See post #497.And conversely, I guess "animals I've never owned" would be yet another taxonomic group.
[__ Science __ ] Noahs Flood explained and Evolution refuted.
- Thread starter reddogs
- Start date
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
- Status
Hmmm, as I read your denial, here, it sounds like you're trying to persuade me that you're badly confused.
If, by your phrase, "the group of animals that don't have backbones", you are not referring to a taxonomic group, then by your phrase, "the group of animals that don't have backbones", you are not referring to any group of animals. So, kind of silly for you to use the phrase, "the group of animals that don't have backbones", to not refer to any group of animals.
On the contrary, I showed you that the group of all animals that don't have backbones is a taxonomic group.
I see your denial, but your behavior is more persuasive. Since "taxonomic group" has a specific meaning, Only certain groups of animals are taxonomic groups. You were wrong in assuming they all are:
Taxonomic group
(Science: zoology) A taxon with all its subordinate taxa and their individuals, for example the taxonomic group insecta consists of all insects and their taxa.
The term invertebrates is not always precise among non-biologists since it does not accurately describe a taxon in the same way that Arthropoda, Vertebrata or Manidae do. Each of these terms describes a valid taxon, phylum, subphylum or family. "Invertebrata" is a term of convenience, not a taxon
You're still confusing "group" with "taxonomic group."
If "any and every group of animals, without exception, is a taxonomic group", then "animals I've owned as pets" must be a taxonomic group!
This doesn't seem like a difficult concept to me.
That's false. I've never confused the single word, "group", with the two-word phrase, "taxonomic group". The one has five letters; the other has fourteen letters.
Since every group is a taxonomic group, then, unless you are referring to a taxonomic group, you're not referring to a group.
Hmmm... I wonder if you'd tattle and have your protectors who control this website censor/ban someone if they said the same thing about your crowd that you said to reddogs, there, about Answers In Genesis.
Is Jesus the "consecrated host" in Rome's Mass? Do the Roman Catholics eat Jesus?
What "wasn't just a body on the cross"? To what are you referring by your impersonal pronoun, "it"?
Since evolution is directly observed in populations constantly, I think your guys probably don't know what evolution is. I suppose they could be lying or deluded...
Jonathan Sarfati, another frequent contributor to your creationist perspective website, is no better. In his article “Exploding Stars Point to a Young Universe: Where Are All The Supernova Remnants?” first published in Creation Ex Nihilo 19:46-48 and later online at http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/stars.asp, Sarfati tries to claim that the absence of Type III supernovas suggests that the universe is young, perhaps a few thousand years old, not billions of years as evolutionary scientists claim. He offers the following quote from Clark and Caswell in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 1976, 174:267:
"As the evolutionist astronomers Clark and Caswell say, ‘Why have the large number of expected remnants not been detected?’ and these authors refer to ‘The mystery of the missing remnants’."
Sarfati conveniently forgot to finish the last sentence, which actually appears on page 301. In its entirety, it reads
"…and the mystery of the missing remnants is also solved."
The above are just a few of many, many out-of-context or incomplete quotes found in creationist literature. Whole books have been written about them.
aigbusted.blogspot.com
Maybe Jon just stopped reading in mid-sentence and missed it. Or maybe he was deluded about what "is also solved" means. I guess we'll all have to make our own judgements there.
BTW, I don't complain to administrators about abusive behavior by others here. I won't. The people who have written that the observed phenomenon of evolution is a Satanic lie, for example. I figure accusation without substantiation is really a bad reflection on the accuser, and I'm willing to ignore it or to encourage people to do better.
But I can't speak for everyone.
Answers in Genesis has a history...
Jonathan Sarfati, another frequent contributor to your creationist perspective website, is no better. In his article “Exploding Stars Point to a Young Universe: Where Are All The Supernova Remnants?” first published in Creation Ex Nihilo 19:46-48 and later online at http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/stars.asp, Sarfati tries to claim that the absence of Type III supernovas suggests that the universe is young, perhaps a few thousand years old, not billions of years as evolutionary scientists claim. He offers the following quote from Clark and Caswell in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 1976, 174:267:
"As the evolutionist astronomers Clark and Caswell say, ‘Why have the large number of expected remnants not been detected?’ and these authors refer to ‘The mystery of the missing remnants’."
Sarfati conveniently forgot to finish the last sentence, which actually appears on page 301. In its entirety, it reads
"…and the mystery of the missing remnants is also solved."
The above are just a few of many, many out-of-context or incomplete quotes found in creationist literature. Whole books have been written about them.
The Deception of True.Origin
The following is an email correspondence between a fellow blog reader and the owner of the creationist site True Origin, Tim Wallace. If you...
aigbusted.blogspot.com
Maybe Jon just stopped reading in mid-sentence and missed it. Or maybe he was deluded about what "is also solved" means. I guess we'll all have to make our own judgements there.
