Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 11:49 PM
18 online now:
Dr Adequate, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (2 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,645 Year: 3,682/19,786 Month: 677/1,087 Week: 46/221 Day: 17/29 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2122232425
26
Author Topic:   Biological classification vs 'Kind'
CosmicChimp
Member
Posts: 306
From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland
Joined: 06-15-2007


Message 376 of 385 (567348)
06-30-2010 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by Huntard
06-30-2010 4:50 PM


Ah the spark for my question
Yes it is exactly this video that got me into trying to figure it out. Thx Huntard


My mind keeps trying to copy itself. Try as I might to stop it, almost everything I do seems to be some sort of a crude attempt at making copies. Gawd, what an egomaniac.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Huntard, posted 06-30-2010 4:50 PM Huntard has not yet responded

  
CosmicChimp
Member
Posts: 306
From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland
Joined: 06-15-2007


Message 377 of 385 (567349)
06-30-2010 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by crashfrog
06-30-2010 4:52 PM


Re: Last Thursdayism
This is a great rebuttal. I'm glad to see that the best I have is something similar to what you say. It might be interesting to look beyond the shouts of "God did it!" and "Nature did it!"


My mind keeps trying to copy itself. Try as I might to stop it, almost everything I do seems to be some sort of a crude attempt at making copies. Gawd, what an egomaniac.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by crashfrog, posted 06-30-2010 4:52 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 378 of 385 (567353)
06-30-2010 6:47 PM


Is the end nigh?
Hello again everybody. There still seems to be plenty of interest in this discussion - and probably will be as long as a creationist is around that talks about 'kinds'. That said - the thread is getting a little long in the tooth.

I'm leaving it open, and won't close it without warning, but if someone interested in the topic would care to Propose a descendant thread so that we can begin to wrap this one up towards some kind of conclusion that would be super. Unless participants are specifically keen to keep going in this thread.

Oh! And thanks for everyone's efforts to refocus back to the topic - I've obviously been a little distracted with other EvC affairs recently so I've not been watching as closely as I was doing.


    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5377
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 379 of 385 (567378)
06-30-2010 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by BobTHJ
06-29-2010 7:32 PM


The science as a whole would also be falsified if humans and chimps (or some other primate) were shown to have common ancestry.

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.


"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by BobTHJ, posted 06-29-2010 7:32 PM BobTHJ has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by Coyote, posted 06-30-2010 11:53 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 186 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 yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 381 of 385 (567574)
07-01-2010 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by CosmicChimp
06-30-2010 4:42 PM


Hi CosmicChimp. I think that Huntard and Crashfrog have done a great job answering this one already, but I would just like to add a couple of things.

To me nested hierarchy implies imperfect inheritance or incomplete duplication.

Yes, it very strongly argues for heritable change, with modification, leading to speciation. The case is so compelling that besides a deliberately deceitful god, I can't see any other possibilities - and Bobthj has explicitly rejected that notion.

But how is it to be distinguished from a deity poofing a series of creatures into existence based upon what they say is common design or modular design or whatever else they say it is.

It isn't. The problem is that nothing can be distinguished from Last Thursdayism. Appealing to the meddling of an undetectable supernatural entity is an answer that can equally be applied to anything. There is no observation or question to which it could not be applied. Of course it could then be turned around and used to make just as strong a case for the counter-argument. We must either reject such an answer or we must seriously consider the possibility that all human knowledge is compromised by supernatural trickery.

I have to say that for my tastes, undermining all knowledge seems a high price to pay for a single religious apologetic.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by CosmicChimp, posted 06-30-2010 4:42 PM CosmicChimp has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by CosmicChimp, posted 07-01-2010 9:57 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

    
CosmicChimp
Member
Posts: 306
From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland
Joined: 06-15-2007


Message 382 of 385 (567609)
07-01-2010 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 381 by Granny Magda
07-01-2010 5:27 PM


Thanks GM, this is great affirmation I really needed to know this. I kept seeing titles and arguments for this specific debate and could never really see the claim as correct from the evolution side. Through my own work, I had isolated the ideas down to the creationists proclaiming at the core of it "god did it" but I now see how and why that if god did it then he is a trickster. This is ultimately as you have also conveyed the entire EvC debate wrapped up into a few sentences.

I think I can remember there being a tiny part in the video Huntard linked to where this too is stated, I need to review it again as this is then the culmination of the entire video. If I can find it then I would like to commend the maker for his thoroughness. But thanks for yours and huntard's and CF's work in every case.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by Granny Magda, posted 07-01-2010 5:27 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

  
Carel
Junior Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 2
From: Heilig Landstichting, The Netherlands
Joined: 07-02-2010


Message 383 of 385 (567645)
07-02-2010 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Huntard
05-26-2010 8:02 AM


My first message
You write: You'll never get a usable answer from creationists.

Anyway, good luck with your quest, my prediction is there will be no answer forthcoming.

Let's see if I'm a prophet, eh?

Long ago I enterd the EO-forums "And God Created Darwin". I was looking for answers like this. I tried almost everything to get an answer, but no. I'm not sure if Huntard is a prophet, but many things he said were right.

Now I want to debate the 6000 jear old earth. That's even more difficult, because creationists know that with that timescale they throw almost every science through the drain.

Hope I find good topics here


CarelVanHeugten
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Huntard, posted 05-26-2010 8:02 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by Huntard, posted 07-02-2010 5:18 AM Carel has not yet responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 375 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 384 of 385 (567656)
07-02-2010 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 383 by Carel
07-02-2010 4:32 AM


Re: My first message
Carel writes:

Long ago I enterd the EO-forums "And God Created Darwin". I was looking for answers like this. I tried almost everything to get an answer, but no. I'm not sure if Huntard is a prophet, but many things he said were right.


Thank you, Carel. I remember you from there. Welcome to EvC!

This place is a bit different then the EO-forums. Most importantly, it's moderated a lot better then the EO-forums. Which is one of the reasons I left there.

Now I want to debate the 6000 jear old earth. That's even more difficult, because creationists know that with that timescale they throw almost every science through the drain.

Hope I find good topics here


Oh you will. Start with Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, for a comprehensive look at dating methods that disprove a young earth.

Oh, and a free tip. If you use the "peek"button on the bottom right of this post you can see how I did those nice little quoteboxes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Carel, posted 07-02-2010 4:32 AM Carel has not yet responded

    
killinghurts
Member (Idle past 3073 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).


  
RewPrev1
...
2122232425
26
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019