The Privileged Planet

[Right Divider]

Well, it's not really my field of expertise, but from what I understand from my colleagues who do specialize in it, the fact that creationism cannot account for the presence of kleptch as it exists, definitively proves that creationism isn't true.

Dude, I asked WHAT IS KLEPTCH?

Can't you answer a simple question?

 

[Jose Fly]

Dude, I asked WHAT IS KLEPTCH?

Can't you answer a simple question?

Look, I understand why you're attempting to divert the discussion into one of semantics and definitions. You can't explain kleptch, let alone account for it under creationism, so you try and take the discussion down a rabbit trail.

But I'm not falling for it.

 

[Right Divider]

Look, I understand why you're attempting to divert the discussion into one of semantics and definitions. You can't explain kleptch, let alone account for it under creationism, so you try and take the discussion down a rabbit trail.

But I'm not falling for it.

You really are an idiot. I have NO IDEA what it is.

Please DEFINE it.

 

[Jose Fly]

Please DEFINE it.

Red herring. The fact remains, creationism is completely falsified by the existence of kleptch. Look around you....it's everywhere.

 

[Right Divider]

Red herring. The fact remains, creationism is completely falsified by the existence of kleptch. Look around you....it's everywhere.

It is NOT a red herring. I have no idea what you're talking about and you're too stupid to simply define whatever the heck it is that you are talking about.

 

[Jose Fly]

Right Divider,

I've been wondering when you would figure out what's going on, and just how long I would have to string this out before you caught on. But your obliviousness has exceeded my patience.

You see, when you were making claims about "kinds" and "genetic information", I kept asking you to define and clarify both terms. You referred to my attempts to get you to define your terms as a "red herring", said you didn't need to define anything, and waved your arms and said "you know it, I know it, we all know it".

So I turned the tables, came up with the term "kleptch", and started making arguments against creationism based on kleptch. And sure enough, you immediately started asking me to define the term, to which I responded by simply repeating the excuses you have just given me for your inability to define "kinds" and "genetic information".

IOW, I was mirroring your own behavior back to you. But you never figured it out, which.....well, I'll just let that speak for itself.

At the very least, I hope you now understand how terribly weak it is to make up terms like "kinds", "genetic information", and "kleptch", make grandiose claims about what they do, all the while refusing to define them.

 

[Right Divider]

Right Divider,

I've been wondering when you would figure out what's going on, and just how long I would have to string this out before you caught on. But your obliviousness has exceeded my patience.

You see, when you were making claims about "kinds" and "genetic information", I kept asking you to define and clarify both terms. You referred to my attempts to get you to define your terms as a "red herring", said you didn't need to define anything, and waved your arms and said "you know it, I know it, we all know it".

So I turned the tables, came up with the term "kleptch", and started making arguments against creationism based on kleptch. And sure enough, you immediately started asking me to define the term, to which I responded by simply repeating the excuses you have just given me for your inability to define "kinds" and "genetic information".

IOW, I was mirroring your own behavior back to you. But you never figured it out, which.....well, I'll just let that speak for itself.

At the very least, I hope you now understand how terribly weak it is to make up terms like "kinds", "genetic information", and "kleptch", make grandiose claims about what they do, all the while refusing to define them.

JF, you have issues that you need to deal with. Your atheistic materialist world-view has you so puffed up that you can't help but look down your nose at anyone that differs with your world-view.

As I've pointed out to you, the various levels of classification of animal life on planet earth are abstractions created by MAN. They are NOT defined based on material evidence ALONE.

There is a great deal of debate amongst materialist evolutionists about exactly WHICH lines of life descended from WHICH OTHER lines of life leading back to a SINGLE origin, all the while lacking the actual evidence that it happened AT ALL.

The observable evidence that we DO HAVE, fits the creationist paradigm far better than the evolutionist one.

 

[glorydaz]

JF, you have issues that you need to deal with. Your atheistic materialist world-view has you so puffed up that you can't help but look down your nose at anyone that differs with your world-view.

As I've pointed out to you, the various levels of classification of animal life on planet earth are abstractions created by MAN. They are NOT defined based on empirical evidence ALONE.

There is a great deal of debate amongst materialist evolutionists about exactly WHICH lines of life descended from WHICH OTHER lines of life leading back to a SINGLE origin, all the while lacking the actual evidence that it happened AT ALL.

