...exposing joe g (John Paul) as the created kinds and front loading pushing young Earth creationist he actually is, but regularly lies about.
The following are from this thread:
http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=page&t=9217&mpp=15&p=2
John Paul
Inactive Member
John Paul Posts Only
Message 26 of 98 (73138)
12-15-2003 8:33 PM
Excuse me but Creationists have known that the Created Kind was above the current species level for over 200 years- Karl von Linne is credited for that.
What were the Created Kinds? Science should be able to help us ascertain that. If we knew the answers we wouldn't need science. What is certain is at the time of the original creation the created kinds would have been the same as species. However once new niches were found variants of the original would form. This would be due to the adaptive ability designed in to the organisms. However just because variations can form doesn't mean new body plans can come about.
As for "all the evolution" involved in the Creation model of biological evolution- ya see when a population already has the necessary genetic information all it takes is a little reshuffling. I know this is confusing to most evolutionists, just like their "explanation" of where the genetic information came from in the first place is confusing (or rather non-existant) to us.
John Paul
Inactive Member
John Paul Posts Only
Message 29 of 98 (73163)
12-15-2003 9:29 PM Reply to: Message 27 by NosyNed
12-15-2003 8:50 PM
Excuse me but Creationists have known that the Created Kind was above the current species level for over 200 years- Karl von Linne is credited for that.
NosyNed:
Oh, this is news to me. I didn't know the issue had come up that far back.
Could you offer some references and more details on this?
John Paul:
I am sure it is news to you. Most evolutionists don't even know what is being debated. That's not meant to be a slam, it is just an observation.
References? Well Linne, a Creationist, was looking to define the created kind when he originally came up with binomial nomenclature. It was after research that he concluded that the Created Kind was more at the level of Genus.
What is certain is at the time of the original creation the created kinds would have been the same as species.
NosyNed:
LOL, of course they would be the same as species. There isn't anything BUT species (although there is fuzz in when something is a new species and when it isn't). All higher taxa are just groupings of species for convenience.
John Paul:
The definition of species is still pretty fuzzy.
What were the Created Kinds? Science should be able to help us ascertain that.
NosyNed:
So we have this big argument about variation "within kinds" but creationists don't know what they are? When you have a bit more detail sorted out then you can make statments about what has and has not happened.
John Paul:
There is a basic idea. What I meant (and I know I should be more specific) is that we don't know exactly what they were. Do you know exactly what the alleged first population was in the evolutionary scenario? Or was it populations? I mean by your logic we can't know if we evolved from a common ancester if we don't know what it was.
As for "all the evolution" involved in the Creation model of biological evolution- ya see when a population already has the necessary genetic information all it takes is a little reshuffling.I know this is confusing to most evolutionists,...
NosyNed:
So if there is only a "little reshuffling" between existing species then they have come from one created kind? Is that what this means? Can you put some quantitative values on "little reshuffling"?
How much reshuffling is needed before it is not "little" anymore? What causes the reshuffling? What evidence for it is there? What consitutes "reshuffling"? Is it just the recombination of genomes? What part do new mutations play in this "reshuffling"?
John Paul:
What we do know is that reshuffling does not bring about any novelty. That is why "random mutations" had to be added. This is basic genetics NosyNed.
NosyNed:
Gee, sorry about all the questions but since it turns out creationists don't know what "kinds" are I thought I would see if they have a clue about what "reshuffling" is.
John Paul:
As I have said, we don't know exactly what they were. If we did we wouldn't need science. However if you would like you should read some of the articles at AiG.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter2.asp
Also there is a book available:
http://www.creationbydesign.com
Ya see NosyNed for all of your questions evolutionists still can't answer this one:
What is the biological or genetic evidence that shows random mutations culled by natural selection can lead to the range of changes they insist have occured?
-----------------------------------------------------
There's a LOT more of joe's creationist beliefs on that site. He pushes catastrophes, 'the flood', the ark, created kinds, etc.
For example:
John Paul
Inactive Member
John Paul Posts Only
Message 9 of 196 (6209)
03-06-2002 5:44 PM Reply to: Message 1 by quicksink
03-05-2002 3:50 AM
quote:quicksink:
maybe some enlightened one (the all-faithful creationist) could tell us how many species were on the ark, and explain their reasoning...
