Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological classification vs 'Kind'
anglagard
Member (Idle past 827 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


(2)
Message 85 of 385 (563036)
06-02-2010 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by BobTHJ
06-02-2010 9:57 PM


Sometimes is is Better to Remain Silent. and Thought a Fool.....
Welcome to EvC Bob THJ.
The only issue on which the OEC and athiestic darwinists disagree is the generation of life. OECs say God created the first single celled organism and athiestic darwinists claim it occurred through abiogenesis.
I hope you can handle some constructive criticism.
The term you are using "aethiestic darrwinists" is both loaded and false. Not all people who accept the Theory of Evolution are atheists, therefore to use this term is to imply a false connection that does not exist in real life. Case in point - nearly all my professors in physics, chemistry, geology, and biology who all supported the TOE were either Episcopalians or Presbyterians.
Please do not imply that all 'Darwinists' are atheists, to do such would be bearing false witness. Additionally should you claim that Episcopalians and Presbyterians (I've seen it before) are atheists, then you would be violating the commandment concerning either "placing other gods before me" or 'blasphemy' as you would be usurping the Christian God's prerogative as the final judge.
Again, you are demonstrating your ignorance on the subject. None of the assumptions I've listed have even come close to being proven. Abiogenesis is so speculative that darwinists don't even have a clear consensus theory on how it could have occurred. On the contrary, there is fairly convincing data suggesting they are false.
Oh boy, you haven't been here long. Abiogenesis is about how life began, currently in a quite speculative area of science. The TOE is about how life changes over time subject to several selective pressures which can be duplicated both in the lab and electronically. The two concepts are actually not linked as a person could easily believe (as several do) that any purported divinity started life, and then allowed it to evolve within the rules such a divinity set up.
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.
I just pointed out they are indeed separable. Please argue that point using logic, deductive and inductive reasoning, and quantitative and qualitative evidence. Calling people ignorant without knowledge of that person's posting history or providing any reasoning or evidence will just make you look like a fool around these parts.
Then again, maybe you have some other naturalistic theory as to the origin of life that I've never heard of?
Have you ever heard of the book Forbidden Archeology? That is creationism, fundamentalist Hinduism style. Are you familiar with the fact there were around 500 tribes in the Americas, at the time Columbus landed in Hispaniola, each with their own creation story. Are you aware of the fact Celts, the Norse, Egyptians, Sumerians, and so on each have their own creation story?
If I were you, I would be more cautious about using the term ignorant against posters here before I knew more about their detailed knowledge of science, philosophy, religion, and history. If you come off as an arrogant and relatively undereducated simpleton, I personally guarantee they and I will tear you a new one.
Just a suggestion.

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

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 89 by BobTHJ, posted 06-03-2010 12:06 AM anglagard has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 827 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


(2)
Message 220 of 385 (564054)
06-07-2010 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by BobTHJ
06-07-2010 6:21 PM


