Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Define "Kind"
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 10 of 300 (289076)
02-21-2006 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
02-21-2006 9:24 AM


Otherwise you stack the deck against us creationists and the debate is over before it's started.
What stacks the deck against you is that your ideas are wrong, but that's neither here nor there.
It's quite legitimate to work from a hypothesis.
But not when you're asking your opponents to prove you wrong. You don't see anything inherently ridiculous when your side of the debate says "we say that there are these 'kinds', but we can't tell you what that means or how to discern them; nonetheless, you have to prove that we don't see them in nature"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 02-21-2006 9:24 AM Faith has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 27 of 300 (289112)
02-21-2006 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Faith
02-21-2006 11:04 AM


Re: Further clarification
but bears include raccoons
You don't see that as an "intuitive boundary"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 02-21-2006 11:04 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 02-21-2006 11:13 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 30 of 300 (289118)
02-21-2006 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Faith
02-21-2006 11:13 AM


Re: Further clarification
I thought I said all my groupings were my own subjective intuitions.
Yeah, I know. I'm just surprised that your intuition doesn't flag bears and raccoons as separated by a boundary. Intuitively they're nothing alike.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 02-21-2006 11:13 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 02-21-2006 11:22 AM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 111 of 300 (289305)
02-21-2006 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by clpMINI
02-21-2006 5:12 PM


Re: identified kinds
Genesis is pretty clear that "kinds" got on the Ark, and not species.
It's important to remember, I think, that "species" is the latin word for "kind". So, as much as creationists like to pretend that species and kind are two different things, the word used in the Bible would very likely have been translated as both "species" and "kind". So it doesn't really seem possible to me to make the statement made above; in Latin Bibles, I imagine, Genesis does say that "species" got on the ark.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by clpMINI, posted 02-21-2006 5:12 PM clpMINI has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Modulous, posted 02-21-2006 5:45 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 116 of 300 (289311)
02-21-2006 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Modulous
02-21-2006 5:45 PM


Re: latin kinds
Interesting indeed. Thanks!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Modulous, posted 02-21-2006 5:45 PM Modulous has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 122 of 300 (289317)
02-21-2006 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Faith
02-21-2006 5:57 PM


Re: latin kinds
The Latin "Species" would work for creationists just fine in place of the English "Kind" except for the fact that evolutionists already use it, and in a way that confuses what creationists would want to use it for.
Well, I disagree. The scientific word "species" was coined by creationists to describe exactly the concept that creationists are talking about, here - the seperation of organisms we observe in nature.
Now, of course that seperation is entirely consistent with evolution, and we've observed that it isn't all so seperate anyway. Creationists now wish a word to describe the seperation that would have to exist if evolution were false, but they have a major problem in that they're trying deperately to coin a word to describe something that objectively doesn't exist. There are no "kinds", so small wonder that creationists are unable to detect them, and indeed, are barely able to articulate any meaning of the word whatsoever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Faith, posted 02-21-2006 5:57 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 02-21-2006 6:14 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 125 of 300 (289321)
02-21-2006 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Faith
02-21-2006 6:08 PM


Re: Further clarification
I still think my arguments about the geological timetable ought to overthrow the dang thing.
But that's nonsense, Faith. Your "objections" were that it seemed unreasonable that dirt would stay in any one place for any length of time, but it's like you refuse to look outside at dirt, or something; because if you did you'd see that just about anywhere you stand you're standing on 10-20 feet of dirt that's going absolutely nowhere anytime soon.
I do.
I can't for the life of me understand how an otherwise intelligent person would mistake your ridiculous "objections" for something compelling. One need not even reach for scientific tools or esoteric data to prove you wrong; one merely needs to look outside at dirt to refute your "objections."
The only thing "glaring" is that you'll clutch at any percieved weakness in geology, when the only weakness is your stubborn refusal to observe the world around you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Faith, posted 02-21-2006 6:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 02-21-2006 6:17 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 127 of 300 (289323)
02-21-2006 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Faith
02-21-2006 6:14 PM


