Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists as Hyperevolutionists?
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 98 (69522)
11-27-2003 12:47 AM


The Institute for Creation Research has responded to Hugh Ross's charge that young-earth creationists are "hyperevolutionists", because they believe in superfast evolution from the animals carried aboard Noah's Ark. However, ICR's response is that evolution within a "created kind" or baramin is not really evolution.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Rrhain, posted 11-27-2003 1:31 AM lpetrich has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 2 of 98 (69528)
11-27-2003 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by lpetrich
11-27-2003 12:47 AM


lpetrich writes:
quote:
However, ICR's response is that evolution within a "created kind" or baramin is not really evolution.
And thus this argument is the, say it with me, "No 'True' Scotsman" fallacy.
Basically, they're redefining "evolution" to be "changes across the 'kind/baramin' level" (while being steadfast in their refusal to provide a functional definition of a "kind" or "baramin") and thus any changes below that level are the "microevolution" they have to admit to lest they look like complete idiots.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lpetrich, posted 11-27-2003 12:47 AM lpetrich has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Sonic, posted 11-27-2003 3:42 AM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 6 by Sonic, posted 11-27-2003 3:49 AM Rrhain has not replied

lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 98 (69536)
11-27-2003 1:44 AM


Sorry, I Forgot the URL

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Sonic, posted 11-27-2003 3:44 AM lpetrich has not replied

Sonic
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 98 (69552)
11-27-2003 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Rrhain
11-27-2003 1:31 AM


The real question is, will organic evolutionists ever agree that they changed the meaning of theoretical from guess to educated guess?
Thank You
Sonic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Rrhain, posted 11-27-2003 1:31 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Peter, posted 11-27-2003 7:21 AM Sonic has replied
 Message 24 by Brad McFall, posted 11-29-2003 3:08 PM Sonic has not replied

Sonic
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 98 (69553)
11-27-2003 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by lpetrich
11-27-2003 1:44 AM


Re: Sorry, I Forgot the URL
Just edit your original post.
Thank You
Sonic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by lpetrich, posted 11-27-2003 1:44 AM lpetrich has not replied

Sonic
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 98 (69555)
11-27-2003 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Rrhain
11-27-2003 1:31 AM


Micro-evolution extends out to speciation but stops before new abilites(i.e. macro evo) and is well proven. You look ignorant with your last post.
Thank You
Sonic
[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-28-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Rrhain, posted 11-27-2003 1:31 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by NosyNed, posted 11-27-2003 10:03 AM Sonic has replied
 Message 9 by lpetrich, posted 11-27-2003 11:50 AM Sonic has not replied
 Message 10 by mark24, posted 11-27-2003 12:07 PM Sonic has replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 7 of 98 (69565)
11-27-2003 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Sonic
11-27-2003 3:42 AM


You cannot changed a meaning from something that it
never was to anything else.
Theory never has meant guess, and never will.
The closest that you might get to a guess in science is
a hypothesis -- and even that is not exactly a guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Sonic, posted 11-27-2003 3:42 AM Sonic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Sonic, posted 11-28-2003 9:53 PM Peter has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 8 of 98 (69587)
11-27-2003 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Sonic
11-27-2003 3:49 AM


Sonic, I would be careful about calling people ignorant. We have already shown that you didn't know what you were talking about when you started (that is you were 'ignorant'). You said new species didn't arise because that was macro-evolution which doesn't happen and now you have moved to agreeing that new species do arise.
We are getting back to where you started. We still don't know what the barrier is that stops this so called macro evolution from happening. We still don't know what you think it is. When is a change "vertical", what is "more" complexity? Now you have introduced "new abilities", what are they?
It appears that you are ignorant of what you are saying (to say nothing of evolutionary science). Could you clarify all that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Sonic, posted 11-27-2003 3:49 AM Sonic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Sonic, posted 11-28-2003 10:01 PM NosyNed has not replied

lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 98 (69600)
11-27-2003 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Sonic
11-27-2003 3:49 AM