The observable evidence that we DO HAVE, fits the creationist paradigm far better than the evolutionist one.

And making up some odd word to make a point that can't be made is evidence of only one thing I can think of. Have fun with this one, Right Divider. :chuckle:

 

[Jose Fly]

JF, you have issues that you need to deal with.

Doesn't everyone?

Your atheistic materialist world-view has you so puffed up that you can't help but look down your nose at anyone that differs with your world-view.

No, but I do tend to get a kick out of folks like you.

As I've pointed out to you, the various levels of classification of animal life on planet earth are abstractions created by MAN. They are NOT defined based on empirical evidence ALONE.

If they were purely empirical, humans and chimps would be in the same genus.

There is a great deal of debate amongst materialist evolutionists about exactly WHICH lines of life descended from WHICH OTHER lines of life leading back to a SINGLE origin

Yep, we've got 3+billion years of evolutionary history to figure out, so it's hardly surprising that there's still work to be done.

all the while lacking the actual evidence that it happened AT ALL.

And you know this.....how?

The observable evidence that we DO HAVE, fits the creationist paradigm far better than the evolutionist one.

Well that's the fun thing about internet forums like this. Anyone can log on and make any unsupported assertion they like.

The moon is made of cheese.

See? :chuckle:

 

[6days]

At the very least, I hope you now understand how terribly weak it is to make up terms like "kinds",

Like the made up word "species"?
Georgia Purdom PhD microbiology says The first thing that needs to be addressed is: “What is a kind?” Often, people are confused into thinking that a “species” is a “kind.” But this isn’t necessarily so. A*species*is a man-made term used in the modern classification system. And frankly, the word species is difficult to define, whether one is a creationist or not! There is more on this word and its definition and relationship to “kinds” later in this chapter. The Bible uses the term “kind.” The Bible’s first use of this word (Hebrew:min) is found in Genesis 1 when God creates plants and animals “according to their kinds.” It is used again in Genesis 6 and 8 when God instructs Noah to take two of every kind of land-dwelling, air-breathing animal onto the ark and also in God’s command for the animals to reproduce after the Flood. A plain reading of the text infers that plants and animals were created to reproduce within the boundaries of their kind. Evidence to support this concept is clearly seen (or rather not seen) in our world today, as there are no reports of dats (dog + cat) or hows (horse + cow)! So a good rule of thumb is that if two things can breed together, then they are of the same created kind. It is a bit more complicated than this, but for the time being, this is a quick measure of a “kind.”
https://answersingenesis.org/creatio...ds-in-genesis/

 

[Right Divider]

Doesn't everyone?

Yes, but you more so.

No, but I do tend to get a kick out of folks like you.

But you're still very arrogant, like most materialists. I guess that it's inevitable since you think that we're all just a pile of molecules in a cosmic accident.

If they were purely empirical, humans and chimps would be in the same genus.

I'd LOVE to see you proof of that wild-eyed claim!

I'll bet that you also think that cows and coffee tables are the same genus since they both have four legs.

Yep, we've got 3+billion years of evolutionary history to figure out, so it's hardly surprising that there's still work to be done.

You're assumption is wrong, so your results will be as well. BTW, operational science does not deal well with distant history. Your claims about things that happened BILLIONS of years ago are hardly TESTABLE in the present day.

And you know this.....how?

The ONUS is on YOU to prove it and not for me to disprove it. You know, backing up YOUR claims with EVIDENCE!

Well that's the fun thing about internet forums like this. Anyone can log on and make any unsupported assertion they like.

Like you and your "first creature".

The moon is made of cheese.

See? :chuckle:

Feel free to start with your OWN evidence to back up YOUR claims, Mr. Empirical. K:

 

[Jose Fly]

I'd LOVE to see you proof of that wild-eyed claim!

Empirically, why do you think humans should be in a different genus than chimps and bonobos?

You're assumption is wrong, so your results will be as well.

As we've seen in this thread, evolutionary common descent has produced very good results (e.g., discerning genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy).

Your claims about things that happened BILLIONS of years ago are hardly TESTABLE in the present day.

Sure they are. See above.

The ONUS is on YOU to prove it and not for me to disprove it. You know, backing up YOUR claims with EVIDENCE!

I already did. Running genetic data through a model that's entirely based on evolutionary common descent correctly identifies genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy. If evolutionary common descent isn't true, how did it produce those results?

Also, I asked you how you know that there's no evidence for common ancestry. Do you read scientific journals? Go to conferences on evolutionary biology? Have you even taken some college courses in evolutionary biology?

 

[Jose Fly]

Like the made up word "species"?

Nope.

Georgia Purdom PhD microbiology says The first thing that needs to be addressed is: “What is a kind?” Often, people are confused into thinking that a “species” is a “kind.” But this isn’t necessarily so. A*species*is a man-made term used in the modern classification system. And frankly, the word species is difficult to define, whether one is a creationist or not! There is more on this word and its definition and relationship to “kinds” later in this chapter. The Bible uses the term “kind.” The Bible’s first use of this word (Hebrew:min) is found in Genesis 1 when God creates plants and animals “according to their kinds.” It is used again in Genesis 6 and 8 when God instructs Noah to take two of every kind of land-dwelling, air-breathing animal onto the ark and also in God’s command for the animals to reproduce after the Flood. A plain reading of the text infers that plants and animals were created to reproduce within the boundaries of their kind. Evidence to support this concept is clearly seen (or rather not seen) in our world today, as there are no reports of dats (dog + cat) or hows (horse + cow)! So a good rule of thumb is that if two things can breed together, then they are of the same created kind. It is a bit more complicated than this, but for the time being, this is a quick measure of a “kind.”
https://answersingenesis.org/creatio...ds-in-genesis/

So if we see the evolution of a new species that is physically unable to breed with its parent species, would that be the observed evolution of a new "kind"?

 

[Right Divider]

Empirically, why do you think humans should be in a different genus than chimps and bonobos?

Because humans build skyscrapers, write plays, develop computers, write love songs, etc. etc. etc.

Chimps and bonobos do not. Humans are clearly a unique kind.

As we've seen in this thread, evolutionary common descent has produced very good results (e.g., discerning genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy).

Descent with modification is perfectly compatible with creation as long as it is understood that these ALL descend from their original kinds.

Sure they are. See above.

A clueless response.

I already did. Running genetic data through a model that's entirely based on evolutionary common descent correctly identifies genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy. If evolutionary common descent isn't true, how did it produce those results?

What are you comparing and how to do get this number?

Also, I asked you how you know that there's no evidence for common ancestry. Do you read scientific journals? Go to conferences on evolutionary biology? Have you even taken some college courses in evolutionary biology?

There is evidence of descent within the kinds. Just NO evidence that this all leads back to a SINGLE common ancestor. That is a fantasy that you have NOT proven.

 

[Jose Fly]

Because humans build skyscrapers, write plays, develop computers, write love songs, etc. etc. etc.

Chimps and bonobos do not. Humans are clearly a unique kind.

So you think taxonomic classification should be based on behavior?

Descent with modification is perfectly compatible with creation as long as it is understood that these ALL descend from their original kinds.

Given that you can't say what "kinds" are, your claim is equally meaningless.

What are you comparing and how to do get this number?

Protein Molecular Function Prediction by Bayesian Phylogenomics

They took genetic sequences from organisms as diverse as humans, flies, and worms, ran them through the SIFTER model (which is entirely based on evolutionary relationships), and were able to identify genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy.

If evolutionary common descent of all those taxa isn't true, how do you account for those results?

There is evidence of descent within the kinds.

Given that you can't say what "kinds" are, your claim is equally meaningless.

Just NO evidence that this all leads back to a SINGLE common ancestor. That is a fantasy that you have NOT proven.

The moon is made of cheese.

 

[Right Divider]

So you think taxonomic classification should be based on behavior?

No, I don't. But I can see that your atheistic materialist world-view has you completely blinded to the fact that there is more to the universe than atoms and molecules.

Given that you can't say what "kinds" are, your claim is equally meaningless.

The kinds are the plants and animals that reproduce their kind. The fact that mutations can cause them to lose this ability never produces a different kind.

Your evolutionist "theory" requires that NEW kinds come into existence where there were NO KINDS originally. That is YOUR problem, deal with it.

Protein Molecular Function Prediction by Bayesian Phylogenomics

They took genetic sequences from organisms as diverse as humans, flies, and worms, ran them through the SIFTER model (which is entirely based on evolutionary relationships), and were able to identify genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy.

If evolutionary common descent of all those taxa isn't true, how do you account for those results?

A common DESIGNER.... gosh that was easy.

Given that you can't say what "kinds" are, your claim is equally meaningless.

I defined it above. Get over it.

The moon is made of cheese.

This sounds just like your ToE. Good job!

 

[Jose Fly]

No, I don't.

Then we're back to the original question. Empirically, why should humans be in a different genus than chimps and bonobos?

The kinds are the plants and animals that reproduce their kind.

And kleptch is the property in all things that produces kleptch.

Your evolutionist "theory" requires that NEW kinds come into existence where there were NO KINDS originally. That is YOUR problem, deal with it.

And your creationism requires that kleptch come into existence, where originally there was no kleptch. How do you account for that?

A common DESIGNER.... gosh that was easy.

Yep, it sure is easy to just say "God made it that way". Lazy too.

I defined it above. Get over it.

This is hilarious. No wonder creationists are a laughingstock on internet forums. :chuckle:

Also, I never got an answer: How do you know there's no evidence for universal common ancestry. Do you read scientific journals? Go to conferences on evolutionary biology? Have you even taken some college courses in evolutionary biology?

 

[Right Divider]

Then we're back to the original question. Empirically, why should humans be in a different genus than chimps and bonobos?

And, of course, by "empirical" you mean "materialist".

And kleptch is the property in all things that produces kleptch.

Acting like an idiot suits you very well.

And your creationism requires that kleptch come into existence, where originally there was no kleptch. How do you account for that?

Same.

Yep, it sure is easy to just say "God made it that way". Lazy too.

Your OPINION that genetic similarities are CAUSED by common descent from a SINGLE original creature that came into existence due to some unknown chemical reaction is NOT EMPIRICALLY evident.

This is hilarious. No wonder creationists are a laughingstock on internet forums. :chuckle:

You're only response to being shown valid information is attempted ridicule.

Also, I never got an answer: How do you know there's no evidence for universal common ancestry. Do you read scientific journals? Go to conferences on evolutionary biology? Have you even taken some college courses in evolutionary biology?

Everything that I've seen is all HIGHLY SPECULATIVE and not based on EVIDENCE that is UNEQUIVOCALLY supportive of your VAGUE ToE.

 

[6days]

And kleptch is the property in all things that produces kleptch.

And species is the property that property in all things that produces species?

 

[Jose Fly]

And, of course, by "empirical" you mean "materialist".

So yesterday you complained about taxonomic classification being "NOT defined based on empirical evidence ALONE", but today you're complaining about the possibility of taxonomic classification being based on empirical evidence alone?

Gee, it's almost like you're just reflexively saying whatever you think works at that given moment, rather than defending an actual well-thought-out, consistent position.

Care to try again? Empirically, why should humans be in a different genus than chimps and bonobos?

Acting like an idiot suits you very well.

Same.

People ask me all the time why I'm here. Well, this is a very good illustration of my reason. Yesterday, in order to try and get you to appreciate how illogical it is to make claims based on undefined terms ("kinds"), I made up my own term ("kleptch"), made some arguments against creationism based on kleptch, and hoped that you would catch on. But you never did and eventually I had to just explain it to you.

Then today, you define "kind" in a completely circular manner ("The kinds are the plants and animals that reproduce their kind"), so I try and get you to understand how illogical that is by giving you an equally circular definition of kleptch. But do you get it? Nope.

I'm sure you don't appreciate it, but I find that absolutely hilarious and entertaining. My only reservation is that maybe you're just not that bright and I'm actually making fun of someone who's only doing the best they can.

But anyways, do you now understand how circular definitions are meaningless?

Your OPINION that genetic similarities are CAUSED by common descent from a SINGLE original creature that came into existence due to some unknown chemical reaction is NOT EMPIRICALLY evident.

Sure it is. I've even shown you one of the successful results of it. All you could muster in response is "Um....maybe God just made it that way".

You're only response to being shown valid information is attempted ridicule.

What valid information do you think you've provided?

Everything that I've seen is all HIGHLY SPECULATIVE and not based EVIDENCE that is UNEQUIVOCALLY supportive of your VAGUE ToE.

Everything you've seen......where? Do you read scientific journals? Go to conferences on evolutionary biology? Have you even taken some college courses in evolutionary biology?