|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/28/2010 3:31:07 PM
|
|
|
LoyalGypsy
Posts: 2388
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dante_Alighieri
quote:
Okay, D_A, it's become painfully obvious that you're just another in a long line of misinformed naturalists posting here who enjoy redefining"evolution" to mean whatever you need it to mean for your current bait-and-switch con game.
Ah, so evolution DOES mean that organisms will always evolve into more complex creatures?
Please explain evolution to me, if I'm misinformed.
Dante
Greetings
Let me see if I can add my 2 cents worth here… 
quote:
Please explain evolution to me,
Windows 7
Windows Vista
Windows XP
Windows ME (Millennium Edition)
Windows 2000
Windows NT
Windows 98
Windows 95
Windows 3.1
The only thing changed since the beginning with 3.1 is the outside appearance… but the work they perform are always the same, therefore it is the outcome in this example that is = to its kind,
Gen 11:8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
Gen 11:9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth…
Being that there was no differential in the races before LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth… when these adaptations became apparent…the kind> still has not changed
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man “in our image”, after “our” likeness:
The KIND here… by example… would be defined like this here below
by definition of the words.. “our” …likeness:
Likeness >is as… a person or thing bearing a close likeness to somebody or “something else…
AND
Because these certain words are given for us to examine and reiterate through divine inspiration = by being given the knowledge…
Then through divine inspiration … It seems the writers by telling us that God never changes, is an important reiteration and suggests even further that by being created in “the image of” …and…. in the likeness of… God = that we are to reiterate in an area of 2 likeness’
Which is consistent with the creation account = seen here =And God said, Let “us” make
…the suggestion given in these 2 parts with the first being consistent with KIND,
KIND here would therefore be to reproduce “after”// its own kind “whose seed is in itself”, so now we have 2 “separate entities”… with the first being whose seed in itself … that produces after it own kind.
That by itself concerning KIND… also suggests the second….that both being in “the image of” …and... /In the likeness of = are 2 parts….
Where “the second” or the image of … never changes…
Therefore mankind under these principals concerning the creation of mankind suggests that mankind could not have evolved from a single entity… being that the single entity is subject to change in order to adapt to environment, therefore it is not in the “image of” God =never changes…
By the above ….it was written that being “created” in the Image of God /“whose seed is in itself” never changes and will produce the same outcome all the time…
Therefore
=And let them = >… have dominion over… the fish of the sea, etc….
In technology if I had a file named xxx.exe and I ran the command to execute the file,
Before that file can produce after “its own kind (or whatever was programmed into it) ….that seed to produce after “its own kind had to be in place beforehand, and once in place… it never changes
If I ran xxy.exe … nothing would happen… unless I recreated a new name to reflect xxy.exe
I believe the Bible preaches a new creation, whereas a re-creation would be re-creating a named file xxy.exe after the fact, which cannot be done
Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Just some thoughts
quote:
Please explain evolution to me, if I'm misinformed.
They have no information… other than being based on Paranoia (fear of God)… it doesn’t exist 
LG
_____________________________
Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice
...So the Persians ask that the 300 drop their arms. Leonidas responds; "Persians! Come and get them!"
300 The Movie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/28/2010 8:55:48 PM
|
|
|
Dante_Alighieri
Posts: 304
Joined: 1/21/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
The only evolution that is really of any interest to any of us concerns organisms that become more advanced or become another species.
I'm not asking what evolution is of interest to you, I'm asking you to explain to me your understanding of the scientific consensus on what evolution is.
quote:
I won't argue that adaptation happens.
Then what specifically inhibits genetic changes from accumulating within a population over a long period of time?
Dante
_____________________________
Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita mi ritrovai per una selva oscura ché la via diritta era smarrita.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/29/2010 8:26:53 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 5613
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Then what specifically inhibits genetic changes from accumulating within a population over a long period of time? Apparently you have never irradiated fruit fly populations... 
