12 votes

Dead Horse. Die!

.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Sorry, wrong again

I posted this somewhere - maybe not even this thread, so I'll repeat it here to be safe. Speciation is NOT evolution.

Creationists believe and accept speciation. In fact speciation should be a problem and an embarrassment for evolutionists if they really understood it. Speciation generally is the result of some sort of environmental factor such as geographic isolation that results in a loss of some of the genetic variability that existed in the original population. The more a population speciates, the less genetic variation it has. This often results in the eventual extinction of the species. Island populations are a prime example of this.

Evolution requires an ever increasing amount of genetic information. Speciation is the ever decreasing amount of genetic information.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

GoodSamaritan's picture

Prove it

Speciation has never produced new genetic information.

If you had taken the time to actually study speciation, you would have known that speciation is generally the result of a loss of genetic variability or the rearrangement of certain genes or the turning on or off of certain genes. Sometimes it can occur by a mutation that causes the replication of a chromosome, but these instances are very rare and usually result in detrimental effects on the organism.

Species of the same kind are able to hybridize and produce fertile offspring. A species becoming a new kind that cannot hybridize with the source species and produce fertile offspring has never been observed.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Speciation is not simply the loss of information

Speciation is not the loss of information, it is the newfound inability to breed with creatures that were once similar enough to one's own kind. To claim that no "new information" to be gained in the evolutionary model is false. Creationists have been believing the same things for hundreds of years, meanwhile modern science has utilized evolutionary theory to do things that creationism could never explain.

How's this for new genetic information from speciation:

Genetically engineered bioluminescence in fish
http://www.buzzfeed.com/donnad/genetically-engineered-biolum...

Toyota Engineers New Flower Species to Absorb Emissions at Prius Factories
http://www.treehugger.com/cars/toyota-engineers-new-flower-s...

Look at what can be done with artificial selection alone, no genetic tampering:

Guppies artificially selected for bigger brains
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/04/brain-size-study-gu...

Species of butterfly re-evolved from two hypothesized ancestors
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060614-butte...

If none of this strikes you as "new information", then it's clear you have no standard by which you could ever accept the idea. That's not very empirical of you. What more do you want? What would make clear to you that information is not only destroyed by evolution?

Let me ask you: do you believe every species alive today has existed since creation?

GoodSamaritan's picture

Please read my post again

Speciation generally or usually involves the loss of information. I did not say always, and I listed some other considerations.

I'm not impressed with the general theory of evolution if it's dependent upon the intellect of human beings to engineer new information into a species. Let's see a new kind form on its own, one that can only hybridize with its own kind to produce fertile offspring, and not with the kind from which it derived.

Artificial selection has been going on for thousands of years. Am I supposed to throw in the towel because some scientists took advantage of the natural variation within a kind to create or modify a species of that same kind?

How could every species alive today have existed since creation? Who in the world believes that the original kinds were unable to bifurcate? There isn't just one type of dog, cat, etc. Seems incredibly obvious and I haven't read of any debate about this among creation scientists.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

The butterfly example link fulfills what you're asking for

"Am I supposed to throw in the towel because some scientists took advantage of the natural variation within a kind to create or modify a species of that same kind?"

The researchers mentioned in the butterfly article (which you apparently did not read) created an entirely new species from existing species. I.E., the new species could NOT breed with the previous. Same for the Toyota engineers' new species of flower--it's deemed a new species BECAUSE it cannot breed with its forbears. So, "species of that same kind" as you phrased it is completely redundant, on top of being inapplicable to two of the above examples.

"Who in the world believes that the original kinds were unable to bifurcate? "

Who? Some of those same people who believe that "kinds" (species) are unable to bifurcate [into new forms]. Many creationists I've spoken to believe every critter alive today has been alive forever.

"Creation scientists"? Give me some examples of what technological advances these so-called scientists have provided for humanity?

Ever heard of these guys?

How about Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, who developed the MRI scanning technology?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v16/n3/science

There are zillions more currently and throughout history. Here are a few names everyone should recognize - this just scratches the surface.

Francis Bacon
Galileo Galilei
Johann Kepler
Blaise Pascal
Robert Boyle
Isaac Newton
Carolus Linneaus
Michael Faraday
Samuel F.B. Morse
Gregor Mendel
Louis Pasteur
Joseph Lister

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

In your mind, creation "scientist" == creationist == christians

You are retroactively labeling anyone in white european history who was Christian a "creation scientist". For one thing, all of the above men were *not* fundamentalist, which creationism boils down to.

