Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-21-2019 12:09 AM
29 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (3 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,228 Year: 12,264/19,786 Month: 2,045/2,641 Week: 0/554 Day: 0/113 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Test Of Science And Evolution Knowledge
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 83 (814057)
07-04-2017 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by PaulK
07-03-2017 1:18 PM


Re: Evidence for kinds
In reality - as we have recently seen - creationists looking for "kinds" do not find adequate evidence in biology and instead have to turn to scripture to identify the (supposed) boundaries.

With the exception of the separation of humans from all other apes, I don't think creationists do turn to scripture. There really is not much scriptural classification help anyway. In the place "after its own kind" is mentioned, only a few animals are listed. We know that there are various "kinds" of winged fowl and that other creatures come in kinds, but not much else.

When creationists say, for example, that lions, tigers, and tailless Manxes are all the same kind, they are not consulting scripture because those animals are not even mentioned.

I'd also point out that there is no single rigorous way to identify species either. We've seen animals classified as separate species based on very tiny genetic differences without any test of whether individuals of species can interbreed. We consider lions and tigers to be separate species. Coyotes and wolves are separate species even though many coyotes and wolves can interbreed without the problems that are encountered when lions and tigers interbreed.

I'm sure that a creationist would lump dogs, wolves, and coyotes all in one kind. I don't see why a baraminologist would be less able than a biologist to justify their conclusion using science only and without returning to scripture.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 07-03-2017 1:18 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 07-04-2017 12:35 AM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 83 (814129)
07-04-2017 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by dwise1
07-04-2017 12:45 AM


When religions insist on conflicting with reality (such as YEC does), then they also conflict with evolution.

That's true. In my opinion, you overthought this question. Some pretty prominent denominations take the position that if one word of the Bible is wrong, then Jesus did not exist and their religion would be a bunch of hooey.

You, of course, take the position that those folks are simply mistaken and could change. But you did not write the test.

OK, so you could answer contrary to what you think. Which makes you and your situation even worse, because you know better and yet you persist in misconstruing evolution.

No. It just means that he disagrees despite knowing what scientist think. There is no reason why a creationist could not get 100% on the test.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by dwise1, posted 07-04-2017 12:45 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 83 (814134)
07-04-2017 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by PaulK
07-04-2017 12:35 AM


Re: Evidence for kinds
I begin with Scriptural considerations, then move to additive and subtractive evidences, and conclude with an interpretation of my results.

I see the quote and I see the paragraphs in the reference devoted to the Biblical considerations. What I don't come up with after that review is very many scriptural considerations other than the disqualification of humans as being grouped with any other animals. Admittedly that exception is a pretty strong condemnation given the evidence that we did evolve.

From the article.

quote:
I found that the Bible refers to members of the grass family frequently. I will focus my discussion on two types of passages: the creation of grasses and early post-Flood references.

...

Because modern plant baramins contain both woody and herbaceous members (e.g. Flaveriinae14 ), it is best to refrain from asserting one interpretation over another. I conclude that the creation account gives very little information about the baraminic limits of the grasses with respect to other plants.


So yeah, the author does admonish us to consider the Bible as the priority. But the reality is that there just isn't a possibility to gain much insight from doing so. According to Creationists, humans were specially created, but there just isn't much Biblical guidance after that.

Note also that the the only "subtractive evidence" is morphological difference which is hardly strong evidence of a discontinuity in itself. It is a result entirely consistent with evolution.

Your note would appear to support my argument and not yours. I'll add that there is no reason creationist could not add something like "ability to produce viable offspring" to the criteria. In discussions, they generally do that.

The objection that the same could be said of species or the other taxonomic groupings used by mainstream science entirely misses the point.

I agree that it is not the most important issue to be discussed, but I then I am not making an argument against evolution.

The absence of clear boundaries is evidence for evolution, and against the existence of separate "kinds" no matter what system is employed

Yes. That is true of course. But not relevant to my comment. I am not making an argument against evolution. I am instead pointing out what I think is a strained, yet often repeated argument in favor of evolution.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 07-04-2017 12:35 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by PaulK, posted 07-05-2017 12:03 AM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 83 (814229)
07-05-2017 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by PaulK
07-05-2017 12:03 AM


Re: Evidence for kinds
I am afraid that you are not paying attention. "Subtractive evidence" is - supposedly - evidence that the species are NOT in the same kind. The "ability to produce viable offspring" is NOT evidence of that - quite the reverse.

I did not say that they were the same thing. I said that there was nothing stopping a Creationist from offering "ability to produce viable offspring" as a rationale. In fact, Creationist posters here have used such reasoning. Perhaps it is you who are not paying attention.

As far as the fundamental point is concerned, here again, is your statement that I took issue with.

PaulK writes:

In reality - as we have recently seen - creationists looking for "kinds" do not find adequate evidence in biology and instead have to turn to scripture to identify the (supposed) boundaries.

I don't believe that statement to be correct. With a few notable exceptions, Creationists do not rely on scripture rather than biology. The only boundary that is closely tied to scripture is humans being separated away from every other animal. While a Creationist might not accept all of the evidence in biology, for the most part, they don't substitute scripture for those lacks.[1] In fact at least some biologic evidence, and I've cited one example, is just as helpful to Creationists. Yes, it is true that scripture cannot be contradicted, but there really is not much scripture to rely on or to avoid trampling.

[1] at least not for defining kinds.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by PaulK, posted 07-05-2017 12:03 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 07-05-2017 7:48 AM NoNukes has not yet 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