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/29/2010 12:35:25 PM
|
|
|
Dante_Alighieri
Posts: 304
Joined: 1/21/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Then what specifically inhibits genetic changes from accumulating within a population over a long period of time? Apparently you have never irradiated fruit fly populations...
So radiation inhibits genetic changes from accumulating within a population?
Dante
_____________________________
Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita mi ritrovai per una selva oscura ché la via diritta era smarrita.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/31/2010 1:20:26 AM
|
|
|
Dante_Alighieri
Posts: 304
Joined: 1/21/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
The only thing changed since the beginning with 3.1 is the outside appearance… but the work they perform are always the same, therefore it is the outcome in this example that is = to its kind,
Gen 11:8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
Gen 11:9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth…
Being that there was no differential in the races before LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth… when these adaptations became apparent…the kind> still has not changed
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man “in our image”, after “our” likeness:
The KIND here… by example… would be defined like this here below
by definition of the words.. “our” …likeness:
Likeness >is as… a person or thing bearing a close likeness to somebody or “something else…
AND
Because these certain words are given for us to examine and reiterate through divine inspiration = by being given the knowledge…
Then through divine inspiration … It seems the writers by telling us that God never changes, is an important reiteration and suggests even further that by being created in “the image of” …and…. in the likeness of… God = that we are to reiterate in an area of 2 likeness’
Which is consistent with the creation account = seen here =And God said, Let “us” make
…the suggestion given in these 2 parts with the first being consistent with KIND,
KIND here would therefore be to reproduce “after”// its own kind “whose seed is in itself”, so now we have 2 “separate entities”… with the first being whose seed in itself … that produces after it own kind.
That by itself concerning KIND… also suggests the second….that both being in “the image of” …and... /In the likeness of = are 2 parts….
Where “the second” or the image of … never changes…
Therefore mankind under these principals concerning the creation of mankind suggests that mankind could not have evolved from a single entity… being that the single entity is subject to change in order to adapt to environment, therefore it is not in the “image of” God =never changes…
By the above ….it was written that being “created” in the Image of God /“whose seed is in itself” never changes and will produce the same outcome all the time…
Therefore
=And let them = >… have dominion over… the fish of the sea, etc….
In technology if I had a file named xxx.exe and I ran the command to execute the file,
Before that file can produce after “its own kind (or whatever was programmed into it) ….that seed to produce after “its own kind had to be in place beforehand, and once in place… it never changes
If I ran xxy.exe … nothing would happen… unless I recreated a new name to reflect xxy.exe
I believe the Bible preaches a new creation, whereas a re-creation would be re-creating a named file xxy.exe after the fact, which cannot be done
Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Just some thoughts
I'm agnostic, and your argument is dogmatic and essentially "My opinion is that the Bible is the ultimate authority. So what it says is true."
That's no basis for a reasonable debate.
quote:
They have no information… other than being based on Paranoia (fear of God)… it doesn’t exist
So the WHOLE of scientific research regarding evolution (hundreds of thousands of papers) is ALL based on paranoia with absolutely ZERO logical evidence to support it whatsoever?
That's quite a conspiracy theory.
quote:
Nothing is inhibity genetic changes from accumulating in a population. That happens all the time. But these genetic changes are not producing novel information which leads to upward complexity and the production of new structures.
You do realize that macroevolution does not depend on the development of new structures, right?
Furthermore, new information has been demonstrated, as demonstrated by the numerous examples I've already given you.
Dante
_____________________________
Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita mi ritrovai per una selva oscura ché la via diritta era smarrita.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/31/2010 5:45:57 AM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2618
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dante_Alighieri
I'm agnostic, and your argument is dogmatic and essentially "My opinion is that the Bible is the ultimate authority. So what it says is true."
That's no basis for a reasonable debate.
I'm Christian, and your argument is dogmatic and essentially "My opinion is that nature is the ultimate authority. So what is says is true."
That's no basis for a reasonable debate.