Second, "creation scientist" refers to someone supposedly involved in the supposed "science" regarding creationism--the realm of biology and man's origins. The term absolutely no meaning whatsoever if it's used on a person who just happens to be a christian (or maybe even a creationist)--your RELIGION doesn't make you a "scientist".

If it did, shit man, I'm a scientist too! why don't we all just put on labcoats, sit in a circle and beat each other off? You're totally missing the context of this conversation.

GoodSamaritan's picture

No, not even close

And I did read the article.

Apparently you didn't read my response closely enough so I'll say it another way. If the supposed evolutionary process requires the intellect of humans to create a new kind, then the general theory of evolution is immediately proven a falsity - a theory that requires circular logic to justify itself. Natural processes can't create a new kind but evolutionary theory is true anyway as long as a scientist using sophisticated equipment invented by engineers can manipulate DNA to bypass a genetic boundary on hybridization that cannot be crossed naturally. Not impressed.

There is ignorance on both sides by those who fail to do sufficient investigation before opening their mouths. Creationists who deny speciation are denying God's own testimony in Genesis that kinds would reproduce in likeness after their kind. It is also a denial of thousands of years of common observation. Send whoever you've spoken to over to me and I'll be glad to point them in the right direction.

Can we disqualify any "evolution scientist" who failed to provide at least one technological advance for humanity? This is a ridiculous requirement and would eliminate the vast majority of scientists regardless of their personal beliefs. There are scientists who believe in some or all of the general theory of evolution and there are scientists who believe in some or all of special creation. In either case, most advance basic research - not technology.

Your snarky quotation marks indicate a lack of investigation, but I'll give you some examples anyway:

The President of the Korea Association of Creation Research is the distinguished scientist, Professor Young-Gil Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Ph.D. in Materials Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, inventor of various important high-tech alloys.

Dr. John Lennox, British mathematician and philosopher of science, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford. He is a Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science at Green Templeton College, Oxford University. He has published over 70 peer-reviewed articles on mathematics and co-authored two Oxford Mathematical Monographs and has worked as a translator of Russian mathematics. He also teaches science and religion at Oxford. He is the author of several books on the relations of science, religion and ethics, the most recent of which are: Informetika (2001), Hat die Wissenschaft Gott begraben? (Has Science Buried God? - which I have read) (2002), Worldview (2004) with D. W. Gooding (3 volumes in Russian and Ukrainian).

Dr. Walter Brown is director of the Center for Scientific Creation. Brown has a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He was Director of Benét Laboratories (a major research, development, and engineering facility), a tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy, and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life Walt Brown was an evolutionist but, after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. He is the inventor of the Hydroplate Theory of plate tectonics. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

"then the general theory of

"then the general theory of evolution is immediately proven a falsity - a theory that requires circular logic to justify itself"

The word you're looking for is "tautology", not falsity.

The theory of evolution does not require humans to artificially recreate it--rather, it has allowed us to simulate extant aspects of nature that creation "science" could have never in a million years attained--but the fact that humans can shows that it can be done just as easily in nature by natural forces. It's interesting how far the line in the sand has moved for fundamentalist Christianity--once upon a time it was "evolution is impossible!". Now it's "evolution is only possible in the lab!". The point of doing things in the lab is to show that it is possible in nature.

Sorry to tell you this, but believing these sorts of mutations can only happen in the lab is incredibly naive. It's a huge world that has been developing for a long, long time.

"Natural processes can't create a new kind"? Then how did the third species of butterfly mentioned in the article come about in nature? How did the two species from which this third was born ever bifurcate, as you called it? How do you figure God created something new on the fly after the universe had been set in motion? I don't understand this.

"Can we disqualify any "evolution scientist" who failed to provide at least one technological advance for humanity?"
First, by "creation scientist" I was talking about biologists that deny evolution. We could get into a pointless pissing contest about whether creationists have anything to provide humanity in other realms--that was never my point. It isn't about the individual or their accolades so much as the predictions they've been able to make with or against evolutionary theory, and whether those predictions have shored up.

A creation "scientist" would be a biologist who has been able to put creation "theory" to work, making predictions and shoring them up with extensive testing. I quote all these words because creation science is itself a paradox, since creationism wholly rejects the scientific method, which has allowed virtually all great discoveries in recent times. Creation "science" would never have allowed for any of the genetic manipulations that you write off as lab-tricks which could never happen in nature. Creation "science" makes no testable predictions. It will [b]never[/b] provide anything for humanity.