BTW, I don't complain to administrators about abusive behavior by others here. I won't. The people who have written that the observed phenomenon of evolution is a Satanic lie, for example. I figure accusation without substantiation is really a bad reflection on the accuser, and I'm willing to ignore it or to encourage people to do better.
But I can't speak for everyone.
Last edited:
You're still confusing "group" with "taxonomic group."
(Science: zoology) A taxon with all its subordinate taxa and their individuals, for example the taxonomic group insecta consists of all insects and their taxa.
www.biologyonline.com
The term invertebrates is not always precise among non-biologists since it does not accurately describe a taxon in the same way that Arthropoda, Vertebrata or Manidae do. Each of these terms describes a valid taxon, phylum, subphylum or family. "Invertebrata" is a term of convenience, not a taxon.
en.wikipedia.org
Well, let's take a look...
Taxonomic group
(Science: zoology) A taxon with all its subordinate taxa and their individuals, for example the taxonomic group insecta consists of all insects and their taxa.
Taxonomic group
taxonomic group (Science: zoology) A taxon with all its subordinate taxa and their individuals, for example the taxonomic group insecta consists of all insects and their taxa.
www.biologyonline.com
The term invertebrates is not always precise among non-biologists since it does not accurately describe a taxon in the same way that Arthropoda, Vertebrata or Manidae do. Each of these terms describes a valid taxon, phylum, subphylum or family. "Invertebrata" is a term of convenience, not a taxon.
Invertebrate - Wikipedia
You aren't your body. You have a body.
You aren't Jesus, either. Try to stay focused.
Minor Technicality.
Got any quotes that support that they were 'darwinists'?
H-tler was still an Evo Believo'. If Evo were "God's creation method" you'd expect it to humble h-tler. I notice that NO dictator has EVER held to the Biblical position, which is YEC. But they always believe... EVOLUTION!!!
I already refuted this stuff in my post #474.
Also addressed in post #474. Why do you repeat talking points ive Already addressed??
LOL.
Wikipedia said
Obviously they shouldn't. Wiki gave you a Biased Output.
Humans Are Apes (& Here's Why) ~ with Anthropologist ZACHARY COFRAN
If you still think "man from monke yec supersition!!1!" (EVEN THOUGH YEC BELIEVE ITS TRUE!!), click this link. It'll hopefully shatter your streak of repeating "supersition".
Given that the Biblical Kind is close or AT family, stuffing monkeys/apes/whatever into the family humans are in is a wrong move & influenced by, guess what, EVIL LOTION!!
If Bioevo were true, that would be.
Double edge sword!
And WHY?
Just pick up n read a Bible, AFRESH, with no Secular Public Education (indoctrination) teachings.
again, transisitioning INTO WHAT?
Some random frankencreature??
Those popluations are varying within a created kind, new families are not arising. Evolution Where?
When you drop a block and you say "The block fell!", did it do it on its own or did you caused it to drop??
Do you really believe the earth just poofed living things on its own???
GOD COMMANDED THE EARTH TO DO SUCH. YOU MISSED THAT PART.
I'm. You'ren't.
And i recalled something.
God is alive, but NOT in a biological sense, so no, there was no abiogenesis, all life came from THE LIVING GOD. You almost had me there!
Barbarian
x.com/aigkenham/status/1798308471378420209?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
answersingenesis.org
x.com/aigkenham/status/1798308471378420209?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Who Invented the Rainbow?
As God invented everything that enables a rainbow to exist, God obviously owns the rainbow. God owns everything.
answersingenesis.org
That's vague.
WHICH taxa?? Species, right? :P
If you think evolution is just species forming and alleles changing (Variation within a created kind!) then yeah.
Your altered definition of bioevo in NO WAY contradicts YEC. You just played with the words.
I'm talking about the evo that goes BEYOND mere change and speciation.
Other taxa. As Dr. Wise says, these many,many transitional series are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."
confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed
ancestors. 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.39
Dr. Kurt Wise
Nope:
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.
