Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists Cannot Define "Kind".
Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 69 (36146)
04-02-2003 10:45 PM


Is creationism scientific? Let's find out.
Creationists have been favored by having the subject of evolution conveniently reduced for them, from the complex and over-arching science that it is to unnaturally small pieces, which is where creationists love to work - isolate and contaminate.
Attempts to cover serious ground have been overwhelmed with a rush to brevity, yet even given this advantage, creationists still don't even seem to be able to make any scientific headway. So let us go boldly onto creationist turf.
Here is a tiny, minuscule piece of the problem. It belongs entirely to the creationists. Without a resolution to this problem, without a scientific answer, creationism is dead. It's a very simple problem and I would dearly love to get a real answer instead of more excuses and evasions.
If creation were truly a science, these questions ought to be easily answered. All I want in this thread is for any creationist to answer two questions, which are at the very root of creationism and are inextricably entwined:
1. What is the definition of "kind" as used in the Biblical creation and flood stories? What is the scientific support for your answer? Give detailed examples of these "kinds".
My contention is that there is no creationist who can scientifically define "kind" and there is no consensus among creationists on any sort of definition.
2. What is the mechanism which prevents one "kind" from varying into another "kind"?
My contention is that there is no such mechanism and creationists cannot even point to a serious candidate.
Simple, isn't it?
Please note that counter questions or charges (such as "Evolutionists cannot define species") will not be entertained. To begin with, evolutionists can define species, but this thread is not about what evolutionists can or cannot establish, but about what creationists can establish as a foundation for their supposed "science".
Budikka

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Philip, posted 04-03-2003 12:00 AM Budikka has replied
 Message 5 by Joralex, posted 04-03-2003 8:12 PM Budikka has replied
 Message 13 by Budikka, posted 04-13-2003 2:19 PM Budikka has not replied
 Message 17 by booboocruise, posted 04-14-2003 4:18 AM Budikka has replied
 Message 62 by RaghuDac, posted 03-20-2009 10:09 PM Budikka has not replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 2 of 69 (36149)
04-03-2003 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Budikka
04-02-2003 10:45 PM


Please allow the following run-around:
1) Granted, kinds is an aloof term for science. In the same manner as separating one kind of girl-friend from another, one kind of love from another, one kind of thought from another, one kind of feeling from another, etc., etc.
Cladistic barriers of biology at present seem to me to correspond well with the kinds of the Bible. Perhaps you might convince taxonomists to change the structure to make it more scientific, e.g. to fit with the genealogical trees that have been so dogmatically speculated.
But alas, our taxonomy will always hold its paradigm (against so-called evo-trees).
2) Mechanisms of prevention of one kind vs. another. Seeing that kinds is a dynamic term to begin with (methinks), I see no mechanism that would prevent a kind from changing, as long as it isn’t becoming more complex genetically.
Budikka, I don’t believe kinds is meant to be a scientific term. Metaphysics has currently infiltrated taxonomy. That is to say, it’s extremely biased and based on outward appearances of life-forms.
Can’t both sides just accept the Linneaus Classification, which also is non-scientific, i.e., seeing that it categorizes the kinds based on macro instead of micro bio-characteristics?
Hope this helps.
Philip
[This message has been edited by Philip, 04-03-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Budikka, posted 04-02-2003 10:45 PM Budikka has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Andya Primanda, posted 04-03-2003 8:36 AM Philip has not replied
 Message 4 by derwood, posted 04-03-2003 10:37 AM Philip has not replied
 Message 7 by Quetzal, posted 04-04-2003 1:13 AM Philip has not replied
 Message 9 by Budikka, posted 04-04-2003 8:38 PM Philip has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 69 (36190)
04-03-2003 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Philip
04-03-2003 12:00 AM