GoodSamaritan's picture

No, I said what I meant

If the theory is only true with the intervention of human intellect using sophisticated machinery then the theory is a falsity since it claims that life evolves without limit naturally. Tautology would also apply since the evidence given requires circular reasoning.

It was not demonstrated that "[evolution] can be done just as easily in nature by natural forces". That is your assertion, despite the fact that there is no known mechanism for producing life from random atomic collisions. Nor is there any known way of creating information without existing information of equal or greater complexity.

"Sorry to tell you this, but believing these sorts of mutations can only happen in the lab is incredibly naive." Proof? "It's a huge world that has been developing for a long, long time." In that case, it must be so!

The only line in the sand that has moved is the one demarcating the endless fixes applied to evolution whenever a new discovery doesn't fit expectations. The number of times the evolutionary goal post has moved just in my lifetime is impressive.

Yes, let's talk about evolutionary predictions. Part one is a good place to start, and don't miss part two. Even more failed predictions here.

"Creation 'science' makes no testable predictions." Really? There's no excuse for such ignorance. Here is a list of 50 relatively recent predictions from just one Creation scientist, 5 of which have already been proven correct.

Here is a list of 6 predictions made by Dr. Russell Humphreys concerning the magnetic fields of Mercury, Mars, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. His predictions were orders of magnitude out of line with those of evolutionists who based their predictions on a supposed age of the solar system in the billions of years. Yet, the first 5 predictions were proven correct as spacecraft later took measurements. The last won't be proven either way until 2015.

He said, "The key postulates of my theory come directly from the Bible, as I mentioned above. If the solar system were much older than the Biblical age, the predictions would not fit the observations. But the predictions do fit the observations, thus supporting the Bible and a straightforward creationist understanding of it. In contrast, dynamo theory predictions have fared poorly in the solar system, not only at Uranus and Neptune, but elsewhere, particularly at Mercury, the Moon, and Mars. One commentator says, 'you would have thought we would have given up guessing about planetary magnetic fields after being wrong at nearly every planet in the solar system...'"

In 1986, Dr. Humphreys was the first to predict that rapid (weekly) reversals of the earth's magnetic field were possible and had occurred at the time of the Genesis Flood. He also predicted where the proof would be found. Evolutionists were teaching that it took hundreds of thousands to millions of years between magnetic field reversals. Unfortunately for them, Dr. Humphreys was proven correct just three years later - those reversals had occurred repeatedly only days apart and the discovery was made exactly the way he said it would.

Creation science is no more limited to the field of biology than evolution science. All fields of science have application to the study of origins and life. Mouthing the usual talking points doesn't change the facts. Next time do at least a minimal amount of research.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Why do creationists only present research from decades ago?

Have they stopped reading new material since then?

I want to comment also on the list of "creation scientists" you provided.

Kim and Lennox are grounded in disciplines unrelated entirely from their religion. The truth is, the fact that they are creationists has no bearing on any of their disciplines, nor does that they are creationists say anything positive about creationism. Creationism makes no predictions. It starts with the answers--truly the scientific method turned on its head. Biologists have been absent in your rundown, of course--and the young earth creationist geologists you mentioned certainly are not referenced today, for many good reasons.

Specifically, and I hate to break it to you, but your boy Brown was all kinds of wrong, here's an example. This text bluntly claims:

All the so-called “mavericks of the solar system” (asteroids, meteoroids, and comets) resulted from the explosive events at the beginning of the flood.

Do you REALLY believe this? Seriously?

"Clearly, comets must have originated recently from the inner solar system (the home of the Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars) to join Jupiter’s family. Such comets could not have come from far beyond Jupiter’s orbit."

Do you believe as your pal Brown does, in his zeal, that *ALL* asteroids and comets were "launched" from earth, implying the same to be true of the comet-filled Oort Cloud?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud

Look at the to-scale graphic showing where the Oort Cloud is compared to Earth. Brown is telling you to think that all came FROM earth. Explain to me how that is even remotely possible.

Am I supposed to be impressed when someone claims there is salt mars (the implication being "it's from earth!")? How does the lack of salt on Mars falsify the biblical matter Brown's trying to prove, rather than simply one of his far-off conjectures based on two verses in Genesis? One of his supposedly "proven" items is "asteroids are flying rock piles". Really? That's what he's laying claim to as biblical "proof" because he thinks they were all launched from earth?

