Biological classification vs 'Kind'

quote:

---

And you are right. Scientists are biased. They are biased towards concepts that are evidenced and testable. How is that a bad thing? Also, how do you explain the fact that about 30% of biologists who accept evolution are also theists, not atheists. Are you saying that tens of thousands of christians are involved in a conspiracy to quash any scientific work related to a supernatural designer?

---

Since you asked the question I'll clarify this once more - and then I need to move on or risk being buried by having to explain myself so many times:My religion dictates certain beliefs. YEC is not one of those. I could be a theistic evolutionist and still be a Christian (and was one prior to giving the subject any serious examination).I have chosen the YEC model as my preferred model for two reasons:
1) It seems to best fit the Biblical text
2) It seems to best fit the scientific evidence I have reviewed

Why do the millions of non-YEC professional scientists completely disagree, be they Christian, Muslim, Bhuddist, Hindu, atheist, agnostic, pantheist, deist? Why do no scientists outside fundementalist branches of the abrahamic faiths see any evidence at all for a YEC position? Can the world-wide body of scientists be so inceredibly incompetent? Or is God and/or Satan playing an active role in deceiving us all?

Since you may not have caught my previous explanations I'll respond to these again - but going forward I'm just going to have to skip responses to these type of posts - nothing against you personally, I just don't have time to repeatedly clarify my positions.

quote:

---

While Creationist lie-sites like to portray Evolution as an atheist conspiracy, in fact most of the scientists who initially formulated the theory, and before that the many other scientists who abandoned special creation as an explanation, were not not atheists. They were just scientists who follow the evidence.

---

Yes - I understand there are many non-atheist darwinists. When I use the term "atheistic scientists" or "atheistic darwinists" I am referencing a subset of scientists or darwinists respectively - those who are atheists. I have not and will not assume all persons of those respective classes are atheists.

quote:

---

Supernatural explanations have a 100% track record of failure. Naturalistic (not atheistic, naturalistic) science has done a rather better job of explaining and understanding the world around us.

---

Supernatural explanations have a 100% track record of failure simply because only naturalistic phenomena have been scientifically understood thus-far. Science is able to easily answer natural phenomena - but this does not mean that supernatural phenomena do not exist. It is quite possible that a subset of unexplained phenomena are supernatural - and our present naturalistic scientific methods would not be able to detect this. Those phenomena would then (under a naturalistic system) remain permanently unexplained.

Which is fine; except that it isn't the atheistic subset that hold evolution to be true, it's almost every single biologist. Step outside of biology and look at astrophysics or geology and you find that they too disagree with the YEC notion and, again, it's not just the atheists. Trying to dismiss Evolution as something only atheists believe is simply untrue. Trying to act like Creation is dismissed by only the atheist scientists is also untrue.It's not atheistic scientists you're disagreeing with, it's just scientists. Which is a nice assertion, but that's all. The fact is that scientists aren't dismissing supernatural explanations because they're anti-God or anti-religion, but because they're trying to understand the world around them (and us) and postulating supernatural explanations simply does not help with that.

YEC "scientists" did not predict the Neanderthals were not a human ancestor. They simply asserted that humans have no evolutionary ancestors. Baraminology makes the identical claim. If baraminology is science then tell us based on what evidence does it make this claim.Can I presume that if you're willing to accept the findings of science that Neanderthal is not an evolutionary ancestor of humans that you're also willing to accept the findings of science that Homo egaster *is* our evolutionary ancestor?--Percy

Translation: Any time you're ready to present some evidence, Bob, we're here. The nature of science doesn't changed just because one has religious beliefs. Many of us have religious beliefs, but science still means having evidence for what you believe. What you're doing in this thread is religion because you're just stating what you believe. If you were doing science you would be stating the evidence for what you believe.So if you have any evidence supporting kinds or baraminology, this is the thread to do it. We're coming up on 300 messages, don't you think it's time?--Percy

Percy, that's not only a little unfair - given what you said earlier I think an apology is merited:

quote:

---

Hi Bob! Just wanted to say that since few of your sentences don't invite multitudes of responses, its possible you might return Monday to find far more responses than any non-obsessive/compulsive could ever answer (I know I'll be doing my part if I can find the time). If that happens then don't feel the need to reply to every message, especially since many people are probably telling you the same thing.

