Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8994 total)
48 online now:
Juvenissun, Tangle (2 members, 46 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,234 Year: 10,982/23,288 Month: 234/1,763 Week: 201/390 Day: 21/69 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is Creationism?
Taq
Member
Posts: 8409
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 20 of 88 (809013)
05-15-2017 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CRR
05-15-2017 3:00 AM


CRR writes:

So tell me what you think Creationism is and what are the core beliefs?

Creationism is an attempt to make a theistic faith based belief look like science in order to gain wider acceptance.

Creationism is the belief that God created the universe through some untestable, undetectable, and unfalsifiable process that apparently looks exactly like natural processes, but isn't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CRR, posted 05-15-2017 3:00 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8409
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 30 of 88 (809104)
05-16-2017 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by CRR
05-16-2017 5:16 AM


Re: Young Earth Creationism
CRR writes:

1 The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe. Hence the Earth is a bit over 6000 years old.

And yet no such research is ever presented by creationists.

2 The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation. (Common ancestry within the kinds)

Creationists still don't have any genetic or morphological tests or predictions outlining which species belong to which kind, or an explanation as to why separated kinds fall into a nested hierarchy.

3 The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.

And yet they still can't provide evidence for a world wide flood layer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by CRR, posted 05-16-2017 5:16 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8409
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 31 of 88 (809106)
05-16-2017 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by CRR
05-16-2017 8:28 AM


Re: Creationism whatever some group wants it to be.
CRR writes:

So would you classify these as Creationist? They express points of view that I as a Creationist don't agree with.

1. There is a deity that created a self-sufficient world, which functions virtually independently from God's influences.

2. God created the genes that tell a flower to bloom and spread pollen.

3. God created the common ancestry among organisms first noted by Darwin

4. God created the evolutionary process that ultimately resulted in our own human consciousness.

Any faith based belief that requires supernatural magic would fall into the category of creationism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by CRR, posted 05-16-2017 8:28 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8409
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 34 of 88 (809182)
05-16-2017 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by CRR
05-16-2017 5:09 PM


Re: Creationism whatever some group wants it to be.
CRR writes:

God created the genes that tell a flower to bloom and spread pollen.

That would certainly fit under the title of creationism because it has supernatural magic producing genes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by CRR, posted 05-16-2017 5:09 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8409
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 49 of 88 (809421)
05-18-2017 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by CRR
05-18-2017 9:29 AM


CRR writes:

If the evolutionists here hope to convince me they will need to lift their game.

Your consistent refusal to address the evidence given demonstrates that you don't want to be convinced.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by CRR, posted 05-18-2017 9:29 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8409
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 53 of 88 (809605)
05-19-2017 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by CRR
05-18-2017 6:47 PM


Re: Lift you game
CRR writes:

That's pretty rich coming from somebody who regularly makes accusations of lying or "You made that up".

So do you not know you are spreading lies, or do you know they are lies and spread them anyway?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by CRR, posted 05-18-2017 6:47 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8409
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 1.9


(2)
Message 69 of 88 (810085)
05-23-2017 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by CRR
05-22-2017 7:25 PM


Re: Young Earth Creationism
CRR writes:

YEC believe there was an original Cat Kind which has diversified into the many different cats we see today, from tabby to tiger, generally by loss of genetic information as each adapted to different environments.

The problem is that it is just a religious belief and has no scientific relevance. Creationists can't measure, define, or demonstrate what information is with respect to genetics. It is just a throw away term to give the impression that they have an answer when in fact they have none.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by CRR, posted 05-22-2017 7:25 PM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by CRR, posted 05-26-2017 3:51 AM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8409
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 78 of 88 (810266)
05-26-2017 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by CRR
05-26-2017 3:51 AM


Re: The cat kind
CRR writes:

Hybridization evidence supports the hypothesis that all cats are closely related and belong to the same kind.

The fact that you call them hybrids indicates that they are different species. Otherwise, you would just say that they are part of the population.

You can't get hybrids without speciation.

As to created kinds, it is a meaningless term because it can mean whatever you want it to mean. There are no objective criteria for determining which species belong to which kind. Even more, why can't two species share a common ancestor and be incapable of producing offspring? Creationists never explain that either.

Let's take apes as our example. Are chimps, gorillas, and orangutans in the same kind? Is the genetic distance between these species indicative of the genetic differences we should see between species of the same created kind?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by CRR, posted 05-26-2017 3:51 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by CRR, posted 05-27-2017 2:05 AM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8409
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 79 of 88 (810267)
05-26-2017 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Phat
05-23-2017 11:44 AM


Re: Source vs Content
Phat writes:

If you expect every question to eventually be answered by evidence, you will be waiting for an eternity.

What we expect is a reason to trust the questions we do answer. Just believing really, really hard that something is true is not a reliable way to answer questions.

The only difference between you and I is that I decided to believe and you decided it was unproductive and unsatisfying.

Reality does not suddenly change because we decide it should be a certain way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Phat, posted 05-23-2017 11:44 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8409
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 88 of 88 (810514)
05-30-2017 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by CRR
05-27-2017 2:05 AM


Re: The cat kind
CRR writes:

They are different species, in conventional Linnaean classification, within the cat kind.

Why stop there?

Cats, dogs, seals, and bears (to name a few) are part of the Carnivora kind. We are also part of the mammal kind with other mammal species. There is also the amniote, vertebrate, and eukaryote kinds.

Of course that then raises an issue with the Biological Species concept which says a species consists of populations of organisms that can reproduce with one another and that are reproductively isolated from other populations. That would mean that if you can get a fertile hybrid then they would be part of the same species. This is part of what is known as the Species Problem.

The Species Problem is a human problem. There is no law in nature that says species must fit into black and white categories because humans want them to. The Species Problem is simply human bias.

If evolution is true then we should have the "Species Problem". Complete speciation doesn't occur in a single generation with evolution, so there should be a period of time where separate populations should still be able to produce fertile offspring.

Hybridisation chains then provide one objective criteria for mapping which species belong to which kind. However it is also possible for species within the one kind to be fully reproductively isolated.

The second sentence contradicts the first sentence.

If the links in that chain of hybridization are lost to extinction then you would have two separate kinds as determined by hybridization.

Added in edit:

I would also be curious to an answer to this question. Would you consider the genetic differences between species in the "cat kind" to be a good measure for what constitutes a kind?

You couldn't call it a Family since some Families in the current Linnaean system could contain more than one Kind.

Given your inability to define what a kind is, how could you know which species belong to which kinds?

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by CRR, posted 05-27-2017 2:05 AM CRR 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