|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 51 (9221 total) |
| |
danieljones0094 | |
Total: 920,783 Year: 1,105/6,935 Month: 386/719 Week: 28/146 Day: 1/8 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Question for creationists: Why would you rather believe in a small God? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2432 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
There is just no convincing you how wrong you are.
You are perhaps the classic example of "Belief gets in the way of learning." You have a mind like a steel trap: rusted shut. (That's nothing to be proud of by the way.)Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Of course it obscured my point to say I was objecting to the redefinition of a WORD, when of course I'm objecting to the redefinition of the CONCEPT, the INSTITUTION of marriage itself. Words have definitions, things don't. If you disagree, please tell me how you would go about redefining a banana. Not the word "banana" but an actual banana.
Yes, I have the nerve to think everybody's wrong about speciation ... And everyone else thinks that speciation is the formation of a new species. Which it is by definition. You don't get to change what the word means any more than you can make "cat" mean dog by an effort of will.
That's an artificial and meaningless criterion. Curiously enough, the inability to breed was neither "artificial" nor "meaningless" when you were deciding who should be allowed to marry. Apparently when we're considering the law, biological criteria are meaningful, but when we're considering biology, we should ignore the facts of biology ... in favor of what? You don't say. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 1128 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Yes, I have the nerve to think everybody's wrong about speciation, and again it's the real thing I'm talking about, not the word. It describes the situation of a small population's splitting off from a larger population to form a new variety of creature, which is called a new "Species" because it cannot interbreed with its former population. That's an artificial and meaningless criterion. Given that you speak for ALL young earth creationists, how do you explain your vehement disagreement with 2 of the most predominant young earth creationist organizations? Are you going to say that they aren't true creationists? AIG and CMI have far more impact than you and a much louder voice in creationism, don't you suppose you ought to correct them?"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18063 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
OK Faith, at this point the question is whether you believe that you have authority over reality or just authority over what everyone else should believe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1771 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Where's this stuff coming from that I think I have "authority?" Aren't I allowed to have my own opinions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1771 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I can't disagree with some of the positions of Creationist organizations and still respect them as Creationist organizations? Huh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18063 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
There's a difference between having opinions and expecting others to accept them as objective facts. Or even citing them as objective facts.
I mean how can you honestly be upset that creationist organisations disagree with an idea that you came up with simply to support an argument that you happen to like ? Aren't THEY entitled to THEIR own opinions to fit into THEIR arguments ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1771 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Your emphasis on the definition of the word seemed to be designed to obscure the nature of the argument. Perhaps you didn't intend that effect. Perhaps you only intended to fill your post with irrelevant pedantry.
Curiously enough, the inability to breed was neither "artificial" nor "meaningless" when you were deciding who should be allowed to marry. What's curious is that you would make a comparison between an opinion about biology and an opinion about human society. Are you on some kind of mission to turn the discussion into gobbledygook?
Apparently when we're considering the law, biological criteria are meaningful, but when we're considering biology, we should ignore the facts of biology ... in favor of what? You don't say. Yes, my opinions are: 1) that marriage is for (human) heterosexuals, which combination is obviously designed for procreation, and 2) that ability to interbreed is an artificial definition of a Species that obscures the fact that when a population of a Species has arrived at that condition it usually has much less ability to produce new varieties due to the reduction in genetic variability, which means it has less, rather than more, ability to "evolve." Yes, interbreeding needs to be dropped as a criterion for the definition of Species. "In favor of what?" you ask. In favor of dropping an irrelevancy so that the actual biological fact can be recognized, that there is no new Species here. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1771 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
There's a difference between having opinions and expecting others to accept them as objective facts. Or even citing them as objective facts. Golly, ya don't say. Where have I "expected" anything? Seems to me I've merely stated my opinion, take it or leave it. I've argued it many times elsewhere. If you're interested in knowing the basis for the opinion I refer you to those arguments. But of course you aren't, you just want to accuse me of something new, in this case "expecting" my opinions to be accepted.
I mean how can you honestly be upset that creationist organisations disagree with an idea that you came up with simply to support an argument that you happen to like ? Aren't THEY entitled to THEIR own opinions to fit into THEIR arguments ? Uh, who says I'm "upset" about being disagreed with? Where have I said they aren't entitled to their opinion? You guys seem to be spending all your time making up bizarre accusations to throw at me. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Your emphasis on the definition of the word seemed to be designed to obscure the nature of the argument. The definition of which word? I can't tell what you're trying to be wrong about.
What's curious is that you would make a comparison between an opinion about biology and an opinion about human society. My point being that facts about biology are more relevant to biology. This is not so much curious as obvious ... to people who aren't you.
Yes, my opinions are: 1) that marriage is for (human) heterosexuals, which combination is obviously designed for procreation ... Well, the stupidity of that opinion has already been discussed on another thread. Let's move on, eh?
