• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Creationists, please provide evidence

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
If you're going to look for scientific evidence, you need a scientific hypothesis. And that hypothesis really does need to be clearly defined. So, again, what is a kind? A species? A genus? A family? Or something else? If so, what?
You know, if the whole notion of "kind" is correct, then this line of questioning would be a lot like a medieval doctor criticizing a modern one over the fact that she can't say which type of humour lymph fluid is.

So they've posited that there is a classification system that uses the unit of the "kind". While they haven't specified this system well (or at all), I see no particular reason why it needs to cleanly line up with Linnaean classification.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
correction

I've stated it over and over and over and over

Kind = Genus.
But you just contradicted yourself. The White Rhino, Ceratotherium simum and the Black Rhino, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diceros_bicornisDiceros bicornis, are two different genera. If kind = genus, then they would be two different kinds. Duh. But you just got telling us they're the same kind. See why we're confused about your position? You keep contradicting yourself. Tell you what, when you figure out what a kind is, get back to us, O.K.?

This illustrates the classic creationist problem with respect to the word "kind," and the reason they cannot accept a single definition. They want it to mean what they want it to mean when they want it to. Then they're frustrated when you expect them to stick to a single definition. Once again, we see that creationism is not science.
 

RedOne77

Active Member
You know, if the whole notion of "kind" is correct, then this line of questioning would be a lot like a medieval doctor criticizing a modern one over the fact that she can't say which type of humour lymph fluid is.

So they've posited that there is a classification system that uses the unit of the "kind". While they haven't specified this system well (or at all), I see no particular reason why it needs to cleanly line up with Linnaean classification.

I agree. Linnaean classification is a human organizational tool that attempts to systematically organize life. I don't like to ask creationists which taxonomic rank kind is, rather I like to ask what distinguishes one kind from another, or everyone's favorite: what the **** is a "kind".
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
let me try to make this as plain as possible because it seems that modern biology has complicated something that should not be so complicated.

In modern biology, by breaking down every different type of creature on earth, they cateogorize...lets say humans, in this way:
Kingdom: Animals
Phylum: Chordates
Class: Mammals
Order: Primates
Family: Hominids
Genus: Homo
Species: sapiens

But in genesis, the 'KIND' is not concerned with anything above or below Genus.

So humans are a 'kind' in their own right...there is no linking them with the family above or the species below. They are simply a homo whether they are black, white, red, Asian, Semitic, Caucasian or African. Their breed does not set them apart from other breeds (nationalities)...they are all one genus/kind.

Lets take another simple example of the dog. As we know dogs descended from wolves we can say that Noah took 2 wolves onto the ark. From those two wolves, a variety of dogs came into existence...they are still all the same genus but have developed a variety of different features....just like humans have....so whether they are a Great Dane or a Jack Russell, they are all the same genus/kind.

How about the elephants. All elephants are related and so all elephants are of the same genus...they are a 'kind' and the two that were taken onto the ark have produced the few varieties we see on earth today. All of what biologists call a different species are the same genesis 'kind'...they are of the same genus.

A Genesis 'kind' is very simple. The kind is the common ancestor of all the variety found within that genus. (in modern biology, all the species found within a genus is a genesis kind) What makes them of the same 'kind' or 'genus' is their ability to interbreed and produce offspring. The boundary between “kinds” is drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur.. Its that simple. “kind” is not a scientific term and should not be confused with the scientific designation “species”

Yes, you have made it as clear as glass that you are contradicting yourself. A "kind" is a genus. Except that genus homo contains several kinds, and species sapiens is its own kind. Homo sapiens is a species, not a genus. So a kind is a genus, except when it's a species? Is that what you're saying? Because if so, you haven't defined it at all. In fact, you're demonstrating exactly what I said, an obstinate refusal or inability to be pinned down to any one definition, and a tendency to define the term differently in different contexts. Which is intellectually dishonest, and makes it impossible to even begin to look for evidence--the point of this thread--because you still don't have a hypothesis.

btw, if you solve this problem, you'll be the first creationist in history to do so. Have you seen what the Baraminology Working Group at AIG came up with? Let me know if you want a good laugh and I'll dig it up for you.
 
