Scientists baffled by a perfect example of Biblical kinds

[chair]

Nope.

This discussion is about the definition of kind compared with the paucity of the Darwinists' terminology.

You started talking about evidence seemingly only because you think that our ideas need to bow to your demands to be considered "scientific," and probably because you're so uncomfortable with the semantics of evolutionary scripture being scrutinized.

And there has been a discussion over what should be found in the rocks, but you've chosen to ignore that.

When you've learned to conduct a rational discussion, then you can start lecturing us. :up:

Stripe, you didn't start this discussion. You did, however make claims which you refuse to support. And the scientific method is the rational way to support claims. Because you do not have evidence to support them. So you revert to your usual games.

"When you've learned to conduct a rational discussion, then you can start lecturing us"

 

[Stripe]

You ... make claims which you refuse to support.

But you're not going to share with us what those claims are.

And this conversation is about the definition of kind, which has been clearly stated. Meanwhile, the Darwinists' terminology remains vague and malleable, as it must to insulate their religion from scrutiny.

 

[chair]

But you're not going to share with us what those claims are.

And this conversation is about the definition of kind, which has been clearly stated. Meanwhile, the Darwinists' terminology remains vague and malleable, as it must to insulate their religion from scrutiny.

Stripe. These are your claims, not mine. You have already shared them with us.

Why not, just once, admit that there is no evidence to support your "kinds" theory? Admit that you were wrong.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes... creation and the global flood model does explain the evidence.
The alternative explanation seems to be that once upon a time there was nothing..... then a cold whoosh caused everything. Then life came from non life..... complexity came from chaos..... information came from nowhere...... birds came from dinosaurs..... Humans developed big brains by cooking their food....the appendix evolved independently 38 times.... and the human eye is maybe a good design and maybe a bad design, but no matter what it proves philosophers evolved from fish. And...nobody lived happily ever after.
Makes total sense, right?
:rotfl:

Nice try. So which of the two scenarios is the "Biblical model"...clams swimming to the top of Everest, or Everest forming in about 1 year?

 

[Stripe]

Stripe. These are your claims.

What claims?

Why not, just once, admit that there is no evidence to support your "kinds" theory? Admit that you were wrong.

I haven't been presenting a "kinds theory."

The Darwinists ask — despite having been told numerous times — what the definition of kind is.

It turns out that the definition of kind is clear and precise, while the definition of species is vague and malleable.

 

[Stripe]

Stripe. These are your claims.

You're just throwing out things to say without being precise. What claims do you find problematic?

What's the bet that my "claims" are things you've made up for me to say.

 

[6days]

Nice try.

What do you mean?

* Don't you believe that creatures like T-rex evolved feathers then morphed *and eventually learned to fly? *

*Don't you believe that nothing caused everything?*Or, do you believe there is a cause which existed eternally?*

*And *even though the law of biogenesis tells us life comes from life, you believe life can come from non life?*

*And... the fine tuned universe, isn't fine tuned?*

*Don't you believe that the DNA code, along with molecular motors, and self repair mechanisms is really just molecules that assembled itself?*

*And would you say that sudden appearance in the fossil record, along with the appearance of design; *can not really be considered as sudden? And, that although, there is the appearance of design, you won't consider the Designer?


We could go on...and on pointing out your anti-science and religious belief system.*

*So which of the two scenarios is the "Biblical model"...clams swimming to the top of Everest, or Everest forming in about 1 year?

Fallacy of false dilema.*

 

[Greg Jennings]

What do you mean?

* Don't you believe that creatures like T-rex evolved feathers then morphed *and eventually learned to fly? *

*Don't you believe that nothing caused everything?*Or, do you believe there is a cause which existed eternally?*

*And *even though the law of biogenesis tells us life comes from life, you believe life can come from non life?*

*And... the fine tuned universe, isn't fine tuned?*

*Don't you believe that the DNA code, along with molecular motors, and self repair mechanisms is really just molecules that assembled itself?*

*And would you say that sudden appearance in the fossil record, along with the appearance of design; *can not really be considered as sudden? And, that although, there is the appearance of design, you won't consider the Designer?


We could go on...and on pointing out your anti-science and religious belief system.*

Strawman. You aren't answering the question and inventing new ones to distract from this obvious fact. Strawman. Fallacy...,straw man....straw man.....straw man.......

