Creationists, please provide evidence

[tumbleweed41]

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.......

What evidence?!?!?! You say Mammoths went extinct due to the Flood. Although, like every other "Kind", there were Mammoths saved by the Ark.
You have not presented evidence. You have provided weak explanations that fail to stand up to geographical and biological evidence.
　

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.

Go ahead, finish the paragraph quoted...
OK, Let me...

But the agency hasn't received any official requests from Turkey for "the inscription of 'Noah's ark'" into the list, UNESCO spokesperson Roni Amelan said in an email.
Noah's Ark Found in Turkey?

How about this one...

"But some archaeologists and historians are taking the latest claim that Noah's ark has been found about as seriously as they have past ones—which is to say not very.
"I don't know of any expedition that ever went looking for the ark and didn't find it," said Paul Zimansky, an archaeologist specializing in the Middle East at Stony Brook University in New York State."

Interesting how Noah's Ark Industries will not release the location. Will not provide samples for independent testing. Offers no published research about these finds.

Oh, and there is this interesting E-mail from the archeologist listed as one of the finders of the Ark...

I was the archaeologist with the Chinese expedition in the summer of 2008 and was given photos of what they now are reporting to be the inside of the Ark. I and my partners invested $100,000 in this expedition (described below) which they have retained, despite their promise and our requests to return it, since it was not used for the expedition. The information given below is my opinion based on what I have seen and heard (from others who claim to have been eyewitnesses or know the exact details).
To make a long story short: this is all reported to be a fake. The photos were reputed to have been taken off site near the Black Sea, but the film footage the Chinese now have was shot on location on Mt. Ararat. In the late summer of 2008 ten Kurdish workers hired by Parasut, the guide used by the Chinese, are said to have planted large wood beams taken from an old structure in the Black Sea area (where the photos were originally taken) at the Mt. Ararat site. In the winter of 2008 a Chinese climber taken by Parasut’s men to the site saw the wood, but couldn’t get inside because of the severe weather conditions. During the summer of 2009 more wood was planted inside a cave at the site. The Chinese team went in the late summer of 2009 (I was there at the time and knew about the hoax) and was shown the cave with the wood and made their film. As I said, I have the photos of the inside of the so-called Ark (that show cobwebs in the corners of rafters – something just not possible in these conditions) and our Kurdish partner in Dogubabyazit (the village at the foot of Mt. Ararat) has all of the facts about the location, the men who planted the wood, and even the truck that transported it.




​

 

[Autodidact]

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 ????????????

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.

 

[Autodidact]

No, I cannot refute your evidence. I accept that mammoths are extinct.

 

[Skwim]

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.

Ah, 'tis a sad thing it is, this NewHope feller and his Good-Book learin' ways. Comin' to us with nary a pocket havin' room enough to tuck away a grain of reason or two.

 

[McBell]

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?)

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

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.

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

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'.

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.

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

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.

Feel free to begin the attack...

nice appeal to emotion tactic.

 

[McBell]

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

hold on, there are six different species of giraffe, so wouldn't that mean 14 of each species, making it 84 giraffes?

 

[Danmac]

hold on, there are six different species of giraffe, so wouldn't that mean 14 of each species, making it 84 giraffes?

your wisdom is astounding.

 

[McBell]

your wisdom is astounding.

Well, it has been claimed that a "kind" is the equivalent to species....

Of course, the ones that made that claim also claim that "kind" is equivalent to family.
And cannot forget that "kind" has ALSO been equated with Genus by the same people.


What a magical word this "kind"...:yes:

 

[Pegg]

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 must be terrible at explaining things because you still dont have a clue of what a genesis 'kind' is.

The black and white Rhino's have been interbred and have produced hybrids. This ability to interbreed means they are the same 'kind' and therefore only two rhinos would have been needed on the ark.

the fact that there are a few varieties is just evidence that a genesis 'kind' can produce a wider variety....but they are still the same animal. Just as there are a wide variety of dogs, horses, cats, cows...so there are are a variety of rhino.

 

[Pegg]

Well, it has been claimed that a "kind" is the equivalent to species....

correction

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

Kind = Genus.

 

[Krok]

correction I've stated it over and over and over and over
Kind = Genus.