Last edited:

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
You know, if the whole notion of "kind" is correct, then this line of questioning would be a lot like a medieval doctor criticizing a modern one over the fact that she can't say which type of humour lymph fluid is.

So they've posited that there is a classification system that uses the unit of the "kind". While they haven't specified this system well (or at all), I see no particular reason why it needs to cleanly line up with Linnaean classification.

That's why I add the option of "something else." They could invent their own classification system entirely, and we could look at that. But you do have to be willing to define your terms, and also give a criteria, and stick to it. We call that "science." We also call it "honesty."
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
So a kind is a genus, except when it's a species? Is that what you're saying? Because if so, you haven't defined it at all. In fact, you're demonstrating exactly what I said, an obstinate refusal or inability to be pinned down to any one definition, and a tendency to define the term differently in different contexts. Which is intellectually dishonest, and makes it impossible to even begin to look for evidence--the point of this thread--because you still don't have a hypothesis.
There are plenty of hypotheses if we approach the subject honestly. Here is one based just on Genesis 1:

- sea creatures, birds and land animals are all sets of different "kinds". i.e. no "kind" includes both sea creatures and birds, birds and land animals, or sea creatures and land animals.

And going by Genesis 7 (the flood story):

- "clean" and "unclean" animals are different "kinds". i.e. no "kind" includes both kosher and non-kosher animals.

If we use Leviticus 11 to differentiate "clean" and "unclean" kinds, we get this hypothesis:

- any animal that both has a split hoof and is a ruminant is in a different "kind" from any animal that does not share both of these characteristics.

That's a whole whack of hypotheses right there, completely free and available for any honest creationist to test. I'm sure that someone more familiar with the Bible than I am could come up with plenty more.

The problem isn't that creationism can't create testable hypotheses; the problem is that creationists don't seem interested in actually testing them.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
There are plenty of hypotheses if we approach the subject honestly. Here is one based just on Genesis 1:

- sea creatures, birds and land animals are all sets of different "kinds". i.e. no "kind" includes both sea creatures and birds, birds and land animals, or sea creatures and land animals.

And going by Genesis 7 (the flood story):

- "clean" and "unclean" animals are different "kinds". i.e. no "kind" includes both kosher and non-kosher animals.

If we use Leviticus 11 to differentiate "clean" and "unclean" kinds, we get this hypothesis:

- any animal that both has a split hoof and is a ruminant is in a different "kind" from any animal that does not share both of these characteristics.

That's a whole whack of hypotheses right there, completely free and available for any honest creationist to test. I'm sure that someone more familiar with the Bible than I am could come up with plenty more.

The problem isn't that creationism can't create testable hypotheses; the problem is that creationists don't seem interested in actually testing them.

I think you can go further than that:

"You may eat all clean birds. But these are the ones which you shall not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the osprey, the buzzard, the kite, after their kinds; every raven after its kind; the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk, after their kinds; the little owl and the great owl, the water hen and the pelican, the carrion vulture and the cormorant, the stork, the heron, after their kinds; the hoopoe and the bat.
Deuteronomy 14:4-18

So I get that eagles, vultures, buzzards, kites, ravens, ostriches, nighthawks, sea gulls, hawks, little owls, great owls, water hens (?), pelicans, carrion vultures, cormorants, storks, herons, hoopoes and bats are all different kinds. That's a lot of information about kinds that creationists tend to disregard.
 

newhope101

Active Member
But you haven't presented any evidence yet, NewHope, because...wait for it...I bet you can see it coming...you haven't stated a hypothesis yet. And I'm sure you'll agree, without a hypothesis, there's no way of knowing if any given fact is evidence for it or not.

No Autodidact..you simply cannot refute the evidence re the mammoth. I see you attacked the ark info. As usual sidelines and 'what's your hypthesis' is the only defence some of you have.



Mass Extinction: Why Did Half of N. America's Large Mammals Disappear 40,000 to 10,000 Years Ago?