Re: latin kinds
The origin of the term is not the point as it came to mean something within the evolutionist framework that creationists disagree with.
But it still means exactly what creationists originally coined it to mean. It still refers to the seperation of groups of living things. All the other taxa are bookkeeping stuff; they don't reflect physical reality.
The word "species" means essentially the same thing now as it did then; it still refers to the way that organisms are seperated from each other. We learned about that seperation as science progressed, and so the functional definition of species has changed; but the word still means essentially what creationists defined it to mean.
Species has always refered to the seperation of organisms in the natural world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 02-21-2006 6:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Faith, posted 02-21-2006 6:21 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 128 of 300 (289324)
02-21-2006 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Faith
02-21-2006 6:17 PM


Re: Further clarification
Not in neat flat layers of a particular kind of sediment that is SHARPLY differentiated from another COMPLETELY DIFFERENT particular kind of sediment and on and on.
Well, we covered this. They're not flat, they're not neat, and they're not so sharpy differentiated from "completely different" sediment.
Again, it would suffice for you to go outside once in a while and actually look at a place where you can see geologic layers. By virtue of living in a hilly part of Missouri I have the advantage of being able to do this via a 2-minute car drive; I don't know what your problem is but presumably there's a big hole in the Earth somewhere nearby which would allow you to see the actual layers you're referring to.
The layers you're talking about couldn't possibly exist, and they don't. But the layers you're talking about bear absolutely no relationship to the geologic column that exists under your very feet. Assert that the sky is green all you like; the ridiculousness of your position is amply demonstrated anytime someone actually walks outside to see for themselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 02-21-2006 6:17 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 02-21-2006 7:55 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 130 of 300 (289327)
02-21-2006 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Faith
02-21-2006 6:21 PM


Re: latin kinds
Within the ToE it refers to a constantly changing separation of organisms which creationists consider variations within a Kind.
Well, we observed that the only observable seperation in the natural world changes sometimes; causes new seperations.
Creationists have yet to show observations of any other levels of seperation. There's one level of clear seperation in the natural world and that's the species level. Everything else, as I've said, is bookkeeping for biologists.
You've recognized I'm not an imbecile so try to consider that it might really be true that I'm not.
You're not an imbecile. You're just ill-informed. One way to solve this would be for you to actually go outside and observe the natural world you're so certain you know everything about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Faith, posted 02-21-2006 6:21 PM Faith has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 157 of 300 (289787)
02-23-2006 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Faith
02-23-2006 12:05 PM


Re: Further clarification
I don't know enough about it to have an unequivocal stance.
I'm right at the end of my genetics class, so it's all pretty fresh for me and I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. I would, of course, try my best to be polite in doing so. It's never been my intent to make you feel like an idiot for not knowing something, just for refusing to learn something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 02-23-2006 12:05 PM Faith has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 170 of 300 (290317)
02-25-2006 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Faith
02-25-2006 12:34 PM


Re: Further clarification
It is all an imaginative scenario to explain what is supposed to have happened in the past. The factual observations done by everyday science just get sucked up into this scenario.
Once such a scenario is in place and the data made to fit it, as it is in all the disciplines, there is no motivation to look for an alternative scenario, and in fact hostility to such a scenario, so it is only going to be the few creationists who will be trying to test such ideas.
How does this work, when you imagine this going on?
Let's suppose I have a hypothesis that a certain enzyme prevents cancer, and I devise a test where I give doses of the enzyme to rats with a genetic propensity to cancer (these cancer rats were genetically engineered back in the 80's with a human oncogene that makes them susceptable to cancer), and also I rear a population of the same rats who I don't dose with an enzyme.
Now, after the trial I count the number of rats who did get cancer in each group, and what I see is that there's no statistical difference between incidence of cancer in rats who did get the treatment versus those who did not.
How is it going to be possible for me to "suck up" these observations into a scenario where that enzyme does prevent cancer? Didn't I just disprove my hypothesis? As a scientist, how could I possibly argue that the enzyme prevents cancer from this data?
It would be impossible. I'd be a laughingstock if I tried, regardless of how many scientists believed this enzyme prevented cancer. Especially if I did the trials over and over and got the same results.
There is no way that the observations we make of the natural world could be made to support evolution unless evolution were largely accuate. Even when we've had to alter the theory of evolution, it's only ever been in response to new observations. It's never been a function of sucking up observations that don't fit and making them fit.
If they don't fit, they don't fit. There's no way to turn disconfirming evidence around so that it confirms. What you suggest happens is impossible.
This refrain here about how the creation speaks for God is unbelievably naive -- the creation has to be interpreted for heaven's sake.
Ah, but the Bible reads itself, does it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Faith, posted 02-25-2006 12:34 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Faith, posted 02-25-2006 12:55 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 179 by Faith, posted 02-25-2006 10:33 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 173 of 300 (290323)
02-25-2006 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Faith
02-25-2006 12:55 PM


