Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 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'
killinghurts
Member (Idle past 4984 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 1 of 385 (562127)
05-25-2010 9:14 PM


Many times on this forum I have seen the work 'kind' used by creationists to classify organisms into groups in order to attempt to explain the biodiversity we see on earth today. This classification is central to the flood story and also central to the refutation of common ancestry.
Science currently has a classification system (not without with its' own problems) however I would like to hear from a creationist:
1) a clear definition of what 'kind' actually means to the creationist, and
2) where the definition of 'kind' differs from the commonly accepted scientific biological classification system.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Huntard, posted 05-26-2010 8:02 AM killinghurts has not replied
 Message 23 by Peepul, posted 05-28-2010 10:40 AM killinghurts has not replied

  
killinghurts
Member (Idle past 4984 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 196 of 385 (563825)
06-06-2010 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by BobTHJ
06-06-2010 7:36 PM


Hi Bob, thanks for having the courage to reply, seems the other creationists don't want to have a bar of defining kind.
Question - just to satisfy the intent of this thread - is baraminology your definition of kind?
Also I'd like to comment on this
"BobTH" writes:
The origin of life comes immediately to mind (and I've mentioned this in several previous posts on this thread). The only naturalistic hypothesis I have seen put forth that is not intelligent design oriented is abiogenesis - the probability of which is astronomical. Laboratory experiments have consistently failed to provide even the slightest evidence for it. In a case such as this a supernatural assumption seems far more reasonable.
You seem like an educated person, so you must have heard of the Urey-Miller experiment. Can you explain how this experiment failed to provide even the slightest evidence for abiogenesis?
Or to put it more bluntly (and I'm not trying to be nasty here), If you conclude that there is no evidence for abiogenesis, why is it that when scientists recreate an environment predicted by science that would closely support abiogenesis, that a black tea pot isn't created instead of amino acids (the very molecule that is critical for life as we know it)?
And this:
"BobTHC" writes:
Note here the critical flaw in the "new" (past 150 years) naturalistic approach to science (which I have also pointed out in previous posts). If you rule out the supernatural prior to drawing your conclusions you will never be able to understand a process with a supernatural origin. Now, you can certainly argue that there are no such supernatural processes - and maybe you would be correct - but there is no way to be certain...and therefore you blind yourself to an entire realm of possible explanations.
Do you think advancements in astronomy would be severely retarded if we seriously considered the possibility and implications of astrology?
Do you think advancements in medicine would be severely retarded if we seriously considered the possibility and implications of ancient demon possession?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by BobTHJ, posted 06-06-2010 7:36 PM BobTHJ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by BobTHJ, posted 06-09-2010 12:05 PM killinghurts has not replied

  
killinghurts
Member (Idle past 4984 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 217 of 385 (564044)
06-07-2010 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by hotjer
06-07-2010 7:40 PM


Hi Bob, this is the second time you have used this line of argument
"bob" writes:
The naturalistic detectives in this case would rule out invisibility before ever evaluating the evidence - thus they would never be able to catch an actually invisible robber, were such a thing to exist. A silly example, yes...but it does make my point.
I noted you didn't respond to my early message, so I'll ask again.
According to your logic, should we assume the possibility of ancient demon possession when evaluating illness?
Would you be comfortable if a doctor of medicine put you through an exorcism just to make sure you were not possessed?
Or checked if you were a witch by throwing you in the lake to see if you float?
As you can see, that sort of logic is ridiculous, if not down right dangerous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by hotjer, posted 06-07-2010 7:40 PM hotjer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by hotjer, posted 06-08-2010 4:38 AM killinghurts has not replied

  
killinghurts
Member (Idle past 4984 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 234 of 385 (564201)
06-08-2010 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by BobTHJ
06-08-2010 9:02 PM


Re: Getting down to details
"bobTHJ" writes:
Yes, unfalsifiable hypothesis are science. Evolution is one. A rabbit in the pre-cambrian would not suddenly cause the scientific community to abandon darwinistic evolution - mainstream scientists (due to their inherant bias toward their 'dogma') would expand the theory to explain this phenomena, or find some means to rationalize away the evidence. The statement that a hypothesis must be falsifiable to be valid is bologna (and interestingly is unfalsifiable itself).
You are simply wrong, dogma is the direct inverse of science, here's a good explanation:
quote:
It is significant that, although it is often claimed that Darwinism is unfalsifiable, many of the things Darwin said have in fact been falsified. Many of his assertions of fact have been revised or denied, many of his mechanisms rejected or modified even by his strongest supporters (e.g., by Mayr, Gould, Lewontin, and Dawkins), and he would find it hard to recognise some versions of modern selection theory as his natural selection theory. This is exactly what a student of the history of science would expect. Science moves on, and if a theory doesn't, that is strong prima facie evidence it actually is a metaphysical belief.
source

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by BobTHJ, posted 06-08-2010 9:02 PM BobTHJ has not replied

  
killinghurts
Member (Idle past 4984 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 385 of 385 (568932)
07-19-2010 1:04 AM


I vote for a close on this subject. I've learned a few things, among them include;
- Baraminology seems to be the creationists classification system (or lack thereof),
- Baraminology seems to reject evidence that does not support its hypotheses (the most blatantly obvious being universal common decent).

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024