|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Biological classification vs 'Kind' | |||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5028 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Since you asked the question I'll clarify this once more - and then I need to move on or risk being buried by having to explain myself so many times: My religion dictates certain beliefs. YEC is not one of those. I could be a theistic evolutionist and still be a Christian (and was one prior to giving the subject any serious examination). I have chosen the YEC model as my preferred model for two reasons:1) It seems to best fit the Biblical text 2) It seems to best fit the scientific evidence I have reviewed
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
2) It seems to best fit the scientific evidence I have reviewed Why do the millions of non-YEC professional scientists completely disagree, be they Christian, Muslim, Bhuddist, Hindu, atheist, agnostic, pantheist, deist? Why do no scientists outside fundementalist branches of the abrahamic faiths see any evidence at all for a YEC position? Can the world-wide body of scientists be so inceredibly incompetent? Or is God and/or Satan playing an active role in deceiving us all?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5028 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
Since you may not have caught my previous explanations I'll respond to these again - but going forward I'm just going to have to skip responses to these type of posts - nothing against you personally, I just don't have time to repeatedly clarify my positions.
quote: Yes - I understand there are many non-atheist darwinists. When I use the term "atheistic scientists" or "atheistic darwinists" I am referencing a subset of scientists or darwinists respectively - those who are atheists. I have not and will not assume all persons of those respective classes are atheists.
quote: Supernatural explanations have a 100% track record of failure simply because only naturalistic phenomena have been scientifically understood thus-far. Science is able to easily answer natural phenomena - but this does not mean that supernatural phenomena do not exist. It is quite possible that a subset of unexplained phenomena are supernatural - and our present naturalistic scientific methods would not be able to detect this. Those phenomena would then (under a naturalistic system) remain permanently unexplained.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Yes - I understand there are many non-atheist darwinists. When I use the term "atheistic scientists" or "atheistic darwinists" I am referencing a subset of scientists or darwinists respectively - those who are atheists. I have not and will not assume all persons of those respective classes are atheists Which is fine; except that it isn't the atheistic subset that hold evolution to be true, it's almost every single biologist. Step outside of biology and look at astrophysics or geology and you find that they too disagree with the YEC notion and, again, it's not just the atheists. Trying to dismiss Evolution as something only atheists believe is simply untrue. Trying to act like Creation is dismissed by only the atheist scientists is also untrue. It's not atheistic scientists you're disagreeing with, it's just scientists.
Supernatural explanations have a 100% track record of failure simply because only naturalistic phenomena have been scientifically understood thus-far. Which is a nice assertion, but that's all. The fact is that scientists aren't dismissing supernatural explanations because they're anti-God or anti-religion, but because they're trying to understand the world around them (and us) and postulating supernatural explanations simply does not help with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
BobTHJ writes: The first thing that comes to mind is neanderthal. YEC scientists predicted through baraminology that neanderthal was not a human ancestor, nor a separate offshot of the primate clade, but a extinct species of the human holobaramin. This prediction was found to be correct when recent testing of the neanderthal genome showed evidence of interbreeding with humans. YEC "scientists" did not predict the Neanderthals were not a human ancestor. They simply asserted that humans have no evolutionary ancestors. Baraminology makes the identical claim. If baraminology is science then tell us based on what evidence does it make this claim. Can I presume that if you're willing to accept the findings of science that Neanderthal is not an evolutionary ancestor of humans that you're also willing to accept the findings of science that Homo egaster *is* our evolutionary ancestor? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
BobTHJ writes: Since you may not have caught my previous explanations I'll respond to these again - but going forward I'm just going to have to skip responses to these type of posts - nothing against you personally, I just don't have time to repeatedly clarify my positions. Translation:
Everything I say is getting challenged and I don't have any evidence to support what I'm saying, so I'm just going to start ignoring posts that pose inconvenient questions. Any time you're ready to present some evidence, Bob, we're here. The nature of science doesn't changed just because one has religious beliefs. Many of us have religious beliefs, but science still means having evidence for what you believe. What you're doing in this thread is religion because you're just stating what you believe. If you were doing science you would be stating the evidence for what you believe. So if you have any evidence supporting kinds or baraminology, this is the thread to do it. We're coming up on 300 messages, don't you think it's time? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Since you may not have caught my previous explanations I'll respond to these again - but going forward I'm just going to have to skip responses to these type of posts - nothing against you personally, I just don't have time to repeatedly clarify my positions.
Translation: Everything I say is getting challenged and I don't have any evidence to support what I'm saying, so I'm just going to start ignoring posts that pose inconvenient questions. Percy, that's not only a little unfair - given what you said earlier I think an apology is merited:
quote: You were right, the evidence demonstrated it, Bob conceded he couldn't respond to all posts that are saying similar things and you use that concession to claim a victory? Naughty Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Hi Mod!
