"arbitrary". And it peddled EvilLotion. Hmmmm i wonder why.

BUT the article i saw is NOT the one i'm citing. The one i'm citing is a SECOND article.

The Linnean system is still used to categorize living things, but we now accept that the levels of organization from Kingdom down to species are somewhat arbitrary

www2.nau.edu/lrm22/lessons/taxonomy/taxonomy_notes.html#:~:text=The%20Linnean%20system%20of%20classification,to%20species%20are%20somewhat%20arbitrary.

Given you think deep time and EvilLotion are true, do you also think that life had a "chemical" origin, instead of a Supernatural One?

 

[KV-44-v1]

So you think the flood was SIMILAR to a worldwide flood?

No, I'm saying that there are many ways to say something.

"All land"
"the whole world"
"every thing on the earth died"
"And the water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered."


All four examples above indicate the entire planet.

All you have to do, is add a few things to God's word to make it what you'd like it to be.

The Queen James Bible: God: 9780615724539: Amazon.com: Books

Humanists (probably evolutionists too!) adding stuff!

But that's not a very good idea.

True.

Why not just accept it as He gave it to us?

I'm!

 

[KV-44-v1]

“Incredibly Rare” Fossil Find Reminds Us of the Global Flood

Researchers found a fossilized brittle star “frozen in time” during the brief period between splitting and full regrowth of its missing body half.

answersingenesis.org

https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/what-God-wrote-about-creation-week/

A Relic of the Past

Why Does the Earth Look So Old?

answersingenesis.org

How Did Animals Get TO the Ark?

Did animals cross continents to get to Noah’s ark?

answersingenesis.org

Did Some “Feathered Dinosaurs” Have “Birdlike Skin”?

Has a new study on Psittacosaurus really proven that so-called feathered dinosaurs had both reptile and birdlike skin?

answersingenesis.org

Genesis 1–11: Essential for a Biblical Worldview

Why biblical creation is the answer to today’s worldview crisis.

answersingenesis.org

 

[Barbarian]

The idea that scientists think humans evolved from monkeys is a creationist superstition.

we went over this-
newscientist.com/question/humans-evolve-apes/
We know that our evolutionary tree first sprouted in Africa. We are sure that our closest living relatives are chimpanzees, and that our lineage split from theirs about 7 million years ago.

Nothing about monkeys. No wonder you're confused. You don't know an ape from a monkey. Which is a common confusion for creationists.

Actually, Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan showed that Hitler's notions of racial purity and eugenics were not only morally objectionable; they were scientifically false.

Punnett? Like the guy who made the allele squares?
Do you mean Thomas Morgan, the fly guy (drosophila)?

Yep. Punnet showed that harmful recessives could not be removed from the population without many generations and Draconian government control.

This, coupled with an evangelical commitment to create a society molded in their own image, led the eugenicists to make simplistic and unsupportable claims about human heredity. Punnett made an early indictment of the methods during a presentation at the First International Congress on Eugenics in 1911 – the year The Trait Book was published

Social Origins of Eugenics

It wasn't until 1935 that a review panel convened by the Carnegie Institution concluded that the Eugenics Research Office research did not have scientific merit, and subsequently withdrew funding in 1939. ... This was a department that went on to support the efforts of Thomas Hunt Morgan (genes are carried on chromosomes, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1933)

U.S. Scientists' Role in the Eugenics Movement (1907–1939): A Contemporary Biologist's Perspective

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

This at the time when Nazis and YE creationists like Morris and Tinkle were blathering about supposed racial and genetic inferiorities.
"Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they were eventually displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.”
ICR co-founder Henry Morris
This is not to say that YE creationists are all racists today. Probably, most of them are not. Certainly many of them have entirely rejected the racist foundations of YE creationism. But people like Tinkle gave the Nazis a lot of intellectual support when it was needed.

 

[Barbarian]

I already gave you the defitiion of the Biblical 'kind', which was the Family taxa.

The Hominidae, whose members are known as the great apes or hominids, are a taxonomic family of primates that includes eight extant species in four genera: Pongo; Gorilla; Pan; and Homo, of which only modern humans remain.

So you think that humans and chimpanzees are the same kind? That's what you just told us.

And I'm the one making up stories??

You said "kind" was at the taxonomic level of family. And apes, including humans are in one family. You made the claim, you just didn't realize the implications.

Yes, I know you want to be able to pick and chose which families, because you can't come up with a consistent definition of "kind." We all see that.

 

[Barbarian]

The Linnean system is still used to categorize living things, but we now accept that the levels of organization from Kingdom down to species are somewhat arbitrary

Yes. This is a very difficult problem for YE creationism. If YE creationism were true, there would be nice, reliable taxonomic groups, with no uncertainties. But from species on up, there are all sorts of transitional forms that blur the distinction. That this should be, is a consequence of evolution, but it's completely incompatible with YE.

Darwin, as you might know, predicted this and mentioned all sorts of difficulties in making clear taxonomies because populations evolve.

 

[Barbarian]

Given you think deep time and EvilLotion are true, do you also think that life had a "chemical" origin, instead of a Supernatural One?

God says that the Earth brought forth living things. I believe Him. You should, too. Why not just accept it His way?