Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8872 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-16-2018 3:23 PM
211 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Son of Man
Post Volume:
Total: 842,084 Year: 16,907/29,783 Month: 895/1,956 Week: 398/331 Day: 57/69 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
10Next
Author Topic:   Questions Creationists Never Answer
nator
Member (Idle past 120 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 1 of 141 (1690)
01-08-2002 12:14 PM


I have been involved in these on-line Creation/Evolution discussions for several years now, and there are some basic questions which I always ask of Creationists who claim that "Scientific Creationism" is scientific. I have yet to get any answers to them.

Perhaps the Creationists in this forum will provide. I will list a few of them to get us started.

1) Define "kind".

In other words, how do we tell one "kind" from another?

2) If ALL of the various radiometric dating methods are wrong, then how is it that they are ALL wrong in such a way that they are almost always remarkably consistent with one another?

3) Why do we never find flowering plants, including trees, grasses, etc., in the lower levels of the geologic column if all fossils were laid down in one Biblical Flood event?


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by John Paul, posted 01-08-2002 12:50 PM nator has responded
 Message 20 by Headcase, posted 09-18-2003 4:55 PM nator has not yet responded
 Message 23 by CreationWise, posted 08-31-2005 3:09 PM nator has not yet responded
 Message 65 by Evopeach, posted 11-08-2005 3:34 PM nator has responded
 Message 109 by Phat, posted 01-05-2008 3:09 AM nator has not yet responded
 Message 121 by olletrap, posted 10-08-2008 8:57 PM nator has not yet responded
 Message 122 by wardog25, posted 10-23-2008 12:09 PM nator has not yet responded

    
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 141 (1694)
01-08-2002 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
01-08-2002 12:14 PM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
I have been involved in these on-line Creation/Evolution discussions for several years now, and there are some basic questions which I always ask of Creationists who claim that "Scientific Creationism" is scientific. I have yet to get any answers to them.

Perhaps the Creationists in this forum will provide. I will list a few of them to get us started.

1) Define "kind".

In other words, how do we tell one "kind" from another?

2) If ALL of the various radiometric dating methods are wrong, then how is it that they are ALL wrong in such a way that they are almost always remarkably consistent with one another?

3) Why do we never find flowering plants, including trees, grasses, etc., in the lower levels of the geologic column if all fossils were laid down in one Biblical Flood event?


1 Kind- The organisms originally Created by the Lord our God. Baraminology is the research involved in determining what they were.

Here's a link: Baraminology

Also you can find info on AiG and other Creation websites. I don't know why evolutionists harp on this so much- can they tell us exactly what the first alleged population(s) of single-celled organisms were and exactly how they mutated to get to the diversity of life we observe today? No. Does it matter? No. It does not matter 1 iota to the functionality and maintenance of life to know what started it. If it did someone should respond to my thread on that topic.

2- radiometric dating- are you sure they all agree? Does that mean if I can find 'dates' that don't agreee your premise is refuted?

3- Not everything that has lived and died has fossilized or left impressions. Add that to the fact that we haven't looked in every possible sedimentary layer- you get an incomplete and fragmented record. Also your premise is false. Organisms died before the flood so why wouldn't fossilization occur before the flood also?

------------------
John Paul


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 01-08-2002 12:14 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by nator, posted 01-09-2002 12:18 AM John Paul has not yet responded
 Message 4 by nator, posted 01-09-2002 12:31 AM John Paul has not yet responded
 Message 5 by nator, posted 01-09-2002 12:46 AM John Paul has responded
 Message 110 by Al Barrs, posted 08-23-2008 6:55 PM John Paul has not yet responded
 Message 117 by olletrap, posted 10-08-2008 4:27 PM John Paul has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 120 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 3 of 141 (1726)
01-09-2002 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by John Paul
01-08-2002 12:50 PM


Well, I'm still waiting for a *straight* answer...

I'll answer each question separately. First, "kind".

