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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biological classification vs 'Kind'
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4988 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


(1)
Message 55 of 385 (562947)
06-02-2010 4:17 PM


New to this forum.... Brief bio: Young-earth Creationist, non-scientist (in the degree holding sense of the word) with a hobby interest in all things science.
Since there seems to be some confusion on creationist beliefs, and since it appears no creationist has weighed in on this thread yet I thought I'd jump in.
BlueJay hits the nail on the head for the creationist definition of the word "Kind" (at least to the best of my understanding). The distinction of weather one kind can evolve from another kind is rather irrelevant to the topic since this implies problems with interbreeding (which has no relevance to the definition of kind). The ability to interbreed is an entirely separate issue.
creationists and darwinian evolutionists agree on the processes of evolution: natural selection acting upon mutation to cause adaptation. While some may claim otherwise I don't see how the ability of any two creatures to interbreed or not interbreed harms the creationist model (with the possible exception of human/animal interbreeding). As opposed to what was stated creationists have no problem with ring species. It is logical from a YEC standpoint to assume that God created a base Gull kind, but since creation the two extremes of that baranome have diverged to the point to not allow hybridized offspring. On the flip side, were two separate kinds to adapt to the point where interbreeding were possible I don't see how this would pose a problem to creationist thinking either (although I do think it unlikely to have occurred or to occur in the future). The issue is not "Does natural selection acting on mutuation cause adaptation?" (we agree on that) but instead "Did the process of evolution begin 4 billion years ago with a single-celled organism or 6-10 thousand years ago when God created distinct kinds of creatures?"
The term "macroevolution" seems to have a loose definition among creationists - but I typically take it to mean common descent from a single ancestor. I don't know that creationists spend a lot of time defining it since we don't subscribe to it. I do know there has been an effort made by Answers in Genesis and others to abandon the term and instead use "molecules-to-man evolution" because it better describes the concept. The terminology chance is I believe in an effort to correct a common misconception among darwinists that creationists do not subscribe to the evolutionary processes (mutation, adaptation, speciation, natural selection).
Edited by BobTHJ, : Correct misspellings / grammar

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Taq, posted 06-02-2010 4:26 PM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 57 by Meldinoor, posted 06-02-2010 4:31 PM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 62 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 5:51 PM BobTHJ has replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4988 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 58 of 385 (562951)
06-02-2010 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Taq
06-02-2010 4:26 PM


quote:
So why not have a base Ape kind from which humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans have diverged from? Why not a base Primate kind, a base Mammal kind, or a base Vertebrate kind? Where is the dividing line, and what objective criteria are you using to draw this line? What genetic characteristics should not be shared by separate kinds? What physical characteristics should not be shared by separate kinds?
A base kind for wider classifications (primates, mammals, or even vertebrates)? Theoretically possible in a YEC model but highly unlikely given the timeframe (7-10k years) for such adaptation to occur. While creationists generally believe adaptation and speciation to occur much more rapidly than darwinian evolutionists (as evidence by observable modern examples within a handful of generations) there would still not be adequate time for such divergence to occur.
As BlueJay pointed out earlier how life is classified into kinds is far from an exact science - and there is some disagreement on the issue (just as there is in the classification of life under a darwinian model). But that doesn't make the definition of "kind" any less valid, it only means the implementation hasn't been fully fleshed out yet.
Humans are of course a different animal entirely (no pun intended). The YEC model only works if humans are a distinct kind from other life. Though recent research by creation scientists seems to support this.
quote:
Is this issue based on religious beliefs or science?
not sure how this is relevant to the topic of discussion - but if it's necessary to clarify: all science requires certain assumptions to be made. Darwinian evolutionists tend to rule out any assumptions of a supernatural origin as non-science (perhaps because they are afraid of what that might mean?) and instead accept far more fanatical assumptions that fit a naturalistic model. I on the other hand prefer to make the most reasonable assumptions to fit the data - even if those assumptions may be supernatural in origin. That the most reasonable assumption also happens to fit my religious beliefs is merely circumstantial confirmation of those beliefs.
I'm happy to discuss this further - but it seems off-topic for this thread.
quote:
If creationists don't know what macroevolution is then how can they claim it doesn't happen?
As I said, there seems to be a lot of confusion over the term - hence the effort by some leading creationists to use a term that better describes the concept of common ancestry from a single organism.
quote:
It doesn't come close to describing the concept that humans share a common ancestor with other apes
Agreed....can you think of a better term? It'd sure be nice to have a phrase that clearly explained the issue - I for one grow weary of constantly having to give lengthy explanations to darwinists who don't understand the basic principles of YEC science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Taq, posted 06-02-2010 4:26 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Taq, posted 06-02-2010 5:23 PM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2010 8:52 PM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 98 by Otto Tellick, posted 06-03-2010 3:49 AM BobTHJ has replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4988 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 59 of 385 (562954)
06-02-2010 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Meldinoor
06-02-2010 4:31 PM


