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

[Barbarian]

On the contrary, I showed you that the group of all animals that don't have backbones is a taxonomic group.
.

Well, let's take a look...

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.
en.wikipedia.org

 

[KV-44-v1]

"…and the mystery of the missing remnants is also solved."

Solved by WHOM? by WHAT?
They assert "its solved" and you just blindly accept? :/
So what was the "SOLutiOn" that "SOLved" the mystery??

Maybe Jon just stopped reading in mid-sentence and missed it. Or maybe he was deluded about what "is also solved" means.

No, it's that there was zero solution given.

observed phenomenon of evolution

Speciation and alleles changing, which is variation within kinds (NOT kinds giving rise to other kinds!!) rather than EvilLotion (which WOULD involve kinds giving rise to other kinds, like the "bird from dinoes" belief).

You aren't your body. You have a body.


You aren't Jesus, either. Try to stay focused.

So WHAT died on the Cross?
JESUS, or
HIS BODY?
Nobody in this thread has claimed to be Jesus.

and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed
ancestors.

I bet you these "horse ancestors" were STILL horses! And the phenacowhatever's too!

and above types

Like Genus, but no family, right?

tried to alter it and pretend to you that it was the real one. Don't be so gullible.

Quote from 'my guys'?

Dr. Wise disagrees with you.

Where did he say that it contradicted YEC?

BTW, "baramin" refers to of "created kind", that is, a phylogenetic group.

Baramins do not give rise to other baramins. So NO, baramin aren't Phylo Groups.

the YE concept

BIBLICAL* concept.

"“And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20“Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive."
^ try explaining THIS! ^

He received the society's Darwin Medal in 1922.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_Medal

For his researches in the science of genetics.

So I don't see how this backs Punnet's supposed 'darwinism'.

those mutations that are beneficial to the life and reproduction of the organism

Lemme guess, bacteria LOSING a protein or a part (for example) to not get killed/rendered moot by antibiotics!

Ok, so Morgan May have believed in EvilLoition, But was it the cross-kind one that Secularists are pushing in schools, the dino-to-bird type?? Aka, The kind that clearly contradicts the Biblical "kind after kind" principle?
Or
was it simply the "Speciation & CAFPT"?

Let the earth produce living creatures according to [ae]their kind: livestock and crawling things and animals of the earth according to [af]their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the animals of the earth according to [ag]their kind, and the livestock according to [ah]their kind, and everything that crawls on the ground according to its kind; and God saw that it was good.
I wonder,
What do YOU think the Biblical kinds are? kingdom? phylum? Domain? Or do you think they don't exist?

 

[KV-44-v1]

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.

Life is still life.
Why would biogenesis need biological life? I don't think the "bio" in biogenesis or in a-biogenesis necessitates biological life.

What about a God Who
CREATED INSTANTLY (no need for uber-time)
CREATED THE REAL (not allegorical) WEEK. (all the days were NOT one day, like augustine thought.)
JUDGED ALL THE SINNERS (instead of a measely few like your local flood THEORY implies)
SPEAKS PLAINLY FROM THE GET GO, IN GENESIS AND BEYOND (instead of in riddles like you believe.)

That God, the Biblical God, is much bigger than the OEE's view of God.

 

[KV-44-v1]

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.

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.”

Seems like you haven't/can't address my Post #474, because it is facts, so yeah you can't refute it!

 

[KV-44-v1]

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation.

present tense. Potential past tense.
When was that written?
Thx

 

[Barbarian]

present tense. Potential past tense.
When was that written?

This was back before a lot of transitional forms were found. About 2009, I think. So as Dr. Wise points out, a lot of new evidence supporting evolution has been found since then.

 

[Barbarian]

Seems like you haven't/can't address my Post #474, because it is facts, so yeah you can't refute it!

I showed you some examples.

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.”

Would you like some more?

 

[Barbarian]

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.

Life is still life.

Your difficulty is God is still God. And I'll go with His word over yours. Sorry.

Why would biogenesis need biological life? I don't think the "bio" in biogenesis or in a-biogenesis necessitates biological life.

Because by definition, biogenesis is the formation of biological life. Which was produced by the Earth, as God says. Why not just believe Him?

What about a God Who
CREATED INSTANTLY (no need for uber-time)

Do you think you are a creature of God? Think.

CREATED THE REAL (not allegorical) WEEK.

Most Christians don't accept that revision.

(all the days were NOT one day, like augustine thought.)