John Paul:
You do realize there is a book published that answers your questions. It is called Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study by John Woodmorappe.
He puts the total number of ‘invited’ organisms at 15, 754. 7,428 mammals; 4,602 birds and 3,724 reptiles (including dinosaurs). From what the book states the Hebrew terminology in the Genesis account rules out invertebrates having been taken on the Ark. It goes on to say the same holds true for marine and amphibious vertebrates.
He talks about the bigger animals taken aboard as juveniles, dwarf species and even as eggs.
quote:quicksink:
then they can tell us how the carnivores were fed
John Paul:
How do people feed their cats & dogs? How are the carnivores fed in a zoo? Could be close to the same way that is done.
quote:quicksink:
how herbivores were fed (man that's a lot of food)
John Paul:
Ever see how cows, pigs and horses are fed? How are herbivores fed in a zoo? Could be pretty much the same way.
quote:quicksink:
how the boat stayed afloat in waters that could have overturned cruisse ships
John Paul:
Um, it wasn’t a boat. It was a barge shaped Ark. Flat bottomed and rectangular in shape. According to the study that was done in 1994 by Hong et al. and published in Creation Ex Nihlo Technical Journal 8(1): 26-36, the Ark would not flip and was very seaworthy.
quote:quicksink:
and how insects, like the fig wasp, that live for 3 days and require the fig fruit of the fig tree to reproduce, survived
John Paul:
Please show us the scientific evidence that the fig wasp existed as such before the Flood. Why can’t today’s fig wasp be a descendant of the wasps that survived the Flood? It’s a fig wasp now because it filled that niche that was opened by the Flood and resulting landscape changes.
quote:quicksink:
how insects like fruit flies and mosquitos, that reproduce unimaginably quickly, were kept from being a monstrous pest
John Paul:
From the correct reading of Scripture, insects were not invited guests. IOW, they weren’t necessarily on the Ark.
quote:quicksink:
how Noah was able to repopulate the entire planet in 300 years
John Paul:
You do realize the exact date of the Flood is not etched in stone.
quote:quicksink:
how he was able to restore all cultures to their pre-flood state
John Paul:
What’s your evidence for that?
quote:quicksink:
how this small population was able to rebuild all cities
John Paul:
Evidence of that also.
[QUOTE]quicksink:
how noah and other biblical figures were able to live for 100s of yearsa, despite the finding of the contrary after the examination of mummies
John Paul:
I was unaware we found Noah’s mummified body. Actually I was unaware we found any mummified bodies of Biblical figures- you know the ones who lived for hundreds of years. No one said everyone lived that long.
quote:quicksink:
how noah was able to collect all the animals
John Paul:
Who says he did? The animals could have migrated to Noah’s place and/ or Noah could have hired other people to collect them.
quote:quicksink:
how all the animals were able to move from turkey to australia, the americas, etc. without food (all vegetation would have been wiped out during the flood, and would have taken many years to regrow)...
John Paul:
Please provide the scientific evidence that it would take years to re-grow the vegetation. Are you telling me that when farm land gets flooded it’s years until anything grows there?
The most likely scenario for the distribution of the fauna after the Flood was a planned distribution carried out by Noah’s descendants. As in put the animals on big boats and take them to their destination.
quote:quicksink:
how fish, most who cannot tolerate even the slightest change is salinity, survived
how marine mammals survived
John Paul:
I see. You are imposing what we observe today onto what existed in Noah’s day.
quote:quicksink:
how coral survived (coral core measuring goes well beyond the estimated time of the flood, about 4000 years ago)
John Paul:
First you have to realize there isn’t a set date for the Flood.
quote:quicksink:
how the americans and chinese and egyptians, not to mention their fabulous structures, survived...
John Paul:
What structures and how do you know they were built before the Flood?
quote:quicksink:
there are more... maybe you could quote me and then answer each question one by one... answer each one... and perhaps you could give a link or two to back up your claims...
John Paul:
Actually all you have to do is read the book I mentioned earlier. Then if you have issues with it at least we will have something to debate.
Here are some of the numbers (from the book) of the Ark’s contents:
Empty Ark- 4,000 tons (all the pens, support beams, etc.); biomass at the start of the Flood- 111 tons; biomass at the end of the Flood- 411 tons; food at the start of the Flood- 2,500 tons; water at the start of the Flood- 4,070 tons. According to the study by Hong et al., the spare mass would be 6,000 tons.
