Kinds are not related

Sorry mod, but "you're wrong" and "you done this"etc....never did convince me of anything. shall we hang mike, even though he didn't intend offence? What more can he say?Mod....mod, mike doesn't offend you because of anything such as this, he offends you because he is your enemy because of Who he believes in.It's just too old for me given my years at EvC. You are not producing any type of new reasoning that is swaying me away from a baraminology.If you are going to say; "it is useless, how can we proceed", then what I am going to say is; "I can't change history to make it more interesting for scientiists."If there is nothing new under the sun, then I am afraid that OFCOURSE baraminology won't tell you much. I am limited to the facts, and coming to a conclusion which is the best one. I believe that is a creationist-scenario having studied the debate and going through all of the classic regurgitated arguments in their various forms, for many years now.....Even you, in all your cleverness which I grant you, still produce everything I expect of you as an unbeliever. It becomes pride Mod. It becomes pride. Never has an atheist ever shown me anything else, ULTIMATELY, other than his/her sinful nature and disability to humble herself. Even when I became evolutionist for them, they were my enemy, and stated false things about me because of the Christ that offended them so greatly.)(I know your respone is...."oh so now I have pride issues, thanks for that...."......trust me - that's not my point)Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Now that you know that I don't proceed simply for my argument, but to know the truth. Afterall, I want to know what the bible actually means, because people like "mike the wiz" profess to believe it.This does not give me faith in theists, but confirms my feeling that they would ignore the true meaning of a verse if it favoured their argument, rather than concentrating on what the verse might be telling as shown by people who understand the source language of the verse in question....there, fixed your answer, Mike.

Well, I thought you'd reached the pinnacle of falsehood when you said that there were no transitionals, but then you went on to say that the fossil record "mostly consists of known organisms", which is a lie so vast and immense that if the Universe could laugh, the entire Universe would be laughing at you.What I have to wonder is --- whom do you hope to deceive by writing this stuff?

It shouldn't. I hope you aren't convinced by "I'm right" either. I'm certainly not. No, Mike doesn't offend me. When you feel like actually addressing why what I said is not relevant, does not follow or is wrong I'll be waiting. II believe I said that ultimately if you make the argument you are making, vis pleading 'ignorance' with regards to the identity of the 'kinds' you don't get to say that any given piece of evidence in favour of an evolution is 'just evolution within kinds'.I just said that until you can actually say anything specific about kinds, all you are saying is that certain organisms evolved through certain mechanisms and that certain 'base' organisms didn't evolve themselves, but I'm not sure what those base organisms are and I have no evidence that any of it is real other than the 'say-so' of a bunch of very dead people.If you accept that, I have no argument with you. I'm willing to be that since you wrote this, a paper was written by someone studying evolution that increased our knowledge. Does baraminology need to rely on the assumption that NOW we have reached the pinnacle of knowledge? That reminds me of The philosophy of ignorance thread. What you judge to be best conclusion is your business, Mike. As long as you accept what logically follows from your position, right?Meanwhile, the 'worse' conclusion is pointing people in the right geographical location to find predicted fossils. Which isn't bad for the worse conclusion. Meanwhile, in your superior conclusion, there is nothing new to learn - presumably we should save our money on attempting to do scientific reseach? Are you sure you aren't interpreting my words to be consistent with what you expected all along? Do you agree with my initial post, that logically if you can't say anything about what is and what is not a 'kind' that means you can't say that any example of evolution is 'evolution within a kind' (since that relies on you knowing something about kinds.Anyway - regardless of whether everything I say is expected or if you reading it to mean what you expected two questions raise their heads:1) Why are you debating if you know what your opponent is going to say?2) If everything that I said is something that you anticipated, why did not actually address it when I raised it, rather than just dismissing it? Why did you not include it and any rebuttal in your OP? Mike - can you please stop with personal comments. I'm prideful, you're blind, I'm arrogant, your ignorant. It doesn't get anywhere. Can you not just address the argument that I raised? If you don't want to, then either just say or stop responding to me.Here is my original point:

quote:

---

So - if you want to say that kinds are now unknowable - you don't get to hide behind them when an example of evolution is shown. If you are happy with that, I'm happy with that - getting creationists to drop the bad faith argument that is 'kinds' has been a long standing objective and it's nice to see somebody conceding it.

---

You responded that I was being cynical. Regardless, do you agree that it is true?Do you have anything to say about any of the sub-topics and my responses?Look - right now I'm not interested in your diagnosis of the meta-debate, and I'm sure most future spectators aren't either. If you want that kind of meta-debate then start a new topic and those who want to get stuck in can do - maybe I'll even join in where it is on topic. Your entire response here has simply been you saying "I am not convinced by you." Which is fine, but this being a debate it kind of requires you to say why you aren't convinced.So why are you convinced that you can hold the position that you don't know what kinds are but you can say what is and what is not 'evolution within kinds'? No doubt, if I showed you some humility now, you would argue that I was doing so to prove you wrong which you would argue is pride. Now - when you realize that you are engaging in a debate you will have to anticipate that people you are debating with are likely to be taking a contrary position to you. Given atheists, in this debate, are likely to be always your opponents - you will find that their position is 'you are wrong, I am right' - just like you come across to your opponents.I am fairly sure that with a bit of time I could find an atheist being humble in conversation to you. Likewise I could find plenty of examples of you being prideful and arrogant. What does any of this have to do with the truth of the positions either of us hold? Nothing whatsoever. So why bring it up? You sound a little paranoid, Mike. Sorry to burst your bubble Mike. My response is that I am interested in hearing your views and rebuttals regarding the topic at hand. I'm not interested in hearing your excuses for not answering, paranoid flights of fancy, psychological/theological analysis of me and others.So what's it going to be? Are you going to try and save face with another post that attempts to lay the fault on my feet and try and have some kind of pride-off with me as we try and make the other look foolish. Or, would you rather discuss the merits, the difficulties and the consequences of your ideas in a debate format?

Baraminology is religion, not science.Here are some guidelines from an article by Wayne Frair:

Guidelines

​

In accomplishing the goal of separating parts of polybaramins, partitioning apobaramins, building monobaramins and characterizing holobaramins, a taxonomist needs guidelines for deciding what belongs to a particular monobaraminic branch. These standards will vary depending upon the groups being considered, but general guidelines which have been utilized include:

​

1. Scripture claims (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations. For example humans are a separate holobaramin because they separately were created (Genesis 1 and 2). However, even as explained by Wise in his 1990 oral presentation, there is not much relevant taxonomic information in the Bible. Also, ReMine’s discontinuity systematics, because it is a neutral scientific enterprise, does not include the Bible as a source of taxonomic information.

​

6. Fossils in rock layers. These studies can include locations of fossil forms in the rock layers, and may entail considerations of Flood sediments. Source [Emphasis added]

Baraminology is pure religious apologetics, and is actually the exact opposite of science.

---

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