|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,768 Year: 4,025/9,624 Month: 896/974 Week: 223/286 Day: 30/109 Hour: 3/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 503 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Bible and "kind" | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5622 days) Posts: 239 From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States Joined: |
There isn't any defined model to test. If we knew what a kind was then we might have a clue about what transitionals would be a problem. We'd also need a definition of what an inter-kind transitional It seems that you are claiming that we cannot falsify the idea of kinds, to which I definitely agree. The idea of "kinds" is not a hypothosis or a theory. "Kinds" describes the way YECs believe God created life. That is the extent of what I claim about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5058 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
I have SAID
GOSH YOU GUYS HAVE TO STOP IGNORING IT!!!!!!!!!!!!! KIND- is related to the notions of clade and grade via rotations and revolutions. THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE INDEPENDENTLY OF ANY PARTICULAR BARAMINOLOGT'S ASSERTION OF THE DISCONTINUTY!!!!!!!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
It seems that you are claiming that we cannot falsify the idea of kinds, to which I definitely agree. The idea of "kinds" is not a hypothosis or a theory.
Then you may walk calmly to the door of the science classroom and leave. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200. Do not expect to be taken seriously outside of your church.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5058 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Search the word "perversion" please. This was my USE OF GIBBS BEFORE I had communicated with Georgi Gladyshev.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5622 days) Posts: 239 From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States Joined: |
Then you may walk calmly to the door of the science classroom and leave. I do not understand where I have violated scientific principles in this argument. If I have, however, I would be happy to have it pointed out so I don't do it again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
If I read that correctly:
And you ask me where you have violated scientific principles? This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-08-2004 01:34 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5622 days) Posts: 239 From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States Joined: |
And you ask me where you have violated scientific principles? I have not claimed scientific status for the idea of "kinds." I have not been arguing for the existence of "kinds." I have been defending my interpretation (which I believe I have good reasons for believing is the the correct interpretation) of the idea of "kinds," as set forth in the Bible, from various attacks on it. If by "scientific principles," you mean only postulating that which can be falsified, yes, I admit that I am not sticking to "scientific principles." But I have stated several times that I was not claiming hypothesis or theory status for the idea of "kinds." Every time I departed from "scientific principles" I clearly stated that I was doing so. The fact that I am willing to examine, and if the evidence is strong enough, to believe, non-falsifiable ideas does not mean I am unscientific. It means that there are non-falsifiable ideas in the world that need examining.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5934 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
JT
It means that there are non-falsifiable ideas in the world that need examining. If they are non falsifiable how do you propose to qualify them as actual phenomena? "We cannot define anything precisely! If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, 'You don't know what you are talking about!' The second one says 'What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?', and so on."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
If by "scientific principles," you mean only postulating that which can be falsified, yes, I admit that I am not sticking to "scientific principles." The falsification thing can be a bit over done. What seems to be missed is that the reason so much is made of this. If we can't in any way show something is wrong and we have multiple conflicting ideas of that kind how do we pick on from the other?
It means that there are non-falsifiable ideas in the world that need examining. I agree, the tendancy of the majority of scientists is to leave such things untill there is some way of testing them. But there have always been those who are willing to speculate for both the chance to uncover something important and the pure fun of it. They just don't get to "believing" their speculations. If an idea can't be tested or explored we all get to believe all sorts of stuff with no way of picking and choosing but: "Is too!", "Is NOT!", "Is TOO!!!" etc.
The fact that I am willing to examine, and if the evidence is strong enough, Sometimes it is darn hard but if there is actual evidence then there is often a chance to work out a way to figure out a "telling" test that would, at least, cast doubt on somethin. I thought we were talking about things that don't have evidence. (lol, now it's back to the "what is evidence" thread.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I think we can lay off JT a bit.
Let him define "kinds" in whatever way, to describe whatever phenomenon at whatever time, as he sees fit. It's not like he's trying to use it for anything. He's repudiated creationists that try to argue that evolution predicts new kinds, and as far as I'm concerned, that's enough for me. He's good people. All we've ever argued is that "kinds" isn't a scientific classification of existing species. He's never claimed otherwise. What is there to argue about?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jt Member (Idle past 5622 days) Posts: 239 From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States Joined: |
Thanks Crashfrog.
I don't think there is anything left to debate in this thread either. But if anybody differs, I'm happy to keep going. Some of you guys brought up good points about various things, mainly the genetics. I think those things would make for good debates on their own merits, if anybody wants to open up (a) thread(s) about it. Benoit Mandelbrot is not a type of wine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Thanks Crashfrog. No prob. A few of us a while back made a pledge to cough up a few bucks (via PayPal) as a prize to the first creo who could come up with a functional definition of "kinds." I'm not saying that you've done that, but I don't mind telling you you're the closest so far.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5058 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
"kinds" can be retrodicted evidentially from any grade symmetry in a type by equilibrium priciples provided the class variation recieves a biogeographic measure. We dont know how to do this yet yet this does not mean that the use of this word IN SCIENCE is "belief". If what you said is true than I assert a clade via uniform time appearence even when deceptive is also only something something believed.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 06-02-2004 06:57 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024