Creationists, please provide evidence

[Autodidact]

why not?

because the brain capacity of modern humans (us) includes areas of brain function specifically for language

to claim that any modern humans lived without language is pure speculation and opinion.

Without writing is not the same thing as without language, by a long shot. Language was probably around for a long, long time before someone figured out you could represent it by symbols. It's a huge, magnificent, amazing invention--possibly the most important invention in the history of humanity.

 

[Autodidact]

Intrestingly, there are 4 genera of rhinoceri, including the massive White Rhino (7700 pounds!) of terrifying muscle. So don't forget to pack 8 rhinos on that wooden boat.

 

[Autodidact]

This has been stated for quite some time now btw. In 1978 Professor Dr. A. E. Wilder Smith wrote: “A number of mostly young authorities have become convinced in recent years that biogenesis, the origin of life, was not monophyletic (all living things derived from a single cell), but rather polyphyletic (from many sources). Therefore there are authorities today who no longer believe that all species derived by means of transformism from one original cell. They do not believe that all species had a common biological ancestral tree with a single root for all forms of life.”

"Professor" A.E. Wilder was a chemist, a liar, a nutjob and and Young Earth Creationist whose knowledge of Biology does not exceed your own.

ToE is the foundational, consensus, mainstream theory in modern Biology. Anyone who tells you different is lying to you. Fact.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Intrestingly, there are 4 genera of rhinoceri, including the massive White Rhino (7700 pounds!) of terrifying muscle. So don't forget to pack 8 rhinos on that wooden boat.

They can go next to the 14 giraffes (which are considered "clean" animals).

 

[Skwim]

More than that, actually. Noah was instructed to bring seven pairs of animals for the "clean" kinds.

Going by Leviticus 11, "clean kinds" would include most even-toed ruminant ungulates; all fish with fins and scales; all birds except most raptors, herons, storks, the hoopoe, and the bat (!); and all locusts, katydids, crickets and grasshoppers, but not other winged creatures that "go on all fours"(!).

That would've been one crowded boat. Especially when we consider that the list of "clean" animals includes a lot of very large livestock.

However, I have to quibble with you on one point: Genesis 7 doesn't record Noah ever being told to bring any plants. Apparently, they all survived the flood on their own somehow.

Absolutely right. I just didn't have the inclination to try to figure it out. But it' is a good point, particularly ,as you say, some of the "seven" were large animals.

 

[Noaidi]

They can go next to the 14 giraffes (which are considered "clean" animals).

With all these giraffes, rhinos and elephants on the boat, I'm glad I wasn't one of Noah's helpers shovelling all that s*** about...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Intrestingly, there are 4 genera of rhinoceri, including the massive White Rhino (7700 pounds!) of terrifying muscle. So don't forget to pack 8 rhinos on that wooden boat.

I just did some digging: apparently there's some controversy as to whether rhinocerous is kosher. It's got a split hoof, but because it's an odd-toed ungulate, the split isn't in the middle of the hoof. Apparently, some Jewish scholars say that having the split in the middle is part of the requirement (making rhino "unclean"), but others say that it's not (making it "clean").

Do you think Noah would've packed 7 pairs of each genera of rhino just to be on the safe side? 56 rhinos is a lot of rhino.

 

[Autodidact]

land ridges perhaps?
Oceanographers have found numerous land ridges connecting isolated land areas. There is the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and there could be other they have not found yet. But one thing they have found is that there was a huge South Pacific continent that took in Australia and many of the South Sea isles.... so migration along such paths is not impossible....just as it wasnt impossible for humans to migrate to isolated lands.

Are you referring to this?

(btw, this map, according to geologists, represent about 195 million years ago, not 4000.)

As you can see, Australia is down there at the bottom attached to Antarctica, which is attached to Africa, so now you're claiming the wombats marched across Antarctica on their way to Australia?

Any evidence of that?

So what you would have then is the continents breaking up and moving across the oceans at an astounding rate, generating huge earthquakes and tsunamis throughout recorded history. Any records of that? Did the peoples of the Bible happen to notice the Pacific Ocean to their immediate East?

Here is a map:

Armenia and Australia are around 9000 miles apart. A single wombat could traverse perhaps a mile in its lifetime. Wombats live around 5 years. So if every wombat in the last 4000 years did nothing but walk to Australia, they would not have gotten there by now.

And of course, we know they were there when the Europeans arrived in 1793. Interestingly, in your scenario the wombats walk across a presently non-existent "land ridge" that left no evidence of its existence in the Indian Ocean, without leaving any descendants or fossils along the way. In other words, there is no evidence of this putative land ridge, and no evidence of an immigration of wombats from Armenia to Australia.

possibly. Lack of evidence is not evidence in itself.

