Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological classification vs 'Kind'
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 22 of 385 (562264)
05-27-2010 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by caffeine
05-27-2010 11:44 AM


Re: Current baraminology
Baraminology is pure religious apologetics.
It uses the terminology of science in a blatant attempt to force a fit between created kinds and scientific classifications.
As with the rest of creation "science," it will never come up with an explanation that does not match religious dogma. That would be heresy or some such.
In this it is the exact opposite of science.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by caffeine, posted 05-27-2010 11:44 AM caffeine has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 28 of 385 (562780)
06-01-2010 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Blue Jay
06-01-2010 1:34 PM


How is this any different in principle from creationist disagreements?
Scientific disagreements are based on data, religious ones on beliefs.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Blue Jay, posted 06-01-2010 1:34 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 81 of 385 (563026)
06-02-2010 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by BobTHJ
06-02-2010 9:57 PM


Unless you want to join intelligent design or the OEC camp then darwinism and abiogensis are inseparable. The one does not work without the other.
Sorry, that is not the case.
Here are five hypothesis regarding the origin of the first life forms.
    a) Natural processes occurring entirely upon earth resulted in chains of self-replicating molecular strands that eventually became the first life forms.
    b) Aliens from another planet and/or dimension traveled to this planet and -- deliberately or accidentally -- seeded the planet with the first life forms.
    c) In the future, humans will develop a means to travel back in time. They will use this technology to plant the first life forms in Earth's past, making the existence of life a causality loop.
    d) A divine agent of unspecified nature zap-poofed the first life forms into existence.
    e) Any method other than the four described above led to the existence of the first life forms.
Please tell us why only abiogenesis must be associated with the events described by theory of evolution.
And please explain why any of the other options could not be associated with the events described by the evolution.

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

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 84 by BobTHJ, posted 06-02-2010 10:57 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 86 of 385 (563040)
06-02-2010 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by BobTHJ
06-02-2010 10:57 PM


Please try again
Sorry to say, but your answer ducks the question.
Can you try again, and this time address the point I made.
Adding the original point:
Please tell us why only abiogenesis must be associated with the events described by theory of evolution.
And please explain why any of the other options could not be associated with the events described by the evolution.
Edited by Coyote, : Include original point

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by BobTHJ, posted 06-02-2010 10:57 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by BobTHJ, posted 06-03-2010 1:38 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 126 of 385 (563146)
06-03-2010 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by New Cat's Eye
06-03-2010 2:38 PM


Re: Still Not Getting It
I get it, but it seems pedantic to me.
I'm afraid the whole thread has grown too pedantic to be of much use to anyone other than the participants.
I would like to throw some ideas out there, but I won't bother until the thread gets back to normal.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-03-2010 2:38 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 145 of 385 (563205)
06-03-2010 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by BobTHJ
06-03-2010 7:26 PM


PRATTS again
{This message is getting pretty far from the core topic theme. I have "hidden" the original text and have turned the message into a new topic: Assessing the RATE Project - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by BobTHJ, posted 06-03-2010 7:26 PM BobTHJ has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 219 of 385 (564049)
06-07-2010 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Modulous
06-07-2010 10:35 PM


Baraminology
In discussing baraminology, lets not forget what some creationists have written. The following is from:
What are the Genesis kinds? Baraminologyclassification of created organisms
This article is unattributed, but probably by Wayne Frair. One section reads, in part:
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.
An article which appears to be largely the same, titled "Baraminology—Classification of Created Organisms," by Wayne Frair, appeared in the Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 82-91 (2000).
This shows that baraminology is anything but a science. It is religious apologetics dressed up in fancy words pretending to be a science.
Epic fail.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Modulous, posted 06-07-2010 10:35 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 233 of 385 (564194)
06-08-2010 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by BobTHJ
06-08-2010 9:27 PM


Dating again (off topic as usual)
I do however realize that both YEC and darwinian evolution cannot both be true. They are incompatable theories. Therefore, if you wish to convince me of a viewpoint other than YEC I need to see data that either discredits YEC or supports darwinian evolution.
The various forms of dating, including radiometric dating as well as many other forms of dating, disprove a ca. 6,000 year old earth.
You need to see the data? Can you see the data? Most YECs simply cannot see any data that disproves their position, no matter how well-supported it is.
Can we take this up on one of the dating threads?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by BobTHJ, posted 06-08-2010 9:27 PM BobTHJ has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 260 of 385 (564685)
06-11-2010 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by BobTHJ
06-11-2010 5:23 PM


