Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
40 online now:
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,996 Year: 22,032/19,786 Month: 595/1,834 Week: 95/500 Day: 53/42 Hour: 1/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question for creationists: Why would you rather believe in a small God?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 445 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 196 of 301 (703234)
07-16-2013 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Faith
07-16-2013 9:36 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
There is just no convincing you how wrong you are.

You are perhaps the classic example of "Belief gets in the way of learning." You have a mind like a steel trap: rusted shut.

(That's nothing to be proud of by the way.)


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

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Faith, posted 07-16-2013 9:36 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


(3)
Message 197 of 301 (703236)
07-16-2013 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Faith
07-16-2013 9:36 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Of course it obscured my point to say I was objecting to the redefinition of a WORD, when of course I'm objecting to the redefinition of the CONCEPT, the INSTITUTION of marriage itself.

Words have definitions, things don't. If you disagree, please tell me how you would go about redefining a banana. Not the word "banana" but an actual banana.

Yes, I have the nerve to think everybody's wrong about speciation ...

And everyone else thinks that speciation is the formation of a new species. Which it is by definition. You don't get to change what the word means any more than you can make "cat" mean dog by an effort of will.

That's an artificial and meaningless criterion.

Curiously enough, the inability to breed was neither "artificial" nor "meaningless" when you were deciding who should be allowed to marry. Apparently when we're considering the law, biological criteria are meaningful, but when we're considering biology, we should ignore the facts of biology ... in favor of what? You don't say.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Faith, posted 07-16-2013 9:36 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 2:18 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 161 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 198 of 301 (703237)
07-16-2013 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Faith
07-16-2013 9:36 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Yes, I have the nerve to think everybody's wrong about speciation, and again it's the real thing I'm talking about, not the word. It describes the situation of a small population's splitting off from a larger population to form a new variety of creature, which is called a new "Species" because it cannot interbreed with its former population. That's an artificial and meaningless criterion.

Given that you speak for ALL young earth creationists, how do you explain your vehement disagreement with 2 of the most predominant young earth creationist organizations? Are you going to say that they aren't true creationists? AIG and CMI have far more impact than you and a much louder voice in creationism, don't you suppose you ought to correct them?


"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Faith, posted 07-16-2013 9:36 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 2:05 AM hooah212002 has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15639
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 199 of 301 (703239)
07-17-2013 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Faith
07-16-2013 7:48 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
OK Faith, at this point the question is whether you believe that you have authority over reality or just authority over what everyone else should believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Faith, posted 07-16-2013 7:48 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 1:59 AM PaulK has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33872
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 200 of 301 (703240)
07-17-2013 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by PaulK
07-17-2013 12:37 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
Where's this stuff coming from that I think I have "authority?" Aren't I allowed to have my own opinions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by PaulK, posted 07-17-2013 12:37 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by PaulK, posted 07-17-2013 2:09 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33872
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 201 of 301 (703241)
07-17-2013 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by hooah212002
07-16-2013 11:25 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
I can't disagree with some of the positions of Creationist organizations and still respect them as Creationist organizations? Huh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by hooah212002, posted 07-16-2013 11:25 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by hooah212002, posted 07-17-2013 10:13 AM Faith has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15639
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 202 of 301 (703242)
07-17-2013 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Faith
07-17-2013 1:59 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
There's a difference between having opinions and expecting others to accept them as objective facts. Or even citing them as objective facts.

I mean how can you honestly be upset that creationist organisations disagree with an idea that you came up with simply to support an argument that you happen to like ? Aren't THEY entitled to THEIR own opinions to fit into THEIR arguments ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 1:59 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 2:30 AM PaulK has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33872
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 203 of 301 (703243)
07-17-2013 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Dr Adequate
07-16-2013 10:55 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Your emphasis on the definition of the word seemed to be designed to obscure the nature of the argument. Perhaps you didn't intend that effect. Perhaps you only intended to fill your post with irrelevant pedantry.

Curiously enough, the inability to breed was neither "artificial" nor "meaningless" when you were deciding who should be allowed to marry.

What's curious is that you would make a comparison between an opinion about biology and an opinion about human society. Are you on some kind of mission to turn the discussion into gobbledygook?

Apparently when we're considering the law, biological criteria are meaningful, but when we're considering biology, we should ignore the facts of biology ... in favor of what? You don't say.

Yes, my opinions are:

1) that marriage is for (human) heterosexuals, which combination is obviously designed for procreation, and

2) that ability to interbreed is an artificial definition of a Species that obscures the fact that when a population of a Species has arrived at that condition it usually has much less ability to produce new varieties due to the reduction in genetic variability, which means it has less, rather than more, ability to "evolve."