---

You were right, the evidence demonstrated it, Bob conceded he couldn't respond to all posts that are saying similar things and you use that concession to claim a victory? Naughty Percy

Hi Mod!I didn't forget that earlier post. It was made at a point in time where I believed Bob when he said he was interested in the evidence. As others have also noted, he misrepresented himself.The Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread might be a better venue for these types of issues. Sorry we don't see eye to eye on this one.--Percy

Did Wile close that blog to comments, or did I just forget how to use it?--Percy

Yes, he's closed it. Unsurprisingly, quite a few topics are closed down on his blog. I need to find an open one to start dismantling his rhetoric that he has been "persuaded" that decay rates are variable by the "evidence"

But that's just it. There is no single nested hierarchy for automobiles. You can have two Ford trucks, one with a Cummins deisel and the other with a Ford engine. You can have a Chevy and Ford with the same tires and the same airbags. Depending on what features you pick you will get a different nested hierarchy. This is not so with life. Life fits in a single nested hierarchy. There are no animals with teats and feathers, as one example.This is the whole point I have been trying to get across. Things that are designed do not fall into a single nested hierarchy. Things that evolve do fall into a nested hierarchy. Life falls into a single nested hierarchy. How is this not indicative of common ancestry? This doesn't explain how flowering plants outran ferns. This doesn't explain the correlation between radiometric dating and the fossil species found. This explanation fails on every level. Without common ancestry there is no reason that separately created species would even share the same genetic molecule, much less the same genes.

quote:

---

Evolution is the central principle behind almost all modern biology. Do you really think that biologists are so stupid and incompetent that they have based an entire century of work around something that doesn't even look true?

​

The overwhelming majority of biologists agree that life looks evolved. The overwhelming majority of geologists agree that the Earth looks old. I think it is reasonable to conclude from this that life does indeed look evolved and that the Earth looks old

---

There was a majority of nazis in Germany during WWII (or at least those non-conforming were silent to the issue) - does this mean we should have supported nazism were we to live there in that time? This isn't a scientific argument - of course we should not go along with a belief simply because that belief is held by a majority.I do not see evidence that overwhelmingly makes the earth look old or evolution look true. If I did I would be a theistic evolutionist (as I've stated several times already). I do see that darwinian evolution looks good from a distance - and I correspondingly understand why many people (particularly prior to the last few decades) have been swayed to believe in darwinian evolution - but under close examination it doesn't seem to hold up.

quote:

---

I'm sorry to say that you are mistaken here. There are some YECs who do engage in this kind of argument; it's called Omphalism. Ever heard the argument that God created starlight "in transit", with the appearance of having travelled for millions of years? That's a form of omphalism. I agree with you that suggesting a deceitful God is not desirable, but I really don't see what other option you have.

---

I stand corrected. I'll revise: Most mainstream creationists do not subscribe to Omphalism - though it may have been more prevalent in the past. YECs have several hypotheses for the distant starlight problem that do not involve Omphalism - but a discussion of those hypotheses are beyond the scope of this thread.

quote:

---

A number of dinosaur species have been identified as feathered. One example is Sinornithosaurus.