2) that ability to interbreed is an artificial definition of a Species ... But it is not artificial, it is very natural. It's not something humans have decided, like (for example) the distinction between a felony and a misdemeanor, or the difference between a hill and a mountain, or the border between the US and Canada --- it is there in nature, a naturally occurring barrier to gene flow between groups of organisms. Nature divides them and their descendants forever, and we just observe the division that exists in nature. And the groups so divided we call "species". And when I say "we" I mean everyone from me to freakin' Ken Ham.
Yes, interbreeding needs to be dropped as a criterion for the definition of Species. "In favor of what?" you ask. I did indeed. If only you would answer my question, instead of producing drivel like this:
In favor of dropping an irrelevancy so that the actual biological fact can be recognized, that there is no new Species here. Don't you ever feel just a little ashamed of yourself? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1771 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But it is not artificial, it is very natural. It's not something humans have decided, like (for example) the distinction between a felony and a misdemeanor, or the difference between a hill and a mountain, or the border between the US and Canada --- it is there in nature, a naturally occurring barrier to gene flow between groups of organisms. Nature divides them and their descendants forever, and we just observe the division that exists in nature. And the groups so divided we call "species". And when I say "we" I mean everyone from me to freakin' Ken Ham. Yes, but all this division does is isolate that new "species" in its genetically reduced condition so that it has no further direction to evolve in. The whole point of the idea of speciation within the context of the theory of evolution is that it is a stepping stone to further evolution, but genetically it is either very close to the end or has reached the end of all possibility of further evolution. This is the case with the cheetah, formed by a bottleneck but still characterized by the same kind of genetic situation speciation naturally produces. It can't interbreed with other cats and it also can't evolve new variations within its own population. If you want to call it a Species unto itself you only succeed in obscuring the fact that genetically it remains part of the Cat Species or Family. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18063 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: When you state it as if it was an objective fact then I'd say that you are presenting it as something more than a mere opinion. Clearly you expect your assertion to be believed and it certainly isn't because you can support it with evidence or sound reasoning. Certainly the fact that we don't see numerous genetically depleted populations is a major problem for your view and one you can't answer without inventing more ad-hoc opinions. To give a clear example the whole idea of "genetic depletion" causing a loss of interfertility with the larger population is highly implausible. Ignoring new mutations every member of the daughter species must have been a possible member of the parent species (because all their genes were found in the parent species). The members of the daughter species have no great problems in breeding with each other. So why should they have a problem breeding with the greater population ? Indeed it seems that the main basis for your opinion is a refusal to admit that your (other) opinions could be wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1771 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
When you state it as if it was an objective fact then I'd say that you are presenting it as something more than a mere opinion. Ah but I believe it is true so of course I state it as the objective fact I believe it to be. That doesn't mean I expect YOU to accept it.
Clearly you expect your assertion to be believed Oh I think it OUGHT to be, because I believe it to be true and the arguments I've encountered don't convince me otherwise. But "expect?" Of course not.
and it certainly isn't because you can support it with evidence or sound reasoning. Oh I believe I have done that as well, on other threads at EvC for instance.
Certainly the fact that we don't see numerous genetically depleted populations is a major problem for your view and one you can't answer without inventing more ad-hoc opinions. I've many times proposed that you WOULD see this if you were looking for it, looking for it for instance where it would be most likely to be easy to see, in the new "species" formed by "speciation" or at the end of a series of ring species. It doesn't have to be "depletion," merely reduction in genetic diversity. The tests might be a bit cumbersome to perform since they'd involve fairly extensive DNA sampling, but not beyond the realm of possibility.
To give a clear example the whole idea of "genetic depletion" causing a loss of interfertility with the larger population is highly implausible. Ignoring new mutations every member of the daughter species must have been a possible member of the parent species (because all their genes were found in the parent species). The members of the daughter species have no great problems in breeding with each other. So why should they have a problem breeding with the greater population ? Um, you seem to be forgetting the context here, the definition of "speciation" as producing a new "species" which is defined by its inability to breed with the greater population. If it doesn't have that problem then presumably it would be regarded as just another variation of the population rather than a new Species. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18063 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: So you think of it as an objective fact and not just an opinion.
quote: That's playing with words. But why ought it to be believed simply because you have a strong bias in favour of it ?
quote: Well, if you think that your bias in favour of an idea is adequate support I can see why you're believe that.
quote: But, excepting a few rare cases like the cheetah we DON'T see it where genetic variation has been tested. Simply assuming that tests that haven't been done will prove you right is not a valid reason for discounting the tests that have been done.
quote: Why would you thnk that I was forgetting the context? I'm not forgetting the loss of interfertility - I'm pointing you that your preferred explanation for it is highly implausible.If that happens to call your ideas about speciation into question that isn't because I'm forgetting something - it's a problem for your ideas.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1771 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The cause of the cheetah's inability to breed with other members of the cat family is their genetic depletion. This is one case that supports my claim.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025