ScienceDaily (Nov. 27, 2009) — Years of scientific debate over the extinction of ancient species in North America have yielded many theories. However, new findings from J. Tyler Faith, GW Ph.D. candidate in the hominid paleobiology doctoral program, and Todd Surovell, associate professor of anthropology at the University of Wyoming, reveal that a mass extinction occurred in a geological instant.
  • During the late Pleistocene, 40,000 to 10,000 years ago, North America lost over 50 percent of its large mammal species. These species include mammoths, mastodons, giant ground sloths, among many others. In total, 35 different genera (groups of species) disappeared, all of different habitat preferences and feeding habits.
However, new findings from Faith indicate that the extinction is best characterized as a sudden event that took place between 13.8 and 11.4 thousand years ago. Faith's findings support the idea that this mass extinction was due to human overkill, comet impact or other rapid events rather than a slow attrition
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
No Autodidact..you simply cannot refute the evidence re the mammoth. I see you attacked the ark info. As usual sidelines and 'what's your hypthesis' is the only defence some of you have.



newhope: You seem to be having difficulty understanding what we're doing here. This is a thread in which you can present evidence in support of your hypothesis. Obviously, to do that, you need to first state your hypothesis, don't you agree? How could you begin to present evidence if you don't know what it's supposed to support or refute? So, do you have a hypothesis? If not, bye. If so, what is it? Please be specific. And remember,

HOW. NOT WHO, HOW.
Thanks.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Mass Extinction: Why Did Half of N. America's Large Mammals Disappear 40,000 to 10,000 Years Ago?


ScienceDaily (Nov. 27, 2009) — Years of scientific debate over the extinction of ancient species in North America have yielded many theories. However, new findings from J. Tyler Faith, GW Ph.D. candidate in the hominid paleobiology doctoral program, and Todd Surovell, associate professor of anthropology at the University of Wyoming, reveal that a mass extinction occurred in a geological instant.
  • During the late Pleistocene, 40,000 to 10,000 years ago, North America lost over 50 percent of its large mammal species. These species include mammoths, mastodons, giant ground sloths, among many others. In total, 35 different genera (groups of species) disappeared, all of different habitat preferences and feeding habits.
Are you suggesting that this event was caused by Noah's flood? If so, it doesn't really mesh up:

- it should have an extinction rate of much more than 50% - every species but one in each "kind" would have died out.

- no genera should have disappeared (assuming that genus is something close to "kind")

Also, the flood extinction would be worldwide. Do we see mass extinctions in other areas at the same date?
 

newhope101

Active Member
make up your mind.
Either all life comes from life or it doesn't.


1. what is and what is not designed
2. how do you tell the difference
3. Who/what designed god


1. define "kind"


Well rusra02, the problem here is that you have not presented any hypothesis.
You have merely made unsubstantiated claims and then tried to "support" said unsubstantiated claims with even more unsubstantiated claims.



If there is really as much proof as you claim there is, why has non of it been presented in this thread?
I mean so far all we have had in this thread is a bunch of unsubstantiated claims being used to support unsubstantiated claims, bold faced lies, misrepresentation of information, quote mining, article mining, etc.


nice appeal to emotion tactic.


There is more than sufficient evidence that reserchers lie for the sake of self glory and have no idea what they are doing. The dino-bird dilemma is just one example. As far as I am concerned this debarkle has finallised my theory that researchers are prepared to fabricate all evidence in a vain attempt to glorify themsleves.

Again, how many times have evolutionists shoved the dino to bird stages in creationist faces claiming it is irrefutable evidence of one kind morphing into another kind. Guess what ....they LIED. You LIED.

Researchers put dates to arch, dates for the proposed morphing along with the other dino bird fossils. Now they have proven it is the other way around. What they have proven is they are prepared to go to any length to scew the evidence to fit their theory and can scew the dates to fit anything they wish to propose.

It's one thing to get more clarity, it is another to get something so totally incorrect.

Oh and let's not forget that even while the dino to bird theory was running hot, they found birds there already with the dinosaurs. This is the science of baffoons. Then you have the cheek to criticize creationists.