Naturalistic Explinations Heal the Sick and Feed the Poor
BobTHJ writes:
I'm suggesting that just because something is new doesn't mean it is better than the old. Take for example Betamax, LOLspeak, or Google Wave . Before accepting the naturalistic approach to the origin of life we should have some good evidence that it is a better assumption than the supernatural one humanity has traditionally assumed.
And I suggest the opposite, namely that just because something is old, doesn't mean it is better than the new.
One of the most important points made by Jesus is in the Sermon on the Mount where he tells the assembled it is their duty to heal the sick and feed the poor. If necessary I can quote chapter and verse.
Some reasons why the new is better than the old according to the Sermon on the Mount (look them up in Google if you don't recognize why) are due to:
A few people (reasons why and how this connects to the OP to follow)
Norman Borlaug
Johannes Gutenberg
James Watt
Nickola Tesla
Louis Pasteur
Crick, Watson & Rosalind Franklin
Gregor Mendel
(and so on, but the listed are to make a point)
Now for some obvious reasons:
Smallpox
Yellow Fever
Measles
Rubella
Diphtheria
Cholera
Childbirth 'sickness'
Leprosy
Malnutrition
Syphilis
Tuberculosis
Gonorrhea
Polio
Chicken Pox
(and so on)
Some reasons why the "old ways" are inferior:
human sacrifice
cannibalism
witch burnings and/or other hideous torture
religious warfare between Catholics and Protestants (assuming it has ceased)
bleeding
exposure (murder) of infants due to physical conditions or gender
[please note: I have limited this list to conditions that either no longer exist or are heavily suppressed in modern times, which is why I did not include genocide, church-sanctioned pederasty, or so called Christians who reject the teachings of Jesus as delineated in the Sermon on the Mount].
OK, now to the topic of biological classification vs. kind.
Are you familiar with the book Genome by Matt Ridley? It is arranged chapter by chapter covering each chromosome in humans, explains in broad strokes what each chromosome does, and then tells a relevant story to help explain the effects each chromosome has upon all humanity and indeed in other arrangements, all life.
He goes from largest to smallest, hence he first covers chromosome number one, which controls basic biologic processes common to all life next to number 2 that covers that fusion of the two other ape species chromosome into one in humans, hence we have 46 instead of 48 like chimps and gorillas.
And so on.
Now the point I would like to make is that it is the appropriate sequence of GTAC that makes genes and therefore makes chromosomes, is responsible for all differences between 'kinds' or species.
I would also like to point out that those boogeyman scientists are very well on their way to determining the difference between species based solely upon the genetic code and ultimately the physical arrangement of that code made of four amino acids, namely GTAC.
How does that happen to relate to the modern providing better information than the ancient?
To repeat:
Norman Borlaug
Johannes Gutenberg
James Watt
Nickola Tesla
Louis Pasteur
Crick, Watson & Rosalind Franklin
Gregor Mendel
Here's why:
Gutenberg introduced Europe to the printing press, which was not only used to bring the Bible to the 'common herd' but later, the discussion of ideas and empirical findings which propelled the populace out of the Dark Ages, a sore point among the authoritarian churches, whose evident purpose was to keep the laity ignorant of both the Bible and science.
James Watt rediscovered the power of the steam engine.
Tesla, through Faraday, figured out how it could produce electricity, and therefore energy to power not just lighting but also other needed energy to fuel the modern scientific laboratory using the relatively safe alternating current.
Pasteur discovered that microorganisms actually had an effect upon humans, such as causing disease.
Mendel discovered the concept of genetic inheritance.
Crick, Watson & Rosalind Franklin discovered DNA, the mechanism of genetic inheritance.
Norman Borlaug, using the principles of all the aforementioned used his knowledge to save the lives of between one and two billion people, more than all war combined managed to kill throughout all recorded history.
In the meantime, Robertson blames earthquakes and hurricanes on the wrath of God against anyone who does not kowtow to him. Faith (a former member) blames all disease on the actions of evil spirits.
So who is doing the work of God? Borlaug, who used science to save over a billion, or Robertson, who acts against Jesus' dictate to heal the sick and feed the poor in favor of his 'speaking for god' in invoking the action of 'demons' and some supposed 'wrath of god' against homosexuals, hippies, college professors, uppity women, minorities, atheists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Catholics, Muslims, 'humanists' and democrats. Essentially anyone who questions his authoritarian or any other self-proclaimed prophet of his liking to speak for god.
The central point I am making is this. Science has been and is at this moment decoding the code, learning about how to heal the sick, how to feed the poor.
Evangelicals are trying to stop the intellectually independent from healing the sick and feeding the poor through their interference in public education and politics.
Now to the main point - as a byproduct of science healing the sick and feeding the poor they will soon have a precise definition of species based upon DNA, indeed the very arrangement of four proteins, GTAC, alone.
While creationists promote 'kinds,' an indefensible concept promoted by those against Jesus' dictate to heal the sick and feed the poor.
Edited by anglagard, : too much to list, just make it better.

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by BobTHJ, posted 06-07-2010 6:21 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by BobTHJ, posted 06-12-2010 4:08 PM anglagard 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