Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8950 total)
38 online now:
caffeine, jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Tangle, Theodoric, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (8 members, 30 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,089 Year: 22,125/19,786 Month: 688/1,834 Week: 188/500 Day: 16/69 Hour: 7/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bible and "kind"
jt
Member (Idle past 3937 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 136 of 148 (106458)
05-07-2004 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by NosyNed
05-07-2004 6:51 PM


Re: a problem?
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by NosyNed, posted 05-07-2004 6:51 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by NosyNed, posted 05-08-2004 12:50 PM jt has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3373 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 137 of 148 (106601)
05-08-2004 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by jar
05-06-2004 8:43 PM


Re: Transitional
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!!!!!!!!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by jar, posted 05-06-2004 8:43 PM jar has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8868
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 138 of 148 (106602)
05-08-2004 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by jt
05-07-2004 8:10 PM


Re: a problem?
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by jt, posted 05-07-2004 8:10 PM jt has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by jt, posted 05-08-2004 1:47 PM NosyNed has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3373 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 139 of 148 (106603)
05-08-2004 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by jt
05-07-2004 12:34 PM


Search the word "perversion" please. This was my USE OF GIBBS BEFORE I had communicated with Georgi Gladyshev.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by jt, posted 05-07-2004 12:34 PM jt has not yet responded

  
jt
Member (Idle past 3937 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 140 of 148 (106611)
05-08-2004 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by NosyNed
05-08-2004 12:50 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by NosyNed, posted 05-08-2004 12:50 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by NosyNed, posted 05-08-2004 2:32 PM jt has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8868
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 141 of 148 (106617)
05-08-2004 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by jt
05-08-2004 1:47 PM


If I read that correctly:

  • Kinds is simply a belief. It has no suporting evidence, no depth, no details, nothing that a non-believer can check, think about or compare to other things.
  • Kinds is not a theory or hypothosis. It is simply a statement with no depth, no details, nothing to consider.
  • Kinds can not be falsified. There is no way, even in princple that I could determine if it was right or not. There is no way to separate it from any other creation myth.

And you ask me where you have violated scientific principles?

This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-08-2004 01:34 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by jt, posted 05-08-2004 1:47 PM jt has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by jt, posted 05-08-2004 2:57 PM NosyNed has responded
 Message 148 by Brad McFall, posted 06-02-2004 7:52 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
jt
Member (Idle past 3937 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 142 of 148 (106623)
05-08-2004 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by NosyNed
05-08-2004 2:32 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by NosyNed, posted 05-08-2004 2:32 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by sidelined, posted 05-08-2004 4:12 PM jt has not yet responded
 Message 144 by NosyNed, posted 05-08-2004 4:36 PM jt has not yet responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 148 (106635)
05-08-2004 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by jt
05-08-2004 2:57 PM


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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by jt, posted 05-08-2004 2:57 PM jt has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8868
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 144 of 148 (106639)
05-08-2004 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by jt
05-08-2004 2:57 PM


Sorting them all out.
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.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by jt, posted 05-08-2004 2:57 PM jt has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 148 (106679)
05-08-2004 7:46 PM


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?


Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by jt, posted 05-08-2004 10:06 PM crashfrog has responded

  
jt
Member (Idle past 3937 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 146 of 148 (106698)
05-08-2004 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by crashfrog
05-08-2004 7:46 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by crashfrog, posted 05-08-2004 7:46 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by crashfrog, posted 05-08-2004 10:11 PM jt has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 148 (106699)
05-08-2004 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by jt
05-08-2004 10:06 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by jt, posted 05-08-2004 10:06 PM jt has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3373 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 148 of 148 (112491)
06-02-2004 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by NosyNed
05-08-2004 2:32 PM


error in posting
"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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by NosyNed, posted 05-08-2004 2:32 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019