Darwin is dead as is his theory. Majority acceptance is no proof of truth, we thought the world was flat..that was once upon a time.

Since some of you call creationists liars, I will call same huge liars also.

You lied when you posted your dino to bird info. You lied when you said it was irrefutable evidence. You lied when you said you had fossils and could show how all the bones and fossils morphed. You lied when you said the dates and the geological evidence supported the claim and it was fact.

The retraction of the dino to bird theory proves some evolutionists are prepared to lie and fabricate evidence.

These researchers were liars and they took you all for fools on the ride of a lifetime. You should all be embarassed at this fabrication of evidence.

You have all lied to creationists. You pretended to understand the evidence. You pretended that the evidence was clear and solid. You lied and criticised creationists as being stupid and uneducated for not accepting clear and substantiated evidence.

You will never live it down nor recover from this lie and fabrication of the supportive evidence and dating that was required. You lied for the sake of your cause. You are big pretenders that pretend to understand this evidence, when clearly you do not.

Most of you evolutionists are LIARS. You have lied and lied and lied about this.

LIARS!
 

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
You lied when you said it was irrefutable evidence. You lied when you said you had fossils and could show how all the bones and fossils morphed.
I don't remember anyone saying that. Mind providing an exact quote?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
There is more than sufficient evidence that reserchers lie for the sake of self glory and have no idea what they are doing.
Heh... I'm pretty sure that anyone who's motivated by "self glory" doesn't go into the field of evolutionary biology to begin with. :D
 

evolved yet?

A Young Evolutionist
There is more than sufficient evidence that reserchers lie for the sake of self glory and have no idea what they are doing. The dino-bird dilemma is just one example. As far as I am concerned this debarkle has finallised my theory that researchers are prepared to fabricate all evidence in a vain attempt to glorify themsleves.

Again, how many times have evolutionists shoved the dino to bird stages in creationist faces claiming it is irrefutable evidence of one kind morphing into another kind. Guess what ....they LIED. You LIED.

Researchers put dates to arch, dates for the proposed morphing along with the other dino bird fossils. Now they have proven it is the other way around. What they have proven is they are prepared to go to any length to scew the evidence to fit their theory and can scew the dates to fit anything they wish to propose.

It's one thing to get more clarity, it is another to get something so totally incorrect.

Oh and let's not forget that even while the dino to bird theory was running hot, they found birds there already with the dinosaurs. This is the science of baffoons. Then you have the cheek to criticize creationists.

Darwin is dead as is his theory. Majority acceptance is no proof of truth, we thought the world was flat..that was once upon a time.

Since some of you call creationists liars, I will call same huge liars also.

You lied when you posted your dino to bird info. You lied when you said it was irrefutable evidence. You lied when you said you had fossils and could show how all the bones and fossils morphed. You lied when you said the dates and the geological evidence supported the claim and it was fact.

The retraction of the dino to bird theory proves some evolutionists are prepared to lie and fabricate evidence.

These researchers were liars and they took you all for fools on the ride of a lifetime. You should all be embarassed at this fabrication of evidence.

You have all lied to creationists. You pretended to understand the evidence. You pretended that the evidence was clear and solid. You lied and criticised creationists as being stupid and uneducated for not accepting clear and substantiated evidence.

You will never live it down nor recover from this lie and fabrication of the supportive evidence and dating that was required. You lied for the sake of your cause. You are big pretenders that pretend to understand this evidence, when clearly you do not.

Most of you evolutionists are LIARS. You have lied and lied and lied about this.

LIARS!
I think that the overwhelming consensus is dinosaurs came first and what is wrong with debate over small aspects of a theory? Please provide evidence that we lie (an ad hominem I might add). What does "I will call same huge liars also" mean? Our evidence is stable and most of it is easy to understand.
 
Last edited:

evolved yet?

A Young Evolutionist
But you just contradicted yourself. The White Rhino, Ceratotherium simum and the Black Rhino, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diceros_bicornisDiceros bicornis, are two different genera. If kind = genus, then they would be two different kinds. Duh. But you just got telling us they're the same kind. See why we're confused about your position? You keep contradicting yourself. Tell you what, when you figure out what a kind is, get back to us, O.K.?