Sorry, Pot, but you can't criticize Kettle for using circular reasoning when you do the same thing
quote:
So the WHOLE of scientific research regarding evolution (hundreds of thousands of papers) is ALL based on paranoia with absolutely ZERO logical evidence to support it whatsoever?
That's quite a conspiracy theory.
Lots of fools publishing lots of foolishness doesn't make their folly truth. Argumentum ad populum is probably the weakest argument you can make. The majority of "scientists" fought tooth and nail against heliocentrism, but it was true. The majority of "scientists" fought tooth and nail against a spherical Earth, but it was true. Lots of "scientists" fought tooth and nail to promote man-caused climate change, and that is proving to be false.
quote:
You do realize that macroevolution does not depend on the development of new structures, right?
Furthermore, new information has been demonstrated, as demonstrated by the numerous examples I've already given you.
Dante
"Changed" information may be a better term than "new" information, though even if you want to call it "new" information, new information doesn't necessarily mean "upward complexity". In other words, mutations don't make better, more complex creatures that are closer to being some other kind of different creature.
_____________________________
"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" - Psalms 14:1
"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ" - 2 Cor 10:5
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/31/2010 10:03:32 AM
|
|
|
LoyalGypsy
Posts: 2388
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dante_Alighieri
quote:
The only thing changed since the beginning with 3.1 is the outside appearance… but the work they perform are always the same, therefore it is the outcome in this example that is = to its kind,
Gen 11:8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
Gen 11:9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth…
Being that there was no differential in the races before LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth… when these adaptations became apparent…the kind> still has not changed
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man “in our image”, after “our” likeness:
The KIND here… by example… would be defined like this here below
by definition of the words.. “our” …likeness:
Likeness >is as… a person or thing bearing a close likeness to somebody or “something else…
AND
Because these certain words are given for us to examine and reiterate through divine inspiration = by being given the knowledge…
Then through divine inspiration … It seems the writers by telling us that God never changes, is an important reiteration and suggests even further that by being created in “the image of” …and…. in the likeness of… God = that we are to reiterate in an area of 2 likeness’
Which is consistent with the creation account = seen here =And God said, Let “us” make
…the suggestion given in these 2 parts with the first being consistent with KIND,
KIND here would therefore be to reproduce “after”// its own kind “whose seed is in itself”, so now we have 2 “separate entities”… with the first being whose seed in itself … that produces after it own kind.
That by itself concerning KIND… also suggests the second….that both being in “the image of” …and... /In the likeness of = are 2 parts….
Where “the second” or the image of … never changes…
Therefore mankind under these principals concerning the creation of mankind suggests that mankind could not have evolved from a single entity… being that the single entity is subject to change in order to adapt to environment, therefore it is not in the “image of” God =never changes…
By the above ….it was written that being “created” in the Image of God /“whose seed is in itself” never changes and will produce the same outcome all the time…
Therefore
=And let them = >… have dominion over… the fish of the sea, etc….
In technology if I had a file named xxx.exe and I ran the command to execute the file,
Before that file can produce after “its own kind (or whatever was programmed into it) ….that seed to produce after “its own kind had to be in place beforehand, and once in place… it never changes
If I ran xxy.exe … nothing would happen… unless I recreated a new name to reflect xxy.exe
I believe the Bible preaches a new creation, whereas a re-creation would be re-creating a named file xxy.exe after the fact, which cannot be done
Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Just some thoughts
I'm agnostic, and your argument is dogmatic and essentially "My opinion is that the Bible is the ultimate authority. So what it says is true."
That's no basis for a reasonable debate.
quote:
They have no information… other than being based on Paranoia (fear of God)… it doesn’t exist
So the WHOLE of scientific research regarding evolution (hundreds of thousands of papers) is ALL based on paranoia with absolutely ZERO logical evidence to support it whatsoever?
That's quite a conspiracy theory.
quote:
Nothing is inhibity genetic changes from accumulating in a population. That happens all the time. But these genetic changes are not producing novel information which leads to upward complexity and the production of new structures.