The Big L.
Linnaean classification can be implemented on either separately created living things or evolved creatures, so I don't see any problem with accepting Big L.'s arrangement of things. Practically taxonomy is defined by him, and continued to be so today. Linnaeus was the man who gave humanity the notion of nested hierarchy in nature, the notion that creatures have various degrees of difference which is best portrayed in a tree (phylogeny) or a Venn diagram. This notion was later elaborated by Buffon, Cuvier, Owen, and Darwin. Nested hierarchy was partly responsible in undermining the 'separateness' of created kinds.
Anyway, I have said this sevral times here: Linnaeus considered great apes to be in the same genus as humans. He named the chimpanzee Homo troglodytes and the orangutan Homo silvestris. In that way his position is even more extreme than the current classification which set chimps in a separate genus, and orangutans in a different family, from humans. What do you think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Philip, posted 04-03-2003 12:00 AM Philip has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Budikka, posted 04-04-2003 8:47 PM Andya Primanda has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 4 of 69 (36203)
04-03-2003 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Philip
04-03-2003 12:00 AM


quote:
Please allow the following run-around:
1) Granted, kinds is an aloof term for science. In the same manner as separating one kind of girl-friend from another, one kind of love from another, one kind of thought from another, one kind of feeling from another, etc., etc.
Cladistic barriers of biology at present seem to me to correspond well with the kinds of the Bible. Perhaps you might convince taxonomists to change the structure to make it more scientific, e.g. to fit with the genealogical trees that have been so dogmatically speculated.
What 'cladistic barriers' are these? What 'dogmatically speculated' trees are you referring to?
quote:
But alas, our taxonomy will always hold its paradigm (against so-called evo-trees).
I have nevber heard of an "evo-tree." Maybe you can expand?
quote:
2) Mechanisms of prevention of one kind vs. another. Seeing that kinds is a dynamic term to begin with (methinks), I see no mechanism that would prevent a kind from changing, as long as it isn’t becoming more complex genetically.
Why not? Why can't "complexity" increase?
quote:
Budikka, I don’t believe kinds is meant to be a scientific term. Metaphysics has currently infiltrated taxonomy. That is to say, it’s extremely biased and based on outward appearances of life-forms.
Actually, that is an outdated perception.
quote:
Can’t both sides just accept the Linneaus Classification, which also is non-scientific, i.e., seeing that it categorizes the kinds based on macro instead of micro bio-characteristics?
?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Philip, posted 04-03-2003 12:00 AM Philip has not replied

  
Joralex
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 69 (36226)
04-03-2003 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Budikka
04-02-2003 10:45 PM


Let's get even more 'simple', shall we?
Budikka writes :
"If creation were truly a science, these questions ought to be easily answered. All I want in this thread is for any creationist to answer two questions, which are at the very root of creationism and are inextricably entwined:
1. What is the definition of "kind" as used in the Biblical creation and flood stories? What is the scientific support for your answer? Give detailed examples of these "kinds".
My contention is that there is no creationist who can scientifically define "kind" and there is no consensus among creationists on any sort of definition.
2. What is the mechanism which prevents one "kind" from varying into another "kind"?
My contention is that there is no such mechanism and creationists cannot even point to a serious candidate.
Simple, isn't it?"
**********************************************************************
I must begin by saying that I've been following the 'exploits' of Budikka for some time now - ever since I heard of his run-in with my brother in Christ, Kent Hovind ( a sad episode).
I've read a great deal that Budikka has written (to learn for myself) and I found most of it amateurish and unsophisticated. I've never bothered to enter into any debate with Budikka and it is not my intention to do so here or anywhere else for that matter.
I do, however, wish to substantiate my claim of Budikka's shallowness with just one example and then leave it at that. Viewers may feel free to arrive at their own conclusions - it's all the same to me.
Budikka asks that certain "simple" questions be answered by creationists. I regard his questions as anything but "simple".
Undoubtedly my response here will be taken by some of you as a sign of evasion. Be my guest.
In any event, the direction that I wish to take is a bit different. Here goes :
The "simplest" possible level is, of course, at a "prime" level. To wit :
The concept of 'force' in physics is not a "simple" concept since force has mass, length and time components; i.e., 'force' is a complex/compound concept.
What I propose is to get as "simple" as possible and this may only be achieved by getting down into the fundamental units which make up all other (complex) entities.
'Mechanisms' and arbitrary definitions (such as 'force' and 'species') are not as "simple" as possible. OTOH, fundamental units, by definition, are irreducible - as "simple" as we can possibly get. Ultimately the naturalist/evolutionist must resort to biology and biology must call on physics/chemistry.
Therefore, let's get really "simple", shall we? What exactly is matter, time and space?
Hey, this is as basic (i.e., "simple") as it can possibly get, isn't it? Since naturalists state that everything may be explained in terms of these fundamental things, can any naturalist out there educate us poor, ignorant creationists by clearly showing us what these "simple" things are? Any one of the above will do.
After we get past these "simple" ones we can then move into more complex ones such as 'life' and 'consciousness'.
Thanks in advance.
In Christ,
Joralex
{Shortened line of *'s - AM}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-13-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Budikka, posted 04-02-2003 10:45 PM Budikka has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-03-2003 9:05 PM Joralex has not replied
 Message 12 by Budikka, posted 04-04-2003 9:35 PM Joralex has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 6 of 69 (36229)
04-03-2003 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Joralex
04-03-2003 8:12 PM