All in all, Brown's overall picture is so flawed that the fact he predicted there'd be salt on mars--something possible by countless other means--does not impress in the least. His biblically-backed ideas will go the way of young-earth creationism.. the recycle bin of history.

XD to the intro of your Humphreys link--
As of July, 2012, the first five have turned out to be "right on," whereas the expectations of evolutionists were not fulfilled.
That'd be wonderful if "evolutionists" were making predictions in the realm of astronomy, but I'm sorry to say that outside of creationism-world there is a such thing as discrete fields, such that biologists for the most part will not be making astronomical predictions (pun intended) as creationists would.

He also predicted where the proof would be found. Evolutionists were teaching that it took hundreds of thousands to millions of years between magnetic field reversals. Unfortunately for them, Dr. Humphreys was proven correct just three years later - those reversals had occurred repeatedly only days apart and the discovery was made exactly the way he said it would.

No-one in the scientific community today buys in weekly pole reversals; and even if they did, Humphrey wouldn't agree with any of THEM, as even less of the scientific community today believes in the young earth scenario Humphrey is trying to prove than when he published this stuff decades ago.

If the theory is only true with the intervention of human intellect using sophisticated machinery then the theory is a falsity

"Sophisticated machinery"? Try good old-fashioned breeding, in the case of the butterfly experiment. The time required by a crew of humans in a lab to breed certain creatures.. has been available to nature a quadrillion times over! You could even claim the DNA-level tricks wouldn't happen in the wild (even though such has been observed), and even that wouldn't account for experiments with direct breeding. And also, you were mistaken when you said:

scientists took advantage of the natural variation within a kind

"The natural variation within a kind", you're saying, would allow its progeny to be so different, it can no longer breed with its own "kind"? From the perspective of that new species, what you call "natural variation" (and what is actually speciation) would be considered sterility. But it's nice of you to acknowledge the existence of natural selection as a moving force in nature.

That is your assertion, despite the fact that there is no known mechanism for producing life from random atomic collisions.
This always gets me--if God did it, how do you think he did it? Do you think he temporarily suspended the laws of the universe to do it (since you seem to think it wouldn't be possible otherwise)? What do you think he used other than "random atomic collisions"? Do you think the time of creation was for some reason under completely different rules of physics and biology than today? My point is, life came about from unlife whether a higher power did it or not.

Besides, the issue of evolution really has little to do with life's origin--only how it changes. But I could see why the two would get confused from a creationist perspective, which requires one monolithic Answer to everything.

Yes, let's talk about evolutionary predictions.

OK. From your article:

So with Darwinian activists, quite a lot hangs on predictions and testability. Intelligent design advocates argue that their idea is empirically testable, and Stephen Meyer lists a variety of applicable tests in his new book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.

I'd love to know what the "empirically testable" predictions are for the "god done it" hypothesis. Too bad that's not listed. There's a link to the book on amazon, but I had to look in another article for his predictions.

(1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).
(2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.
(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.
(4) Much so-called "junk DNA" will turn out to perform valuable functions.

1 is what man has observed in the natural world since the beginning. ID can't lay claim to "orderly natural structures". That's, pardon my french, fucking stupid. You might as well try to tell me an ammonite has full understanding of the golden ratio.

2 is actually falsifiable! Yay!... except for that "similar precursors" part--that's quite vague.

3 is silly--you could claim that land animals having lungs compared to the fish's swim bladder is a "reusage in... unrelated ogranisms". To which I say, yeah, no shit. Organs and genes being repurposed is nothing new in biology--much like 1, you can't point to already-observed phenomena and say, if "this phenomena DIDN'T occur, my theory would be false!"

4 is ridiculous--so intelligent design somehow is correct just because DNA that is not understood may actually have a purpose? This shows a misunderstanding of the phrase "junk DNA". No one ever claimed it's useless; the meaning of its content is simply not understood. To claim that any understanding of this content would be a triumph for ID is LAUGHABLE, especially when (I guarantee you) that increased understanding will not come from creation scientists. (And no, any given Christian is not a "creation scientist". )

The author goes on to state what could be done with these predictions--

Implying that there are limits to the information-generative powers of Darwinian searches, leading to the finding that the search abilities of Darwinian processes are limited, which has practical implications for the viability of using genetic algorithms to solve problems. ID's predictions about the existence of limits to evolution can help us combat antibiotic, antiviral and pesticide resistance--not knowledge of Darwinian evolution.

