|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Biological classification vs 'Kind' | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2096 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2096 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2096 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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.
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2096 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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:
Edited by Coyote, : Include original point Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2096 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2096 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Your post is nothing but PRATTS (points refuted a thousand times). I'll take on one (don't want to spoil the fun for others):
3. You are correct that over the past century science has observed a fairly steady rate of radio-isotope decay. However, assuming that same constant rate of decay for 4+ billion years is a bad assumption. As it turns out radio-isotope half-lives can vary substantially based upon a host of factors. The RATE Group attempted to document the variability of the decay constant, spending over a million dollars of creationists' money. They failed. Here is a good review of their project: Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review by Randy Isaac. A couple of paragraphs from the conclusion: The conclusions of the RATE project are being billed as groundbreaking results. This is a fairly accurate description since a group of creation scientists acknowledge that hundreds of millions of years worth of radioactivity have occurred. They attempt to explain how this massive radioactivity could have occurred in a few thousand years but admit that consistent solutions have not yet been found. The vast majority of the book is devoted to providing technical details that the authors believe prove that the earth is young and that radioisotope decay has not always been constant. All of these areas of investigation have been addressed elsewhere by the scientific community and have been shown to be without merit. The only new data provided in this book are in the category of additional details and there are no significantly new claims. Another review: Do the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science? by Greg Moore One of the concluding paragraphs: Young-earth creationists have long claimed there is no evidence for an old Earth. The fact that billions of years of nuclear decay have occurred in Earth history has been denied by most young-earth creationists. Now, the RATE team has admitted that, taken at face value, radiometric dating data is most easily and directly explained by the Earth being billions of years old. This is a remarkable development because no longer can young-earth creationists claim it is merely the naturalistic worldview that makes scientists believe rocks and minerals are millions or billions of years old. Summary: there is no good evidence for significant changes in the decay constant, and creationists who spent a lot of time and money researching the issue had to admit that. {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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2096 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2096 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2096 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2096 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2096 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2096 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
With this post you've apparently stopped pretending to be looking for the evidence and are just peddling your YEC beliefs.
quote: 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. 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2096 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024