One more thing- I am neither a Christian nor a fundamentalist, yet I am a Creationist. As a matter of fact I know many Muslims, Jewish people, Hindus and Buddhists that are also Creationists. That shoots down one of your claims in another thread (that Creationists were Christians).
John Paul
From here:
http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=1335
-----------------------------------------
Yeah, joe claims to be a muslim creationist (but also denies it) yet he pushes christian stories of creation, the flood, etc. What a fucking screwball.
-----------------------------------------
And how about some more of joe's (John Paul's) beliefs:
John Paul
Inactive Member
John Paul Posts Only
Message 20 of 152 (106008)
05-06-2004 4:58 PM Reply to: Message 17 by sidelined
05-05-2004 2:37 PM
Re: Science defined
sidelined:
Could you clarify how life and math sre evidence Of a God in your view?
John Paul:
Good question. My view is based on the scientists of early days:
(on mathematics)
"The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the ratioal order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed to us in the language of mathematics." Johannes Kepler
Galileo obeserved " the laws of nature are written by the hand of God in the language of mathematics."
In his book Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty Morris Kline states this about Newton , Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus: "God had designed the universe, and it was to be expected that all phenomena of nature would follow one master plan. One mind designing a universe would almost surely have employed one set of basic principles to govern all related phenomena."
(life)
Life itself is irreducibly complex. Even if we get self-replicating nucleic acids we still need a cell membrane to contain it. Not only do we need nucleic acids and a cell membrane but their are organelles to consider. Add to that there isn't anything in physics, chemistry or biology that shows non-living matter can become a living organism. So by deduction if life couldn't arise from non-life via purely natural processes (and we observe that life exists) what are the alternatives?
John Paul
Inactive Member
John Paul Posts Only
Message 21 of 152 (106009)
05-06-2004 5:01 PM Reply to: Message 19 by SRO2
05-05-2004 6:43 PM
Re: Science defined
Rocket:
Right on target. Science doesn't seek God for the same reason it doesn't seek Zeus, Unicorns, Santa Claus, Giant Cyclops, Big Foot, Witches, Vampires, Flying Saucers, Flying Pigs etc., etc.. It's because there isn't a shred of evidence that any of them exist(ed).
John Paul:
That is false. It is due to the evidence that I and millions of other people are Creationists and/ or IDists. Read the book Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design.
From here:
http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=page&t=5795&mpp=15&p=2
And from the same thread:
John Paul
Inactive Member
John Paul Posts Only
Message 27 of 152 (106239)
05-07-2004 8:50 AM Reply to: Message 25 by Loudmouth
05-06-2004 6:01 PM
Re: Science defined
LM:
By "that evidence" I am assuming intelligent design.
John Paul:
Id and / or Creation is the conclusion based on "that evidence".
LM:
This is the problem with ID theory, and why it isn't science.
John Paul:
From what I have read most alleged problems with ID and Creation aren't really problems at all.
LM:
You must first believe without evidence that an intelligence designed things in order to believe it.
John Paul:
Wrong. It IS the evidence that leads people to the conclusion a designer was involved.
As Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin’s Black Box: ”Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”
LM:
In science, you need no such pre-existing belief.
John Paul:
Correct but the beliefs or philosophies of scientists do effect the conclusions they come to. Naturalism is a philosophy.
LM:
Science sees a designer all right, just not an intelligent one.
John Paul:
That should read "scientists (as in the scientists with a naturalistic bias) see a designer all right, just not an intelligent one." However there are many scientists that do. Also there are sciences that have have processes in place that enable us to determine whether or not an intelligent agent was involved. When those processes are applied to life the logical conclusion is ID.
As for unobserved mechanisms what mechanism moved the nostrils from the tip of a snout to the top of the head? How can that be objectively tested? Ya see the door swings both ways. The theory of evolution can't be objectively tested or measured or verified. All of it grand claims have never been observed. By your logic it ain't science.
---------------------------------
That's strange, I could have sworn that joe regularly claims that ID and creation aren't the same thing, yet he says "Id and / or Creation". As joe would say, 'Go figure'. LMAO!