You do realize that macroevolution does not depend on the development of new structures, right?
Furthermore, new information has been demonstrated, as demonstrated by the numerous examples I've already given you.
Dante
Greetings
quote:
I'm agnostic, and your argument is dogmatic and essentially "My opinion is that the Bible is the ultimate authority. So what it says is true."
That's no basis for a reasonable debate.
Dogmatic in what sense?
I mean even flushing a working toilet is based on simple laws that never change
One can have many different designs… the Law is a cruel taskmaster
quote:
and essentially "My opinion is that the Bible is the ultimate authority. So what it says is true."
Like I mentioned in the beginning, I was just adding my 2 cents worth; however what I offered may be a bit sketchy; but the opinion is based on the word of God in the Bible
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made
quote:
So the WHOLE of scientific research regarding evolution (hundreds of thousands of papers) is ALL based on paranoia with absolutely ZERO logical evidence to support it whatsoever?
That's quite a conspiracy theory.
See the word workmanship here in Eph 2:10 is the same words used here in Rom 1:20 by the things “that are made” by definition
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
The word workmanship is Strong's G4161 – poiçma which is the same word used in definition in Rom 1:20 as the things … “that are made G4161
1) that which has been made
2) a work
a) of the works of God as creator
My opinion is that the Bible is the ultimate authority. So what it says is true."
Then one should agree with those who have said to us by inspiration found in the Bible (not loyalgypsy) that God never changes;
Therefore IF his attitude towards us; in like manner; has never changed; and never changing is an attribute of the creator
For (IF) we are his workmanship; then the new creation which God hath (ALSO) “before ordained” that we should walk in; suggests the new creation in Christ Jesus is for the purpose of being unto good works,
The revelation from this that Paul called “the invisible things of him”; suggests there were no good works “before ordained” that we should walk in them.
Using this ultimate authority; of that the things that are made by the creator; of the things made and the things spiritually that we should walk in them… these were all made beforehand
AND
IF Then being “created ” in the “image” of God… suggests clearly that we who are the created thing whom were created… in His image… and do not change,
Then how can one even apply this train of thought to give any kind of clout to evolution?
In other words … even Judging by the things that are clearly seen; it seems the concept of evolution cannot even properly influence its own understanding by using principals found in the scriptures in the opposite of … because they should be “clearly” seen … not contrived
LG
_____________________________
Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice
...So the Persians ask that the 300 drop their arms. Leonidas responds; "Persians! Come and get them!"
300 The Movie
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/31/2010 12:44:00 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 700
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
You do realize that macroevolution does not depend on the development of new structures, right?
Furthermore, new information has been demonstrated, as demonstrated by the numerous examples I've already given you.
Dante
Are you suggesting that evolution from a bacterium to a human being doesn't require the development of new structures?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/31/2010 7:30:02 PM
|
|
|
tacitus
Posts: 2309
Joined: 5/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
Lots of fools publishing lots of foolishness doesn't make their folly truth. Argumentum ad populum is probably the weakest argument you can make. The majority of "scientists" fought tooth and nail against heliocentrism, but it was true. The majority of "scientists" fought tooth and nail against a spherical Earth, but it was true. Lots of "scientists" fought tooth and nail to promote man-caused climate change, and that is proving to be false.
And that's one of the weakest cases for an "argumentum ad populum" I have seen anyone make. Citing the fact that evolution is supported by a body of work comprising hundreds of thousands of scientific papers spanning more than a century of scientific endeavor is about as far from making an "argumentum ad populum" as you can get.
Here's a helpful link for what an "argumentum ad populum" really looks like.