Well, let's take a look...
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth: 5 And every plant of the field before it sprung up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew: for the Lord God had not rained upon the earth; and there was not a man to till the earth.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. 2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. 3 And God said: Be light made. And light was made. 4 And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. 5 And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.
Genesis 1:And he said: Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done. 12 And the earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yieldeth seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit, having seed each one according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

So which is it? If it's a literal history, it has to be one or the other. One chapter says it all happened in one day. The other says one happened on the first day, and another happened on the third day. If it's literal, they can't both be true. So which do you accept and which do you reject?

JUDGED ALL THE SINNERS

There's a good reason He didn't say He judged all the humans on Earth. As you see, the real God is much greater and more powerful than YE creationists would like Him to be.

 

[Barbarian]

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.

Solved by WHOM? by WHAT?

Clark and Caswell, by analyzing the data from supernovas.

They assert "its solved" and you just blindly accept? :/

The point is that Jon Sarfati completely misrepresented what they said. For obvious reasons. If he had honestly quoted them, it would have destroyed his argument. The issue isn't whether or not they are competent astronomers (they are); the issue is that Sarfati falsely represented what they said. Maybe Jon just stopped reading in mid-sentence and missed it. Or maybe he was deluded about what "is also solved" means.

No, it's that there was zero solution given.

There was.

Supernova remnant G292.2–0.5, its pulsar, and the Galactic magnetic field

Abstract. The extended low-brightness Galactic radio source G292.2–0.5 is one of the few supernova remnants (SNRs) showing a likely association with a youn

academic.oup.com

No point in denial. Take a look and do the numbers yourself. It won't change.

 

[Barbarian]

As you now realize, evolution is an observed phenomenon. We see it in living populations constantly. Macroevolution (evolution of new taxa) is also observed from time to time.

Speciation and alleles changing, which is variation within kinds (NOT kinds giving rise to other kinds!!)

As you showed me, humans and other apes are in the same "kind" according to your definition. A new kind of species evolves every now and then; even AIG admits the evolution of new species and genera.

So NO, baramin aren't Phylo Groups.

Dr. Wise thinks they are. And he actually knows what he's talking about.

EvilLotion (which WOULD involve kinds giving rise to other kinds, like the "bird from dinoes" belief).

Sounds like a testable idea. So tell me one apomorphic character in birds, not found in other dinosaurs. If you can't tell any differences, you're pretty much locked into admitting birds are dinosaurs. So what have you got?

 

[Barbarian]

Sounds like a testable idea. So tell me one apomorphic character in birds, not found in other dinosaurs. If you can't tell any differences, you're pretty much locked into admitting birds are dinosaurs. So what have you got?

Anyone?

 

[KV-44-v1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1809177557805277672

Another one, from different link:
"As human beings, we really know almost nothing compared to our infinite Creator. Because the Bible is God’s Word and Genesis 1–11 is the history in geology, biology, astronomy, and anthropology that God has revealed to us, we need to accept God’s Word as truth and to judge man’s word against the truth of God’s Word.We live in the present. When we are trying to understand what happened in the past to bring the present (whether it be in regard to biology, geology, astronomy, etc.) into being, we need to understand that God has revealed the events of history, so we know what happened in the past. Knowing what happened in the past then is a key to understanding the present and interpreting the evidence of the present correctly.That’s why as Christians we must have a Bible-first approach (exegesis). We must use God’s Word as the foundation for our worldview so we can look at the present world through the lens of Scripture."

Yet another:
"One of the most asked questions by the younger generations is “How can there be a loving God with all the death and suffering in the world?” And it’s only those who take Genesis as literal history who can show that all this death and suffering is our fault, because of our sin in Adam. It’s not God’s fault. But really, those Christians who believe in millions of years are actually saying it’s God’s fault because he has used death and suffering over millions of years as part of bringing lifeforms into existence. No, it’s out fault because we sinned in Adam. We live in a fallen world permeated by death and suffering because of our sin."

And a 3rd!
"I’ve had many Christians express dismay at what they see as a plethora of problems in the culture such as abortion, gender issues, LGBTQ, gay “marriage,” racism, and so on. They have said to me there are so many problems to battle, how can we do it. It’s almost like they want to throw their hands in the air and give up because the many problems seem so overwhelming to them.Sadly, many churches haven’t taught people to think foundationally, and thus they do not understand that all these issues are in reality, the same problems. They are different symptoms of that problem.Had churches been teaching foundationally, then Christians would understand that our thinking starts with God’s Word—in particular, Genesis 1–11, the foundation of everything. Sadly, because so many Christian leaders have compromised Genesis 1–11 with evolution/millions of years, most church people have not been taught the foundation for their doctrine and for a true biblical worldview.Many Christians just look at what they perceive as the “problems” and try to figure out how to take these to the Bible to try to understand what to do. But those Christians who understand what it means to have a biblical worldview do know that God’s Word beginning in Genesis is the foundation for that worldview. They also would know that there are only two foundations ultimately for people’s worldview (or religion). One either starts with God’s Word or man’s word.Two foundations, with two very different worldviews. The clash we see happening in our culture is a clash between those two totally opposite worldviews, but at a foundational level, it’s a battle between God’s Word and man’s word."