Re: Further clarification
Yes, on the things that matter most
If you believe that books can be self-reading then this isn't a part of the discussion I want to continue.
Could you please instead address the main body of my post? I'd like to know how you believe scientists are able to squish observations into theories they don't support.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Faith, posted 02-25-2006 12:55 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Faith, posted 02-25-2006 1:06 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 201 of 300 (290615)
02-26-2006 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Faith
02-25-2006 10:33 PM


Re: Further clarification
There is simply no comparison between the ToE and a hypothesis of the sort you are describing. The ToE is this huge unfalsifiable imaginative fantasy. Your hypothesis is normal science, testable science.
But you didn't draw such a distinction in your post, remember? You asserted that scientific fraud occurs in every field:
quote:
Once such a scenario is in place and the data made to fit it, as it is in all the disciplines
As it happens, though, you're 100% incorrect. The hypotheses that underline the theory of evolution are just like the hypothesis I put forward in my post. They're almost absolutely the same.
So, again, how does it work? How do you bend the data I presented to support that hypothesis?
Answer the question.
I simply meant that a great deal of the Bible is easy reading, it is understandable without a great deal of interpretive sophistication.
So flip open your easy-reading Bible and tell us all what a "kind" is defined as. I mean, if it's so simple to read, that should be right in there, right? How could the Bible be easy to read unless it defines the terms that it uses?
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-26-2006 01:35 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Faith, posted 02-25-2006 10:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Faith, posted 02-26-2006 5:20 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 204 of 300 (290686)
02-26-2006 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Faith
02-26-2006 5:20 PM


Re: Further clarification
I don't call this fraud. Everybody works under the ToE, they aren't in the business of challenging it.
Then you don't have any experience in science, I guess. Challenging theory is all anybody does, all day long.
If they can make the data appear to fit it then they do.
And how does that work? I've asked you three times now and you haven't been able to show me. Given a scientific theory and data that makes it obvious the theory is wrong, how do you make the data appear to support the theory?
Your hypotheses was verifiable.
But my hypothesis was about something that happened in the past. How is my hypothesis any more verifiable than any other? Even if you were to repeat the experiment, all you've one is prove the outcome of that experiment, not any of the ones in the past. You can't go back and live the past again.
It's not a matter of BENDING the data, it's a matter of INTERPRETING it to fit the ToE.
But you've been absolutely clear that, given a statement in the Bible or some data, there are some interpretations you just can't make. If I tell you plainly "the sky is blue", there's no legitimate interpretation of that statement that means "the sky is not blue."
Words have meaning, Faith; I'm sure you know this. Data has meaning, too. If the data means one thing, there's no way to "interpret" it to mean the opposite.
I mean, that's just silly. It doesn't seem possible to me which is why I'm asking you how it's done. You can't seem to tell me. Why is that? It surely couldn't be possible that you would accuse scientists of something you had no reason to believe they had done? Surely not? That would be fairly dishonest, would it not?
I said "a great deal" for one thing, not "all," as some parts are difficult to understand. '
So, isn't it possible that you've simply misunderstood what the Bible is saying, here? That kinds don't actually represent what you claim they do?
The references to the kinds are, however, easy to understand.
Back and forth, Faith. Back and forth. Out of one side of your mouth you assert that the Bible is easy to read when it talks about kinds; on the other, you assert that it's too obscure for you to know what the Bible actually means. Which is it? Whichever serves your purpose at the time, I suppose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Faith, posted 02-26-2006 5:20 PM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024