This illustrates the classic creationist problem with respect to the word "kind," and the reason they cannot accept a single definition. They want it to mean what they want it to mean when they want it to. Then they're frustrated when you expect them to stick to a single definition. Once again, we see that creationism is not science.
We've also seen one genus turn into a new genus (raphanobrassica)
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Hey Pegg and newhope, can we assume at this point that neither of you has a hypothesis and close the thread? After all, 70 pages--seems like you would have stated it by now.
 

newhope101

Active Member
Bird-from-Dinosaur Theory of Evolution Challenged: Was It the Other Way Around?

ScienceDaily (Feb. 10, 2010) — A new study just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences provides yet more evidence that birds did not descend from ground-dwelling theropod dinosaurs, experts say, and continues to challenge decades of accepted theories about the evolution of flight.
http://www.religiousforums.com/news/earth_climate/global_warming/
  • A new analysis was done of an unusual fossil specimen discovered in 2003 called "microraptor," in which three-dimensional models were used to study its possible flight potential, and it concluded this small, feathered species must have been a "glider" that came down from trees. The research is well done and consistent with a string of studies in recent years that pose increasing challenge to the birds-from-dinosaurs theory, said John Ruben, a professor of zoology at Oregon State University who authored a commentary in PNAS on the new research.
The weight of the evidence is now suggesting that not only did birds not descend from dinosaurs, Ruben said, but that some species now believed to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds.
"We're finally breaking out of the conventional wisdom of the last 20 years, which insisted that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that the debate is all over and done with," Ruben said. "This issue isn't resolved at all. There are just too many inconsistencies with the idea that birds had dinosaur ancestors, and this newest study adds to that."
Almost 20 years of research at OSU on the morphology of birds and dinosaurs, along with other studies and the newest PNAS research, Ruben said, are actually much more consistent with a different premise -- that birds may have had an ancient common ancestor with dinosaurs, but they evolved separately on their own path, and after millions of years of separate evolution birds also gave rise to the raptors. Small animals such as velociraptor that have generally been thought to be dinosaurs are more likely flightless birds, he said.
"Raptors look quite a bit like dinosaurs but they have much more in common with birds than they do with other theropod dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus," Ruben said. "We think the evidence is finally showing that these animals which are usually considered dinosaurs were actually descended from birds, not the other way around."
Another study last year from Florida State University raised similar doubts, Ruben said.
In the newest PNAS study, scientists examined a remarkable fossil specimen that had feathers on all four limbs, somewhat resembling a bi-plane. Glide tests based on its structure concluded it would not have been practical for it to have flown from the ground up, but it could have glided from the trees down, somewhat like a modern-day flying squirrel. Many researchers have long believed that gliders such as this were the ancestors of modern birds.
"This model was not consistent with successful flight from the ground up, and that makes it pretty difficult to make a case for a ground-dwelling theropod dinosaur to have developed wings and flown away," Ruben said. "On the other hand, it would have been quite possible for birds to have evolved and then, at some point, have various species lose their flight capabilities and become ground-dwelling, flightless animals -- the raptors. This may be hugely upsetting to a lot of people, but it makes perfect sense."
In their own research, including one study just last year in the Journal of Morphology, OSU scientists found that the position of the thigh bone and muscles in birds is critical to their ability to have adequate lung capacity for sustained long-distance flight, a fundamental aspect of bird biology. Theropod dinosaurs did not share this feature. Other morphological features have also been identified that are inconsistent with a bird-from-dinosaur theory. And perhaps most significant, birds were already found in the fossil record before the elaboration of the dinosaurs they supposedly descended from. That would be consistent with raptors descending from birds, Ruben said, but not the reverse.
OSU research on avian biology and physiology has been raising questions on this issue since the 1990s, often in isolation. More scientists and other studies are now challenging the same premise, Ruben said. The old theories were popular, had public appeal and "many people saw what they wanted to see" instead of carefully interpreting the data, he said.
"Pesky new fossils...sharply at odds with conventional wisdom never seem to cease popping up," Ruben wrote in his PNAS commentary. "Given the vagaries of the fossil record, current notions of near resolution of many of the most basic questions about long-extinct forms should probably be regarded with
 

evolved yet?