Yes, interbreeding needs to be dropped as a criterion for the definition of Species. "In favor of what?" you ask. In favor of dropping an irrelevancy so that the actual biological fact can be recognized, that there is no new Species here.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-16-2013 10:55 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-17-2013 2:40 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33872
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 204 of 301 (703244)
07-17-2013 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by PaulK
07-17-2013 2:09 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
There's a difference between having opinions and expecting others to accept them as objective facts. Or even citing them as objective facts.

Golly, ya don't say. Where have I "expected" anything? Seems to me I've merely stated my opinion, take it or leave it. I've argued it many times elsewhere. If you're interested in knowing the basis for the opinion I refer you to those arguments. But of course you aren't, you just want to accuse me of something new, in this case "expecting" my opinions to be accepted.

I mean how can you honestly be upset that creationist organisations disagree with an idea that you came up with simply to support an argument that you happen to like ? Aren't THEY entitled to THEIR own opinions to fit into THEIR arguments ?

Uh, who says I'm "upset" about being disagreed with? Where have I said they aren't entitled to their opinion? You guys seem to be spending all your time making up bizarre accusations to throw at me.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by PaulK, posted 07-17-2013 2:09 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by PaulK, posted 07-17-2013 3:15 AM Faith has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 205 of 301 (703246)
07-17-2013 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Faith
07-17-2013 2:18 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
Your emphasis on the definition of the word seemed to be designed to obscure the nature of the argument.

The definition of which word? I can't tell what you're trying to be wrong about.

What's curious is that you would make a comparison between an opinion about biology and an opinion about human society.

My point being that facts about biology are more relevant to biology. This is not so much curious as obvious ... to people who aren't you.

Yes, my opinions are:

1) that marriage is for (human) heterosexuals, which combination is obviously designed for procreation ...

Well, the stupidity of that opinion has already been discussed on another thread. Let's move on, eh?

2) that ability to interbreed is an artificial definition of a Species ...

But it is not artificial, it is very natural. It's not something humans have decided, like (for example) the distinction between a felony and a misdemeanor, or the difference between a hill and a mountain, or the border between the US and Canada --- it is there in nature, a naturally occurring barrier to gene flow between groups of organisms. Nature divides them and their descendants forever, and we just observe the division that exists in nature. And the groups so divided we call "species". And when I say "we" I mean everyone from me to freakin' Ken Ham.

Yes, interbreeding needs to be dropped as a criterion for the definition of Species. "In favor of what?" you ask.

I did indeed. If only you would answer my question, instead of producing drivel like this:

In favor of dropping an irrelevancy so that the actual biological fact can be recognized, that there is no new Species here.

Don't you ever feel just a little ashamed of yourself?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 2:18 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 2:55 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33872
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 206 of 301 (703247)
07-17-2013 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Dr Adequate
07-17-2013 2:40 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
But it is not artificial, it is very natural. It's not something humans have decided, like (for example) the distinction between a felony and a misdemeanor, or the difference between a hill and a mountain, or the border between the US and Canada --- it is there in nature, a naturally occurring barrier to gene flow between groups of organisms. Nature divides them and their descendants forever, and we just observe the division that exists in nature. And the groups so divided we call "species". And when I say "we" I mean everyone from me to freakin' Ken Ham.

Yes, but all this division does is isolate that new "species" in its genetically reduced condition so that it has no further direction to evolve in. The whole point of the idea of speciation within the context of the theory of evolution is that it is a stepping stone to further evolution, but genetically it is either very close to the end or has reached the end of all possibility of further evolution. This is the case with the cheetah, formed by a bottleneck but still characterized by the same kind of genetic situation speciation naturally produces. It can't interbreed with other cats and it also can't evolve new variations within its own population. If you want to call it a Species unto itself you only succeed in obscuring the fact that genetically it remains part of the Cat Species or Family.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-17-2013 2:40 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-17-2013 11:38 AM Faith has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15639
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 207 of 301 (703248)
07-17-2013 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Faith
07-17-2013 2:30 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
quote:

Golly, ya don't say. Where have I "expected" anything? Seems to me I've merely stated my opinion, take it or leave it

When you state it as if it was an objective fact then I'd say that you are presenting it as something more than a mere opinion. Clearly you expect your assertion to be believed and it certainly isn't because you can support it with evidence or sound reasoning. Certainly the fact that we don't see numerous genetically depleted populations is a major problem for your view and one you can't answer without inventing more ad-hoc opinions.