Ironically, creationists are very good at "argumentum ad populum," as evidenced by their fondness for wowing us with lists of scientists and other prominent people who support their position. Mind you, they have little else to work with.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 1/31/2010 10:34:58 PM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2618
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tacitus
And that's one of the weakest cases for an "argumentum ad populum" I have seen anyone make. Citing the fact that evolution is supported by a body of work comprising hundreds of thousands of scientific papers spanning more than a century of scientific endeavor is about as far from making an "argumentum ad populum" as you can get.
Here's a helpful link for what an "argumentum ad populum" really looks like.
Ummm, yeah... thanks for the definition of exactly what Dante did. He appealed to the validity of a position based upon how many people believe that position. That is argumentum ad populum.
Here is an excellent quote from the Wiki link you provided: quote:
It [argumentum ad populum] is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect, the spreading of various religious and anti-religious beliefs...
Very good description of the state of the ToE!
quote:
Ironically, creationists are very good at "argumentum ad populum," as evidenced by their fondness for wowing us with lists of scientists and other prominent people who support their position. Mind you, they have little else to work with.
If you say so. Usually we provide such lists to show that your position isn't as rock solid as you may think, that ToE is not universally accepted. But either way, an appeal to the popular support of any position is only effective on the weak minded. More critical thinkers realize that the popularity of a position isn't proof of the truth of that position.
For example, we all know that Jesus is the Way, Truth, and Life, and that nobody comes to the Father but through Jesus. We also know that Jesus said the way to Him is narrow and not many will find it. So, we have a perfect example of a truth (Jesus is the only way to be reconciled to God) that ultimately is/will be the less popular position.
_____________________________
"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" - Psalms 14:1
"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ" - 2 Cor 10:5
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 2/1/2010 1:58:06 PM
|
|
|
RSchorne
Posts: 157
Joined: 1/9/2010
Status: offline
|
All of this has become completely and hopelessly sidetracked from the OP.
I'd really like to know how a request to the Creationist side to explain how tens of millions of different species can evolve from the number of species on the ark in a couple of thousand years and then stop evolving once man started observing them (bariminology) became an argument about whether "the fact that evolution is supported by a body of work comprising hundreds of thousands of scientific papers spanning more than a century of scientific endeavor" is an argumentum ad populum.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 2/1/2010 2:20:34 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 5613
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I'd really like to know how a request to the Creationist side to explain how tens of millions of different species can evolve from the number of species on the ark in a couple of thousand years and then stop evolving once man started observing them (bariminology) You really don't get this, do you, RS! Adaptation and natural selection have NEVER stopped since the Flood. The beaks of finches change, the color of peppered moths changes, the antibiotic resistance of bacteria changes, the vision of cichlid fish changes, and so on and so on... But all these kinds of changed organisms remain the same kind of organism, because evolution does NOT occur!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 2/1/2010 4:02:33 PM
|
|
|
ManimalX
Posts: 2618
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: RSchorne
All of this has become completely and hopelessly sidetracked from the OP.
Sorry. I have a habit of having to address error when I encounter it. I would say it won't happen again, but naturalists and evolutionists use such poor arguments...
quote:
I'd really like to know how a request to the Creationist side to explain how tens of millions of different species can evolve from the number of species on the ark in a couple of thousand years and then stop evolving once man started observing them (bariminology) became an argument about whether "the fact that evolution is supported by a body of work comprising hundreds of thousands of scientific papers spanning more than a century of scientific endeavor" is an argumentum ad populum.
Because our side gives an answer, and then people like Dante try to dismiss that answer by using weak tactics like argumentum ad populum. When someone answers the OP and their answer is dismissed by someone else using the weak sauce, it needs to be pointed out that such a refutation isn't valid.
_____________________________
"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" - Psalms 14:1
"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ" - 2 Cor 10:5
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 2/2/2010 12:54:30 AM
|
|
|
RSchorne
Posts: 157
Joined: 1/9/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
I'd really like to know how a request to the Creationist side to explain how tens of millions of different species can evolve from the number of species on the ark in a couple of thousand years and then stop evolving once man started observing them (bariminology) You really don't get this, do you, RS! Adaptation and natural selection have NEVER stopped since the Flood. The beaks of finches change, the color of peppered moths changes, the antibiotic resistance of bacteria changes, the vision of cichlid fish changes, and so on and so on... But all these kinds of changed organisms remain the same kind of organism, because evolution does NOT occur!