quote:
Welcome to EvC, BobTHJ.
Thanks! I'm glad to be here
quote:
I think you'll find that Creationists differ enormously as to what extent evolution is responsible for the diversification of species. You appear to have no quarrel with speciation, or natural selection/evolution. But neither do you provide a clear definition of the term "kind". Do you believe that there is a test for kinds, some method by which it would be possible to determine whether two organisms belong to the same kind or not? If no such test exists, is the term "kind" even useful to a scientist? Why not simply stick to the use of clades, which is an objectively defined grouping of species, whether you believe in universal common descent or not.
Quite true that not all creationists agree on this issue....I don't claim to speak for all creationists. I know that some creationists have problems with certain-levels of speciation - I don't. My point was that speciation that creates new non-interbreeding species or the convergence of species from two separate kinds to allow interbreeding does not (by itself) invalidate the YEC model (with the possible exception of humans in the second example). Neither example conflicts with the Biblical account of creation or the progression of life.
I don't believe a "kind"-test exists at this point - but it is possible one may be discovered. As I said, I'm just a hobbyist so I don't know the level of quality available for baraminological testing at this point. As to why use the word "kind" instead of "clade" I also should probably defer to someone with more knowledge than myself - I honestly don't know. Perhaps they could be used interchangeably? My guess is that creation scientists use "kind" in an effort to convey the idea of it starting with one or more created creatures (finite beginning) - whereas "clade" can be assigned to any whole grouping anywhere along a phylogenetic tree, right?
quote:
Just to get a clearer picture of what you believe: Assuming the earth was 4-5 billion years old, do you believe that evolution from single-celled organisms to the diverse and complex life-forms we have today would be possible? Or are you of the "no information/complexity can be gained through naturalistic processes" stripe?
I haven't seen any data yet that would indicate an ability for the evolutionary process to add any significant data to the genome - only to remove or rearrange. So my answer is no - given 4-5 billion years I don't think life could evolve from single-cells to complex organisms. However, if such data were to become available clearly demonstrating how the evolutionary process could add information to a genome this wouldn't invalidate young earth creation science - in the light of that data it would be quite reasonable for a YEC to assume that the ability for genomes to gain information is a byproduct of their incredible design.
By the way, where in Colorado do you hail from? I'm in Parachute - near GJ on the western slope.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Meldinoor, posted 06-02-2010 4:31 PM Meldinoor has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Taq, posted 06-02-2010 5:34 PM BobTHJ has replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4988 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 63 of 385 (562959)
06-02-2010 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Taq
06-02-2010 5:23 PM


quote:
So then kind is limited to the observed mutation rate and a 10k year old Earth? What about Old Earth Creationists?
Old Earth Creations subscribe to darwinian evolution....the only difference you have with them is on the issue of abiogenesis.
quote:
The inexactness of a cladogram is proportional to amount of phylogenetic data available. However, what is observed again and again is a continuity of the biological classifications, a continuity that doesn't make sense if kinds were created separately. Every primate is also a mammal. How does that happen? Why not a kind of animal that is part monkey and part bird that would prevent it from also being a mammal? It is the fact that we can form clades for large numbers of species that points away from creationism and towards shared ancestry.
It makes quite a lot of sense for baraminology to look similar to the phylogenetic tree at the ends (furthest branches). YEC doesn't dispute the divergence of species since creation/flood. However your claim that the base of the phylogentic tree has continuity is quite false. This article gives an overview of some of the problems.
quote:
Without assuming the existence of the supernatural why would you ever mention it? It is you making the assumption. There is no evidence of the supernatural, so why include it in science? Science assumes that there will be a rational explanation backed by empirical evidence. Why is that such a horrible assumption?
You're all mixed up here. Any science requires assumptions. Here's some of the common ones darwinian evolutionists make:
1. abiogenesis
2. uniformation in the geological record
3. a constant decay rate for radio-isotopes
The goal with science is to examine the data and then make the most reasonable assumptions/predictions about that data. My point is that assuming the supernatural is far more reasonable in some circumstances than assuming a naturalistic solution - such as in the generation of life. Of course, as new data becomes available then it becomes necessary to re-evaluate all assumptions to ensure they are still reasonable - but you cripple you ability to think scientifically if you rule out all assumptions of a supernatural nature prior to examining the data.
quote:
What makes the untestable and unevidenced supernatural a reasonable assumption?
If the data strongly opposes all known naturalistic assumptions? (abiogenesis anyone?)
quote:
What are the scientific experiments one can run to determine if two species do or do not share a common ancestor, according to creationists?
Again, sorry....I'm not qualified to answer comprehensively at this point. Obviously comparison of genomes or mophological features are relevant indicators - but certainly not deciding factors (just as in a darwinian model).
quote:
"Molecules to man" is designed to be derisive. The older term is "goo to you via the zoo". It is meant to muddy the waters by slopping together abiogenesis and evolution, two separate concepts. AiG and others know that they have already lost, so they are playing to the crowd. Think of it as two politicians calling each other names without ever spending time talking about policy or governance. AiG has no definition of kind, or any scientific methodology that would separate species into kinds. All they have is name calling. That should tell you a lot.
LOL - It's not AiG that's slopping together abiogensis and evolution! As I've said several times now - we agree about evolution (in the natural selection/mutation/speciation/adaptation sense). The two key points of disagreement are over time (young or old earth) and origin (supernatural or natural). It's darwinists that force the marriage of abiogenesis and evolution in their quest to find a naturalistic explanation to everything - regardless of how unreasonable that explanation may be!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Taq, posted 06-02-2010 5:23 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2010 8:32 PM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 129 by Taq, posted 06-03-2010 3:14 PM BobTHJ has replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4988 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 66 of 385 (562966)
06-02-2010 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Taq
06-02-2010 5:34 PM