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Paul:
[b]
1 Kind- The organisms originally Created by the Lord our God.[/QUOTE]

This definition is exactly the sort of empty definition I usually get. In fact, it's wrong even for creationists, since most "scientific" creationists allow that there are new species of organisms, just not new "kinds". What I want is some way to tell one kind from another. What if I say there is only 1 "kind": "life-kind". How do creationists know I'm wrong?

quote:

Baraminology is the research involved in determining what they were.

Here's a link: Baraminology


Well, at least, starting in the "summer of 1999" (that late!!!) *some* creationists realize what a weakness this is.

First: There's no definition of kind in the entire article. If I've missed it, please point it out.

The article says: "An important example of a holobaramin would be humans, Homo sapiens." But it doesn't justify this assertion. Anywhere. Why is the author SO certain that homo sapiens is a "kind"? (For those who haven't read an article, 'holobaramin' is essentially jargon for "kind": "the holobaramin consists of all known organisms in a group beginning after God created the original organisms")

Note, here that this is only a *single species*. The article then goes on to say: "Another holobaramin could consist of the sea turtles ". The "could" is OK, it's nice to see some tentativity in creationist writing. But again, no justification is given for this assertion!! Note that this "kind" is a number of species, not just a single one.

The article later says: "It is believed that the horses (horses, donkeys, and zebras) all are related because they can hybridize, and therefore they belong to a holobaramin. "

Now here a "kind" seems to defined by inter-fertility. YEt we know - and so do most "scientific creationists" - that new, non-hybridizing populations have been observed forming. So if this is the definition of "kind", then we have already proved that new kinds can form.

The article is filled with un-backed up assertions, such as: "A group of all the horses (equids), all the dogs (canids), and all the cats (felids) would be apobaraminic because no horse or dog or cat shares a genetic relationship with any organism which is not a horse, a dog, or a cat."

Why do we know this? This is just an assertion.

Finally, the article gets down to some business in the "Guidelines" section. It gets off to a bad start. The number one guideline?: "1. SCRIPTURE CLAIMS (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations."

The rest of the guidelines are merely the same sorts of guidelines any one uses in classification. Nowhere is there a guideline that tells you at what level of the complicated hierarchy of living things a "kind" exists. Animals bear a similarity to each other over plants. Plants and animals bear a resemblance to each other over fungi. Etc. But I doubt any creationist would even allow consideration of these "kinds". Why not?

So, the article has no definition of kind, just some bald assertions and loose, unjustified guidelines, and openly admits that Biblical authority is the primary motivation.

Side note: The article clearly states that there is *absolutely no relationship* between sea turtles and land turtles (no common ancestors), or gorillas and chimpanzees. But my tabby cat and a Bengal Tiger are the same kind, and are therefore intimately related. Nor does it find it worth justifying these distinctions within the article. Whatever.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by John Paul, posted 01-08-2002 12:50 PM John Paul has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 120 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 4 of 141 (1729)
01-09-2002 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by John Paul
01-08-2002 12:50 PM


Point 2:
quote:

2- radiometric dating- are you sure they all agree? Does that mean if I can find 'dates' that don't agreee your premise is refuted?

You didn't read my question very closely. I said "almost always". This is key. It isn't news to anyone that weird dates sometimes show up. The question which you have, unsuprisingly, avoided is why is there any consistency AT ALL? Let's say for a moment, to be extra-generous to creationists, that 25% of all dates are "random noise" and don't make sense from a standard interpretation. (The real percentage is probably much less than 5%, but that's not important to the point). However, the remaining 75% are *all consistent*. This is a pattern that NEEDS AN EXPLANATION. What is the creationist explanation for this pattern?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by John Paul, posted 01-08-2002 12:50 PM John Paul has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 120 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 5 of 141 (1730)
01-09-2002 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by John Paul
01-08-2002 12:50 PM


Schrafinator:
quote:
3) Why do we never find flowering plants, including trees, grasses, etc., in the lower levels of the geologicolumn if all fossils were laid down in one Biblical Flood event?