back to metaphysics
quote:
What exactly is matter, time and space? Hey, this is as basic (i.e., "simple") as it can possibly get, isn't it? Since naturalists state that everything may be explained in terms of these fundamental things, can any naturalist out there educate us poor, ignorant creationists by clearly showing us what these "simple" things are? Any one of the above will do.
You don't get it, do you? The nature of matter, time and space are, at the fundamental level, metphysical questions. Methodological naturalism contends that the interactions and behaviours of all that is be explained in terms of all that is. There is no necessary metaphysical view common to all naturalists of what the nature of these fundamentals may be.
Take this back to the Joralex: Tenetativity and Dogmatism thread. You might as well be hopelessly confused and evasive about metaphysics in one place, rather than spreading it about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Joralex, posted 04-03-2003 8:12 PM Joralex has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 7 of 69 (36237)
04-04-2003 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Philip
04-03-2003 12:00 AM


Hi Philip:
I certainly don't have a problem with relying on Linneus classification system. However, without getting down to the genetic level, the gross morphology used to originally identify the different classes of organisms gets confusing at a certain point. After all, it's fairly easy to distinguish between, say, cow-kind, horse-kind, sheep-kind, goat-kind, dog-kind, cat-kind, snake-kind, camel-kind or the other "kinds" of animals that would be familiar to a Bronze Age tribe of nomads. However, without genetics, how do you distinguish between organisms that resemble each other but are vastly different?
For example, are these three animals representatives of the same "kind"?
See some of the problem?
(Edited to add really cool third image. With thanks to my friend Celsus.)
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 04-04-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Philip, posted 04-03-2003 12:00 AM Philip has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Brad McFall, posted 04-04-2003 2:22 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 8 of 69 (36290)
04-04-2003 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Quetzal
04-04-2003 1:13 AM


a kind of cell collective
When it comes to mammals everything seems to be in the nose but Lewontin dodged some such question in the TRIPLE HELIX by using the chin instead. I recently had the bizzare idea in beginning to think out some of the potential "homologies" in CAM-SAM modulation networks (an error on account no doubt of not have clear cell collective boundaries in mind (chin vs nose etc)that turtles and crocs (back ossification vs face ossification) are chemically in a subset closer to playtpus and that marsupials arrived with squamtes as close as the reproductive connection goes, and that birds and frogs are grouped as well as horses and dinos.
By honing my sense of moleuclar biology I think I may in fact be begiing to percieve the edge of the DNA mania of sturucture similarity. In the end it(my view) or if these pics (nice by the way) are of one kind or another on the a LIMIT (inifitite serial representation)not a bound that the molecules could be banked bioinfomatically.
I just am not familiar enough with these critters to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Quetzal, posted 04-04-2003 1:13 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 69 (36309)
04-04-2003 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Philip
04-03-2003 12:00 AM


Phillip -
It's not me who needs the help, it's the creationists!
You said that "Cladistic barriers of biology at present seem to me to correspond well with the kinds of the Bible." but this is precisely what is at issue. What are the "kinds" of the Bible? Who has defined them in modern terms, and where? Where is the creationist science that they claim they have?
If God made kinds distinct, separate, and immutable, it ought to be the easiest thing in the world to define what they are and specify a mechanism which keeps them apart.
It ought to be the evolutionists who have a hard time defining their groupings, precisely because evolution is real and therefore over history, there are no barriers between "kinds".
My point is that creationists cannot answer these questions, and this is where their so-called science falls apart.
You said that "Seeing that kinds is a dynamic term to begin with..." but this is exactly what it is not. The term "kind" denotes a fixed classification of organisms. This is what the creationists themselves insist upon, yet they cannot define it nor can they define a mechanism which makes it so.
Until and unless they can, creationism is going nowhere.
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Philip, posted 04-03-2003 12:00 AM Philip has not replied