The answer is no, these fossils have not been found.

I dont know, why dont you tell me.

Sure, this thoroughly explained by ToE, glad you asked. The creatures that went extinct millions of years ago are in the older, lower, layers, while the creatures that evolved in the last few millions years are in the higher, newer layers.

 

[Autodidact]

No. The human 'kind' was a one off creation. Today a human 'kind' would be
African, Asian, Semitic, European ect ect ect

I thought a "kind" was a genus? Did you want to change your answer?

If they can interbreed, yes they are the same kind. If they can produce offspring or hybrids, yes they are the same kind.

This is what is confusing us. This is the definition of a species. But you are saying a "kind" is a genus. You're contradicting yourself.

yes. Just as Evolution says they do.

According, to ToE, this happened over several million years, not a few thousand. Evolution is a slow, gradual process, not a sudden transformation.

You dont seem to get it.
The African bush elephant, African forest elephant and the Asian Elephant are the same kind. They are the only 3 species of elephant alive on earth today and they are the same kind.

The two elephants that Noah took on the ark were able to produce these 3 'species' (according to biologists definition of a species) of elephant because a genesis 'kind' is the ancestor of all three. They are an example of how genetics can produce a number of varieties within a genre.

No, we don't get it. You said that "kind" is genus. There are two extant genera of elephants, as well as of course many extinct elephants, such as three known Genera of deinotheriums, Chilgatherium, Prodeinotherium, and Deinotherium. The largest species of deinotheriums was Deinotherium giganteum. This species was larger than the modern day elephant, standing about four m (13.1 ft.) in height at the shoulder. There are tons of other extinct genera, like the Elephantidae family comprised of six genera and 26 species. So I'm counting a minimum of 100 or so elephants on that wooden boat. And don't forget those rhinos! Getting a bit crowded with mammals alone!

 

[Autodidact]

yep fair enough, I should have said

when they say "from a crustacean (or a whale depending on who you listen to) came the hippopotamus"



I dont know if he was a YEC, but so what if he was...his study of neo darwinism evolution led him to point out the same discrepancies that others have pointed out.

In addition to being most well-known for perpetuating a known fraud, the Paluxy footprints, Dr. Wilder was not a Biologist. To use his YEC baloney as an example of the position of modern Biologists is just dishonest.

I don't really think you're a dishonest person, Pegg, I think you've been lied to by people you trust. If I were you I'd be angry at them--they've deceived you, and tricked you into making a fool of yourself. Who are these people?

 

[Autodidact]

You have but you choose to ignore them.

Hypothesis: Life comes only from life, except for the ultimate source. (Psalm 36:9) Proof: All living things come from other living things. Conclusion: There is no evidence life spontaneously poofed into existence. Oh, wait, evolutionists don't want to get into how life came about (not relevant or too embarrassing?)

You seem to be interested in abiogenesis. You may wish to start a thread. This one is about evolution. thanks.

Hypothesis: A super intelligent Person is responsible for life. Proof: Design requires a designer. (Hebrews 3:4) Design is evident in all creation. Conclusion: An intelligent Designer is responsible for life, not chance or environmental factors.

*raises her tired fingers yet one more time to type these oft repeated words*

HOW. HOW. HOW, NOT WHO, HOW.

Hypothesis: Animals and plants reproduce within the boundaries of their specific kind. (Genesis 1:24) Proof: Reasonable people acknowledge there are limits to which animals and plants can successfully be interbred. Conclusion: the Bible is correct in stating animals and plants do not evolve into new 'kinds'.

Your first step would be to define what you mean by "kind." Second, reasonable people's beliefs are not evidence. Do you know what "evidence" is?

There are many other proofs for creation and against evolution, including what the fossil record really reveals, versus what ToE advocates claim it reveals.

Great, could you share some with us?

Your first step would be to lay out your hypothesis for HOW, not WHO but HOW God created the various species.

Remember, we agree on the WHO--God. We're looking for the HOW.

 

[Autodidact]

the mammoth is a variety of elephant, recent dna testing links it with modern asian elephants, so in harmony with genesis I would say that it was just another variety of the elephant kind.

I thought a "kind" was a genus? They are not the same genus. Did you want to change your definition of "kind?"

