Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Biological Taxonomy - Kinds vs. Species (Linnaean taxonomy)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by 6days View Post
    And that fits the Biblical creation model.
    Science makes an hypothesis then tries to disprove it.

    Have you ever tried to disprove the 'biblical creation model'?

    If not, then you can't claim to be doing science.

    You are doing dogma, though.

    Stuart

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by George Affleck View Post
      The 2 cats (assumption) on the ark had all of the potential genetic information required to produce the diversity we see today.
      How does that work? If these cats had all the genetic information for tigers, why didn't they look like tigers? But they also had all the genetic information for house cats, so why didn't they look like them too?

      It's almost like you're just making this up.

      By natural and artificial selection, characteristics are bred out and others retained.
      Stripe says natural selection isn't real. Is he wrong?
      "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Stuu View Post
        Science makes an hypothesis then tries to disprove it.

        Have you ever tried to disprove the 'biblical creation model'?

        If not, then you can't claim to be doing science.

        You are doing dogma, though.

        Stuart
        Remember, 6days agrees that creationism is merely a belief, not science.
        "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by George Affleck View Post
          The 2 cats (assumption) on the ark had all of the potential genetic information required to produce the diversity we see today.

          Originally posted by Jose Fly View Post
          How does that work? If these cats had all the genetic information for tigers, why didn't they look like tigers? But they also had all the genetic information for house cats, so why didn't they look like them too? It's almost like you're just making this up.
          If you have a son and he looks something like you, why don't you look exactly like him instead of looking like yourself? Do you think all genetic traits are expressed completely in each organism?

          It's almost like you can't think for yourself.

          Originally posted by George Affleck View Post
          By natural and artificial selection, characteristics are bred out and others retained.
          Originally posted by Jose Fly View Post
          Stripe says natural selection isn't real. Is he wrong?
          Speak to Stripe. Sounds like you misunderstood or your definition of natural involves millions of years; in which case I would agree with him.
          Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

          It is true that Trump does not fit modern Republican principles, but that is because modern Republican principles have strayed far from conservatism. genuineoriginal

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by George Affleck View Post
            If you have a son and he looks something like you, why don't you look exactly like him instead of looking like yourself?
            Because half of his genome comes from his mom. It's called recombination.

            Do you think all genetic traits are expressed completely in each organism?
            Does this mean your argument is that the original breeding pair of "the cat kind" had all the genetic information for every trait in every population of every species of cat that came after? If so, I assume those sequences went unexpressed until needed, correct?

            That makes me wonder how those unexpressed sequences managed to stay functional and intact, despite the absence of selective pressures against the accumulation of deleterious mutations. And not only would those sequences have to have remained completely intact and functional while being simultaneously unexpressed after the flood, they would also have to have remained so before the flood. Not only that, but Noah would have somehow had to have been able to figure out which of the cat populations around at his time had all the necessary unexpressed sequences, and which ones didn't.

            Plus, all this took place during a time when you also argue that genomes were "degrading" and "genetic information" was declining.

            It's almost like you can't think for yourself.
            It's almost like you have no sense of irony.

            Speak to Stripe.
            I have. He's quite adamant and clear that he believes natural selection does not occur....at all.

            Sounds like you misunderstood or your definition of natural involves millions of years; in which case I would agree with him.
            Whether or not natural selection occurs has nothing to do with timescales. It's simply differential survival and reproductive success relative to fitness.
            "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
              Where did the idea of species come from?
              Evolutionists love the [genetic] fallacy. I think they are fooled by the name.

              Why then do modern creationists run away from the species term and replace it with ... kinds?
              Because "species" is a vague and malleable term that is next to useless in a scientific discussion, while "kind" had a rock-solid, clear definition. It clearly delineates opposing views without equivocation.

              There's absolutely no Biblical basis for such an idea.
              Only if you ignore the ideas the Bible plainly presents.

              Why fight against a classification system that was created by a creationist and has been the basic framework for the classification of life for nearly 300 years?
              Why not?
              Last edited by Stripe; September 23rd, 2015, 08:30 AM.
              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
              E≈mc2
              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
              -Bob B.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Jose Fly View Post
                Remember, 6days agrees that creationism is merely a belief, not science.
                Indeed. And he sees belief as science.

                Stuart

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                  Indeed. And he sees belief as science.
                  Stuart
                  False Stuu..... What I said is that evolutionism and creationism are beliefs about the past and are NOT science.
                  Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by 6days View Post
                    False Stuu..... What I said is that evolutionism and creationism are beliefs about the past and are NOT science.
                    Oh are you another one of those, "Were you there?" types?

                    Tell that to all the criminal investigators who can discover the truth about a crime long after it happened.

                    We can discover what happened in the distant past because things work the same way today as in the past. That's the only "belief" you need.

                    We have no reason to think the laws of physics were different a few thousand years ago or a million years ago.

                    And using our senses and instruments we can figure out that the earth is old and evolution happened by looking at the evidence left behind.
                    “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                    - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                      Evolutionists love the generic fallacy. I think they are fooled by the name.
                      Actually that's more of a creationist thing (I'm assuming you mean genetic fallacy).

                      "Evolution is bad because it's promoted by atheists." Ring a bell?

                      Because "species" is a vague and malleable term that is next to useless in a scientific discussion, while "kind" had a rock-solid, clear definition. It clearly delineates opposing views without equivocation.
                      You can dispense with your naked assertions. Show us evidence and the utility of your ideas, as Linneaeus did. There was a creationist actually interested in science.

