Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological classification vs 'Kind'
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.2


Message 34 of 385 (562881)
06-02-2010 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Fiver
05-30-2010 5:02 PM


There is a Creationist definition of Kind
There is a Creationist definition of kind, the "baramin". It's just that it produces absurdist theatre when applied to reality, isn't found in the Bible and doesn't actually correspond very well to the common or garden "Kind" used by ignorant Creationists.
I posted a longer piece about it here: The Kind: Comedy Gold.
Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Fiver, posted 05-30-2010 5:02 PM Fiver has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.2


Message 119 of 385 (563132)
06-03-2010 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Blue Jay
06-03-2010 12:52 PM


Re: It's still a dog!
But remember, kinds are not just defined by descent. The Bible also explicitly lists some species as being of different kinds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Blue Jay, posted 06-03-2010 12:52 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Blue Jay, posted 06-03-2010 1:45 PM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.2


Message 127 of 385 (563148)
06-03-2010 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Blue Jay
06-03-2010 1:45 PM


Re: It's still a dog!
Well, two examples would be the Dove and the Raven which are specified as being on the Ark so must be different kinds. And no kind can contain both clean and unclean animals.
From Genesis 6-8.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Blue Jay, posted 06-03-2010 1:45 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.2


Message 242 of 385 (564275)
06-09-2010 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by BobTHJ
06-09-2010 12:05 PM


If anything the Miller-Uray experiment demonstrates the absurdity of abiogenesis ... (snip) ... inorganic materials forming semi-intelligent organized systems?
This is off topic here, but I'd like to discuss it in another thread if you'd care to propose the topic?

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 283 by BobTHJ, posted 06-13-2010 3:25 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.2


Message 247 of 385 (564290)
06-09-2010 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by BobTHJ
06-08-2010 9:35 PM


But that is exactly what has happened. Mainstream atheistic scientists have ruled out an intelligent supernatural Creator as "unevidenced" and yet advanced abiogenesis through chemical evolution - a hypothesis with striking evidence against it. The only logical explanation for such behavior is a bias toward their atheistic darwinistic 'religious' dogma.
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.
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.
This is not atheism vs. religion; it's science vs. religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by BobTHJ, posted 06-08-2010 9:35 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by BobTHJ, posted 06-13-2010 3:57 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.2


Message 257 of 385 (564354)
06-10-2010 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Otto Tellick
06-10-2010 3:52 AM


Re: Getting down to details
The "Evolutionist" he is referring to is Esteban Sarmiento, and Thomas is citing Sarmiento's recent article in Science (no web link -- apparently a subscription, or a good library, is needed to access this article), which disputes Ardi researcher Tim White regarding the placement of Ardi in the primate line of descent.
Actually Letters in Science are available without subscription, you can find the letter here and the response from the authors of the original paper here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Otto Tellick, posted 06-10-2010 3:52 AM Otto Tellick has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.2


Message 289 of 385 (564836)
06-13-2010 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by BobTHJ
06-13-2010 3:57 AM


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
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.
Supernatural explanations have a 100% track record of failure simply because only naturalistic phenomena have been scientifically understood thus-far.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by BobTHJ, posted 06-13-2010 3:57 AM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by BobTHJ, posted 06-15-2010 9:50 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.2


Message 356 of 385 (565496)
06-17-2010 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 334 by BobTHJ
06-16-2010 2:11 PM


Falsifiability
I'm not sure where you got the idea that a hypothesis must be falsifiable to be a valid scientific hypothesis
It's from Karl Popper. It's a cornerstone of the philosophy of science.
- the concept isn't even falsifiable itself and is thus contradictory. I've posted on this previously.
It's a statement about the philosophy of science. It is not a scientific hypothesis. There is nothing contradictory here.
And, really, if you think about it, it's quite obvious. If a hypothesis isn't falsifiable then nothing is evidence for it. Really. Whatever experiment you do, whatever answer you get, the result is always the same: compatible with the hypothesis. This means no experiment, and no answer, can ever distinguish between the hypothesis being correct, or incorrect. That means that no experiment, and no answer, is ever evidence for it.
Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.

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