 

[KV-44-v1]

Darwin had made the wholly counterintuitive claim that things could be created without a creator (which explains his famous fantasy about a miraculous chemical reaction in a small warm pond producing inchoate life-forms theoretically capable of future development). For in that way he was setting himself up in opposition not so much to religion as to the two-millennia-old and never before disputed wisdom of ex nihilo nihil fit (nothing can come from nothing), replacing it with its obverse, namely, all things (can) come from nothing. This was a rather conspicuous flaw in his overall argument, and it is not surprising that the truth-value of that paradoxical assertion has remained a focus of debate up to the present day. —Neil Thomas, 6/13/2024
----
Stalactite Calls Carbon Dating Into Question 06/29/2001
Cave divers studying a submerged stalactite in the Bahamas found unexpected “huge peaks” in radiocarbon levels embedded in the limestone, reports the BBC News. The article claims this finding might help improve the accuracy of radiocarbon dating, which is known to be increasingly unreliable for alleged dates older than 16,000 years. But it issues this caution: “Already, it is clear that some ancient items could have been wrongly dated by several thousand years because of the sharp fluctuations in radiocarbon levels revealed in the stalagmite.”

Radiometric dating is riddled with circular reasoning and hidden assumptions. This story just underscores the fact that empirical data do not always support the conventional wisdom. Despite their bluffing about the stalagmite helping improve the accuracy of radiocarbon dating, how do we know that another finding tomorrow wouldn’t introduce another fudge factor? Remember Skinner’s constant: “that number which, when added to, subtracted from, multiplied or divided by the number you got, gives you the number you should have gotten.”
OE creationism is what has the problems.
----
"
What’s also notable in this story is the praise heaped on Maxwell himself, whom Maddox calls “probably the outstanding scientist of the nineteenth century”— and that’s in great company of many others of the era. Maxwell, a scientist par excellence (both in experiment and theory) and a jolly good fellow, also a Bible-believing Christian, natural philosopher and anti-evolutionist, is featured in our [biography]. We believe you will find his life and words tremendously interesting. We also eagerly anticipate the publication of Volume III of Maxwell’s Complete Scientific Letters and Papers, due from Cambridge University Press in September. Until then, you can enjoy the classic biography by Lewis Campbell online, The Life of James Clerk Maxwell, complete with some of his anti-evolution poems.

William Dembski discusses the Maxwell Demon paradox from an information-conservation viewpoint in his recent book No Free Lunch.
" (white text in this quote is linked)

 

[KV-44-v1]

"
Two evolutionists from the University of Edinburgh had their students play games to study the evolution of altruism (unselfishness), explains their paper in the June 25 issue of Current Biology. They rigged up a game with cables, colored lights and signals that paid money for various selfish and unselfish behaviors. When the results were in, they deduced that “indirect reciprocity” or just the general improvement to a person’s reputation for becoming known as a generous person produced benefits that would help the altruistic behavior evolve. They explain, “Nonreciprocal altruism among non-kin is frequently observed in humans. Such ‘generalized altruism’ could, for example, be a cultural trait, or it could have evolved because it normally provides a net fitness benefit. Indirect reciprocity is one of the major evolutionary concepts that could explain generous behavior.”

Thus kindness is just sex. Isn’t this what evolution reduces kindness and generosity to? They reduce altruism to just a “fitness benefit,” i.e., some trait that helps you pass on your genes. This is not only dumb, it’s ugly. It sweeps away any truly unselfish actions based on morality, and colors it as purposeless survival of the fittest. It is grunge reductionism, turning the beautiful into the raw, throwing mud on the bridal gown. Recall how the PBS Evolution TV series portrayed evolution: over images of an Apollo rocket launch and a choir singing the Hallelujah Chorus, the narrator claimed that all human activity, however sublime, stems from our inherent urge to reproduce. This is reductionism at its most absurd.

It’s also junk science. The students signed up to play a game, and were getting paid! How do their actions in this staged setting have anything to do with real life? Do you play Monopoly the same way you operate your daily affairs? I’ve see the gentlest preacher’s wife take great glee in loading Boardwalk with hotels and stomping her competitors out of business in Monopoly, who in real life is the kindest and most unselfish, hard working person you could know. These scientists also failed to demonstrate that their conclusions were not Lamarckian, and that somehow the most altruistic would actually cause genetic changes, or would help the population pass on improved genes. Evolutionists have this kinky idea that human beings are just lab rats under forces of mindless evolution with nothing but sex on their minds, and that somehow an experiment like this tells them something about how human behavior evolved.