JohnPaul:

quote:

3- Not everything that has lived and died has fossilized or left impressions. Add that to the fact that we haven't looked in every possible sedimentary layer- you get an incomplete and fragmented record.

Hey, you sound just like Darwin! Creationists criticize these very same arguments when used to explain gaps in the fossil record, so I don't see that you are any more justified in using them.

At the level of classification we're talking about, these arguments ARE nonsense. If we were talking about a missing species or a missing genus, the imperfection of the fossil record is relevant. We're talking about the DOMINANT FORM OF PLANT LIFE ON EARTH - Angiosperms rule as far as plants are concerned.

quote:

Also your premise is false. Organisms died before the flood so why wouldn't fossilization occur before the flood also?

If you think this way, that's OK (although I wonder how you know which layers are Great Flood layers and which aren't). This doesn't help you at all, however. This opens up an entirely new can of worms: Why did only non-Angiosperms get buried before the flood? This is essentially the original question: What is the creationist explanation for the distribution of angiosperms in the geological layers?

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-09-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by John Paul, posted 01-08-2002 12:50 PM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by John Paul, posted 01-09-2002 6:06 AM nator has not yet responded

    
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 141 (1734)
01-09-2002 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by nator
01-09-2002 12:46 AM


schraf:
Well, I'm still waiting for a *straight* answer...

John Paul:
Well then wait. Or do some actual research into what it is you are debating against.

------------------
John Paul


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by nator, posted 01-09-2002 12:46 AM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 01-09-2002 10:22 AM John Paul has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17875
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 7 of 141 (1748)
01-09-2002 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by John Paul
01-09-2002 6:06 AM


Hi, John Paul!


John Paul writes to Schraf:
Well then wait. Or do some actual research into what it is you are debating against.

After reading message 3 from Schraf it appears that she read your reference and had some specific comments. Isn't there anything in message 3 you could respond to?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by John Paul, posted 01-09-2002 6:06 AM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by John Paul, posted 01-09-2002 10:36 AM Percy has responded

    
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 141 (1753)
01-09-2002 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Percy
01-09-2002 10:22 AM


Percy:
Hi, John Paul!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Paul writes to Schraf:
Well then wait. Or do some actual research into what it is you are debating against.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After reading message 3 from Schraf it appears that she read your reference and had some specific comments. Isn't there anything in message 3 you could respond to?

John Paul:
Gee whiz Percy, but did schraf respond to this: (see my first post in this thread)
"Also you can find info on AiG and other Creation websites. I don't know why evolutionists harp on this so much- can they tell us exactly what the first alleged population(s) of single-celled organisms were and exactly how they mutated to get to the diversity of life we observe today? No. Does it matter? No. It does not matter 1 iota to the functionality and maintenance of life to know what started it. If it did someone should respond to my thread on that topic."

Absolutely not. I'm stretched pretty thin here trying to answer every evolutionist post. It's time that evolutionists did their own research so they can learn what it is they are debating against.

From the True Origins glossary:

kind n.
the created “kind” (from the Hebrew word baramin) refers to the originally created populations of various forms of life from which all other forms have arisen. It does not deny variation or mutation, but says that instead of one unicellular organism being the proginator of all life on earth through all time, there were a number of originally created populations whose individuals cannot vary or speciate across the discontinuities which separate each kind from every other kind. The concept of baramin is related to the concept of discontinuities that exist between groups of organisms. For instance, the dog, the wolf, the coyote, are clearly in the same baramin. And there is a definite discontinuity between this baramin and the bovine baramin, although both are mammals. Baramins can be partially identified by successful (live birth) hybrids, but probably go way beyond what hybridization can do today. Genetic studies may help determine discontinuities. The fossil record is also a help.