Wait, this guy's trying to use a prediction in order to back... an implication? Is that supposed to seem impressive somehow? He doesn't quite outline what these "non-Darwinian searches" entail. How quaint that he would acknowledge the use of ID to combat "knowledge of Darwinian Evolution", which has been the ID movement's primary role and goal since its inception.

David Kinghoffer sees fit to throw out there:

For example, Darwinism has a very hard time explaining altruism. Selflessness, especially toward those outside one's family, is not what you'd expect from the evolutionary scenario.

For one thing, "Darwinism" is pointless to criticize, as it implies people today believe all the things Darwin did--a falsity. But this shows quite a lack of imagination on his part! Keep in mind that entire populations are competing for resources at all times, not just those members within populations. A population of animals that can only sabotage its own kind is hindered in its ability to last.

Not to mention that he hasn't kept up with research on the matter. Read "The Folly of Fools", Trivers' book for an informed, modern look on the evolution of deception to understand why being beneficial and effective (beneffective) is wise for one's own reproductive outlook.

The reality is, Intelligent Design never really discovers anything. It naysays all evolutionary thought leading up to discovery, and once the truth is in sight, ID can easily claim it never conflicted with the truth... but ID never made any falsifiable predictions that could show it to be diametrically opposed to the truth.
It is NOT a scientific movement; it is a purely political one. But I'm eagerly awaiting all breakthroughs enabled by these predictions... which, for the most, part aren't really predictions at all!

You still have not described the mechanism by which species "bifurcate", as you put it. In your view, if they didn't evolve and they weren't created on day 1, from where did they arise?

GoodSamaritan's picture

Why do evolutionists retard scientific progress?

Because their agenda is more important than inconvenient facts.

I just got through reading Lennox's book, Has Science Buried God. To state that his discipline, or the fact that he is a creationist, has no relationship to his religion or creationism is easily refutable. His arguments from mathematics and logic against evolution and for special creation are clear and extensive.

Your opinion of Dr. Brown's theory or aspects of it is supposed to move me to repentance? Seriously? He made 50 predictions based upon his hydroplate theory, which in turn is based upon the Biblical record in Genesis. You stated, and continue to state - erroneously - that creationism makes no predictions. I pointed out several examples.

Your argument about biologists not making astronomical predictions is a red herring. It should be obvious to the most casual observer that the comparison should be between astronomers who interpret facts from creationist assumptions and astronomers who interpret facts from evolutionary assumptions.

#1 Evolutionist Cop Out - "Besides, the issue of evolution really has little to do with life's origin--only how it changes." The GTE has everything to do with origins. If God created life by fiat as described in Genesis then it did not come into existence through naturalistic means and the foundation of evolution is destroyed.

I don't lay claim to ID membership - I believe the Genesis account is historical, not allegorical. The "similar precursors" part seems to be a reference to the missing transitional forms. This was an argument made famous by Prof. Stephen Gould. The reference to "junk DNA" is not ridiculous at all given that Prof. Richard Dawkins was mocking Christians publicly in 2009 for believing in an intelligent designer who would create genes that do absolutely nothing, or worse, that 95% of our genome might as well not exist. He turned 180 degrees on that opinion just 3 years later after the ENCODE results were published.

Speciation is observable, testable, and repeatable. Changing from one kind into another is not. There are genetic limits to diversity in every kind. All God had to create in the beginning were pairs of the original kinds, or baramins, with built-in capacity for variation. One can create numerous breeds of dog, from Chihuahuas to Great Danes, but they will all be dogs. Breeding them over millions of generations will never produce anything but dogs. Natural selection may result in certain types of dogs better fit for certain environments, but that is merely selecting for a certain combination of existing genes - not adding new information. Mutations + time + chance ≠ evolution. All observed mutations demonstrate a loss of genetic information from the genetic code, or they are neutral.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

You, who in a ridiculous

You, who in a ridiculous story of Noah's ark, tell me to prove it???
You prove that there ever existed this man Noah, and then prove his ark saved the world.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

GoodSamaritan's picture

You, who have done no research

are the one who claimed as fact that speciation is evolution.

Attacking the messenger doesn't negate the science.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

"Speciation is the

"Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

"The evolutionary formation of new biological species American Heritage

"the evolutionary development of a biological species"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/speciation

Speciation is the formation of new species. That's what evolution is.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

No, it isn't

"Speciation is the formation of new species. That's what evolution is."

