Extremely interesting that within a 9 minute video it is possible to include:
- at least 2 or 3 strawmen
- three perfect examples of quote mining
- at least a few extremely disgusting lies
- some examples of poor logic
I as a former christian thought that lying is a sin. Funny how it doesn't apply to creationists. Or would you like to enlighten that why ideas and people are intentionally misrepresented on this video?
a) Definition of Kind: A group of organisms which have brought forth (descended) from the genetic information found in their original ancestor.
NOTE: Variations within such a group occur due to the sorting (recombination) or loss (Gene Depletion/Genetic Entropy) of the originally created genetic data. The rest of your claims are as easily refuted but I am too busy to play right now
Russ your teaching has helped so many in sharing the word of God and how simple things are without mans intervention. Thanks for pointing out how man has corrupted science, with dreams of removing God from his world.
Oh no, not more smoke & mirrors! Ohno observed the sorting & loss of pre-existing genetic data (Gene Depletion) NOT the creation of new & beneficial data as Darwinism requires See our YouTube videos:
No, Ohno observed a duplication/frameshifting event, and it was even accompanied by new start and stop codons, so it was an increase in genetic material overall and a gain of a brand new gene of which no part had existed before the frameshifting. Addition of genetic material by any definition.
Oh no, not the old bait & switch con game Duplications DUPLICATE what is already there they do not create new & beneficial genetic data As you show, Ohno observed the new combination of pre-existing genetic material, not the creation of new & beneficial data. The addition of new combinations (sorting) yes (usually detrimental) & I always point out that variations within the same kind are caused by the sorting or loss of pre-existing data, never the gain of new & beneficial data
As previously covered, duplicating what is already there does not create new & beneficial genetic data I always point out that variations within the same kind are caused by the sorting or loss of pre-existing data never the gain of new & beneficial data. Sorting "A CAT LEG" to "LE CAAGT" may qualify as "new info" but results in the loss of useful info - the opposite of Darwinian needs Thanks for a great example of what I teach being correct
Kind: groups of organisms which have descended (brought forth) from the same ancestral gene pool belong to the same created kind. Variations within a particular kind occur due to the sorting (recombination) or loss (Gene Depletion/Genetic Entropy) of the original genetic data Millions of scientific experiments support this Of course, we must get life started before we can worry about terms such as species, kinds or tangents so tell us how life got started
You can't use the word you're trying to define in the definition itself.
Knowledge of the origin of life is not required in order to classify already existing life, but that being said, no one knows how life started. A lot of people believe that their intangible entity of choice began life but no one has been able to produce a testable mechanism.
Science however, refrains from such baseless speculation and only follows the evidence.
I went against my better judgment & will not do so again. I responded to your question and you can only try and sidestep mine Yes, some people see the ID in life and see the logic behind a Creator, others see the awesome design and think it evolved from a rock All the issues you bring up here are covered in our 50 Facts versus Darwinism DVD, already stremed on YouTube for anyone interested
Science knows of no way for new and beneficial genetic data to be added to an existing gene pool (another huge issue for the fairy tale of Darwinism and Naturalism) Real science only observes the sorting or loss of pre-existing data. Again, all this is explained in 50 Facts versus Darwinism
No, you know of no way for new and beneficial genetic information to be added to a genome, science has known how this happens for at least 26 years, Dr. Ohno directly observed over 2300 bits of functional information being added to a genome from one duplication/frameshifting event.
If you just go off on some completely unrelated tangent again, I'll assume that means you recognize creationists must keep this definition open ended as to use it when and where necessary.
This is a relaitvely "nice" example of why I have to approve comments - coupled with the fact I don't have the time to waste responding to such nonsense (Strwing pearls before swine) As I have pointed out many times before, Darwinians always have a "comment" but only 1% ever even attempt to show any proof that their religious belief ever occurred. This is because there is no such proof as Darwinism is the biggest fairy tale in the history of the world
Not at all I jusrt figure we can not have a kind of animal, or species, etc,. untiil we get life started so let's begin right there. How do you get around the Law of Biogenesis and get life started? Again, I say God created life. As an atheist and Darwinist,, how do you claim that life started?
The "law of biogenesis" is about maggots springing forth spontaneously from meat, and mice appearing fully formed in piles of grain. It's about spontaneous appearance of modern life from non-life. It's evidence against a form of creationism, not abiogenesis.
In any case, abiogenesis is a completely separate field of study than evolution, and you still haven't answered the question about "kinds".
There is no 'getting around the law of biogenesis' required, Redi and Pasteurs work concluded modern life does not spontaneously generate form non living matter and had nothing to do with abiogenesis.
I don't see why the question is so hard; What is your definition of kind?