Even if you could equate the changing of a finch's beak to the evolving of some kind of generic cat into a lion and a tiger and a leopard and a tabby and a lynx and a cheetah - which you cannot - who has witnessed this constantly evolving finch's beak?
Have Darwin's finch's evolved that you can tell in the last 170 years?
The flood was about 4000 years ago - give or take.
Lions have been described since Roman times.
So have tigers and leopards.
Why would they stop evolving after undergoing such radical change (from some generic "kind") in such a short time?
Is there a way of measuring which species are brand new, say the last 1000 years and which species are ancient, say more than 3000 years?
Do you have any way of measuring the age of species?
What did the various "kinds" originally look like?
Was the cat "kind" a tabby or a tiger?
Was the canine "kind" a dog or a fox or a wolf?
When were they no longer able to produce fertile offspring?
How many butterfly and moth kinds were there?
Or are you saying that the one kind evolved into hundreds of thousands of species within a couple of thousand years?
So no.
I do not get it.
I would like it explained in a way that makes sense.
If it can't be you then maybe someone who knows something about baraminolgy.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 2/2/2010 1:49:08 AM
|
|
|
Ohioman1972
Posts: 409
Joined: 8/20/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: RSchorne
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
I'd really like to know how a request to the Creationist side to explain how tens of millions of different species can evolve from the number of species on the ark in a couple of thousand years and then stop evolving once man started observing them (bariminology) You really don't get this, do you, RS! Adaptation and natural selection have NEVER stopped since the Flood. The beaks of finches change, the color of peppered moths changes, the antibiotic resistance of bacteria changes, the vision of cichlid fish changes, and so on and so on... But all these kinds of changed organisms remain the same kind of organism, because evolution does NOT occur!
Even if you could equate the changing of a finch's beak to the evolving of some kind of generic cat into a lion and a tiger and a leopard and a tabby and a lynx and a cheetah - which you cannot - who has witnessed this constantly evolving finch's beak?
Have Darwin's finch's evolved that you can tell in the last 170 years?
The flood was about 4000 years ago - give or take.
Lions have been described since Roman times.
So have tigers and leopards.
Why would they stop evolving after undergoing such radical change (from some generic "kind") in such a short time?
Is there a way of measuring which species are brand new, say the last 1000 years and which species are ancient, say more than 3000 years?
Do you have any way of measuring the age of species?
What did the various "kinds" originally look like?
Was the cat "kind" a tabby or a tiger?
Was the canine "kind" a dog or a fox or a wolf?
When were they no longer able to produce fertile offspring?
How many butterfly and moth kinds were there?
Or are you saying that the one kind evolved into hundreds of thousands of species within a couple of thousand years?
So no.
I do not get it.
I would like it explained in a way that makes sense.
If it can't be you then maybe someone who knows something about baraminolgy.
Even though we are on different sides of the argument, I too, asked for a simple explanation of your side's story. In lay terms. I'm still waiting.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 2/2/2010 2:19:00 AM
|
|
|
RSchorne
Posts: 157
Joined: 1/9/2010
Status: offline
|
Our side's explanation of defining the different "kinds" in Baraminology?
As per the OP?
Absolutely no idea.
If you want a simple understanding of evolution by natural selection, by all means start a thread.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 2/11/2010 7:06:13 PM
|
|
|
tacitus
Posts: 2309
Joined: 5/12/2005
Status: online
|
I see Manimalx still doesn't understand what an argumentum ad populum is, so how about this:
"Argumentum ad Populum":
- Most people believe that millions of Jews died in the Holocaust.
- 99% of all scientists believe in evolution.