Dr. Kurt Wise
The following is a possible creationist scenario of earth
history:
(a) God created organisms according to His nature, with such
features as beauty, complexity, integration of complexity,
disparity,40 diversity, and mosaic network of form,41 thus
explaining the beauty, complexity, integration of
complexity, chimeromorphism, and high homoplasy
frequency in fossil organisms;
(b) Before the Flood, there were probably biological
communities unfamiliar to us today — for example,
floating forests dozens to hundreds of miles wide along
many of the earth’s coastlines dominated by Palaeozoic
plant groups and ‘labryinthodonts’;42,43 and perhaps vast
epeiric (shallow continental) seas dominated by
Sepkoski’s ‘Palaeozoic Fauna’;44
(c) pre-Flood ecosystems were probably more tightly
structured than today and strongly biozoned — for
example, the major plant groups arranged from ocean
inland according to their ability to reproduce without
standing water and plant-group-specific animal taxa
tracking that biozonation;45
(d) The Flood was a global, diluvial catastrophe —
explaining the commonness of fossils,46 the rarity of
extensive bioturbation,47 the high species preservability,48
and the first-order randomness of the first appearance of
higher taxa;49
(e) The Flood was transgressive — burying plant-animal
communities in the sequence they were encountered (thus
explaining the second-order sea-to-land first-appearance
order of major taxa,50 the high disparity/diversity ratios
characteristic of modern biological communities, species
and higher-taxon stasis,51,52 the rarity of stratomorphic
intermediates,53 and the distinction between Palaeozoic
and Mesozoic biotas);
(f) After the Flood residual catastrophism continued with
decreasing intensity,54 the earth’s climate cooled and
dried,55 the earth’s biota exploded with intrabaraminic
diversification (10 to 100-fold in mammal species and
1000-fold in insect species),56
ibid
There are a lot of problems with this, but Dr. Wise and some other YE creationists think that the problems can be resolved in the future. It's an honest and forthright attempt to make YE work. BTW, "baramin" refers to the YE concept of "created kind", that is, a phylogenetic group. The big issue, as Wise mentions, is that such a scenario would put humans and other apes in the same "baramin."
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been
confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed
ancestors. 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.39
Dr. Kurt Wise
Nope:
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.
Dr. Kurt Wise
As you learned, evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population. But as YE creationist Dr. Wise admits, there is "very good evidence" for higher-level taxa evolving.
The definition I gave you is the standard scientific definition. Your guys tried to alter it and pretend to you that it was the real one. Don't be so gullible.
Your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Wise disagrees with you. And he actually knows what he's talking about. You're just playing with words. But it won't help you.
So is Dr. Wise. Try to find a way to accommodate the reality. Dr. Wise hasn't given up, BTW; he's working on developing a reasonable YE creationist explanation:
The following is a possible creationist scenario of earth
history:
(a) God created organisms according to His nature, with such
features as beauty, complexity, integration of complexity,
disparity,40 diversity, and mosaic network of form,41 thus
explaining the beauty, complexity, integration of
complexity, chimeromorphism, and high homoplasy
frequency in fossil organisms;
(b) Before the Flood, there were probably biological
communities unfamiliar to us today — for example,
floating forests dozens to hundreds of miles wide along
many of the earth’s coastlines dominated by Palaeozoic
plant groups and ‘labryinthodonts’;42,43 and perhaps vast
epeiric (shallow continental) seas dominated by
Sepkoski’s ‘Palaeozoic Fauna’;44
(c) pre-Flood ecosystems were probably more tightly
structured than today and strongly biozoned — for
example, the major plant groups arranged from ocean
inland according to their ability to reproduce without
standing water and plant-group-specific animal taxa
tracking that biozonation;45
(d) The Flood was a global, diluvial catastrophe —
explaining the commonness of fossils,46 the rarity of
extensive bioturbation,47 the high species preservability,48
and the first-order randomness of the first appearance of
higher taxa;49
(e) The Flood was transgressive — burying plant-animal
communities in the sequence they were encountered (thus
explaining the second-order sea-to-land first-appearance
order of major taxa,50 the high disparity/diversity ratios
characteristic of modern biological communities, species
and higher-taxon stasis,51,52 the rarity of stratomorphic
intermediates,53 and the distinction between Palaeozoic
and Mesozoic biotas);
(f) After the Flood residual catastrophism continued with
decreasing intensity,54 the earth’s climate cooled and
dried,55 the earth’s biota exploded with intrabaraminic
diversification (10 to 100-fold in mammal species and
1000-fold in insect species),56
ibid
There are a lot of problems with this, but Dr. Wise and some other YE creationists think that the problems can be resolved in the future. It's an honest and forthright attempt to make YE work. BTW, "baramin" refers to the YE concept of "created kind", that is, a phylogenetic group. The big issue, as Wise mentions, is that such a scenario would put humans and other apes in the same "baramin."
Because God did it. Ken Ham finds this to be objectionable. I trust that God did it right. Ken Ham would be better off if he did as well.
You don't know an ape from a monkey. Which is a common confusion for creationists.
Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan showed that Hitler's notions of racial purity and eugenics were not only morally objectionable; they were scientifically false.
In 1909 he went to Sri Lanka to meet Arthur Willey, FRS, then Director of the Colombo Museum and R H Lock, then Scientific Assistant at the Peradeniya Botanical Gardens and to catch butterflies. The following year, he published a monograph, '"Mimicry" in Ceylon Butterflies, with a suggestion as to the nature of Polymorphism', in Spolia Zeylanica, the journal of the Colombo Museum,[12] in which he voiced his opposition to gradualistic accounts of the evolution of mimicry which he later expanded on, in his 1915 book Mimicry in Butterflies.