I didn't forget that earlier post. It was made at a point in time where I believed Bob when he said he was interested in the evidence. As others have also noted, he misrepresented himself. The Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread might be a better venue for these types of issues. Sorry we don't see eye to eye on this one. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Did Wile close that blog to comments, or did I just forget how to use it?
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Yes, he's closed it. Unsurprisingly, quite a few topics are closed down on his blog. I need to find an open one to start dismantling his rhetoric that he has been "persuaded" that decay rates are variable by the "evidence"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Remember: nested hierarchy does not imply common ancestry. For example, I could build a nested hierarchy of automobiles. In one clade you'd have all the semi-tractors and in a distant clade on another branch you'd have the divergence between 2-door and 4-door sedans. But that's just it. There is no single nested hierarchy for automobiles. You can have two Ford trucks, one with a Cummins deisel and the other with a Ford engine. You can have a Chevy and Ford with the same tires and the same airbags. Depending on what features you pick you will get a different nested hierarchy. This is not so with life. Life fits in a single nested hierarchy. There are no animals with teats and feathers, as one example. This is the whole point I have been trying to get across. Things that are designed do not fall into a single nested hierarchy. Things that evolve do fall into a nested hierarchy. Life falls into a single nested hierarchy. How is this not indicative of common ancestry?
The YEC geological model has most sedimentary layers laid down during the global flood. It follows then that simple marine bottom-dwelling animals (such as trilobytes) would be found in the lowest pre-cambrian/cambrian strata as these would be the first to be buried. Larger and/or more advanced creatures would be buried later as they would be better equipped to survive against the rising waters and would survive longer. I'm not going to claim to be an expert on the fossil record according to YEC - so I doubt I can answer all your questions satisfactorily - but that is a synopsis. This doesn't explain how flowering plants outran ferns. This doesn't explain the correlation between radiometric dating and the fossil species found. This explanation fails on every level.
It only makes sense then that by looking at proteins of closely grouped creatures you can predict the function of a similarly constructed protein for another creature within the group. This does not require common ancestry. Without common ancestry there is no reason that separately created species would even share the same genetic molecule, much less the same genes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5028 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: There was a majority of nazis in Germany during WWII (or at least those non-conforming were silent to the issue) - does this mean we should have supported nazism were we to live there in that time? This isn't a scientific argument - of course we should not go along with a belief simply because that belief is held by a majority. I do not see evidence that overwhelmingly makes the earth look old or evolution look true. If I did I would be a theistic evolutionist (as I've stated several times already). I do see that darwinian evolution looks good from a distance - and I correspondingly understand why many people (particularly prior to the last few decades) have been swayed to believe in darwinian evolution - but under close examination it doesn't seem to hold up.
quote: I stand corrected. I'll revise: Most mainstream creationists do not subscribe to Omphalism - though it may have been more prevalent in the past. YECs have several hypotheses for the distant starlight problem that do not involve Omphalism - but a discussion of those hypotheses are beyond the scope of this thread.
quote: Wow....it looks like to me they found exactly what they set out to find. Consider the assumptions that were made:* The imprints on the fossil are feathers (I'm not seeing it - but I don't look at fossils all day either) * The carbon-structures found in the impressions look like melanosomes under a microscope so they must be melanosomes * the impressions may contain melanosomes - bird feathers also contain melanosomes - so they must be feathers (nevermind that many other organisms contain melanosomes). I'm sure their bias for wanting to find feathered dinosaurs didn't play into this at all - nope, not at all (sarcasm implied in case it wasn't apparent). As for the other so-called feathered dinosaurs? The evidence seems to be equally scant. I think Dr. Wile has just cause for his statement. Who knows though - maybe their wild assumptions are correct. Maybe there are feathered dinosaurs. I can live with that - it doesn't harm my scientific worldview.
quote: The link was not bare - but posted as supporting evidence for the position I stated. Though of course - you are free to disagree - and to read whatever you would like.
quote: False. Most every new organism discovered fits well into an ontology for classifying organisms according to similarities. Not surprisingly, most genetic evidence also fits because organisms with similar morphological features often share similar genetic features. Darwinists just make the jump from there that the nice ontological model implies a common ancestry of all organisms - a claim for which there isn't much evidence.