Not "Argumentum ad Populum":
- There are libraries filled with available and accessible documentary evidence that millions of Jews died in the Holocaust.
- Hundreds of thousands of scientific papers, all of which can be access, critiqued, and examined, documenting evidence of evolution.
No one is claiming that all the evidence is correct, or that it is complete, but it is still about as far from an "Argumentum ad Populum" as you can get.
It's really that simple.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 2/12/2010 1:11:30 AM
|
|
|
RSchorne
Posts: 157
Joined: 1/9/2010
Status: offline
|
All true.
But none of that evidence confirms a worldview that claims it (and it alone, on pain of damnation) reveals truth.
So evidence, schmevidence.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 2/12/2010 1:43:44 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 700
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: online
|
Dante, you're publishing a lot of stuff here, and it's definitely contributing to the conversation, and for that I say thank you. But if I could make a suggestion, please respond to each person individually by using the "quote" feature just above the post to which you are responding. It'll make it a lot easier to see who said what. Thanks, friend 
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dante_Alighieri
quote:
I'm Christian, and your argument is dogmatic and essentially "My opinion is that nature is the ultimate authority. So what is says is true."
My opinion is not that nature is the ultimate authority. My opinion is that our universe is the only observable plane that exists and ergo methodological naturalism is the only objective basis by which to study it.
I wouldn't think that your religion should have any basis by which to develop a scientific paradigm.
quote:
quote:
Lots of fools publishing lots of foolishness doesn't make their folly truth.
Ah. So the WHOLE of the scientific community (all those guys with PhDs after their names) and the WHOLE of the research they've put forth is just "fools publishing lots of foolishness."
Sounds completely rational. Haha.
quote:
The majority of "scientists" fought tooth and nail against heliocentrism, but it was true. The majority of "scientists" fought tooth and nail against a spherical Earth, but it was true.
Pretty sure it was actually the church that fought against both those things. LOL.
Galileo was denounced on scientific grounds by the scientific elite. Galileo got into trouble with the church because he insulted the Pope, not necessarily because he disagreed with him. quote:
quote:
In other words, mutations don't make better,
No, not alone. Natural selection is needed to determine "better."
quote:
more complex creatures that are closer to being some other kind of different creature.
Mutations don't make individuals different creatures. Natural selection and an accumulation of the change in allele frequencies in a population do that.
quote:
Are you suggesting that evolution from a bacterium to a human being doesn't require the development of new structures?
Nope, not suggesting that.
I could use a lot more information here because that's exactly what you appear to have suggested.
Dante_Alighieri (DA) : Then what specifically inhibits genetic changes from accumulating within a population over a long period of time?
Dr Mark (DM) :Apparently you have never irradiated fruit fly populations
DA: So radiation inhibits genetic changes from accumulating within a population?
DanJames (DJ): Nothing is inhibity genetic changes from accumulating in a population. That happens all the time. But these genetic changes are not producing novel information which leads to upward complexity and the production of new structures.
DA: You do realize that macroevolution does not depend on the development of new structures, right?
DJ: Are you suggesting that evolution from a bacterium to a human being doesn't require the development of new structures?
DA:Nope, not suggesting that.
Do you understand how your answer is not contributing to the discussion? What exactly are you trying to say by simply saying that macroevolution does not depend on the development of new structures? Of course it doesn't have to happen in order for it to be considered macroevolution, but somewhere along the line it's going to have to happen!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 2/13/2010 5:09:44 AM
|
|
|
Dante_Alighieri
Posts: 304
Joined: 1/21/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
Dante, you're publishing a lot of stuff here, and it's definitely contributing to the conversation, and for that I say thank you. But if I could make a suggestion, please respond to each person individually by using the "quote" feature just above the post to which you are responding. It'll make it a lot easier to see who said what. Thanks, friend
I thought I was. Are my quotes not referencing specifically whom I am responding to? (sorry for the sentence ending in a preposition, force of habit)
quote:
I wouldn't think that your religion should have any basis by which to develop a scientific paradigm.