quote:
If they were used interchangeably then humans would be a part of the ape clade, the primate clade, the mammal clade, the vertebrate clade, and so forth. Clades are rooted by synapomorphies which are shared characteristics. Each branch from the root evolves derived characteristics. Humans share many, many characteristics with other apes, fewer with all primates, fewer still with all mammals, and so forth. The more time that has passed since common ancestry allows for more derived characteristics to evolve. This is exactly what we see in the characteristics of living species, in the fossil record, and the genomes of living species.
Yes, I agree with your distinction between clade and kind. That's what I speculated immediately after my question.
quote:
"Kinds" makes no sense. It can't explain why derived characteristics appear in the fossil record with time. It can't explain the relationships between pseudogenes and shared physical characteristics. It can't explain why humans share so many ERV's with other apes at the exact same spot in their genomes. "Kinds" explains nothing other than a need to keep humans separate from the rest of life due to religious beliefs. That's it.
Those are all non-problems from a YEC standpoint - it would make sense that creatures with a similar morphological appearance would have similar genetic makeup. The Designer re-using common elements of design is only logical. Think of a computer programmer - they don't code each program from scratch. They re-use common libraries that share function.
As to the ERVs there is a reasonable explanation as well (though here I hesitate as I've only briefly reviewed the theories and research on this subject). The theory suggests that retroviruses are not the cause of the ERV genetic match - it's the other way around. Retroviruses are spawned by 'adaptation code' placed in the initial genomes by the designer - ERVs are really this adaptation code that we were created with. Thus it is likely that they would be found in similar locations of the genome for similar creatures. I'm probably not doing this explanation justice so I'll just link the article and let you read it for yourself.
quote:
The data is the comparison of the genomes between any two species. It clearly shows that the differences in DNA is responsible for the differences in physical characteristics. I would think that even creationists would agree with this. What I have yet to see is a creationist that can show us genetic differences that evolution could not produce, and why.
Yes, I agree that comparing the DNA for two species will demonstrate the differences between those species. However, jumping from there to common ancestry of those two species is pure speculation - and I'm not quite sure what that has to do with demonstrating the capability of the evolutionary process to add information to the genome.
quote:
And to stray back to the topic, it would seem that you may have stumbled on a way to define kinds. Simply show which genetic differences evolution can not produce, and any species with those differences would automatically be in different kinds. So what genetic changes can evolution not produce? I would assume that the genetic differences between humans and chimps would be on the list, so could you give an example of a difference in a human and chimp gene that evolution could not produce?
Now you're way off....the only variation that we know evolution can produce is that which we have observed - anything else is pure speculation. I know of no change that evolution is incapable of producing. I also however know of no change that evolution is capable of making that adds information to the genome. Plus, as I noted earlier - one kind adapting to the point of interbreeding with another kind (though improbable) does not invalidate YEC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Taq, posted 06-02-2010 5:34 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Taq, posted 06-03-2010 3:27 PM BobTHJ has replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4988 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 78 of 385 (563017)
06-02-2010 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by PaulK
06-02-2010 5:51 PM