Interesting. So the different dog “kinds” in the ark would have been: Genus Canis [Which , according to creation “science” would have changed into what we have today: Canis adustus, Canis aureus, Canis latrans (also called Prairie Wolf), Canis lupaster (also called Dhib or Egyptian Wolf), Grey wolf, Domestic dog, Dingo, and many other subspesies]. Then we also would have had, in the ark, Genus Cuon , Genus Lycaon , Genus Atelocynus , Genus Cerdocyon ,Genus Dusicyon ,Genus Lycalopex (Pseudalopex),Genus Chrysocyon, Genus Speothos. All genera in the canidae family. What an awful lot of genera, just to have all the dog “kinds” in the ark. And don’t forget the extinct dog genera or “kinds”. If "kind" equals genus, the elephant “kinds” would have been: Genus Loxodonta (African Elephant) and Genus Elephas maximus (Asian elephant), Where do you think the mammoths fitted ? A separate genus (“kind”)? DNA evidence indicates that they were very closely related to both elephant genera, but more closely to the Asian Elephant. Was it a different “genus” or “kind”? You realize that your explanation of the biblical word "kind" has a very profound implication on how realistic the story of the ark would be perceived as?

 

[Pegg]

Interesting. So the different dog “kinds” in the ark would have been: Genus Canis [Which , according to creation “science” would have changed into what we have today: Canis adustus, Canis aureus, Canis latrans (also called Prairie Wolf), Canis lupaster (also called D
hib or Egyptian Wolf), Grey wolf, Domestic dog, Dingo, and many other subspesies]. Then we also would have had, in the ark, Genus Cuon , Genus Lycaon , Genus Atelocynus , Genus Cerdocyon ,Genus Dusicyon ,Genus Lycalopex (Pseudalopex),Genus Chrysocyon, Genus Speothos. All genera in the canidae family. What an awful lot of genera, just to have all the dog “kinds” in the ark. And don’t forget the extinct dog genera or “kinds”. If "kind" equals genus, the elephant “kinds” would have been: Genus Loxodonta (African Elephant) and Genus Elephas maximus (Asian elephant), Where do you think the mammoths fitted ? A separate genus (“kind&#8221? DNA evidence indicates that they were very closely related to both elephant genera, but more closely to the Asian Elephant. Was it a different “genus” or “kind”? You realize that your explanation of the biblical word "kind" has a very profound implication on how realistic the story of the ark would be perceived as?

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”

 

[Krok]

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.

Oh, it certainly is very complicated. The reason is because of evolution. Organisms change. That’s why it’s so difficult to define “species”. That alone should be a red flag waving in front of the word “kind”. We can’t even get one all-encompassing definition of the word “species”. Biologists know why it’s so difficult to define a species. You, creationists, on the other hand, insist that “kinds” are unchangeable. You should therefore easily produce a definition of the word “kind”. Remember that, according to you, “kinds” can’t change into another “kind”.

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

Yes, that’s the normal way. Done by Biologists trying to figure out how to classify organisms. You can even add homo sapiens sapiens. Nobody argues about that.

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

So, still more than one “kind” of elephant? There’s two living genera. Be consistent. Is a “kind” a genus or not? Please indicate how you know it. Do you get it from just looking at it?

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.

Then “kind” in humans is defined as “genus”? But “kind’ in elephants is not defined as genus, but as family? And “kind” in hippopotami is defined as genus (hippopotamus) again?

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.

Not like humans. As I indicated earlier, there are quite a few genera in the dog “kind”. You are defining family when it comes to "dog kind". You have to make up your mind then, are “kinds” the same as “genera” or not? Or only in certain cases?

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.

So, “kind” in elephants is not the same as “genus” in elephants. But, you say that genus and "kind" is the same in humans. Which is it then? Why did you say in your earlier post that:

correction I've stated it over and over and over and over
Kind = Genus.

Now you say it’s not always the same. Could you give us any consistent indication of what a “kind” is then?

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)

You mean, the different genera in the elephant kind (and mammoths) are the same “kind”. But in dogs they’re not? So a “kind” sometimes is a genus and other times not? What is it then? Do you have a list of when a genus is a “kind” and when it’s not a “kind”. How do you distinguish the difference?