Fallacy of false dilema.*

Now instead of dodging, try answering Jose's question: "So which of the two scenarios is the "Biblical model"...clams swimming to the top of Everest, or Everest forming in about 1 year?"

When you predictably dodge again, you'll once again know why YECism is such a laughable concept

 

[6days]

Strawman. You aren't answering the question and inventing new ones to distract from this obvious fact. Strawman. Fallacy...,straw man....straw man.....straw man.......

You jumped in part way through the chat Jose and I were having, so missed out on the context.
Jose asked mockingly if something he misrepresented makes sense.
So..... I'm asking him if these evolutionist things make sense. The answer is no..... but evolutionists believe anyways.

* Don't you believe that creatures like T-rex evolved feathers then morphed *and eventually learned to fly? *

*Don't you believe that nothing caused everything?*Or, do you believe there is a cause which existed eternally?*

*And *even though the law of biogenesis tells us life comes from life, you believe life can come from non life?*

*And... the fine tuned universe, isn't fine tuned?*

*Don't you believe that the DNA code, along with molecular motors, and self repair mechanisms is really just molecules that assembled itself?*

*And would you say that sudden appearance in the fossil record, along with the appearance of design; *can not really be considered as sudden? And, that although, there is the appearance of design, you won't consider the Designer?

We could go on...and on pointing out your anti-science and religious belief system.*

Now instead of dodging, try answering Jose's question: "So which of the two scenarios is the "Biblical model"...clams swimming to the top of Everest, or Everest forming in about 1 year?"

When you predictably dodge again, you'll once again know why YECism is such a laughable concept

Oh dear Greg..... you are loved. Jose was told his question was a false dilemma fallacy. You can google that.

 

[Jose Fly]

What do you mean?

You're trying to deflect and dodge...again.

Fallacy of false dilema.*

So it's both? As Mt. Everest was rising from the sea floor to its present height in less than a year, clams were swimming up to it, attaching themselves, while being buried and fossilized?

 

[Stripe]

You're trying to deflect and dodge...again.



So it's both? As Mt. Everest was rising from the sea floor to its present height in less than a year, clams were swimming up to it, attaching themselves, while being buried and fossilized?

Darwinists hate sticking to the topic.

 

[Jose Fly]

Learn to pay attention Stripe. 6days first brought up the claim that marine fossils on mountaintops are evidence of a global flood. I'm just following up on that.

 

[Stripe]

Learn to pay attention Stripe. 6days first brought up the claim that marine fossils on mountaintops are evidence of a global flood. I'm just following up on that.

Darwinists hate sticking to the topic.

 

[chair]

You're just throwing out things to say without being precise. What claims do you find problematic?

What's the bet that my "claims" are things you've made up for me to say.

The bet is that you are dodging as usual. I am not going to dig through 400 posts to find your claims. You are a liar, Stripe, and you take an evil pleasure in irritating people. I suppose you are one of those that thinks God doesn't care how people behave, as long as they believe.

 

[Stripe]

The bet is that you are dodging as usual. I am not going to dig through 400 posts to find your claims. You are a liar, Stripe, and you take an evil pleasure in irritating people. I suppose you are one of those that thinks God doesn't care how people behave, as long as they believe.

Unfortunately for your narrative, I have responded to all of your challenges that are on the topic of this thread. Moreover, when pressed to show where I have been "dishonest," you run for the hills.

We prefer a rational discussion, not your vitriol.

"Thanks."

 

[6days]

Learn to pay attention Stripe. 6days first brought up the claim that marine fossils on mountaintops are evidence of a global flood. I'm just following up on that.

Stripe is not the one that needs to pay attention.
Yes... marine fossils on every continent...on every mountain range is one of the evidences of the global flood.

 

[Jonahdog]

Stripe is not the one that needs to pay attention.
Yes... marine fossils on every continent...on every mountain range is one of the evidences of the global flood.

Were those marine fossils formed before the Flood or during the Flood?

 

[Greg Jennings]

You jumped in part way through the chat Jose and I were having, so missed out on the context.
Jose asked mockingly if something he misrepresented makes sense.
So..... I'm asking him if these evolutionist things make sense. The answer is no..... but evolutionists believe anyways.

* Don't you believe that creatures like T-rex evolved feathers then morphed *and eventually learned to fly? *

No. T-Rex and dinosaurs "like it" are not thought to have evolved into birds. T-Rex went extinct straight up. The end of his species' existence was a bad time for gigantic predatory animals to be alive.