  
Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 69 (36310)
04-04-2003 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Andya Primanda
04-03-2003 8:36 AM


Andya -
The point of this discussion was to see if any creationist on these boards can answer the two questions. No one (but the creationists) is disputing that the evolutionists have done their homework.
Creationists cannot even agree among themselves as to what a "kind" is! See Lenny Flank's excellent article:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/kinds.htm
If creationists go along with evolution's definition of species (for sexual organisms, this is roughly that two groups of organisms which do not normally interbreed in nature are considered to be separate species or sub-species), they lose. They cannot fit two of every "kind" on the ark, and their immutability of "kinds" fails, because speciation has been repeatedly observed.
If they retreat to a higher classification such as family, then they lose, because there is greater genetic variation within, say, the "dog kind" than there is between humans and chimpanzees!
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Andya Primanda, posted 04-03-2003 8:36 AM Andya Primanda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Andya Primanda, posted 04-04-2003 9:27 PM Budikka has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 69 (36313)
04-04-2003 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Budikka
04-04-2003 8:47 PM


I get your point
Taxonomy is creationists' soft weak underbelly isn't it? It was Linnaeus who paved the way to evolution by showing that some critters are more alike than others. What better way to accommodate it than evolution?
Pity not many resident creationists share their views on this thread!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Budikka, posted 04-04-2003 8:47 PM Budikka has not replied

  
Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 69 (36315)
04-04-2003 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Joralex
04-03-2003 8:12 PM


Joralex wrote: "I must begin by saying that I've been following the 'exploits' of Budikka for some time now - ever since I heard of his run-in with my brother in Christ, Kent Hovind ( a sad episode)."
Very sad for Hovind, aka The Cowardly Liar", that's for sure, but what does this have to do with the topic? I'll tell you later.
Joralex wrote: "I've never bothered to enter into any debate with Budikka and it is not my intention to do so here or anywhere else for that matter."
Begs the question, why are you responding to this? I'll tell you later.
The whole purpose of this thread is to debate, so if you are not up to it, do not waste my time with flatulent bravado. If you cannot answer either of the questions and cannot refute the material you claim to have read, you have no place addressing me.
Shallow and unsophisticated is a fine description of Hovind's position. I at least had the wherewithal to respond to it point-by-point and face it head on. This is more than we can say for someone who lurks in the shadows, parroting the beliefs of others, yet who cannot support these beliefs by answering two simple questions.
Joralex wrote: "Budikka asks that certain "simple" questions be answered by creationists. I regard his questions as anything but "simple"."
I am sorry they are too complex for you, but they really are very simple questions. Even the answers would be simple if the creationists had any science to back their mythology, but they clearly do not. If you cannot answer them, please do not waste people's time by post anything further in this thread.
Joralex wrote: "Undoubtedly my response here will be taken by some of you as a sign of evasion. Be my guest.'"
Anything that takes cheap shots and fails to deal with the topic is a sign either of cowardice or of evasion. Be *my* guest. You claim to be a brother in Christ, yet here you are, failing to turn the other cheek and attacking some one who has done nothing to you. Some brother in Christ you are.
Joralex wrote: "In any event, the direction that I wish to take is a bit different. Here goes :"
Please, *don't*. The two questions are the topics of this thread. I do not know how to make that any more explicit to you. I am not interested in your turning watered down excuses into whine, so if you have sour grapes to purvey, this is the wrong venue. If you wish to debate other issues, open your own thread. If there is any way I can make this any simpler for you to grasp, please do ask.
(Totally irrelevant, evasive, pull-the-wool-over-the-evolutionist's-eyes blather deleted.)
Joralex wrote: "Therefore, let's get really "simple", shall we? What exactly is matter, time and space?"
Totally irrelevant. This has nothing whatsoever to do even with evolution, let alone the two simple questions I asked, both of which relate at their simplest level to base pairs. What could be simpler than that? And why ask you, since you are quite clearly out of your depth and have not a single clue as to how to answer either of the two questions that are the sole purpose of this thread.
Talk about unsophisticated. Here you are trying to do a snow job and all you have is a flurry that's easily blown away.
(Totally irrelevant trash-talk deleted. Please refer to the rules for posting on these boards.)
Joralex wrote: "After we get past these "simple" ones we can then move into more complex ones such as 'life' and 'consciousness'"
Also Ran Zarathustra. When you can re-post with actual answers to the two questions which are the purpose of this thread, then please do so. Until and unless you can, please do not post. Your blather is mindless and meaningless and will not be entertained. Especially since, by your own admission, you do not even have the wherewithal to support your position.
BTW, I am still awaiting Kent Hovind accepting my offer of a debate. One of the last offers I made to him (before his unfortunate series of run-ins with the law) was to meet him for a live debate before the audience of his choice, at the venue of his choice, on the topic of his choice, under the rules of his choice provided that he answer the very two questions which you have so gauchely avoided. He made a cowardly retreat, too. I guess you two really are brothers.
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Joralex, posted 04-03-2003 8:12 PM Joralex has not replied