To give a clear example the whole idea of "genetic depletion" causing a loss of interfertility with the larger population is highly implausible. Ignoring new mutations every member of the daughter species must have been a possible member of the parent species (because all their genes were found in the parent species). The members of the daughter species have no great problems in breeding with each other. So why should they have a problem breeding with the greater population ?

Indeed it seems that the main basis for your opinion is a refusal to admit that your (other) opinions could be wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 2:30 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 3:23 AM PaulK has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33872
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 208 of 301 (703249)
07-17-2013 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by PaulK
07-17-2013 3:15 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
When you state it as if it was an objective fact then I'd say that you are presenting it as something more than a mere opinion.

Ah but I believe it is true so of course I state it as the objective fact I believe it to be. That doesn't mean I expect YOU to accept it.

Clearly you expect your assertion to be believed

Oh I think it OUGHT to be, because I believe it to be true and the arguments I've encountered don't convince me otherwise. But "expect?" Of course not.

and it certainly isn't because you can support it with evidence or sound reasoning.

Oh I believe I have done that as well, on other threads at EvC for instance.

Certainly the fact that we don't see numerous genetically depleted populations is a major problem for your view and one you can't answer without inventing more ad-hoc opinions.

I've many times proposed that you WOULD see this if you were looking for it, looking for it for instance where it would be most likely to be easy to see, in the new "species" formed by "speciation" or at the end of a series of ring species. It doesn't have to be "depletion," merely reduction in genetic diversity. The tests might be a bit cumbersome to perform since they'd involve fairly extensive DNA sampling, but not beyond the realm of possibility.

To give a clear example the whole idea of "genetic depletion" causing a loss of interfertility with the larger population is highly implausible. Ignoring new mutations every member of the daughter species must have been a possible member of the parent species (because all their genes were found in the parent species). The members of the daughter species have no great problems in breeding with each other. So why should they have a problem breeding with the greater population ?

Um, you seem to be forgetting the context here, the definition of "speciation" as producing a new "species" which is defined by its inability to breed with the greater population. If it doesn't have that problem then presumably it would be regarded as just another variation of the population rather than a new Species.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by PaulK, posted 07-17-2013 3:15 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by PaulK, posted 07-17-2013 3:54 AM Faith has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15639
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 209 of 301 (703250)
07-17-2013 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Faith
07-17-2013 3:23 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
quote:

Ah but I believe it is true so of course I state it as the objective fact I believe it to be. That doesn't mean I expect YOU to accept it.

So you think of it as an objective fact and not just an opinion.

quote:

Oh I think it OUGHT to be, because I believe it to be true and the arguments I've encountered don't convince me otherwise. But "expect?" Of course not.

That's playing with words. But why ought it to be believed simply because you have a strong bias in favour of it ?

quote:

Oh I believe I have done that as well, on other threads at EvC for instance.

Well, if you think that your bias in favour of an idea is adequate support I can see why you're believe that.

quote:

I've many times proposed that you WOULD see this if you were looking for it, looking for it for instance where it would be most likely to be easy to see, in the new "species" formed by "speciation" or at the end of a series of ring species. It doesn't have to be "depletion," merely reduction in genetic diversity. The tests might be a bit cumbersome to perform since they'd involve fairly extensive DNA sampling, but not beyond the realm of possibility.

But, excepting a few rare cases like the cheetah we DON'T see it where genetic variation has been tested. Simply assuming that tests that haven't been done will prove you right is not a valid reason for discounting the tests that have been done.

quote:

Um, you seem to be forgetting the context here, the definition of "speciation" as producing a new "species" which is defined by its inability to breed with the greater population. If it doesn't have that problem then presumably it would be regarded as just another variation of the population rather than a new Species.

Why would you thnk that I was forgetting the context? I'm not forgetting the loss of interfertility - I'm pointing you that your preferred explanation for it is highly implausible.
If that happens to call your ideas about speciation into question that isn't because I'm forgetting something - it's a problem for your ideas.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 3:23 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Faith, posted 07-17-2013 4:15 AM PaulK has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33872
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 210 of 301 (703251)
07-17-2013 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by PaulK
07-17-2013 3:54 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
The cause of the cheetah's inability to breed with other members of the cat family is their genetic depletion. This is one case that supports my claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by PaulK, posted 07-17-2013 3:54 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by PaulK, posted 07-17-2013 4:24 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 212 by Tangle, posted 07-17-2013 4:51 AM Faith has 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