However, smaller therapods such as raptors (some of which had feathers and/or hollow bones - features unique to birds, of course) and obviously the little winged dinosaurs such as archaeopteryx did likely give rise to birds. So you're a bit off base

*Don't you believe that nothing caused everything?*Or, do you believe there is a cause which existed eternally?*

This has nothing to do with evolution, which the majority of Christians accept alongside the existence of God. If you admit as much I'll be happy to answer your question, but it looks like you're trying to turn evolution into an atheist vs Christian war that simply doesn't exist.

*And *even though the law of biogenesis tells us life comes from life, you believe life can come from non life?*

The Urey-Miller experiment is run every year by many different colleges with the same results every time. Those results are that simple, ambiguously "living" organisms are indirect results of atmospheric effects of early Earth's primitive environment (the conditions of which are mimicked in the lab). Ever since the first time it was run we've known that amino and nucleic acids are assembled from inorganic material under early Earth conditions. The experiment has progressed over the years to actually get to the point where extremely simple and strange (to us) forms of "life" are there. They move, reproduce, and take in "food" material as well as excrete waste, but are even simpler than bacteria for they have no true genetic information.

Because of ethical concerns, namely what would happen if these "alien" critters got out and infected normal Earth life, the simple organisms are destroyed as soon as the experiment is over every time.


The point of that whole spiel being: the law of biogenesis is true of organic systems. However, we're talking about a time before organic systems existed. Can life arise from non-life? Experiments seem to show that it's possible. Is that what happened, or did a god spark life into being from non-life? Maybe. But we know it's possible because we can do it.

*And... the fine tuned universe, isn't fine tuned?*

If the universe had gravity 1,000,000 times greater than it does now, and as a result humans all had boneless, blobby bodies that could withstand the great pressure, you would be arguing that the universe was fine-tuned to blobby boneless humanity, and that was proof of God.

That doesn't make sense. Wherever you find life, it will likely be "fine-tuned" to its environment because it adapted to fit its environment.

*Don't you believe that the DNA code, along with molecular motors, and self repair mechanisms is really just molecules that assembled itself?*
Could go either way on that one, really. Again it's possible it could happen without outside influence, but I suppose that doesn't mean it didn't have outside influence. There just isn't really a reason to expect there to be another factor

*And would you say that sudden appearance in the fossil record, along with the appearance of design; *can not really be considered as sudden? And, that although, there is the appearance of design, you won't consider the Designer?

I've told you over and over that I have no issue with a God of some kind existing. But I can assure you that if he does, then he created Earth about 4.5 billion years ago and he evolves life.

But speaking of sudden appearances in the fossil record, how do you explain that mammoths are only found in rock layers below those that contain dinosaurs? Humans as well. Why is that? Or can you show me where modern animal species remains were found alongside dinosaurs?

We could go on...and on pointing out your anti-science and religious belief system.*

What university did you receive your scientific education from again? You've never answered that question go matter how many times I've asked. Do please, okay?

Oh dear Greg..... you are loved. Jose was told his question was a false dilemma fallacy. You can google that.

10 points for me! You dodged just as I predicted!


Either answer this question, or explain exactly how it is a "false dilemma fallacy," please. Just don't be a dishonest dodger again:

Now instead of dodging, try answering Jose's question: "So which of the two scenarios is the "Biblical model"...clams swimming to the top of Everest, or Everest forming in about 1 year?"

When you predictably dodge again, you'll once again know why YECism is such a laughable concept

 

[6days]

No. T-Rex and dinosaurs "like it" are not thought to have evolved into birds.

Evolutionists don't know what to believe, but are almost willing to believe anything. (Greg, you should do some research)

This article talks about a feathered tyrannosaur and its iconic descendants. The article closes by suggesting they are weird birds.
http://www.wired.com/2012/04/yutyrannus-huali-feathers/

*Don't you believe that nothing caused everything?*Or, do you believe there is a cause which existed eternally?

This has nothing to do with evolution...

Haha..... I did not say it did, but its funny that is your response. In fact though, it does have to do with our origins.... and stellar evolution.

The Urey-Miller experiment is run every year by many different colleges with the same results every time. Those results are that simple, ambiguously "living" organisms are indirect results of atmospheric effects of early Earth's primitive environment

Greg... You really need do research and not rely on your blind faith. The Miller Urey experiment is a failure if the intention was to show life from from non life. Because many, if not the most scientists know the experiment fails, they look for origins of life outside our solar system..... aliens anyone?