quote:
Aside from the problem with a common creationist definition of macroevolution which I have already brought up, I am afraid that interbreeding does come into it. Many creationists propose interfertility as a test to see if two species fall within the same kind (although my understanding is that they include artificial situations as well as natural breeding)
Yes - please understand the difference here. I was discussing what would or would not fit within a YEC model. Interbreeding between kinds (if shown to exist) would still fit within a YEC model (it does not invalidate the model because it does not conflict with the Biblical text). That being the case - there is no data suggesting it may exist - therefore the ability to interbreed MAY indeed be an indicator of like-kind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by PaulK, posted 06-02-2010 5:51 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 1:25 AM BobTHJ has replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4988 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 79 of 385 (563024)
06-02-2010 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Dr Adequate
06-02-2010 8:32 PM


quote:
No they don't. Hence the word "creationists".
Please - don't betray your ignorance to this issue. Five minutes and a google search would have been adequate research to learn about the topic.
Old earth creationists ARE darwinists - a subset of them anyway. They DO believe in the darwinian "molecules-to-man" common ancestry evolution. 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.
quote:
Things that have been proved true are not "assumptions"
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.
quote:
If you will for a moment extract your head from wherever you currently have it lodged and glance at the real world, you will note that it is always the evolutionists who are explaining the difference between the two concepts to creationists who are determined to muddle them 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. The one does not work without the other. Then again, maybe you have some other naturalistic theory as to the origin of life that I've never heard of?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2010 8:32 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Coyote, posted 06-02-2010 10:27 PM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2010 10:49 PM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 85 by anglagard, posted 06-02-2010 10:59 PM BobTHJ has replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4988 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 80 of 385 (563025)
06-02-2010 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Dr Adequate
06-02-2010 8:52 PM


quote:
The problem is that there are no "basic principles of YEC science". What you actually mean is that you're tired of explaining your version of creationism to people who have seen a hundred other versions of creationism which are different from yours. But like all creationists, you go about talking as though your own chosen brand of nonsense is the One True Creationism, and go about saying "creationists believe ..." when a more honest man would say "I believe ..."
This is simply more ignorance to the issue. There is STRONG consensus among young-earth creation scientists as to the basic principles of the YEC model. Just as among darwinist scientists there is certainly debate over some specific issues - but such is to be expected.
Also please note that I did not claim to speak for creationists as a whole except on matters of widespread consensus. In areas where there is not I prefaced my comments with a disclaimer. Feel free to take a moment and re-read my posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2010 8:52 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2010 10:31 PM BobTHJ has not replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4988 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 84 of 385 (563035)
06-02-2010 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Coyote
06-02-2010 10:27 PM


quote:
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 form
Thanks for making my point. Let's take a closer look at this: A abiogenesis. B, C, and D are examples of intelligent design, E is that unspecified other means that is supposedly more reasonable than a supernatural origin.
Note again what I said: "unless you want to join the ID or OEC camps...". So, unless you want to subscribe to an intelligent design theory (B, C, or D) you have no choice but to accept A, because (as of yet anyway) there is no E.
quote:
And please explain why any of the other options could not be associated with the events described by the evolution.
There is only one other viable option put forward at this point: intelligent design (which your B, C, and D are examples of). But since the new-athiest Darwinists are vehemantly opposed to anything ID, they are forced to either accept abiogenesis (A) or admit they have no freakin' clue (E).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Coyote, posted 06-02-2010 10:27 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Coyote, posted 06-02-2010 11:08 PM BobTHJ has replied
 Message 87 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2010 11:12 PM BobTHJ has replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4988 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


(1)
Message 88 of 385 (563044)
06-02-2010 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Dr Adequate
06-02-2010 10:49 PM


quote:
Even if you were to count theistic evolutionists as "creationists" --- which would render the word "creationist" practically meaningless --- it is certainly not the case that all OECs or even most accept evolution.
Many OECs would be most startled to learn from you what their opinions are. Tell you what, why don't you email Hugh Ross and the folks at "Reasons to believe" and try telling them that that's the only point on which they disagree with "atheistic darwinists".
You are correct and I am wrong. I overstepped and oversimplified. Certainly not all OECs accept molecules-to-man evolution (gap theory for instance does not). I responded too quickly. My apologies for saying you were ignorant to the issue when it was myself who was mistaken.
I'll revise: many OECs are darwinian evolutionists.
quote:
Yes they have.
Care to give some evidence for any one of them?
quote:
You are also, rather obligingly, making my point for me. On the one hand we have evolutionists pointing out to you that the two concepts are distinct and logically separable, and on the other hand a creationist insisting that they are, and I quote, "inseparable".
And yet you have the hypocritical gall to whine that "It's darwinists that force the marriage of abiogenesis and evolution".
I stand by this point - and I indicated in my response to Coyote. All origin of life theories (that I've heard anyway) fall into one of two categories:
* abiogenesis (or the spontaneous generation of life from inorganic material)
* intelligent design
Note that I say (paraphrase) "unless you want to accept ID you have to accept abiogenesis." I wasn't trying to say that darwinian evolution and ID are exclusive. Only that the prevailing neo-atheists who champion darwinism are unwilling to accept it and thus are forced to accept abiogenesis by default. I could have been more clear - my apologies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2010 10:49 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 1:42 AM BobTHJ has replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4988 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


