Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological classification vs 'Kind'
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 26 of 385 (562742)
06-01-2010 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by caffeine
06-01-2010 6:13 AM


I think you're missing Peepul's point. The term is clearly and unambiguously defined by many creationists. It is defined as 'a created pair of animals and all those descended from it'.
Or, to put it another way, a "kind" is a group of organisms that a creationist will admit has a common ancestor.
The problem is that this is not "clearly and unambiguously defined", because different creationists will admit different things. Indeed, the same creationist website will insist that a whole family is a "kind" on one webpage while denying speciation on another.
So we are left with no operational way of finding out whether two organisms belong to the same kind. All we can do is ask whatever creationist we're talking to and find out which way his whims are swaying him when we happen to ask the question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by caffeine, posted 06-01-2010 6:13 AM caffeine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Blue Jay, posted 06-01-2010 1:34 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 32 of 385 (562826)
06-02-2010 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Blue Jay
06-01-2010 1:34 PM


How is this any different in principle from creationist disagreements?
Method.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Blue Jay, posted 06-01-2010 1:34 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 76 of 385 (563006)
06-02-2010 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by BobTHJ
06-02-2010 6:09 PM


Old Earth Creations subscribe to darwinian evolution....
No they don't. Hence the word "creationists".
You're all mixed up here. Any science requires assumptions. Here's some of the common ones darwinian evolutionists make:
1. abiogenesis
2. uniformation in the geological record
3. a constant decay rate for radio-isotopes
Things that have been proved true are not "assumptions".
LOL - It's not AiG that's slopping together abiogensis and evolution! As I've said several times now - we agree about evolution (in the natural selection/mutation/speciation/adaptation sense). The two key points of disagreement are over time (young or old earth) and origin (supernatural or natural). It's darwinists that force the marriage of abiogenesis and evolution in their quest to find a naturalistic explanation to everything - regardless of how unreasonable that explanation may be!
If you will for a moment extract your head from wherever you currently have it lodged and glance at the real world, you will note that it is always the evolutionists who are explaining the difference between the two concepts to creationists who are determined to muddle them up.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by BobTHJ, posted 06-02-2010 6:09 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by BobTHJ, posted 06-02-2010 9:57 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 77 of 385 (563012)
06-02-2010 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by BobTHJ
06-02-2010 4:56 PM


Agreed....can you think of a better term? It'd sure be nice to have a phrase that clearly explained the issue - I for one grow weary of constantly having to give lengthy explanations to darwinists who don't understand the basic principles of YEC science.
The problem is that there are no "basic principles of YEC science". What you actually mean is that you're tired of explaining your version of creationism to people who have seen a hundred other versions of creationism which are different from yours. But like all creationists, you go about talking as though your own chosen brand of nonsense is the One True Creationism, and go about saying "creationists believe ..." when a more honest man would say "I believe ..."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by BobTHJ, posted 06-02-2010 4:56 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by BobTHJ, posted 06-02-2010 10:03 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 82 of 385 (563028)
06-02-2010 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by BobTHJ
06-02-2010 10:03 PM


This is simply more ignorance to the issue. There is STRONG consensus among young-earth creation scientists as to the basic principles of the YEC model.
No.
Also please note that I did not claim to speak for creationists as a whole except on matters of widespread consensus.
To be more accurate: except in matters where you claim there is a widespread consensus for which you are entitled to speak.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by BobTHJ, posted 06-02-2010 10:03 PM BobTHJ has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 83 of 385 (563033)
06-02-2010 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by BobTHJ
06-02-2010 9:57 PM


Please - don't betray your ignorance to this issue. Five minutes and a google search would have been adequate research to learn about the topic.
Quite so. Perhaps you should take your own advice.
Old earth creationists ARE darwinists - a subset of them anyway. They DO believe in the darwinian "molecules-to-man" common ancestry evolution.
Even if you were to count theistic evolutionists as "creationists" --- which would render the word "creationist" practically meaningless --- it is certainly not the case that all OECs or even most accept evolution. Haven't you heard of the "Gap Theory"? How about "Day-Age Creationism"? Ring any bells?
The only issue on which the OEC and athiestic darwinists disagree is the generation of life.
Many OECs would be most startled to learn from you what their opinions are. Tell you what, why don't you email Hugh Ross and the folks at "Reasons to believe" and try telling them that that's the only point on which they disagree with "atheistic darwinists".
Again, you are demonstrating your ignorance on the subject.
Or yours. Depending on which of us is wrong. (Hint: it's you.)
None of the assumptions I've listed have even come close to being proven.
Yes they have.
No doubt many religious folk who have never bothered with science do indeed need an explanation of the two concepts (as do many non-religious folk) - anyone from AiG does not. But we are not talking about confusing concepts. We're talking about separating them. Unless you want to join intelligent design or the OEC camp then darwinism and abiogensis are inseparable. The one does not work without the other.
You are, of course, wrong.
You are also, rather obligingly, making my point for me. On the one hand we have evolutionists pointing out to you that the two concepts are distinct and logically separable, and on the other hand a creationist insisting that they are, and I quote, "inseparable".
And yet you have the hypocritical gall to whine that "It's darwinists that force the marriage of abiogenesis and evolution".
No, it isn't. It's you.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by BobTHJ, posted 06-02-2010 9:57 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by BobTHJ, posted 06-02-2010 11:25 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 87 of 385 (563041)
06-02-2010 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by BobTHJ
06-02-2010 10:57 PM