  
Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 69 (36902)
04-13-2003 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Budikka
04-02-2003 10:45 PM


I began this thread on April 2nd. The last response was by me on April 4th, and since then, nothing.
Despite the simplicity and limited scope of this thread, despite the massive vociferousness of creationists on these boards, despite the fact that creationists repeatedly insist that evolution is dying and creationism is the only solution, not a single one of them could find a solution to the two easy questions posed here.
Instead we got what we always get from creationists - evasion and an overwhelming inability to offer any "kind" of science whatsoever to support their religious beliefs posing as science.
Creationists do insist that there is a scientific "kind". They even invented a name for it "Baramin". Yet not a one of them can define what "kind" is scientifically, and even more damning, not a single one of them can articluate any mechanism whatsoever that would prevent one "kind" from transforming into another "kind". In other words, they can offer nothing to refute the fundamental tenet of evolution, and their empty pretence that they can is hereby exposed.
This failure is catastrophic for creationism, which, as a refutation of evolution is inextricably rooted in the absolute necessity of having fixed "kinds". Since they themselves cannot fix these kinds, how can any of them pretend to have a science which can take on evolution?
Clearly we see once again how misnamed the creationists are. They cannot even create an answer to simple and essential questions.
I move that this thread be closed and locked, another testimony to the absolute sterility of creationism.
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Budikka, posted 04-02-2003 10:45 PM Budikka has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-13-2003 2:58 PM Budikka has not replied
 Message 15 by Brian, posted 04-13-2003 3:09 PM Budikka has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 14 of 69 (36903)
04-13-2003 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Budikka
04-13-2003 2:19 PM


Closing Topic?
Topic euthanasia is called for, when a topic is suffering a slow, painful death. This topic seems to be slipping (sleeping?) into a peaceful death.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Budikka, posted 04-13-2003 2:19 PM Budikka has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 15 of 69 (36906)
04-13-2003 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Budikka
04-13-2003 2:19 PM


Hi Buddika,
I think being unable to define 'kind' is one of the lesser problems for a creationist. Look at what else they have to blindly accept, the whole flood episode must be a total nightmare for anyone with an IQ over 10 to defend. The many different translations of the Bible and its many contradictions and impossibilities are ignored by creationists. The fact that EVERY dating technique supports a very old earth, well relatively old compared to Bible chronology, doesn't mean a thing to these guys.
Morons like Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Henry Morris, Ron Wyatt and Carl Baugh get validation from eager xians who cannot be bothered to get off their butts and do some real studying. Do you really think that being unable to define 'kind' will make the slightest bit of difference to these people?
These people live in a different world from me and you, they live in a fantasy world where unicorns play, a man can kill a thousand men with a bone, men can live inside whales for days, and 1+1+1=1.
These people, the Hovinds and the Wyatts, are psychologically unsound, there's no other conclusion to make. We all know enough about Hovind to know that if he lived in the UK he would be sectioned under the mental health act by now. I do think though that people are starting to realise that Hovind is brain dead and are starting to believe that his 'scholarship' is embarrassing.
Anyway, keep up the good work, if enough people can get together and expose these morons for what they are then maybe the world will be a safer place for us normal folks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Budikka, posted 04-13-2003 2:19 PM Budikka has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 04-13-2003 7:44 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 23 by Brad McFall, posted 04-15-2003 1:38 PM Brian has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024