Here's an article from AiG- Message 7 by Percy, posted 01-09-2002 10:22 AM

 Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Percy, posted 01-09-2002 10:47 AM John Paul has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17875
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3

Percy Posts Only

Message 9 of 141 (1757)
01-09-2002 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by John Paul
01-09-2002 10:36 AM


Hi, John Paul!


John Paul writes:
I'm stretched pretty thin here trying to answer every evolutionist post.

I understand. You might want to pace yourself. There's no time requirement.


Gee whiz Percy, but did schraf respond to this: (see my first post in this thread) "Also you can find info on AiG and other Creation websites. I don't know why evolutionists harp on this so much- can they tell us exactly what the first alleged population(s) of single-celled organisms were and exactly how they mutated to get to the diversity of life we observe today? No. Does it matter? No. It does not matter 1 iota to the functionality and maintenance of life to know what started it. If it did someone should respond to my thread on that topic."

I thought this question was rhetorical, since you followed it with your own answer, and so perhaps Schraf did, too. Schraf, can you answer John Paul's question?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by John Paul, posted 01-09-2002 10:36 AM John Paul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by John Paul, posted 01-09-2002 11:16 AM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 11 by nator, posted 01-09-2002 11:33 AM Percy has not yet responded

    
John Paul
Inactive Member

John Paul Posts Only

Message 10 of 141 (1761)
01-09-2002 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Percy
01-09-2002 10:47 AM


Hi, John Paul!

Hey Percy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Paul writes:
I'm stretched pretty thin here trying to answer every evolutionist post.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percy:
I understand. You might want to pace yourself. There's no time requirement.

John Paul:
It seems when Creationists do that evolutionists say we abandoned whatever it was.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gee whiz Percy, but did schraf respond to this: (see my first post in this thread) "Also you can find info on AiG and other Creation websites. I don't know why evolutionists harp on this so much- can they tell us exactly what the first alleged population(s) of single-celled organisms were and exactly how they mutated to get to the diversity of life we observe today? No. Does it matter? No. It does not matter 1 iota to the functionality and maintenance of life to know what started it. If it did someone should respond to my thread on that topic."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percy:
I thought this question was rhetorical, since you followed it with your own answer, and so perhaps Schraf did, too. Schraf, can you answer John Paul's question?

John Paul:
Yes I did answer myself but that doesn't mean my answer was correct. I am sure if I asked "Is the ToE scientific" and then immediately said "No way it is a religious belief" I would have plenty of responses. Or would people just say "Hey John Paul has a point. Thanks for answering that question JP."

------------------
John Paul


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Percy, posted 01-09-2002 10:47 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 120 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001

nator Posts Only

Message 11 of 141 (1762)
01-09-2002 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Percy
01-09-2002 10:47 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
Hi, John Paul!


John Paul writes:
I'm stretched pretty thin here trying to answer every evolutionist post.

I understand. You might want to pace yourself. There's no time requirement.


Gee whiz Percy, but did schraf respond to this: (see my first post in this thread) "Also you can find info on AiG and other Creation websites. I don't know why evolutionists harp on this so much- can they tell us exactly what the first alleged population(s) of single-celled organisms were and exactly how they mutated to get to the diversity of life we observe today? No. Does it matter? No. It does not matter 1 iota to the functionality and maintenance of life to know what started it. If it did someone should respond to my thread on that topic."

I thought this question was rhetorical, since you followed it with your own answer, and so perhaps Schraf did, too. Schraf, can you answer John Paul's question?

--Percy


At the risk of getting off-topic, I will.

(JP, please realize that I am still waiting for answers to my questions).

One can talk substantively about evolution without detailed knowledge of the starting point. The sentence "Birds evolved from dinosaurs" means something, even if we don't know all about the origin of life itself. On the other hand, "Evolution occurs only within 'kinds'" is meaningless if you can't define kind.

By "definition" I mean a definition that will let me know, at least tentatively, if animal A and animal B are the same kind or not. Instead of such a definition, I get nonsense like:

quote:

For instance, the dog, the wolf, the coyote, are clearly in the same baramin. And there is a definite discontinuity between this baramin and the bovine baramin, although both are mammals.