What makes them of the same 'kind' or 'genus' is their ability to interbreed and produce offspring. Its that simple.

That’s the same as species, then, because that’s how species normally get defined. Which is it now, species, genus or family? Or a combination of all of them?

 

[McBell]

correction

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

Kind = Genus.

I never stated WHO made which claim.
So no, your post is NOT a "correction".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

correction

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

Kind = Genus.

Except when you argue that it isn't, such as right here in the post above this one, where you say that the four genera of rhinoceros are all the same "kind":

i must be terrible at explaining things because you still dont have a clue of what a genesis 'kind' is.

The black and white Rhino's have been interbred and have produced hybrids. This ability to interbreed means they are the same 'kind' and therefore only two rhinos would have been needed on the ark.

It's fine if you want to give a definition for "kind" that doesn't line up with Linnaean taxonomy. It's fine if you don't give a precise definition at all. But having done both these things, your argument so far has been inconsistent.

 

[Noaidi]

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

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.

Here is a list of the various dog genera (from the family Canidae):

• Genus Canis
• Genus Cuon
• Genus Lycaon
• Genus Atelocynus
• Genus Cerdocyon
• Genus Dusicyon
• Genus Lycalopex
• Genus Chrysocyon
• Genus Speothos
• Genus Vupes
• Genus Urocyon
• Genus Otocyon
• Genus Nyctereutes

There are 13 such 'dog' genera. Were there 26 'dogs' running around the ark? Did they all later diverge from Canis (the wolf), or were they separately created?

 

[tumbleweed41]

i must be terrible at explaining things because you still dont have a clue of what a genesis 'kind' is.

The black and white Rhino's have been interbred and have produced hybrids. This ability to interbreed means they are the same 'kind' and therefore only two rhinos would have been needed on the ark.

the fact that there are a few varieties is just evidence that a genesis 'kind' can produce a wider variety....but they are still the same animal. Just as there are a wide variety of dogs, horses, cats, cows...so there are are a variety of rhino.

So the Rhino "kind' is not concerned with genus, just ability to interbreed. And produce viable offspring.

correction

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

Kind = Genus.

But you said....

Ah, forget it, call me when you can get your story straight.

 

[Noaidi]

By stating that ‘kinds = genera’, creationists are now locked into defending that position – now with conflicting and contradictory results. As a result, we see animals shoe-horned into various categories and forced to undertake bizarre migratory adventures across the globe.

A more honest position would have been to say that you don’t know what is meant by ‘kinds’, because the bible doesn’t elaborate. What you are now trying to do is correlate standard biology with few lines in a 3000 year-old book, and it's not working.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

By stating that ‘kinds = genera’, creationists are now locked into defending that position – now with conflicting and contradictory results. As a result, we see animals shoe-horned into various categories and forced to undertake bizarre migratory adventures across the globe.

The bizarre migratory adventures aren't an issue with "kinds"; they're an issue with the claim that all animals originated from a single point on Earth... twice (once from the Garden of Eden, and once from Noah's Ark).

A more honest position would have been to say that you don’t know what is meant by ‘kinds’, because the bible doesn’t elaborate. What you are now trying to do is correlate standard biology with few lines in a 3000 year-old book, and it's not working.

But that's the thing: the Bible does elaborate. It doesn't explicitly give a specific definition, but it does do a lot of spelling out of what animals are different "kinds".

There's more than enough specific information in the Bible to test the hypothesis that evolution between "kinds" is impossible. However, I think this fact is often glossed over because it has been tested and found to be false.

 

[Autodidact]

i must be terrible at explaining things because you still dont have a clue of what a genesis 'kind' is.

Here's what you said:

a genesis kind is a genus...and according to current bioligcal definitions, there are many species within one genus

. If it's not, then yes, you have failed to explain what you mean. You've also said it's a family. I believe that Newhope thinks it's a family. You've also used a definition that is closer to species. Is a kind a genus, or not?

The black and white Rhino's have been interbred and have produced hybrids. This ability to interbreed means they are the same 'kind' and therefore only two rhinos would have been needed on the ark.

the fact that there are a few varieties is just evidence that a genesis 'kind' can produce a wider variety....but they are still the same animal. Just as there are a wide variety of dogs, horses, cats, cows...so there are are a variety of rhino.

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?