Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8972 total)
173 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, dwise1, JonF, kjsimons, Meddle, ringo, WookieeB (8 members, 165 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,451 Year: 7,199/23,288 Month: 1,105/1,214 Week: 117/303 Day: 37/40 Hour: 4/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 2284 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 24 of 336 (619373)
06-09-2011 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by NoNukes
06-09-2011 3:16 PM


Re: Ok,, I understand
I can assure you that people who are predominately of Mongoloid, Negroid, and Caucasoid origin do exist. I'm not sure what the point of denying that would be.

Sorry, but I have to call you out on this one. Race is an arbitrary classification and as such, does not exist as a classification with any scientific value.

Edited by DBlevins, : added scientific value


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by NoNukes, posted 06-09-2011 3:16 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by fearandloathing, posted 06-09-2011 4:25 PM DBlevins has not yet responded
 Message 28 by NoNukes, posted 06-09-2011 4:45 PM DBlevins has responded
 Message 37 by Acalepha, posted 06-09-2011 7:36 PM DBlevins has not yet responded

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 2284 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 25 of 336 (619381)
06-09-2011 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by New Cat's Eye
06-09-2011 3:01 PM


Danger Will Robinson!
...some biological function had to have emerged via a diliberate and guided process...

I hope you can see the inherent danger in using the phrase "had to have".

Scientists try to not use that phrase, as it denotes certainty; without doubt.

That is one reason Creation science is NOT science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2011 3:01 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2011 4:27 PM DBlevins has responded

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 2284 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 29 of 336 (619401)
06-09-2011 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by New Cat's Eye
06-09-2011 4:27 PM


Re: Danger Will Robinson!
For example, there had to have been a common ancestor between chimps and humans for the ToE to be correct.

Yes, you are correct, but there-in lies the rub. Chimps do not have to be related to humans. It very well could have been a God who created humans distinct from chimps. Or it could have been aliens. But we are and it is the most likely scenario beyond any reasonable doubt, otherwise it would call for a complete overhall of our understanding of genetics and ancestry if we found it were not true.

To put it in another way. You're positing a level of certainty that, if not true, leaves you open to ridicule. It leaves you open to the fallacy of "The God of the Gaps". If it HAD to have happened that way, but we find later it could have happened through a natural process, then your whole argument falls apart.

Only if you force the certainty beyond the normal tentativity-included everyday usage of the words.

Not so. It isn't science if you base your conclusions on a priori arguments.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2011 4:27 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 2284 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 30 of 336 (619402)
06-09-2011 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by NoNukes
06-09-2011 4:45 PM


Re: Ok,, I understand
I never claimed that race had any scientific value or that it wasn't arbitrary.

I guess I was confused when you called out Acelalpha for saying:

Acelalpha writes:

I don't believe that "racial" groups exist.

and you saying:

NoNukes writes:

I can assure you that people who are predominately of Mongoloid, Negroid, and Caucasoid origin do exist. I'm not sure what the point of denying that would be.

It appears to me to be a positive statement that racial classifications do exist. You might have been more clear by affirming that they don't exist and calling out Acelalpha on his contradiction in using religion as a classification. Otherwise, why even affirm that race exists?

Do you claim that race exists, but it has no scientific value? By what criteria would you say so?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by NoNukes, posted 06-09-2011 4:45 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by NoNukes, posted 06-09-2011 6:06 PM DBlevins has responded

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 2284 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 34 of 336 (619429)
06-09-2011 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by NoNukes
06-09-2011 6:06 PM


Re: Ok,, I understand
The classifications do exist. Just because they are arbitrary and have little scientific meaning does not mean that the classifications are non existent. Current racial classifications fall roughly along the lines of descent from the now discredited racial classes I mentioned above.

I did not say they do not exist as a social construct. I said they have no scientific value. It appeared to me that you were supporting the view that "race" exists, when it most assuredly does not. Race, as a classification, has no value. In any case, I felt your stating that 'racial classifications exist' did not help your argument.

But let me be more clear so that you understand why I called you out. When Acelalpha writes:

Acelalpha writes:

I don't believe that "racial" groups exist.

I understand him to mean that he doesn't believe in the concept of "race" as it pertains to humans.

When you wrote:

NoNukes writes:

I can assure you that people who are predominately of Mongoloid, Negroid, and Caucasoid origin do exist. I'm not sure what the point of denying that would be.

It appeared to me to be a refutation of Acela's belief that the concept of 'race' is not valid. You assure us that "race" does exist. While you now seem to agree that, for example, Caucasoid is a faulty racial classification, it wasn't clear with your prior statement what value you ascribed to racial classifications.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by NoNukes, posted 06-09-2011 6:06 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-10-2011 12:29 PM DBlevins has not yet responded

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 2284 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 48 of 336 (619485)
06-10-2011 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Acalepha
06-09-2011 10:24 PM


Re: Newton's Law of Gravity
Quick quibble.

The atomic mass is NOT due to their atomic number, but rather to the number of neutrons and protons. The atomic number is determined by the number of protons in the element.

Attraction in elements has only a little to do with size. Van der waals forces have a fairly small attractive ability. The loss or gain of electrons is what really holds atoms to each other.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Acalepha, posted 06-09-2011 10:24 PM Acalepha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Acalepha, posted 06-10-2011 5:37 AM DBlevins has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020