These scientists have way too much time on their hands. Here’s how they should learn about altruism. They should go visit a widow in a nursing home and show genuine kindness to her, listen to her tell about her life, and meet her physical needs. They should visit a disabled child or orphan, or adopt one from a totalitarian country, someone that has no hope of passing on his genes, and give him encouragement and love and hope of a better life. They should join the fight against evil and suffering and unbridled lust and selfishness in the world. Enough of this nonsense about altruism being an evolutionary game played by selfish genes.

The Epistle of James in the New Testament presents a very different, un-Darwinian view of altruism, as does all the Word of God. Altruism is not a game played for the advantage of the individual, the group, or the genes; it is human behavior nearest to the image of Jesus Christ, the most altruistic of all, who gave His life for the very, very unfit.
"

"
But when you look through the pages of research that actually gets published, keep in mind the reality:

• You’re only reading the few papers that made it through the gauntlet— not potentially good ideas of researchers whose work was rejected because of reviewer or editor bias or conflicts of interest.
• You’re unaware of how funding ($$$) factored into the choice of accepted articles, and even determined the research to be conducted.
• You may not know about personal antipathy between researchers and reviewers, or about perverse incentives that rushed a paper through without adequate observation, interpretation and reason (“publish or perish”).
• You never hear from those censored because of disagreement with a currently-popular consensus. That’s why critics of anthropogenic climate change never get published (watch climate scientist Judith Curry talk about this at Prager U).
• You will probably never hear from conservatives, since the culture in many universities and labs is far left and academic deans refuse to hire them. Surveys show that university science departments are almost entirely leftist, atheist, and Darwinist (20 June 2018). How can such an echo chamber possibly be objective?

The Leftist Bias of Big Science

We’ve been demonstrating the Leftist bias in Big Science and its media outlets for years now (see, for example, 11 March 2024 or search the Politics, Education, and Media categories in our search bar). Here are some of the latest examples showing the bias in these institutional businesses (that’s what they are) who pretend to be objective about nature while screening out all Darwin skeptics.

Institutionalizing a culture of inclusion to upend structural invisibility in school settings (PNAS, 17 June 2024). DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) are the calling cards of the Left. In practice, they use racial stereotypes to promote communist-style redistributions of wealth and opportunity based not on merit, but on ideas of “social justice.” Author Rebecca Covarrubias, psychologist at UC Santa Cruz, uses emotion and DEI talking points to promote “inclusion” within science classrooms.
"

 

[KV-44-v1]

All of the yellow text here i have posted is NOT originally my words.
But it is something useful to think about.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Better Science Without Darwin – CEH

crev.info

[="true"]https://crev.info/2024/06/nazi-medicine-inspired-by-darwin/[/URL
https://crev.info/2024/05/darwinism-devalues-humanity/
https://crev.info/2024/06/how-to-survive-as-a-creationist-in-science/

 

[hawkman]

Sounds like a testable idea. So tell me one apomorphic character in birds, not found in other dinosaurs. If you can't tell any differences, you're pretty much locked into admitting birds are dinosaurs. So what have you got?

Were dinosaurs able to mock humans ? Like a Mocking bird or Myna bird , etc .

 

[Barbarian]

As human beings, we really know almost nothing compared to our infinite Creator. Because the Bible is God’s Word and Genesis 1–11 is the history in geology, biology, astronomy, and anthropology that God has revealed to us, we need to accept God’s Word as truth and to judge man’s word against the truth of God’s Word.

Your guy has completely lost sight of God's message in scripture and wants to downgrade it to a science textbook. How sad.

But really, those Christians who believe in millions of years are actually saying it’s God’s fault because he has used death and suffering over millions of years as part of bringing lifeforms into existence.

And here's he's angry at God because God didn't handle creation the way that seems right to him. If he'd set his pride aside and accept it God's way, he'd be able to make peace with God.

 

[Barbarian]

Darwin had made the wholly counterintuitive claim that things could be created without a creator

In fact, Darwin specifically attributed the origin of life to God:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species

Your guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

He also has the bizarre notion that paleontologists use C-14 dating. You've been fooled by someone who knows no more than you do.

All of the yellow text here i have posted is NOT originally my words.
But it is something useful to think about.

There are intelligent and thoughtful YE creationists. They must be appalled by the ignorance and arrogance of this guy.

 

[Barbarian]

Were dinosaurs able to mock humans ? Like a Mocking bird or Myna bird , etc .

Some can. You mentioned two examples.

Point being, we can't really find any apomorphic characters to distinguish birds from other dinosaurs.