[QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:
[b]I am disappointed that this topic that I posted was paid so little attention, so I'm going to try to revive it. this is a cut n paste:
I have been involved in these on-line Creation/Evolution discussions for several years now, and there are some basic questions which I always ask of Creationists who claim that "Scientific Creationism" is scientific. I have yet to get any answers to them.
Perhaps the Creationists in this forum will provide. I will list a few of them to get us started.
1)Define "kind".
In other words, how do [/QUOTE]
[/b]
I am going to try this with only the assistance of memory so I reserve the right to back out if it is not as inclusive as is plausibly needed. A kind is something to which an aggreement of the Croizat node can be acessed though there may be disagreements about the tracks composing it and certainly some opionin about how to understand the baseline from which it may be fixed for a period of research. This definition is taxa independent and to it would need some specialist to modify the geometry of under the Assumption of a common mechanism that would also be subject to change. Furthermore it is easier to say what this kind I have defined is not. IT is not a Kripke Natural Kind. There is only one Earth but there are many organisms.
[QUOTE][b]we tell one "kind" from another? [/QUOTE]
[/b]
To do this as a pro po I would need software that will be avialable out biodiversity informatics in the next 5-10yrs if the Europeans can stop meddling about middle ware.
[QUOTE][b]2) If ALL of the various radiometric dating methods are wrong,[/QUOTE]
[/b]
I am certainly less qualified than others to speak to this but I do think that Galelio comparions of differences and quotients do show no matter the asymptotic approach to be so methodocially wrong or in error as you quote I would the RATE work but am not expert on that.
quote:
then how is it that they are ALL wrong in such a way that they are almost always remarkably consistent with one another? (And we understand the conditions under which they give strange dates; i.e. they are predicted)
3) Why do we never find flowering plants, including trees, grasses, etc., in the lower levels of the geologic column if all fossils were laid down in one Biblical Flood event?
SORRY i am not going to answer this question as it would involve a comeptancy in PRice knoweldge that is not a vertebrate DS Jordan would recognize and I have cognized as you may gather from the weeks I am cobbling to gether a much broader problem than the text-book illustrating influnce and teaching use of said column haveing to do with nano-technology that is a particular outcome of US research and thus is my business rather to inform abroad about this. More later. I know my def is definitely not understandable from the words without explanation but I have not time to detail more and more of this so skip this if need arises for the con"sistency" constiutatively seems to be a consistent mistake of law and theory but that is only a guess for some underlying hypotheitcal nature that has not as far as I am concerned got out of the CURCH and into the warmer hands of NORth America as I understood a New Orleans reporter write about the Pope in 1996. Both the reporter and my self could be wrong and need some more about confessions etc.
™ Version 4.2