No, it isn't. Evolution says a fish crawled onto the land, turned into a snake, laid an egg and a bird flew out.

Besides, if evolution were true, mothers would have three arms.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

GoodSamaritan's picture

Species producing species within kind

is "speciation". This is NOT the same as a new kind coming from an existing kind. If it were, you'd be able to hybridize the new kind with the source kind and produce fertile offspring.

Try turning a dog into something fertile that's not a dog, something that can't hybridize with any species of dog but only with others of its kind. This has never been observed, and there is no known mechanism for it to happen, because there are genetic limits to every species.

Speciation is what's taught in Genesis - animals reproducing after their kind, within kind. There is no disagreement over this. We have overlapping definitions and this leads to confusion. That's why some people use the terms microevolution and macroevolution for distinction.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

First off, speciation is not

First off, speciation is not tought in Genesis. Two got on and two got off, it ends there. Speciation is hypothesized from there to justify Genesis.

A venus fly trap is a carnivore plant. What it may have been 10,000 years ago we do not know. It is possible that it evolved into its current species through an unusual event. Possibly a virus, possibly environmental conditions. It could have been a drought changed it from none carnivorous to its current state. That would be speciation. It could be that in the future that some unusual circumstance or viral alteration to its DNA, and SOME of the plants begin to grow air roots. That would be speciation. Another occurrence to this new species could see some of the plants develop a nervous system while some did not Another alteration muscles develop muscles develop, another and air roots begin to change to air pores...each instance would be an instance of speciation, but the new species after many changes no longer is the same species as the original.

What does Genesis say? Let's read just a little as Noah is loading the boat:
"and of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. 20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive" Genesis 6

The word "kind" that I've bolded is translated from the Hebrew word "Miyn". It is defined:

kind, sometimes a species (usually of animals)

But then the definition goes on:
"Groups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved not gained. A new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind"."

Now THIS part of the definition does not sound like it was around during ancient Hebrew times. This sounds as though it was added for the reader, to lead the reader. This sounds like someone is trying to make things "fit". Which makes me think that even the "sometimes a species (usually of animals)" has also been added, the word redefined, to make preconceived ideas "fit". It makes me think that the Hebrew at the time of the writing define "miyn" was merely defined as "kind", as in the same "kind".

The same word is used earlier in Genesis:

"And God said , Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good." Gen 1

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

GoodSamaritan's picture

You are confused

First of all, there is no other way to interpret all of the "after their kind" statements in Genesis 1. There are some discussions within creationism as to the best scientific definition of baramin, but I have never seen any serious disagreement over the meaning of speciation as change within "kind" or baramin. Secondly, you have no idea how many animals got off the Ark, which in any case has nothing to do with the definition of speciation or kind, and certainly nothing to do with the creation of the original kinds many centuries earlier.

Your repeated use of the terms, "possible", "possibly", "could have", "could be", etc., all the while insisting that evolution changes one kind into another is all that anyone needs to see of your argument. If evolutionists really spoke and wrote only about observable variation within kind, there would be no creation-evolution controversy.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

"Your repeated use of the

"Your repeated use of the terms, "possible", "possibly", "could have", "could be", etc., all the while insisting that evolution changes one kind into another is all that anyone needs to see of your argument."

I do not insist that evolution changes one kind into another. I do insist that it is much more believeable, rational, than the "animals in a boat saved from an Earth wide flood for 1 year with only two animals from each species to repopulate the Earth" story.

Evolutionist observe and investigate, then hypothesize. Those hypothesis change, and frequently, with newer discoveries.

Speciation is change within kind. And with many many changes over time, that species COULD (may, might, possible) become unrecognizable from the original species, thus a new species.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

Wow. Really?

"I do not insist that evolution changes one kind into another. I do insist that it is much more believeable, rational, than the "animals in a boat saved from an Earth wide flood for 1 year with only two animals from each species to repopulate the Earth" story."

Wow. Really? It's harder for you to believe that at least two of every kind of already existing animals could reproduce (which we've observed) than to believe everything created itself from nothing (which we've never observed), and then gave itself life from lifelessness (which we've also never observed)? That takes more faith than I can imagine, my friend.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

I've already posted that I

I've already posted that I don't believe that life created itself, you even responded to that post...

Maybe you can explain how 2 bees, a male and a female, could repopulate the Earth with bee colonies as would be required, post haste, in order to pollinate the world's food supply?

