Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others)
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 176 of 425 (540640)
12-27-2009 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Peg
12-26-2009 11:59 PM


Re: On doing science
i've never once claimed to be a scientist
but this site is for debating both sides and therefore im debating why i believe evolution is not sound. I'm pretty sure creationists are allowed to post their views here.
Peg, I would never dream of telling you not to post here. I actually enjoy discussing these matters with you.
But what does bother me is that you post your views as science, or at least supported by science, without ever having studied the sciences in question.
In my case it tends to annoy me, as I have studied a couple of those sciences intensely for forty years.
You would never think of offering your opinions concerning approach and technique to a brain surgeon, but you seem to think it appropriate to tell other scientists how to do things, and where we are wrong.
So don't be surprised when we sometimes get annoyed.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Peg, posted 12-26-2009 11:59 PM Peg has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 232 of 425 (541149)
01-01-2010 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Peg
01-01-2010 12:00 AM


Huh?
Ok, and what are the examples in the human population of a ring species?
Why should there be ring species among humans?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Peg, posted 01-01-2010 12:00 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Peg, posted 01-01-2010 6:54 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 287 of 425 (541258)
01-01-2010 8:58 PM


Summary
I think this thread has shown that the concept of "kinds" is a religious one, and that it doesn't necessarily apply to the findings made by science.
Science follows the empirical evidence where it leads, even when it contradicts someone's religious beliefs.
Religious believers must follow their scriptures or other sources of belief even when confronted with scientific evidence to the contrary.
So let's all just agree to disagree, eh?
But that means you don't try to teach your religious belief in schools or have it mandated by some governmental agency, and I won't demand equal time in your church.
Fair enough?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Rahvin, posted 01-01-2010 11:34 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 295 by greyseal, posted 01-02-2010 8:19 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 311 of 425 (541336)
01-02-2010 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by ICANT
01-02-2010 1:28 PM


Take a tape measure..
I have an ark that I have designed according to the Bible description and in it I have 18 acres of storage space and can put much more. I just need a list to see if I can fit all the animals in it.
Take a tape measure and a note pad and go visit a couple of large zoos. That should give you some appreciation for the problem.
Don't forget to measure the food storage and maintenance areas as well. Something they don't have that you will need on your ark is water storage, so better include estimates for that too.
Then do some math and let us know what you learn.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2010 1:28 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 323 of 425 (541385)
01-02-2010 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by ZenMonkey
01-02-2010 10:12 PM


Re: Beetle math.
I checked the math too.
I came up with 291.666 square feet.
I used 0.6 inches x 0.2 inches x 350,000 beetles / 144 (to convert square inches to square feet).
That comes out as a small fraction of an acre. I am no math wizard, but that's what it seems to me.
Edit to add: I told you I was no math wizard; I forgot to multiply by two for male & female beetles. The results still seem to be a small fraction of an acre.
Edited by Coyote, : A basic dummy mistake

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by ZenMonkey, posted 01-02-2010 10:12 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 343 of 425 (541822)
01-06-2010 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by ICANT
01-06-2010 12:51 PM


Re: One more time for the record.
A female dog and a male dog will produce dog pups and nothing else.
A female wolf and a male wolf will produce wolf pups and nothing else.
Fine. Now add in imperfect replication and a million years. Or ten million.
The evidence clearly shows that change of species, genera, and more can occur over time. And have occurred.
Can a male dog and a female dog produce something other than dog pups? Yes/No would do fine.
Given the above: yes.
Can a female wolf and a male wolf produce something other than wolf pups? Yes/No would do fine.
Given the above: yes.
And since this thread is in the Science Forum, I would hope that you would include at least some passing references to science in any reply.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by ICANT, posted 01-06-2010 12:51 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by ICANT, posted 01-06-2010 2:56 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 349 of 425 (541871)
01-06-2010 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by ICANT
01-06-2010 2:56 PM


Re: One more time for the record.
And that evidence is...What?
Nice try, but I'll not bother to try to spoon feed you the evidence yet again. It's a fool's errand.
Your ability to ignore evidence that doesn't confirm, or conform to, your religious belief is amazing.
Suffice it to say that the experts who actually study evidence have no problems with the theory of evolution. (I studied it for six years in graduate school, primarily on the fossil man and human osteology side. And no, I'll not bother to try to spoon feed you that information either.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by ICANT, posted 01-06-2010 2:56 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by Iblis, posted 01-06-2010 6:15 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 384 of 425 (542895)
01-13-2010 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 383 by ICANT
01-13-2010 2:27 PM


Re: Kind
It seems like todays classification is to prove evolution to me. Maybe you read this statement differently.
You've read it backwards.
Evolution has been proved as much as any theory we have.
Classification is most useful when it reflects, rather than contradicts, that reality.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by ICANT, posted 01-13-2010 2:27 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by ICANT, posted 01-13-2010 3:16 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 390 of 425 (542908)
01-13-2010 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 386 by ICANT
01-13-2010 3:16 PM


Re: Kind
That means Linnaeus classifications had to be modified to reflect Darwins principle of common descent.
The classifications were modified to better reflect reality. They were modified, in part, to reflect genetic data also.
That means it was done to prove evolution, or at the least to testify to evolution being true.
It was done to reflect new knowledge provided by the theory of evolution, not to prove that theory.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by ICANT, posted 01-13-2010 3:16 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 401 by ICANT, posted 01-15-2010 12:11 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 404 of 425 (543110)
01-15-2010 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 401 by ICANT
01-15-2010 12:11 PM


Re: Kind
So Linnaeus classifications was changed to say the same thing that the Theory of Evolution said.
That means the classifications of Linnaeus ceased to be the Linnaeus classifications.
They then became the classification of the ToE. Which just happen to agree with the Toe.
I get it now.
No, I doubt that you do, or that you ever will.
You seem to have some kind of a mental block when it comes to science.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by ICANT, posted 01-15-2010 12:11 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 405 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-15-2010 12:36 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 409 by ICANT, posted 01-15-2010 1:19 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 417 of 425 (543169)
01-15-2010 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 416 by ICANT
01-15-2010 8:26 PM


Re: KIND
So after all that I think I am defining kind as the same thing as a scientific species. Correct me if that conclusion is wrong.
We can't correct you on this, as you are providing the biblical definition for "kind" (at long last!).
But we can point out that if kinds=species then the ark would have been awfully crowded! In fact, impossibly crowded.
And this is not even counting the stray Brontosaurus or two and all their cousins and in-laws that some believe were taken along for the ride!
---------
Q. What's harder than getting a pregnant Brontosaurus in the ark?
A. Getting a Brontosaurus pregnant in the ark!
(Noah! Make them stop. I'm getting seasick!)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by ICANT, posted 01-15-2010 8:26 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 420 by anglagard, posted 01-15-2010 9:14 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024