                      Only if you ignore the ideas the Bible plainly presents.
                      Really, the Bible presents the idea that sheep and goats are really the same kind because they changed from a common ancestor? The Bible presents the idea that lions and leopards shared a common ancestor at the flood and they separated in the time since the flood? Evidence or stop talking.

                      Why not?
                      Ever heard the phrase about not reinventing the wheel?

                      You've offered no explanation for the real reason it was done: to get around the too many animals to fit on the ark problem.

                      Kind as defined by YECs has nothing to do with the Bible other than sharing a similar name (talk about confused by a name).
                      “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                      - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        [The Seattle Creation Conference starts in 2 days. http://conference.nwcreation.net/ There is webcam access]


                        Dr. P. Nelson, Ph.D., presented at a creation conference sponsored by Discovery Institute at Westminster, PA. It was replayed yesterday on NRB TV (Direct 378).

                        The topic was the undercutting of biological evolution by the destructivity of mutations. The sample species was the primitive C. eleganta, a fruit fly. The two reasons were 1, that mutations for changes were systematically stopped by killing the individual. 2, unlike humans, C. Eleganta reproduces only when very mature, almost at the end of life. Ie, there is not even a chance for mutations to start across what he termed 'the bridge of life' where the moment of reproduction is at the far end, not the near end.

                        The presentation closes with peer quotes by T. MacDonald 1983 saying biological evolution fails, and a more recent one by ____ that biological evolution is unsolveable. Both peers were tenured professors in their fields.
                        All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Alate_One
                          Originally posted by 6days
                          evolutionism and creationism are beliefs about the past and are NOT science.
                          Tell that to all the criminal investigators who can discover the truth about a crime long after it happened.
                          Forensic scientists would agree with me. They perform science using testable, observable, and repeatable experiments then make conclusions about the past.*


                          Originally posted by Alate_One
                          And using our senses and instruments we can figure out that the earth is old and evolution happened by looking at the evidence left behind.
                          Using good forensic techniques, we do testable and repeatable experiments on all the available evidence including the eye witness testimony from the only One who was there at the beginning. We then examine the 'smoking gun'... God's Word.

                          We conclude God created in six days....that He created male at female from the beginning of creation.....that He created man from the dust....that He created woman from man's rib....that death and suffering energy our world because of man's sin.....etc
                          Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                            Actually that's more of a creationist thing.
                            Well, given that it was you — an evolutionist — trying to sneak a genetic fallacy past people, we'll stick with my assessment.

                            "Evolution is bad because it's promoted by atheists." Ring a bell?
                            No.

                            Feel free to show where somebody has explicitly used this argument, as you did with another point in OP.

                            Show us evidence and the utility of your ideas.
                            No need, in this situation. "Kind" has a rock-solid definition, while "species" is vague and malleable. This is uncontested.

                            The Bible presents the idea that sheep and goats are really the same kind because they changed from a common ancestor?The Bible presents the idea that lions and leopards shared a common ancestor at the flood and they separated in the time since the flood?
                            No. The Bible makes it clear that kinds are separate groups of animals and outlines broad classifications of examples of the term.

                            You make demands of the text that aren't there and invent examples of kinds that do not feature.

                            It's part of your desperation to leave only your precious evolutionism as a contender. That you fight so hard to not allow even consideration of alternative ideas shows that you're no scientist.

                            Ever heard the phrase about not reinventing the wheel?
                            So I should stop doing science because you've got a phrase?

                            You've offered no explanation for the real reason it was done: to get around the too many animals to fit on the ark problem.
                            Given that the "problem" was raised by people determined to reject the Biblical account who made no effort to understand scripture, I think it is up to you to actually raise a reasonable objection, rather than trying to sneak in another genetic fallacy.

                            It does not matter where the idea arose from or why. What matters is that it is internally consistent and testable. And given that it is a definition you are resisting, there is no evidence to present. Definitions do not come with evidence, they just need to be useful.

                            Kind as defined by YECs has nothing to do with the Bible other than sharing a similar name.
                            Nope. My definition is clearly consistent and supported by scripture. And trying to sneak in a third genetic fallacy shows that it is indeed the realm of the Darwinist.

                            Heck, I can't even spell it rite.
                            Last edited by Stripe; September 23rd, 2015, 10:26 AM.
                            Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                            E≈mc2
                            "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                            "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                            -Bob B.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                              Oh are you another one of those, "Were you there?" types?

                              Tell that to all the criminal investigators who can discover the truth about a crime long after it happened.

                              We can discover what happened in the distant past because things work the same way today as in the past. That's the only "belief" you need.

                              We have no reason to think the laws of physics were different a few thousand years ago or a million years ago.

                              And using our senses and instruments we can figure out that the earth is old and evolution happened by looking at the evidence left behind.
                              Oh, I wouldn't get too worked up over this. So 6days believes evolutionary biology isn't science....so what?

                              You and I both work in the biological sciences, so we know the status of evolutionary biology in the scientific community. Do the religious beliefs of some anonymous person at a fundamentalist Christian internet board really matter to that?
                              "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Mincing words.... Kinds, species...can they breed? If yes, same type of creation. Regardless of hair color, skin color, size. Which do change through mutation, but does not change the type of creature.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X