To start with the Miller Urey experiment shows that extreme intelligence... far beyond our current knowledge would be required. There are so many things about the experiment that show living organisms can't possibly be the result of "atmospheric effects". And, your comment about earths primitive atmosphere is silly. That is another thing evolutionists can't decide what to believe. They NEED a reducing atmosphere, but the evidence often gets in the way.
"A recent Nature publication reports a new technique for measuring the oxygen levels in Earth's atmosphere some 4.4 billion years ago. The authors found that by studying cerium oxidation states in zircon, a compound formed from volcanic magma, they could ascertain the oxidation levels in the early earth. Their findings suggest that the early Earth's oxygen levels were very close to current levels.

"This takes the window of time available for life to have begun, by an origin-of-life scenario like the RNA-first world, and reduces it to an incredibly short amount of time. Several factors need to coincide in order for nucleotides or amino acids to form from purely naturalistic circumstances (chance and chemistry). The specific conditions required already made purely naturalist origin-of-life scenarios highly unlikely. Drastically reducing the amount of time available, adding that to the other conditions needing to be fulfilled, makes the RNA world hypothesis or a Miller-Urey-like synthesis of amino acids simply impossible." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/post_34053831.html

*And... the fine tuned universe, isn't fine tuned?

That doesn't make sense. Wherever you find life, it will likely be "fine-tuned" to its environment because it adapted to fit its environment.

Likely...woulda...coulda...shoulda. I'm talking about evidence. You are talking about hypothetical beliefs that life came from non life...or that it exists elsewhere.

Fred Hoyle, astrophysicist "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Don't you believe that the DNA code, along with molecular motors, and self repair mechanisms is really just molecules that assembled itself?

Could go either way on that one, really. Again it's possible it could happen without outside influence.....

I had to laugh.

*And would you say that sudden appearance in the fossil record, along with the appearance of design; can not really be considered as sudden? And, that although, there is the appearance of design, you won't consider the Designer?

I've told you over and over that I have no issue with a God of some kind existing.

Including the Creator God of the Bible???

But I can assure you that if he does, then he created Earth about 4.5 billion years ago and he evolves life.

Both His Word, and the evidence from the world around ys contradict your beliefs.

But speaking of sudden appearances in the fossil record, how do you explain that mammoths are only found in rock layers below those that contain dinosaurs? Humans as well. Why is that? Or can you show me where modern animal species remains were found alongside dinosaurs?

I think you mean above? In the creation flood model we would expect them above, but possibly with some intermingling.

And... it has been pointed out here in TOL before that modern "species" ARE found sometimes "alongside dinosaur layers". Example.... One of these is a modern bird. The other in a secular museum display found in dino layers.
View attachment 23720

We could go on...and on pointing out your anti-science and religious belief system.

What university did you receive your scientific education from again? You've never answered that question go matter how many times I've asked. Do please, okay?

Your question was answered... What I told you was that if you have any college education, you wasted your money. If you don't have college education, its pretty obvious. IOW.... That is ad hominem fallacy attacking the person rather than their argument.

Oh dear Greg..... you are loved. Jose was told his question was a false dilemma fallacy. You can google that.

10 points for me! You dodged just as I predicted!

Hee hee... No my friend. You are the student and can not grade your own answers. I have a assigned you a F since you didn't complete the assignment.

Now instead of dodging, try answering Jose's question: "So which of the two scenarios is the "Biblical model"...clams swimming to the top of Everest, or Everest forming in about 1 year?"

If you had completed the assignment, you would have found that a FALSE DILEMA is " A fallacy of oversimplification that offers a limited number of options (usually two) when in reality more options are available.". For example, John Morris PhD Geological Engineering has said that the effects of uplifts, volcanic activity, tsunamis etc night have continued a couple hundred years. Greg..... Do your assignments. Don't just blindly follow Jose, and illogical conclusions.

 

[6days]

Were those marine fossils formed before the Flood or during the Flood?

Fossilization is not a normal process. Often it is evidence of catastrophic burial preserving an organism...protecting it from scavengers and oxidation. (A dead dino laying out on the plains, or a whale on a beach, would not be fossilized). Billions of dead things preserved in sedimentary / water borne layers everywhere on earth is great evidence of the global flood and God's Word.