Bald, unjustified assertions. I could just as easily assert that canines and bovines are clearly related and thus are part of the same kind. The quote above says that they are all mammals. Why isn't this enough of a connection to be a kind? Can any creationist definition of kind address this matter? Not that I've seen.

In this thread, I want to stick to this problem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Percy, posted 01-09-2002 10:47 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Quetzal, posted 01-11-2002 3:20 AM nator has not yet responded

    
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002

Quetzal Posts Only

Message 12 of 141 (1880)
01-11-2002 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by nator
01-09-2002 11:33 AM


Morning!

I have a quick question for John Paul. I have read some of the ID literature concerning baraminology, but keep coming up against a problem. To wit, how are the "discontinuities" between the various levels of classification determined/defined?

In the current Linnean classification system, both morphology and genetics are used to make assignments, and even then the system breaks down occasionally - especially when you are dealing with fossils. A lot of "classical" (i.e., morphology) systematics relies basically on the individual experience and ability of the taxonomist. Do you have any insight into how the "baraminologists" (if there is such a word) might resolve these issues? If there is no hard-and-fast way (beyond biblical interpretation) to determine the discontinuities/barriers, why would anyone adopt baraminology over the (relatively) effective Linnean system?

Thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by nator, posted 01-09-2002 11:33 AM nator has not yet responded

  
jester461
Inactive Member

jester461 Posts Only

Message 13 of 141 (55529)
09-15-2003 12:50 PM


I think the first two questions have been answered quite while but as for your last question, I think you are confused. I have several flower fossils in my house, supposedly from the early jurrasic period, I am a creationist so I am not in total agreement about the dating. I grew up in Southern Pennsylvania, and we found a lot of these in the slate, but the best one I have a bought one line, if you want one go to:http://www.fossilmall.com/Western_Fossils/Plants/PL001/PL001.htm.
If you want pictures go here:http://www.taiwanfm.com.tw/fhall/flower.htm
http://www.valentine.gr/fossil-flower_en.htm
depends on how far back you want to go.
and as for question two, basic logic should tell you that will happen, if I use a ruler that is marked as twelve inches and is really only eight inches long, then measure all the "unknowns" with that ruler, all of the measuremnts will agree. But that doesn't mean they are the right measurement. No one has ever said the WAY you measure is wrong, if you measure everything the same way, it will agree, it's the "unit of measurement" you are using that is in error.
If you do something wrong the same way, everytime, it it will always be wrong the same way. And since the development of most radiometric dating methods used each other to verify their own development, it was as if you used your ruler that was maker as twelve inches but really only eight inches long to make a jig, or a stencil, or a mold that are also supposed to measure, and then you wonder why they all have the same results wrong results. Strati dating, carbon dating and AR40/K-Ar are all based on the logic formula and a major part of that formula is in error, mostly having to do with consistancecy of processes, but if that "unit of measurement" error the same way then they all erroe in their measurement the same amount.
Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by awinkisas, posted 09-15-2003 1:20 PM jester461 has not yet responded
 Message 16 by awinkisas, posted 09-15-2003 3:30 PM jester461 has not yet responded
 Message 17 by NosyNed, posted 09-15-2003 4:01 PM jester461 has not yet responded
 Message 18 by Rei, posted 09-15-2003 8:03 PM jester461 has not yet responded

  
awinkisas
Inactive Member

awinkisas Posts Only

Message 14 of 141 (55531)
09-15-2003 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by jester461
09-15-2003 12:50 PM


I'm no expert but don't tree ring calculations support the validity of radio dating? Since tree rings aren't radioactive decay they don't use same "ruler".
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by jester461, posted 09-15-2003 12:50 PM jester461 has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12561
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002

Admin Posts Only

Message 15 of 141 (55533)
09-15-2003 1:43 PM


Thread moved here from the The Great Debate forum.
    
1
23456
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018