quote: No no no. Let's get something straight: I'm not here to argue "The Bible tells me its true - so all of you are wrong!" I do believe the Bible to be 100% accurate - but I won't use that belief as the basis of my arguments here. I came here to debate scientific evidence - not theology. I was stating that the YEC model (and its hypotheses) are based upon an interpretation of the Bible. It certainly isn't the only interpretation, but theologically it seems to be the most sound (vs. old-earth creationist models or theistic evolution). Just because the model is originated from the Bible doesn't mean it can't be scientifically examined. You wouldn't suggest that the ToE is unscientific simply because it originated from Darwin would you?
quote: There is none. There are of course many topics that the Bible does not address in detail. Specifically when it comes to baraminology there are only a few relevant verses from which conclusions can be drawn - but there are some.
quote: I've answered this multiple times. Feel free to read through my other posts on this thread for an explanation - I don't have time to retype it all again here.
quote: The short answer is: Yes. The long answer is off-topic.
quote: Flawed reasoning. There is no causation between naturalism and scientific advance.
quote: Nope - you are still making the assumption that genetic similarity implies common ancestry. The dismal track record of supposed transitional "human ancestor" fossils over the years doesn't help you here. If the consensus among other posters is that an examination of those fossils is on-topic then I'd be happy to discuss them in more depth.
quote: I've never heard of the site you referenced - but suffice it to say there will probably be some disagreement and minority viewpoints among creationists when classifying creatures into kinds. This is irrelevant to your argument against the validity of baraminology.
quote: Conclude whatever you would like - Baraminology is worthless to those who have no reason to assume the supernatural. I've gone into this in detail previously. For those of us who do subscribe to Baraminology - it is important to identify the limits of a baramin. There is work currently being done by multiple creation scientists to do exactly that. Baraminology (the modern variant anyway which incorporates factors such as genetics) is a relatively new field of study, and creation scientists don't have the same numbers or backing to support the advancement of their research, so it naturally moves at a slower pace. Thank you for the comprehensive reply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Percy writes: Did Wile close that blog to comments, or did I just forget how to use it? From his point of view, he'd be well advised to close the whole blog down, not just comments. He puts up stuff that's fit for FSTD Check out this post in which he explains to the world how dendrochronology is one of his 5 main reasons for believing that the earth is younger than 10,000 years.
Wile on trees (and presumably strong hallucinogens) It's jaw-dropping stuff! Edited by bluegenes, : fixed link Edited by bluegenes, : and again! Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
False. Most every new organism discovered fits well into an ontology for classifying organisms according to similarities. Why would different baramins share any features at all? There is no reason for them too. Why should the human and ape baramine share any features, much less 98% of the DNA? Why should mammals and bacteria use the same tRNA codons if they were created separately?
Not surprisingly, most genetic evidence also fits because organisms with similar morphological features often share similar genetic features. Again, why isn't this surprising? Isn't this exactly what we should see if common ancestry is true? Or are you saying that we should throw out every DNA paternity test ever done because the two people could have been magically poofed into being?
Darwinists just make the jump from there that the nice ontological model implies a common ancestry of all organisms - a claim for which there isn't much evidence. If common ancestry is true should we or should we not observe a nested hierarchy? Since we observe a nested hierarchy, why isn't this evidence of common ancestry? Is your only refutation, "Well, they could have been magically poofed into being"? Is your only refutation a what-if fantasy based on supernatural magic?
I was stating that the YEC model (and its hypotheses) are based upon an interpretation of the Bible. This is in stark contrast to the theory of evolution which is based on the empirical evidence.
You wouldn't suggest that the ToE is unscientific simply because it originated from Darwin would you? It originated from the evidence that Darwin discovered on his journeys, most notably on the HMS Beagle.
Flawed reasoning. There is no causation between naturalism and scientific advance. Can you name a single scientific advancement that is solely based on divine revelation? From my knowledge, the scientific advances we have today are the product of methodological naturalism, not divine revelation.
The dismal track record of supposed transitional "human ancestor" fossils over the years doesn't help you here. If the consensus among other posters is that an examination of those fossils is on-topic then I'd be happy to discuss them in more depth. What dismal track record? We have more hominid fossils than we ever had the right to expect to have. Using the letters next to each skull can you tell us which belong to the ape baramin and which belong to the human baramin?
For those of us who do subscribe to Baraminology - it is important to identify the limits of a baramin. Important for what? Apologetics?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
BobTHJ Member (Idle past 5028 days) Posts: 119 Joined: |
quote: Mr. Thomas is not being inept or dishonest here. He doesn't mention Sarmiento's conclusions because it is already clear what those conclusions are. Thomas was drawing attention to the contreversy: evolutionists can't decide where Ardi fits. No one doubted that they believed Ardi to not be some sort of a primate ancestor - darwinists wouldn't draw any conclusion that wouldn't fit their dogma. If anything (probably in an effort to simplify the issue for non-scientific readers) he chose poor wording for the title of the article.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024