(1)
Message 89 of 385 (563047)
06-03-2010 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by anglagard
06-02-2010 10:59 PM


Re: Sometimes is is Better to Remain Silent. and Thought a Fool.....
quote:
Welcome to EvC Bob THJ.
Thank you, glad to be part of the discussion.
quote:
I hope you can handle some constructive criticism.
I certainly try to - and I appreciate your analysis, though it seems you may not have understood my positions.
quote:
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.
It was not my intent to imply all darwinists are atheists. If you will look back at my previous posts you will see that this was my first use of the two words together. I was attempting to refer to a specific subset of darwinists with this comment - those who are atheists. I apologize if this was not more clear - as I said above I should have chosen better wording.
quote:
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.
Of course...and I agree with you completely. Again, if you look at my previous posts you will see that I understand the distinction between the two. I wasn't trying to state that abiogenesis and the darwinian evolution are one in the same.
quote:
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
My point was that since most darwinists who are atheists reject ID than abiogensis is their only remaining option.
quote:
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?
Yes, these are all examples of intelligent design. However, that was not my question. I asked if there was another naturalistic theory....supernatural theories such as these creation stories do not fit that definition.
quote:
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.
Of course....there was one example above where I should not have used the term - and indeed showed myself to be hypocritical on the issue. Please understand I'm not an angry simple-minded name-caller. I don't troll internet forums looking to start flame-wars. I'm more than happy to step up and admit it when I'm wrong.
I addressed Dr Adequate's comments as ignorant because they were. I certainly don't believe Dr Adequate to be an ignorant person - his* post-count testifies otherwise. It'd be hard to accumulate that many posts of mindless nonsense without receiving a chorus of groans whenever you contributed the conversation. Since that didn't occur I knew Dr Adequate had to be at least somewhat educated. Which is why I was so surprised by his responses - denying my arguments without a hint of logical rebuttal. I thusly characterized those responses as ignorant - and hoped by doing so to draw out a more reasoned reply from him.
* Dr Adequate: If you are female then please accept my apologies for using the wrong pronouns

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by anglagard, posted 06-02-2010 10:59 PM anglagard has not replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4988 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 92 of 385 (563050)
06-03-2010 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Coyote
06-02-2010 11:08 PM


Re: Please try again
quote:
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.
Of course they all could - we agree with that. Any of those is a possible solution to the origin of life in a darwinian framework. You'll notice that I didn't say abiogenesis was the only option. My point was: apart from ID theories - only abiogenesis remains (unless you want to count your 'heck if I know' option E).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Coyote, posted 06-02-2010 11:08 PM Coyote has not replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4988 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 93 of 385 (563051)
06-03-2010 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Dr Adequate
06-02-2010 11:12 PM


quote:
Thank you for making his point.
Yes, those would be examples of intelligent design. And they would be entirely compatible with evolution
Which is exactly what I said - apart from ID (of which OEC is a part) there is no option but abiogenesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2010 11:12 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4988 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 95 of 385 (563053)
06-03-2010 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by PaulK
06-03-2010 1:25 AM


quote:
The creationist idea of "kinds" has little support in the Biblical text, so "not conflicting with the Biblical text" is not a good criterion. Interbreeding IS proposed as a reliable test to see if two species belong within a "kind" by many creationists. I don't think that it would be lightly thrown out.
Agree....it wouldn't be lightly thrown out. But if it were YEC would still survive as a reasonable theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 1:25 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 1:55 AM BobTHJ has not replied

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 4988 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 96 of 385 (563054)
06-03-2010 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by PaulK
06-03-2010 1:42 AM


quote:
Progressive Creationists aren't evolutionists either. Can you provide evidence that any Old Earth Creationists aren't creationists, as you claim ?
I suppose not - I think what I'm looking for here is theistic evolutionists - I'm mixing terms. My apologies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2010 1:42 AM PaulK 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