Thanks for making my point.
He didn't. He refuted it.
B, C, and D are examples of intelligent design
Thank you for making his point.
Yes, those would be examples of intelligent design. And they would be entirely compatible with evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by BobTHJ, posted 06-02-2010 10:57 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by BobTHJ, posted 06-03-2010 1:40 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 240 of 385 (564264)
06-09-2010 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Peepul
06-09-2010 9:17 AM


Re: Getting down to details
Dr Wile is saying that it is wrong to extrapolate our knowledge of radioactive decay rates from 100 years to billions of years.
He would have a point if there were no evidence about radioactive decay rates in the past ...
No he wouldn't.
There is nothing better that we could possibly say about any proposition except that all the evidence supports it.
And so if all the evidence we had about decay rates was our observations of radioactive decay for the last hundred years, then it would still be scientifically correct to follow where all the evidence leads, and Wile would still be talking crap by disputing a conclusion supported by all the scientific evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Peepul, posted 06-09-2010 9:17 AM Peepul has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 243 of 385 (564276)
06-09-2010 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by BobTHJ
06-09-2010 12:05 PM


However, as a Christian who not only believes in God but has experienced circumstantial spiritual evidence of his existence - why would I have any reason to ignore a scientific hypothesis that assumed his intervention?
Well, you usually do. The question of why you do so is up to your conscience. But of course you do.
If you lose your spectacles, then you pursue your search for them as though the idea that God sent a flotilla of angels to bear them up to heaven was completely ridiculous and could be ignored. You keep on searching for your spectacles as though there was a naturalistic explanation, and as though the explanation involving God and his angels could just be ignored.
When you understand why you behave in this way, then you will also understand why biologists ignore the "goddit by magic" hypothesis.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by BobTHJ, posted 06-09-2010 12:05 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by BobTHJ, posted 06-13-2010 3:30 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 349 of 385 (565463)
06-17-2010 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 345 by BobTHJ
06-16-2010 5:49 PM


Re: Life Looks Evolved, Baraminology Looks Useless
I don't recall you showing anything of the sort. The SIFTER research was the closest - but that was based on an ontological model and had nothing to do with common ancestry.
The acronym SIFTER stands for Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships.
Perhaps you think that the scientists that created and named it have no idea how it works --- and that you do.
But I'd bet the other way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 5:49 PM BobTHJ has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 358 of 385 (565545)
06-17-2010 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by BobTHJ
06-16-2010 2:11 PM


If It Quacks Like A Duck
No, of course evolution LOOKS true (at least in the big picture sense). There is a good reason for this.
Yes. There's also a reason why a duck looks like a duck.
Look at it from my perspective. Darwinian evolution LOOKS true because it stems from an effort to explain God's creation without the existence of God.
But this is akin to saying: "The reason this object looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck stems from an effort to explain this object without admitting that it's a magic fairy".
But you see, all the "effort" in the world can't make something look like a duck if it doesn't.
It's the best naturalistic argument that can be put forth (at this point anyway) so of course it is going to 'look' true.
This is a non sequitur. Just as there is no "of course" about a fairy looking exactly like a duck.
Appearances can be deceiving. My religious beliefs even explain this rather well: We have a spiritual enemy who specializes in deception.
Given which, how can we know anything at all? The thing that we're looking at could be a fairy, and our "spiritual enemy" could be deceiving us into thinking that it's a duck.
When creationists find it necessary to put forward arguments that undermine the possibility of us acquiring any knowledge at all, in order to deny our knowledge about evolution in particular, I think they're on the ropes.
As for omphalism, it doesn't make logical sense from my perspective. It implies that God created to look like darwinism - but (see my last paragraph) darwinism is an invention to explain what God created without his incorporation. That's circular reasoning.
Or, to put it another way: "As for the idea that the fairy might be using its magic to fool us into looking like a duck, it doesn't make logical sense from my perspective. It implies that the fairy is taking on the guise of a duck - but (see my last paragraph) the duck is an invention to explain away the existence of the fairy. That's circular reasoning."
No, Bob, what you just did is ... actually, it's so convoluted that to call it "circular reasoning" would be to lend it a dignity that it does not in fact possess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 2:11 PM BobTHJ 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