Goodsamaritan, you are right, I have no idea how many animals got off the fairy boat. Certainly with one male, one female...some must have procreated during the voyage. And certainly in such close quarters with "unclean" beast on board, some must have died from disease.

Obviously some did procreate, because as soon as Noah and the boys got off the ship, they started in with burning the critters. Ain't that something, every last animal species on the planet near the point of extinction and Noah is out there burning them up!!!

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

GoodSamaritan's picture

Ok, great

You don't believe life created itself. That's a good place to begin.

However, you seem to want confrontation on issues you clearly haven't studied:

1) Only animals that met the requirements were counted, and insects didn't meet those requirements (homeward question #1: what were those requirements?); there were other means available for their survival outside the Ark (homework question #2: describe one)

2) You obviously don't know what "unclean" means within the context (Homework question #3: define "clean" and "unclean" in reference to the animals that went into the Ark)

3) The animal sacrifices had no impact on survival of any group because those animals were brought in addition for that very purpose (homework question #4: why did Noah sacrifice animals after disembarking?)

Each right answer will count 25% toward your grade ;)

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

2) Unclean and clean in the

2) Unclean and clean in the bible refers to them being perfect or not perfect.
3) I am sure, that you really seriously believe, that the Earth had just been totally killed off, excepting 2 of each species, and a few extras, and that burning up the extras had no impact on survivability...

1) I've already posted this previously, but again:

"And the LORD said , I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them." Gen 6

"And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. Gen 7

Fowls is translated from the Hebrew word "owph" and is defined as
flying creatures, fowl, insects, birds
fowl, birds
winged insects

The Lord destroyed all of those, except the two that were on the boat. If you say that the bees found ways to survive off of the boat, then you're calling the Lord a liar, and/or ineffective in his task.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

GoodSamaritan's picture

Getting closer

The Biblical definitions and examples of clean vs. unclean are given in Deuteronomy 14. Perfect is not the same as clean. The most obvious feature that distinguishes them is their diet. The clean animals are all obligate herbivores, whereas the unclean animals are either carnivores or scavengers. The reasons for not allowing the consumption of the latter was only realized following the development of modern scientific investigation.

The story of Noah's Ark and the Deluge was one of cooperation between God and a righteous man. God gave Noah detailed instructions for his part and God took care of what Noah couldn't, such as bringing the animals to the Ark. To think that somehow God forgot to consider the survival of those creatures once they got off the Ark just doesn't pass the smell test.

To be clear on the numbers, there were 7 of each clean animal and 2 of each unclean animal brought on board. Feasibility studies have shown that there was around 7-10K tonnes displacement to spare after accounting for all people, animals, and other cargo. That's 1/3 to 1/2 the total available space of 21K tonnes displacement. There was room to spare for some multiplication during the voyage. Not saying it happened, just that it's plausible.

You are not entirely correct about what survived or didn't survive outside the Ark. Your conclusion that I'm calling God a liar or ineffective is premature. There is a key qualifying verse that answers the question. Creatures wiped out in the Flood were those "in whose nostrils was the breath of life." (Genesis 7:22) This phrase excludes insects since insects don't have nostrils. As I already indicated, bees and other insects could have survived, particularly in their egg and larvae states, on floating plant debris.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

"And all flesh died that

"To think that somehow God forgot to consider the survival of those creatures once they got off the Ark just doesn't pass the smell test."

I agree, God would not forget such a thing, it would not "pass the smell test". But then, this whole story does not "pass the smell test".

"And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died . 23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark." Gen 7

It clearly says that EVERYTHING on the land died, then it list those things, things "whose nostrils was the breath of life" is a PART/INCLUDED in that list, but not the only thing on that list.

The word translated "nostrils" is from the Hebrew word "aph". It is defined as:
nostril, nose, face
anger

"Aph" comes derives from "anaph" which is defined:
to be angry, to be displeased, to breathe hard

Gen 7:22 means: All those who's life was the breath of anger, died.

This WAS the purpose of the flood, was it not?

It would be silly, out of place, to suddenly out of the blue just throw in a comment about animals with nostrils. But makes perfect sense to talk about the destruction of all the angry people, the people who breath anger, since that is the main purpose of the flood.

The fairy tale makes clear, ALL LAND LIFE OUTSIDE THE BOAT WAS DESTROYED, save the animals of the water. "EVERY LIVING SUBSTANCE WAS DESTROYED".