---

Wow....it looks like to me they found exactly what they set out to find. Consider the assumptions that were made:
* The imprints on the fossil are feathers (I'm not seeing it - but I don't look at fossils all day either)
* The carbon-structures found in the impressions look like melanosomes under a microscope so they must be melanosomes
* the impressions may contain melanosomes - bird feathers also contain melanosomes - so they must be feathers (nevermind that many other organisms contain melanosomes).I'm sure their bias for wanting to find feathered dinosaurs didn't play into this at all - nope, not at all (sarcasm implied in case it wasn't apparent).As for the other so-called feathered dinosaurs? The evidence seems to be equally scant. I think Dr. Wile has just cause for his statement.Who knows though - maybe their wild assumptions are correct. Maybe there are feathered dinosaurs. I can live with that - it doesn't harm my scientific worldview.

quote:

---

I'm not going to read your link. I'm not going to argue bare links. Please make your arguments in your own words, or how am I to know that you truly understand what you are linking to?

---

The link was not bare - but posted as supporting evidence for the position I stated. Though of course - you are free to disagree - and to read whatever you would like.

quote:

---

Suffice to say that your claim about the ToE being "stretched" is a fantasy. Every single time a new species is found, it fits into the nested hierarchy of evolution. Every single new fossil fits into that pattern. Every new genome described provides an opportunity to falsify evolution; it never happens. Instead, the ToE has seen its most important predictions verified. Darwin predicted a hereditary mechanism that allowed for descent with modification. If evolution were not true, there would be no reason for such a mechanism to exist. The discovery of genetics was an enormous vindication of Darwin's theory.

---

False. Most every new organism discovered fits well into an ontology for classifying organisms according to similarities. Not surprisingly, most genetic evidence also fits because organisms with similar morphological features often share similar genetic features. Darwinists just make the jump from there that the nice ontological model implies a common ancestry of all organisms - a claim for which there isn't much evidence.

quote:

---

So you get your evidence from the Bible? Very scientific.

---

No no no. Let's get something straight: I'm not here to argue "The Bible tells me its true - so all of you are wrong!" I do believe the Bible to be 100% accurate - but I won't use that belief as the basis of my arguments here. I came here to debate scientific evidence - not theology.I was stating that the YEC model (and its hypotheses) are based upon an interpretation of the Bible. It certainly isn't the only interpretation, but theologically it seems to be the most sound (vs. old-earth creationist models or theistic evolution). Just because the model is originated from the Bible doesn't mean it can't be scientifically examined. You wouldn't suggest that the ToE is unscientific simply because it originated from Darwin would you?

quote:

---

Still, let's try to apply this to our example. You were asked why God didn't create feathered mammals. What Biblical evidence can you cite to explain God's reasons? What is it about God's character, as revealed by scripture, that explains why no feathered mammals exist?

---

There is none. There are of course many topics that the Bible does not address in detail. Specifically when it comes to baraminology there are only a few relevant verses from which conclusions can be drawn - but there are some.

quote:

---

And no matter how many times you say it, it will remain nonsense.

​

Evolution is not wedded to naturalistic abiogenesis. Any number of modes of origin could be compatible with evolution.

​

God could have created life... which subsequently evolved and diversified.

​

Aliens could have seeded life upon the ancient Earth... which subsequently evolved and diversified.

​

Life could have arisen through unguided naturalistic chemical processes... which subsequently evolved and diversified.

​

The fact that many Christian theistic evolutionists believe that God used supernatural means to create the very first life - which subsequently evolved and diversified - supports this.

---

I've answered this multiple times. Feel free to read through my other posts on this thread for an explanation - I don't have time to retype it all again here.

quote:

---

Can you think of a mechanism that could do that? In a flood?

---

The short answer is: Yes. The long answer is off-topic.

quote:

---

Well if you want to consider it this a flaw, I suppose I agree insofar as it goes. However, given that the track record of scientific achievement since methodological naturalism became the norm, it is a flaw I am willing to suffer quite gladly. It seems a small price to pay for things like vaccines, sanitation, antibiotics...