Again, abiogenesis is a belief that life can spontaneously generate from non-living molecules & actual science knows of NO way for this to take place This means that Naturalism, Darwinism, Atheism & Secular Humanism are anti-scientific religious beliefs which are scientifically impossible (which is why these religious groups shun the issue) So please explain how life began & we can move on
No, abiogenesis is the study of the progression of life from non life, and everything from the past 60 years of research has only supported it. It's a perfect example of science because we don't know and simply say we don't know, we don't attempt to cram any superfluous undetectable origin in the gap.
I don't need to explain how life began to define species, see watch: Any family of organisms which can breed and produce fertile offspring.
Extremely interesting that within a 9 minute video it is possible to include:
- at least 2 or 3 strawmen
- three perfect examples of quote mining
- at least a few extremely disgusting lies
- some examples of poor logic
I as a former christian thought that lying is a sin. Funny how it doesn't apply to creationists. Or would you like to enlighten that why ideas and people are intentionally misrepresented on this video?
Pharmaecopia1 2 years ago
I notice that you did not point anything out to back up your claims - typical
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
a) Creationists never specify what this kind is
b) Polystrate fossils are not proof of a "massive aqueous event" it is a creationist term and shown not to hold.
c) The variance of carbon in geological stratum
d) Bad logic with the carbon dating (200,000-6,000 why the jump)
e) The amount of carbon in geological stratum
f) Darwinism is not a term
g) Darwin didn't predict anything about genes as he didn't know about them
h) He is misrepresenting TOE by using a strawman
Pharmaecopia1 2 years ago
a) Definition of Kind: A group of organisms which have brought forth (descended) from the genetic information found in their original ancestor.
NOTE: Variations within such a group occur due to the sorting (recombination) or loss (Gene Depletion/Genetic Entropy) of the originally created genetic data. The rest of your claims are as easily refuted but I am too busy to play right now
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
i) Lacks understanding about evolution "kinds evolving to another kind" as this is again a strawman.
j) Lying about information in the gene
k) Lying about the methods in mutations
l) Horrible quote mine from Herbert Nilsson
m) misrepresenting the "trees of life"
n) Lying about both the amounts of fossils and the amounts of fossils that should be found
o) Quotemining Darwin in 5:34
p) Interpretation of naturalism and their agenda + this alleged conspiracy BS again
Pharmaecopia1 2 years ago
Lack understanding (Stupid), liar, etc.,....name calling is the last bastion for those with no evidence to back up their position
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
No, he was just pointing out that you're arguing against a strawman because you have no idea what evolution actually is.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Russ your teaching has helped so many in sharing the word of God and how simple things are without mans intervention. Thanks for pointing out how man has corrupted science, with dreams of removing God from his world.
2xtream 2 years ago
No naturalistic science(so called science) as evolution has had such a blatant history of fraud and dishonesty.
ProudToBLoud 2 years ago
Oh no, not more smoke & mirrors! Ohno observed the sorting & loss of pre-existing genetic data (Gene Depletion) NOT the creation of new & beneficial data as Darwinism requires See our YouTube videos:
Did You Evolve From A Rock?
Refuting Darwinism In 7-Seconds Flat
Did You Evolve From A Bannana?
The Fossil Record Refutes Darwinism
No Apemen: Just Men, Apes & Frauds
Big Bang or Big Dud?
Winning The Lottery of Life
Science Refutes Neo-Darwinism
Refuting Neo-Darwinian Frauds
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
No, Ohno observed a duplication/frameshifting event, and it was even accompanied by new start and stop codons, so it was an increase in genetic material overall and a gain of a brand new gene of which no part had existed before the frameshifting. Addition of genetic material by any definition.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Oh no, not the old bait & switch con game Duplications DUPLICATE what is already there they do not create new & beneficial genetic data As you show, Ohno observed the new combination of pre-existing genetic material, not the creation of new & beneficial data. The addition of new combinations (sorting) yes (usually detrimental) & I always point out that variations within the same kind are caused by the sorting or loss of pre-existing data, never the gain of new & beneficial data
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
Imagine copying and pasting a section of binary code then inserting bases randomly
New information that was not there before.
Or if thats not simple enough
GATTACA becomes GATTACA|GATTACA becomes GATTACA|GATAACA|
If you need a simpler analogy I could probably come up with one with a little thought but not off the top of my head right this second.
CreationistCrap 2 years ago
As previously covered, duplicating what is already there does not create new & beneficial genetic data I always point out that variations within the same kind are caused by the sorting or loss of pre-existing data never the gain of new & beneficial data. Sorting "A CAT LEG" to "LE CAAGT" may qualify as "new info" but results in the loss of useful info - the opposite of Darwinian needs Thanks for a great example of what I teach being correct
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
Actually the example I gave of the nylon bug was all three, new information, useful information and an entirely new gene.
Whether it's 'useful' depends on gene expression and is not definitively and necessarily functional or functionless beforehand.