I have no idea of what Sonic means by "new features".
Consider Felidae, the cat family, which some creationists consider a single baramin or "created kind".
Feline species are solitary with one exception: Panthera leo. Lions live in groups (prides), and male lions grow manes, something no other feline does. Are manes and sociality lost in all other felines? Or did lions acquire them after they diverged from other felines?
Lions are well-known for roaring; this feature is shared with other members of the genus Panthera: tigers and leopards and jaguars. Did the other felines lose the ability to roar or did the ancestor of the pantherines gain that ability after splitting off from other felines?
The same can be said of other groupings that some creationists have considered baramins. Some creationists supposedly consider all bacteria to be a single baramin; bacteria have a remarkable variety of habitats and metabolic abilities, which would require a large amount of evolution from some ancestral bacterium.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Sonic, posted 11-27-2003 3:49 AM Sonic has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 10 of 98 (69602)
11-27-2003 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Sonic
11-27-2003 3:49 AM


Sonic,
Micro-evolution extends out to speciation but stops before new abilites(i.e. organic evo) and is well proven.

When do I get the nod for my Nobel prize?
New function (evolution of) is well documented. Hall (Hall 1982) knocked out the lac operon in E.Coli, only to see a new enzyme, a permease, & an expression control system evolve. That's a complex function evolving. Furthermore, it was over 20 years ago, showing that your statement above is false, & has been for at least 20 years. Why am I not surprised that creationists aren't told about this by their ministries of misinformation?
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Sonic, posted 11-27-2003 3:49 AM Sonic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Sonic, posted 11-28-2003 10:08 PM mark24 has replied

Sonic
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 98 (69784)
11-28-2003 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Peter
11-27-2003 7:21 AM


Ok,
Theory Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
Read part 4-6 on this definition you have to include those when we talk about theory. Yes those are compared to guessing.
Thank You
Sonic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Peter, posted 11-27-2003 7:21 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by NosyNed, posted 11-28-2003 10:00 PM Sonic has replied
 Message 25 by Peter, posted 12-02-2003 6:31 AM Sonic has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 12 of 98 (69786)
11-28-2003 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Sonic
11-28-2003 9:53 PM


No, we do not. Theory has a very definite meaning in the context of science. It maybe unfortunate that the same word is used for other things but that happens a lot.
It is NOT a guess.
We can describe exactly how a theory is constituted and then invent a new word for it if you want. The definition game isn't going to get us anywhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Sonic, posted 11-28-2003 9:53 PM Sonic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Sonic, posted 11-28-2003 10:04 PM NosyNed has not replied

Sonic
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 98 (69787)
11-28-2003 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by NosyNed
11-27-2003 10:03 AM


quote:
You said new species didn't arise because that was macro-evolution which doesn't happen and now you have moved to agreeing that new species do arise.
Where is this at, I dont ever remember saying that when new species arise this is macro-evolution.
quote:
We are getting back to where you started. We still don't know what the barrier is that stops this so called macro evolution from happening. We still don't know what you think it is. When is a change "vertical", what is "more" complexity? Now you have introduced "new abilities", what are they?
It appears that you are ignorant of what you are saying (to say nothing of evolutionary science). Could you clarify all that?
I believe we have clarified macro-e as the development of an organ through the process of genetic drift and hidden mutation(i.e. through this process the new organ appears as if it were new and never seen and also appears as if it came out of no where). The actual definition is a little confusing so I will state it the way I did above.
Thank You
Sonic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by NosyNed, posted 11-27-2003 10:03 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Asgara, posted 11-28-2003 10:06 PM Sonic has replied

Sonic
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 98 (69788)
11-28-2003 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by NosyNed
11-28-2003 10:00 PM


Agreed, moving on.
[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-28-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by NosyNed, posted 11-28-2003 10:00 PM NosyNed has not replied

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 15 of 98 (69791)
11-28-2003 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Sonic
11-28-2003 10:01 PM


...appears as if it came out of no where
Cool, it's official. If your post is the definition of macro-evolution, it is not part of the TOE. Now that that is settled we can move on.
.
------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Sonic, posted 11-28-2003 10:01 PM Sonic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Sonic, posted 11-28-2003 10:11 PM Asgara 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