|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Biological classification vs 'Kind' | |||||||||||||||||||
CosmicChimp Member Posts: 311 From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland Joined: |
Yes it is exactly this video that got me into trying to figure it out. Thx Huntard
My mind keeps trying to copy itself. Try as I might to stop it, almost everything I do seems to be some sort of a crude attempt at making copies. Gawd, what an egomaniac.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
CosmicChimp Member Posts: 311 From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland Joined: |
This is a great rebuttal. I'm glad to see that the best I have is something similar to what you say. It might be interesting to look beyond the shouts of "God did it!" and "Nature did it!"
My mind keeps trying to copy itself. Try as I might to stop it, almost everything I do seems to be some sort of a crude attempt at making copies. Gawd, what an egomaniac.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
Hello again everybody. There still seems to be plenty of interest in this discussion - and probably will be as long as a creationist is around that talks about 'kinds'. That said - the thread is getting a little long in the tooth.
I'm leaving it open, and won't close it without warning, but if someone interested in the topic would care to Propose a descendant thread so that we can begin to wrap this one up towards some kind of conclusion that would be super. Unless participants are specifically keen to keep going in this thread. Oh! And thanks for everyone's efforts to refocus back to the topic - I've obviously been a little distracted with other EvC affairs recently so I've not been watching as closely as I was doing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
The science as a whole would also be falsified if humans and chimps (or some other primate) were shown to have common ancestry. Then consider "baraminology" as falsified as phrenology, because chimps and humans do share common ancestry, as shown by about 417 lines of evidence that I'm aware of. Go read message 261, this thread, again, and explain to be once more why these "baranomes" related to vomeronasal organs "deteriorated" in the same exact way in great apes and in humans, but not in monkeys or lemurs. "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Then consider "baraminology" as falsified as phrenology, because chimps and humans do share common ancestry, as shown by about 417 lines of evidence that I'm aware of. Go read message 261, this thread, again, and explain to be once more why these "baranomes" related to vomeronasal organs "deteriorated" in the same exact way in great apes and in humans, but not in monkeys or lemurs. Baraminology is pushed and defended because "kinds" are in the bible, not because of any evidence for it and in spite of all the evidence against it. And no amount of evidence will convince believers that it is wrong. These are reasons it is the exact opposite of real science. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hi CosmicChimp. I think that Huntard and Crashfrog have done a great job answering this one already, but I would just like to add a couple of things.
To me nested hierarchy implies imperfect inheritance or incomplete duplication. Yes, it very strongly argues for heritable change, with modification, leading to speciation. The case is so compelling that besides a deliberately deceitful god, I can't see any other possibilities - and Bobthj has explicitly rejected that notion.
But how is it to be distinguished from a deity poofing a series of creatures into existence based upon what they say is common design or modular design or whatever else they say it is. It isn't. The problem is that nothing can be distinguished from Last Thursdayism. Appealing to the meddling of an undetectable supernatural entity is an answer that can equally be applied to anything. There is no observation or question to which it could not be applied. Of course it could then be turned around and used to make just as strong a case for the counter-argument. We must either reject such an answer or we must seriously consider the possibility that all human knowledge is compromised by supernatural trickery. I have to say that for my tastes, undermining all knowledge seems a high price to pay for a single religious apologetic. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||
CosmicChimp Member Posts: 311 From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland Joined: |
Thanks GM, this is great affirmation I really needed to know this. I kept seeing titles and arguments for this specific debate and could never really see the claim as correct from the evolution side. Through my own work, I had isolated the ideas down to the creationists proclaiming at the core of it "god did it" but I now see how and why that if god did it then he is a trickster. This is ultimately as you have also conveyed the entire EvC debate wrapped up into a few sentences.
I think I can remember there being a tiny part in the video Huntard linked to where this too is stated, I need to review it again as this is then the culmination of the entire video. If I can find it then I would like to commend the maker for his thoroughness. But thanks for yours and huntard's and CF's work in every case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Carel Junior Member (Idle past 4937 days) Posts: 2 From: Heilig Landstichting, The Netherlands Joined: |
You write: You'll never get a usable answer from creationists.
Anyway, good luck with your quest, my prediction is there will be no answer forthcoming. Let's see if I'm a prophet, eh? Long ago I enterd the EO-forums "And God Created Darwin". I was looking for answers like this. I tried almost everything to get an answer, but no. I'm not sure if Huntard is a prophet, but many things he said were right. Now I want to debate the 6000 jear old earth. That's even more difficult, because creationists know that with that timescale they throw almost every science through the drain. Hope I find good topics here CarelVanHeugten
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2316 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Carel writes:
Thank you, Carel. I remember you from there. Welcome to EvC! Long ago I enterd the EO-forums "And God Created Darwin". I was looking for answers like this. I tried almost everything to get an answer, but no. I'm not sure if Huntard is a prophet, but many things he said were right. This place is a bit different then the EO-forums. Most importantly, it's moderated a lot better then the EO-forums. Which is one of the reasons I left there.
Now I want to debate the 6000 jear old earth. That's even more difficult, because creationists know that with that timescale they throw almost every science through the drain.
Oh you will. Start with Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, for a comprehensive look at dating methods that disprove a young earth. Hope I find good topics here Oh, and a free tip. If you use the "peek"button on the bottom right of this post you can see how I did those nice little quoteboxes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
killinghurts Member (Idle past 5014 days) Posts: 150 Joined: |
I vote for a close on this subject. I've learned a few things, among them include;
- Baraminology seems to be the creationists classification system (or lack thereof), - Baraminology seems to reject evidence that does not support its hypotheses (the most blatantly obvious being universal common decent).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024