---

Flawed reasoning. There is no causation between naturalism and scientific advance.

quote:

---

I agree, but unfortunately for you, the human and chimp genomes are extremely similar. Our DNA is far more similar to a bonobo than any other animal, so why isn't it in the same baramin? Your only answer is to defer to the alleged authority of the Bible, which rather marks this as an exercise in religious apologetics rather than open scientific enquiry

---

Nope - you are still making the assumption that genetic similarity implies common ancestry. The dismal track record of supposed transitional "human ancestor" fossils over the years doesn't help you here. If the consensus among other posters is that an examination of those fossils is on-topic then I'd be happy to discuss them in more depth.

quote:

---

No? Then why does this baramin enthusiast group moles together with (of all things!) marsupial moles, but still insist that dormice are different enough to mice that they deserve a baramin of their own? If moles and marsupial moles are of the same kind, why not humans and apes?

​

Unless you can show me some objective means of identifying the limits of a baramin, I am forced to conclude that the term is worthless.

---

I've never heard of the site you referenced - but suffice it to say there will probably be some disagreement and minority viewpoints among creationists when classifying creatures into kinds. This is irrelevant to your argument against the validity of baraminology.

quote:

---

Unless you can show me some objective means of identifying the limits of a baramin, I am forced to conclude that the term is worthless.

---

Conclude whatever you would like - Baraminology is worthless to those who have no reason to assume the supernatural. I've gone into this in detail previously.For those of us who do subscribe to Baraminology - it is important to identify the limits of a baramin. There is work currently being done by multiple creation scientists to do exactly that. Baraminology (the modern variant anyway which incorporates factors such as genetics) is a relatively new field of study, and creation scientists don't have the same numbers or backing to support the advancement of their research, so it naturally moves at a slower pace.Thank you for the comprehensive reply.

From his point of view, he'd be well advised to close the whole blog down, not just comments. He puts up stuff that's fit for FSTDCheck out this post in which he explains to the world how dendrochronology is one of his 5 main reasons for believing that the earth is younger than 10,000 years. Wile on trees (and presumably strong hallucinogens) It's jaw-dropping stuff!Edited by bluegenes, : fixed linkEdited by bluegenes, : and again!Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

Why would different baramins share any features at all? There is no reason for them too. Why should the human and ape baramine share any features, much less 98% of the DNA? Why should mammals and bacteria use the same tRNA codons if they were created separately? Again, why isn't this surprising? Isn't this exactly what we should see if common ancestry is true? Or are you saying that we should throw out every DNA paternity test ever done because the two people could have been magically poofed into being? If common ancestry is true should we or should we not observe a nested hierarchy? Since we observe a nested hierarchy, why isn't this evidence of common ancestry? Is your only refutation, "Well, they could have been magically poofed into being"? Is your only refutation a what-if fantasy based on supernatural magic? This is in stark contrast to the theory of evolution which is based on the empirical evidence. It originated from the evidence that Darwin discovered on his journeys, most notably on the HMS Beagle. Can you name a single scientific advancement that is solely based on divine revelation? From my knowledge, the scientific advances we have today are the product of methodological naturalism, not divine revelation. What dismal track record? We have more hominid fossils than we ever had the right to expect to have. Using the letters next to each skull can you tell us which belong to the ape baramin and which belong to the human baramin? Important for what? Apologetics?

quote:

---

Is Mr. Thomas of the ICR actually incapable of understanding an article in Science, or is he being deliberately dishonest? It's beyond all shadow of doubt that he has made a mistake here, and attributes to Sarmiento an assertion that is diametrically opposite to what the scientist actually said. It's risky business to guess at someone's true intent, but I am inclined to think that Mr. Thomas's stupidity is not so extreme as to qualify this as an "honest" mistake.

---

Mr. Thomas is not being inept or dishonest here. He doesn't mention Sarmiento's conclusions because it is already clear what those conclusions are. Thomas was drawing attention to the contreversy: evolutionists can't decide where Ardi fits. No one doubted that they believed Ardi to not be some sort of a primate ancestor - darwinists wouldn't draw any conclusion that wouldn't fit their dogma. If anything (probably in an effort to simplify the issue for non-scientific readers) he chose poor wording for the title of the article.