I think you will find, Pegg, that no matter how you define "kind" you've got a problem. Either it's too broad, and you would need to see hyperevolution such as has never been observed and which violates the evidence, or it's too narrow, and there's no way to fit them on the ark. For example, >100 different elephant-like genera? On a wooden boat? And please don't get me started with beetles.

 

[newhope101]

I thought a "kind" was a genus? Did you want to change your answer?

This is what is confusing us. This is the definition of a species. But you are saying a "kind" is a genus. You're contradicting yourself.
According, to ToE, this happened over several million years, not a few thousand. Evolution is a slow, gradual process, not a sudden transformation.

No, we don't get it. You said that "kind" is genus. There are two extant genera of elephants, as well as of course many extinct elephants, such as three known Genera of deinotheriums, Chilgatherium, Prodeinotherium, and Deinotherium. The largest species of deinotheriums was Deinotherium giganteum. This species was larger than the modern day elephant, standing about four m (13.1 ft.) in height at the shoulder. There are tons of other extinct genera, like the Elephantidae family comprised of six genera and 26 species. So I'm counting a minimum of 100 or so elephants on that wooden boat. And don't forget those rhinos! Getting a bit crowded with mammals alone!

DNA Shows That Last Woolly Mammoths Had North American Roots
ScienceDaily (Sep. 5, 2008) — In a surprising reversal of conventional wisdom, a DNA-based study has revealed that the last of the woolly mammoths—which lived between 40,000 and 4,000 years ago—had roots that were exclusively North American
"Migrations over Beringia [the land bridge that once spanned the Bering Strait] were rare; it served as a filter to keep eastern and western groups or populations of woollies apart, says Poinar. "However, it now appears that mammoths established themselves in North America much earlier than presumed, then migrated back to Siberia, and eventually replaced all pre-existing haplotypes of mammoths."
"Small-scale population replacements, as we call them, are not a rare phenomenon within species, but ones occurring on a continental scale certainly are," says Ross MacPhee, curator of mammalogy at the American Museum of Natural History, and one of the researchers on the study. "We never expected that there might have been a complete overturn in woolly mammoths, but this is the sort of discoveries that are being made using ancient DNA. Bones and teeth are not always sensitive guides."
"Like paleontologists, molecular biologists have long been operating under a geographic bias," says Debruyne.
What happened next, says Poinar, is a mystery: The Siberian genetic forms began to disappear and were replaced by North American migrants.
　
Noah needed only two mammoths. For such a purported educated bunch you appear to have extreme difficulty grasping the creationist term ‘kind’, ‘family‘, which is a whole less confusing than the ‘species problem’.

The genomic evidence states mammoths were around until 4,000 years ago when they went extinct. Of course, they went extinct. They drowned, except for the ones on Noah’s ark. Once again, true scientific research supports the bible and the Genesis account. This evidence is not a “mystery” to creationists. However evolutionists pretend they have this all worked out. Do any of you pretend to have more expertise than leading scientists in the field?

Below cites evidence of the Ark being discovered. Of course there is controversy as with most discoveries. Let’s see what the UN says. These listings can take years.
　
Yet again the evidence supports a bible account. You asked for evidence. Some has been provided. Creationists can explain what happened in 'this mystery'. Your turn. You explain what happened to these mammoths, as these researchers cannot. With evidence please! Bet you can't.......
　
National Geographic: Noah's Ark Found in Turkey?
Noah's Ark Location in Turkey a Secret
The team claims to have found in 2007 and 2008 seven large wooden compartments buried at 13,000 feet (4,000 meters) above sea level, near the peak of Mount Ararat. They returned to the site with a film crew in October 2009.
The team says radiocarbon-dated wood taken from the discovery site—whose location they're keeping secret for now—shows the purported ark is about 4,800 years old, which coincides roughly with the time of Noah's flood implied by the Bible.
On its Web site, Noah's Ark Ministries International says the Turkish government plans to apply to the United Nations to put the Noah's ark discovery site on the UNESCO World Heritage list, a designation given to places of special cultural or physical significance.

 

[PolyHedral]

For such a purported educated bunch you appear to have extreme difficulty grasping the creationist term ‘kind’, ‘family‘, which is a whole less confusing than the ‘species problem’.

You expect us not to be confused when you are defining "kind" to be two contradictory things at once?

The genomic evidence states mammoths were around until 4,000 years ago when they went extinct. Of course, they went extinct. They drowned, except for the ones on Noah’s ark. Once again, true scientific research supports the bible and the Genesis account. This evidence is not a “mystery” to creationists. However evolutionists pretend they have this all worked out. Do any of you pretend to have more expertise than leading scientists in the field?