In 1910 Punnett became a professor of biology at Cambridge, and then the first Arthur Balfour Professor of Genetics when Bateson left in 1912.[13] In the same year, Punnett was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society. He received the society's Darwin Medal in 1922.
en.wikipedia.org
In A Critique of the Theory of Evolution (1916), Morgan discussed questions such as: "Does selection play any role in evolution? How can selection produce anything new? Is selection no more than the elimination of the unfit? Is selection a creative force?" After eliminating some misunderstandings and explaining in detail the new science of Mendelian heredity and its chromosomal basis, Morgan concludes, "the evidence shows clearly that the characters of wild animals and plants, as well as those of domesticated races, are inherited both in the wild and in domesticated forms according to the Mendel's Law". "Evolution has taken place by the incorporation into the race of those mutations that are beneficial to the life and reproduction of the organism".[30] Injurious mutations have practically no chance of becoming established.[31] Far from rejecting evolution, as the title of his 1916 book may suggest, Morgan, laid the foundation of the science of genetics. He also laid the theoretical foundation for the mechanism of evolution: natural selection. Heredity was a central plank of Darwin's theory of natural selection, but Darwin could not provide a working theory of heredity. Darwinism could not progress without a correct theory of genetics. By creating that foundation, Morgan contributed to the neo-Darwinian synthesis, despite his criticism of Darwin at the beginning of his career. Much work on the Evolutionary Synthesis remained to be done.
en.wikipedia.org
Morgan and Punnett were two scientists who assured that Darwinian theory became the only viable theory of evolution. Morgan by establishing that Darwin was correct in attributing evolutionary trends to natural selection, and Punnett in showing how dominant and recessive alleles persist in populations.
Not if the truth matters. It should matter to you.
Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan showed that Hitler's notions of racial purity and eugenics were not only morally objectionable; they were scientifically false.
In 1909 he went to Sri Lanka to meet Arthur Willey, FRS, then Director of the Colombo Museum and R H Lock, then Scientific Assistant at the Peradeniya Botanical Gardens and to catch butterflies. The following year, he published a monograph, '"Mimicry" in Ceylon Butterflies, with a suggestion as to the nature of Polymorphism', in Spolia Zeylanica, the journal of the Colombo Museum,[12] in which he voiced his opposition to gradualistic accounts of the evolution of mimicry which he later expanded on, in his 1915 book Mimicry in Butterflies.
In 1910 Punnett became a professor of biology at Cambridge, and then the first Arthur Balfour Professor of Genetics when Bateson left in 1912.[13] In the same year, Punnett was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society. He received the society's Darwin Medal in 1922.
Reginald Punnett - Wikipedia
Thomas Hunt Morgan - Wikipedia
Morgan and Punnett were two scientists who assured that Darwinian theory became the only viable theory of evolution. Morgan by establishing that Darwin was correct in attributing evolutionary trends to natural selection, and Punnett in showing how dominant and recessive alleles persist in populations.
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.
(assertion that "kind" is the same as "family")
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.
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.
God says that the Earth brought forth living things. I believe Him. You should, too.
"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.
You can't "refute" facts. I'm not labeling all creationists as racists and Nazis. I'm just showing you the racist foundations of YE creationism. Henry Morris was one of the founders of YE creationism. No point in denial.
(assertion that "kind" is the same as "family")
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.
So you have a choice. Either "kind" is not the same as "family", or humans and apes are the same kind. Which is it?
If YE creationism were true, there would be nice, reliable taxonomic groups, with no uncertainties.
No. Since evolution almost always requires gradual change over time, we would see the sort of transitional forms and series your fellow YE creationist Dr. Wise admits to be in evidence. This is expected (as Dr. Wise admits) by evolutionary theory, but is a presently unsolvable problem for YE creationism.
But from species on up, there are all sorts of transitional forms that blur the distinction.
See Dr. Wise's comments. And he actually knows what he's talking about.
God says that the Earth brought forth living things. I believe Him. You should, too.
I didn't write it. You'll need to complain to the Author. Good luck on that.
Creation does NOTHING on it's own. God is behind every particle of the physical universe. Read your Bible, and you'll understand. Why not just accept it His way?
God says there was. That's what the Earth bringing forth life is. You're error is in thinking that biological life is the same as eternal life. God's not just some big guy who is like us but vastly more powerful. He's the eternal Creator. YE creationists often seem unwilling to accept a God that great.
I hope someday God will help you accept His creation as it is. It won't cancel your salvation if you don't, but you'll have a better relationship with Him.
- Status