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

GoodSamaritan's picture

Bad exegesis

That verse is not only a part - it's an essential qualifier to verse 21.

I just read 18 parallel translations, virtually all of which were translated directly from the original language, and not one of them used any term even remotely related to anger. They are all in agreement that 7:22 is referring to animals that possess the "breath" (Hebrew neshama) of life, referring to breathing through nostrils. I also checked two Jewish versions and found agreement that the life destroyed was that which breathed through nostrils.

כֹּ֡לאֲשֶׁר֩נִשְׁמַת־ר֨וּחַחַיִּ֜יםבְּאַפָּ֗יומִכֹּ֛לאֲשֶׁ֥רמֵֽתוּ׃

mê·ṯū be·ḥā·rā·ḇāh ’ă·šer mik·kōl bə·’ap·pāw, ḥay·yîm rū·aḥ niš·maṯ- ’ă·šer kōl

died the dry whose all nostrils of life of the spirit was the breath whose of all

Your transliteration doesn't square with Old Testament usage. What you think makes sense and what was actually written are two different things.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

It is translated: anger 172

Throughout the bible it is translated: anger 172 times and wrath 42 times yet face only 22 times, nostrils only 13 times, nose only 12 times, angry 4 times.

Related to anger 220 times.
Related to body parts 47 times.

לאֲשֶׁר֩נִשְׁמַת־ר֨וּחַחַיִּ֜יםבְּאַפָּ֗יומִכֹּ֛לאֲשֶׁ֥רמֵֽתוּ׃

mê·ṯū be·ḥā·rā·ḇāh ’ă·šer mik·kōl bə·’ap·pāw, ḥay·yîm rū·aḥ niš·maṯ- ’ă·šer kōl

"died the dry whose all nostrils of life of the spirit was the breath whose of all"

Uhm, that makes is 19 translations

Surely you must be right though, surely God must have been out to get those disgusting nostril wearer.

Of course your interpretation creates a contradiction in the bible, within the same chapter. You say some things lived outside the ark, the bible says that EVERY LIVING SUBSTANCE which was on the face of the ground was destroyed outside the ark. I HAVE NO DOUBT that you can find some way to rectify that contradiction though...

Possibly Flavius Josephus could provide the evidence that creatures did in fact survive the flood as he has written in Book 1 Chapter 3 para 6 of The Antiquities of the Jews...

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

GoodSamaritan's picture

Counting the number of times

a term is used in total and disregarding local context shows that you don't know what you're doing.

And where you get 19 from when I referred to 18 English plus 2 Jewish translations is puzzling.

Your exegesis is simply incorrect, but then you probably know more than the Bible scholars who consistently interpret the destruction of life outside the Ark as pertaining solely to creatures with nostrils.

Josephus was an excellent historian, but his personal interpretations and second-hand accounts do not carry the authority of Scripture.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Certainly the book of Genesis

Certainly the book of Genesis is a second hand account, it is not written by Noah. Fact is no one is absolutely positive who wrote it.

Any translator MUST use his own personal interpretations in order to translate. Many many words have more than one mean, and the translator must decide what he THINKS the original author meant to say. Often, as is the case with the KJV translators, the translator has already been taught the meaning, the translator already POSSESSES AN INTERPRETATION, before the work even begins. In such cases the translator may try to "bend" the translation to meet his own personal interpretations of the subject matter.

I did not disregard local context, I APPLIED LOCAL CONTEXT. You stated that the usage of anger doesn't square with Old Testament usage. I showed that it is indeed the MOST COMMON usage. Context is most important, and ANGER keeps in context with the purpose of the Deluge myth. Certainly I do not base what I believe the correct interpretation upon the number of times it is used alone. Several pages back from here you can find where I responded to user "bear", concerning the translation of greek word "Exousia" in Romans 13. This word is translated 98 times as "power, authority", and 3 times as "right, liberty". Yet I believe that "right, liberty" is the correct interpretation therein. The translation "power" in Romans 13 creates conflict with other writings in the bible, whereas "liberty" would put the rest into agreement. http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3101597

The Pharisees and Suddesees were the Bible scholars of Jesus' time, yet Jesus tells them they had it all wrong. No doubt, the Bible scholars of our time could likewise be confused...

But none the less, the most common teachings I have heard on the matter is that, just as the fairy tale states, repeatedly as if to make it quite clear and definite, ALL life was destroyed upon the land.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence