Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 4:51 PM
36 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,865 Year: 8,901/19,786 Month: 1,323/2,119 Week: 83/576 Day: 83/50 Hour: 2/20


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
Author Topic:   A response to evolutionists
derwood
Member (Idle past 39 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 46 of 53 (19229)
10-07-2002 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Bart007
10-07-2002 12:00 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Bart007:
Evidence for determining Baramins is the same type of evidence used by evolutionists for determing clades and phylogenies. For both camps it is an ongoing research program.


Actually, creationists have simply co-opted the evidence and methodologies of evolutionists in this area, and have simply added arbitrary limits premised on their twisted literal interpretation of Scripture.

Also, one type - 'camp' - is doing research, the other is desparately trying to place limits on what that research indicates.

I will gladly discuss baraminology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Bart007, posted 10-07-2002 12:00 AM Bart007 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Percy, posted 10-07-2002 11:45 AM derwood has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18476
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 48 of 53 (19230)
10-07-2002 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by derwood
10-07-2002 11:40 AM


SLPx writes:

As for a definition of species, does it not stand to reason that if there were discreet created 'kinds' that such a definiton should be self-evident?

But defining species has its own problems and complexities. I don't think the difficulties associated with defining "kind" should be what casts the term into a negative light. For me it is instead the basis of its definition that is the problem. Science must follow the evidence from the natural world and not depend upon authority, and by this measure the definition of "kind" lacks a scientific foundation.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by derwood, posted 10-07-2002 11:40 AM derwood has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by John, posted 10-07-2002 12:13 PM Percy has responded

    
John
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 53 (19236)
10-07-2002 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Percy
10-07-2002 11:45 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
But defining species has its own problems and complexities.

True, but evolution doesn't require a 'hard' definition of species. As I see it, you can't ever have a perfectly defined species or you rule out change. Or define a species of one individual.

Creationism, on the other hand, does seem to require a 'hard' definition-- if not at the species level, at least at the 'kind' level, wherever that may be.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Percy, posted 10-07-2002 11:45 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 10-07-2002 1:53 PM John has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18476
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 50 of 53 (19240)
10-07-2002 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by John
10-07-2002 12:13 PM


John writes:

Creationism, on the other hand, does seem to require a 'hard' definition-- if not at the species level, at least at the 'kind' level, wherever that may be.

Right! And because that requirement is driven by authority and not by real-world evidence it isn't scientific.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by John, posted 10-07-2002 12:13 PM John has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by mark24, posted 10-07-2002 3:12 PM Percy has responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3358 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 51 of 53 (19242)
10-07-2002 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Percy
10-07-2002 1:53 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Percipient:
Right! And because that requirement is driven by authority and not by real-world evidence it isn't scientific.

--Percy


Species or kinds?

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 10-07-2002 1:53 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 10-07-2002 3:27 PM mark24 has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18476
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 52 of 53 (19243)
10-07-2002 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by mark24
10-07-2002 3:12 PM


Biblical authority places certain requirements upon the definition of "kind". Because Biblical authority is not evidence from the natural world it is not a scientific constraint, and so the Creationist definition of "kind" lacks a scientific foundation.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by mark24, posted 10-07-2002 3:12 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by mark24, posted 10-07-2002 4:35 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3358 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 53 of 53 (19245)
10-07-2002 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Percy
10-07-2002 3:27 PM


Percy,

I was getting worried!

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 10-07-2002 3:27 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019