A Young Evolutionist
Bird-from-Dinosaur Theory of Evolution Challenged: Was It the Other Way Around?

ScienceDaily (Feb. 10, 2010) — A new study just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences provides yet more evidence that birds did not descend from ground-dwelling theropod dinosaurs, experts say, and continues to challenge decades of accepted theories about the evolution of flight.
http://www.religiousforums.com/news/earth_climate/global_warming/
  • A new analysis was done of an unusual fossil specimen discovered in 2003 called "microraptor," in which three-dimensional models were used to study its possible flight potential, and it concluded this small, feathered species must have been a "glider" that came down from trees. The research is well done and consistent with a string of studies in recent years that pose increasing challenge to the birds-from-dinosaurs theory, said John Ruben, a professor of zoology at Oregon State University who authored a commentary in PNAS on the new research.
The weight of the evidence is now suggesting that not only did birds not descend from dinosaurs, Ruben said, but that some species now believed to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds.
"We're finally breaking out of the conventional wisdom of the last 20 years, which insisted that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that the debate is all over and done with," Ruben said. "This issue isn't resolved at all. There are just too many inconsistencies with the idea that birds had dinosaur ancestors, and this newest study adds to that."
Almost 20 years of research at OSU on the morphology of birds and dinosaurs, along with other studies and the newest PNAS research, Ruben said, are actually much more consistent with a different premise -- that birds may have had an ancient common ancestor with dinosaurs, but they evolved separately on their own path, and after millions of years of separate evolution birds also gave rise to the raptors. Small animals such as velociraptor that have generally been thought to be dinosaurs are more likely flightless birds, he said.
"Raptors look quite a bit like dinosaurs but they have much more in common with birds than they do with other theropod dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus," Ruben said. "We think the evidence is finally showing that these animals which are usually considered dinosaurs were actually descended from birds, not the other way around."
Another study last year from Florida State University raised similar doubts, Ruben said.
In the newest PNAS study, scientists examined a remarkable fossil specimen that had feathers on all four limbs, somewhat resembling a bi-plane. Glide tests based on its structure concluded it would not have been practical for it to have flown from the ground up, but it could have glided from the trees down, somewhat like a modern-day flying squirrel. Many researchers have long believed that gliders such as this were the ancestors of modern birds.
"This model was not consistent with successful flight from the ground up, and that makes it pretty difficult to make a case for a ground-dwelling theropod dinosaur to have developed wings and flown away," Ruben said. "On the other hand, it would have been quite possible for birds to have evolved and then, at some point, have various species lose their flight capabilities and become ground-dwelling, flightless animals -- the raptors. This may be hugely upsetting to a lot of people, but it makes perfect sense."
In their own research, including one study just last year in the Journal of Morphology, OSU scientists found that the position of the thigh bone and muscles in birds is critical to their ability to have adequate lung capacity for sustained long-distance flight, a fundamental aspect of bird biology. Theropod dinosaurs did not share this feature. Other morphological features have also been identified that are inconsistent with a bird-from-dinosaur theory. And perhaps most significant, birds were already found in the fossil record before the elaboration of the dinosaurs they supposedly descended from. That would be consistent with raptors descending from birds, Ruben said, but not the reverse.
OSU research on avian biology and physiology has been raising questions on this issue since the 1990s, often in isolation. More scientists and other studies are now challenging the same premise, Ruben said. The old theories were popular, had public appeal and "many people saw what they wanted to see" instead of carefully interpreting the data, he said.
"Pesky new fossils...sharply at odds with conventional wisdom never seem to cease popping up," Ruben wrote in his PNAS commentary. "Given the vagaries of the fossil record, current notions of near resolution of many of the most basic questions about long-extinct forms should probably be regarded with
I saw it the first time, but what I meant by that was that was that most scientists accept the dino-bird theory.
 
Top