Insults?
Please don't insult me by assuming that my religion dictates my scientific beliefs.
There is simply no other way you could arrive at a young earth belief.
The scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against it, and the evidence YECs produce supporting it are rife with denial, misrepresentation, outright lies, and quote mining.
Check the scientific findings in areas of the world where there is no strong biblical tradition. Any of those scientists come up with a young earth idea? Or is it pretty much limited to biblical literalists? (Rhetorical question.)

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by BobTHJ, posted 06-11-2010 5:23 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by BobTHJ, posted 06-14-2010 6:43 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 274 of 385 (564791)
06-12-2010 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by BobTHJ
06-12-2010 4:45 PM


Re: Getting down to details
The YEC geological model has most sedimentary layers laid down during the global flood.
Aren't you the least bit bothered by the vast differences in age between those various sedimentary layers?
Or the huge amounts of time those took to form, compared to the 4,350 or so years since the date attributed to the flood?
Or that all dating methods show that you are wrong in your young age belief?
You claim to want evidence, yet you deny everything that contradicts your a priori belief.
To me that is nothing more than religious apologetics. It certainly isn't the way science works.
While this may seem off topic, the issues are related. The belief in "kinds" follows the exact same pattern. Kinds are a religious belief, and no amount of scientific evidence will make the least bit of difference to believers. We have already seen that demonstrated in this thread.
In both cases we see the antithesis of science.
Nowadays it seems fashionable in creationist circles to wrap their religious beliefs in scientific terminology, apparently in hopes of fooling those who don't know any better and to feed believers just what they want to hear.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by BobTHJ, posted 06-12-2010 4:45 PM BobTHJ has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 325 of 385 (565349)
06-16-2010 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 319 by BobTHJ
06-16-2010 2:42 AM


And in reverse???
If you are positing H. ergaster to be a racial variant of H. sapiens that developed after the flood, and most likely after Babel, do you realize the implications?
You are proposing the exact same type of evolutionary change that scientists propose except thousands of times faster and in reverse!

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 2:42 AM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 5:23 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 327 of 385 (565355)
06-16-2010 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by BobTHJ
06-16-2010 10:33 AM


Off the deep end
With this post you've apparently stopped pretending to be looking for the evidence and are just peddling your YEC beliefs.
quote:
This is in stark contrast to the theory of evolution which is based on the empirical evidence.
Complete nonsense. The theory of evolution is based upon the opinions of Charles Darwin (and others). You may have evidence that you believe supports it, but that doesn't make it any more evidence based than YEC.
If YEC is so evidence-based, why are the only adherents to this belief biblical literalists? Why is YEC not found in areas of the world where the bible is not read? The evidence should be the same.
The answer is that YEC stems from the bible and not the scientific evidence. The scientific evidence overwhelmingly contradicts the YEC belief.
The theory of evolution, on the other hand, stems from the scientific evidence. How far do you think Darwin's hypothesis would have gone if the evidence contradicted it? It would have died a quiet death. Instead, as time passes, more and more evidence is found which supports the theory.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 10:33 AM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by BobTHJ, posted 06-16-2010 5:34 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 380 of 385 (567401)
06-30-2010 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by Coragyps
06-30-2010 10:02 PM


Back to kinds
Then consider "baraminology" as falsified as phrenology, because chimps and humans do share common ancestry, as shown by about 417 lines of evidence that I'm aware of. Go read message 261, this thread, again, and explain to be once more why these "baranomes" related to vomeronasal organs "deteriorated" in the same exact way in great apes and in humans, but not in monkeys or lemurs.
Baraminology is pushed and defended because "kinds" are in the bible, not because of any evidence for it and in spite of all the evidence against it.
And no amount of evidence will convince believers that it is wrong.
These are reasons it is the exact opposite of real science.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by Coragyps, posted 06-30-2010 10:02 PM Coragyps 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