CreationistCrap 2 years ago
Also, all those videos have been refuted on the tangle(.)com page of the same username
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago 3
No, I just do not take time to respond to you there. Some folks have lives and answering your never-ending comments is a waste of mine
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
No, it's because they have been refuted and you can't censor on that site.
CreationistCrap 2 years ago
Yet another worthless comment - thanks for the example
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
unscientific darwinism cannot refute scientific fact.
cathy356 2 years ago
Kind: groups of organisms which have descended (brought forth) from the same ancestral gene pool belong to the same created kind. Variations within a particular kind occur due to the sorting (recombination) or loss (Gene Depletion/Genetic Entropy) of the original genetic data Millions of scientific experiments support this Of course, we must get life started before we can worry about terms such as species, kinds or tangents so tell us how life got started
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
You can't use the word you're trying to define in the definition itself.
Knowledge of the origin of life is not required in order to classify already existing life, but that being said, no one knows how life started. A lot of people believe that their intangible entity of choice began life but no one has been able to produce a testable mechanism.
Science however, refrains from such baseless speculation and only follows the evidence.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
I went against my better judgment & will not do so again. I responded to your question and you can only try and sidestep mine Yes, some people see the ID in life and see the logic behind a Creator, others see the awesome design and think it evolved from a rock All the issues you bring up here are covered in our 50 Facts versus Darwinism DVD, already stremed on YouTube for anyone interested
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
So by your definition, albeit erroneous, additions of useful information would result in a different 'kind' of organism emerging, correct?
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Science knows of no way for new and beneficial genetic data to be added to an existing gene pool (another huge issue for the fairy tale of Darwinism and Naturalism) Real science only observes the sorting or loss of pre-existing data. Again, all this is explained in 50 Facts versus Darwinism
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
No, you know of no way for new and beneficial genetic information to be added to a genome, science has known how this happens for at least 26 years, Dr. Ohno directly observed over 2300 bits of functional information being added to a genome from one duplication/frameshifting event.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago 2
So can you define kind or not?
If you just go off on some completely unrelated tangent again, I'll assume that means you recognize creationists must keep this definition open ended as to use it when and where necessary.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago 2
how can you live with yourself you ignorant prick.
Stop blocking comments!! I tried to engage a normal civilised debate almost a month ago.
If anyone deserves eternal hellfire, its people like you!
skeeleraar 2 years ago
This is a relaitvely "nice" example of why I have to approve comments - coupled with the fact I don't have the time to waste responding to such nonsense (Strwing pearls before swine) As I have pointed out many times before, Darwinians always have a "comment" but only 1% ever even attempt to show any proof that their religious belief ever occurred. This is because there is no such proof as Darwinism is the biggest fairy tale in the history of the world
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
Define 'kind' for me in some objective fashion, is it similar to genus? Species? What?
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago 8
You bet...but let us start at the beginning:
I say God created life. As a atheist and Darwinist,, how do you claim that life started?
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
That doesn't answer my question at all and is a poor attempt at changing the subject.
Define 'kind'
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago 8
Not at all I jusrt figure we can not have a kind of animal, or species, etc,. untiil we get life started so let's begin right there. How do you get around the Law of Biogenesis and get life started? Again, I say God created life. As an atheist and Darwinist,, how do you claim that life started?
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
The "law of biogenesis" is about maggots springing forth spontaneously from meat, and mice appearing fully formed in piles of grain. It's about spontaneous appearance of modern life from non-life. It's evidence against a form of creationism, not abiogenesis.
In any case, abiogenesis is a completely separate field of study than evolution, and you still haven't answered the question about "kinds".
Bueller007 2 years ago 5
There is no 'getting around the law of biogenesis' required, Redi and Pasteurs work concluded modern life does not spontaneously generate form non living matter and had nothing to do with abiogenesis.
I don't see why the question is so hard; What is your definition of kind?
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago 8
Again, abiogenesis is a belief that life can spontaneously generate from non-living molecules & actual science knows of NO way for this to take place This means that Naturalism, Darwinism, Atheism & Secular Humanism are anti-scientific religious beliefs which are scientifically impossible (which is why these religious groups shun the issue) So please explain how life began & we can move on
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
No, abiogenesis is the study of the progression of life from non life, and everything from the past 60 years of research has only supported it. It's a perfect example of science because we don't know and simply say we don't know, we don't attempt to cram any superfluous undetectable origin in the gap.
I don't need to explain how life began to define species, see watch: Any family of organisms which can breed and produce fertile offspring.
So quit dodging the question and define 'kind'
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago 9
As always, all you have is bluff & bluster - this is why I do not waste my time answering your comments
CreationMinistries 2 years ago
Thanks Russ
2xtream 2 years ago