So what happened to them? The mammoths on the Ark, that is.

 

[Autodidact]

DNA Shows That Last Woolly Mammoths Had North American Roots
ScienceDaily (Sep. 5, 2008) — In a surprising reversal of conventional wisdom, a DNA-based study has revealed that the last of the woolly mammoths—which lived between 40,000 and 4,000 years ago—had roots that were exclusively North American
"Migrations over Beringia [the land bridge that once spanned the Bering Strait] were rare; it served as a filter to keep eastern and western groups or populations of woollies apart, says Poinar. "However, it now appears that mammoths established themselves in North America much earlier than presumed, then migrated back to Siberia, and eventually replaced all pre-existing haplotypes of mammoths."
"Small-scale population replacements, as we call them, are not a rare phenomenon within species, but ones occurring on a continental scale certainly are," says Ross MacPhee, curator of mammalogy at the American Museum of Natural History, and one of the researchers on the study. "We never expected that there might have been a complete overturn in woolly mammoths, but this is the sort of discoveries that are being made using ancient DNA. Bones and teeth are not always sensitive guides."
"Like paleontologists, molecular biologists have long been operating under a geographic bias," says Debruyne.
What happened next, says Poinar, is a mystery: The Siberian genetic forms began to disappear and were replaced by North American migrants.
　
Noah needed only two mammoths. For such a purported educated bunch you appear to have extreme difficulty grasping the creationist term ‘kind’, ‘family‘, which is a whole less confusing than the ‘species problem’.

Yes, we're having a very hard time grasping what YOU mean, because your answer keeps changing. So are you saying that a "kind" is a family? Because Pegg thinks it's a genus. Do you disagree with her?

The genomic evidence states mammoths were around until 4,000 years ago when they went extinct. Of course, they went extinct. They drowned, except for the ones on Noah’s ark. Once again, true scientific research supports the bible and the Genesis account. This evidence is not a “mystery” to creationists. However evolutionists pretend they have this all worked out. Do any of you pretend to have more expertise than leading scientists in the field?

No, I certainly don't.

So what is your position on when all this happened? I don't believe you've told us. Do you agree that the earth is about 4.56 billion years old?

Did I correctly state your hypothesis this time?
　

 

[Autodidact]

You expect us not to be confused when you are defining "kind" to be two contradictory things at once?


So what happened to them? The mammoths on the Ark, that is.

Pardon me for speaking for Newhope, but I believe she's saying they failed to get on board, drowned and thereby went extinct.

 

[PolyHedral]

Or maybe the impossible physics of the Ark caught up with them? (and only them...)

 

[tumbleweed41]

The genomic evidence states mammoths were around until 4,000 years ago when they went extinct.

Except for the ones on the Ark. Who apparently failed to reproduce.
(Wonder why God saved them, only to have them die off so soon after the flood?)

 

[newhope101]

New Model Provides More Effective Basis for Biodiversity Conservation

ScienceDaily (Sep. 12, 2010) — A mathematical model that provides a more effective basis for biodiversity conservation than existing frameworks has been developed by a researcher at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

The complexity of ecological systems, expressed in the large variation in morphology, physiology and behavior of individuals of different species, individuals of the same species, or even the same individual in different environments, makes the understanding of the mechanisms affecting the diversity of ecological communities extremely difficult.
As a consequence, most theories of biodiversity are either limited to a single mechanism, or rely on highly simplified and possibly unrealistic assumptions. Thus, after more than a century of intensive research on species diversity, the world still lacks a solid, theoretical foundation that can effectively guide decision makers.


Please refer back to Wiki 'species problem' & 'race'. Researchers themselves lack clarity. You all would prefer to harp on a side point rather than address the challenge.

Can you refute my evidence re the extinction of the mammoth with current evidence or not? You demand evidence. Some has been supplied...now refute it with more evidence. And please don't quote something that is 'old' outdated information. Instead woffle and side issues are what you want to discuss.

If none adequately provide a refute to my evidence, that's a victory for Pegg and I.

You have gone on and on about evidence and when evidence is provided you have side stepped and taken on side issues.

Now can you or can you NOT provide evidence that better explains the 'mammoth mystery' than mine ????????????

 

[PolyHedral]

Why are you quoting an article about a set of mathematics that implicitly assumes evolution is true? Also, your theory leaves 2 mammoths falling off the edge of the world. Does it at all answer that?

Also, the species problem is indirect evidence that evolution is true. The fact that it is not easy to separate organisms suggests that God did not design them as discreet "kinds." (if He designed them in the first place)