Could you infer further?
quote:
Do you understand how your answer is not contributing to the discussion? What exactly are you trying to say by simply saying that macroevolution does not depend on the development of new structures? Of course it doesn't have to happen in order for it to be considered macroevolution, but somewhere along the line it's going to have to happen!
I am aware, and if I might explain, no; macroevolution does NOT depend on the development of "new strctures." That is not to say that it does not happen. However, all that is necessary for macroevolution to occur is merely a speciation event. Which does NOT necessarily require a development of "new structures."
Now, often you are correct, in that new structures do frequently occur within macroevolution, however speciation itself does not require this.
Dante
_____________________________
Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita mi ritrovai per una selva oscura ché la via diritta era smarrita.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 2/14/2010 1:53:30 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 700
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dante_Alighieri
quote:
Dante, you're publishing a lot of stuff here, and it's definitely contributing to the conversation, and for that I say thank you. But if I could make a suggestion, please respond to each person individually by using the "quote" feature just above the post to which you are responding. It'll make it a lot easier to see who said what. Thanks, friend
I thought I was. Are my quotes not referencing specifically whom I am responding to? (sorry for the sentence ending in a preposition, force of habit)
Unfortunately it isn't. No worries, it's usually not a problem, but it's difficult to tell who made the comment to which you are responding. I typically use the quote button over the post to which I'm responding. You'll notice that at the top of this post it says "ORIGINAL: Dante_Alighieri". That is automatically added to my post. I then put a close quote tag [ / quote ] (minus the spaces) and type my comment. I then conclude my statement with a quote tag [ quote ]. It takes some getting used to, but you can easily make sure you've done everything right by clicking the "preview" button underneath the post window. Again, no worries. It's usually not a problem. quote:
quote:
I wouldn't think that your religion should have any basis by which to develop a scientific paradigm.
Could you infer further?
Probably not. Methodological naturalism is a perfectly valid inference from a naturalistic worldview. However, your comment might make some naturalists cringe because most people say that religion statements (our universe is the only observable plane that exists) should have no place in science (methodological naturalism is the only objective basis by which to study it). However, this doesn't necessarily mean that YOU are wrong in your statement. Atheism ergo methodological naturalism is perfectly valid logic. It's the people that believe that the Bible cannot be used to study the universe that are wrong.
The Bible's information comes to us from a plane that perhaps we cannot necessarily observe with our current laboratory techniques, but because it is demonstrably divine, it's as trustworthy as God himself. Therefore, it is the greatest piece of evidence we have to date.quote:
quote:
Do you understand how your answer is not contributing to the discussion? What exactly are you trying to say by simply saying that macroevolution does not depend on the development of new structures? Of course it doesn't have to happen in order for it to be considered macroevolution, but somewhere along the line it's going to have to happen!
I am aware, and if I might explain, no; macroevolution does NOT depend on the development of "new strctures." That is not to say that it does not happen. However, all that is necessary for macroevolution to occur is merely a speciation event. Which does NOT necessarily require a development of "new structures."
Now, often you are correct, in that new structures do frequently occur within macroevolution, however speciation itself does not require this.
Dante
That's why speciation is acceptable and universal common descent is not, and it's also why macroevolution remains a worthless word. Speciation has been observed to happen. The development of new structures and chemical pathways have not been demonstrated to happen or even be possible. Both of these would have to happen in order for universal common descent to be a possible history of the universe.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 2/14/2010 2:21:06 PM
|
|
|
Dante_Alighieri
Posts: 304
Joined: 1/21/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
Probably not. Methodological naturalism is a perfectly valid inference from a naturalistic worldview. However, your comment might make some naturalists cringe because most people say that religion statements (our universe is the only observable plane that exists) should have no place in science (methodological naturalism is the only objective basis by which to study it).
Stating that our universe is the only observable plane that exists is not a religious statement. Unless there is some other other plane of existence that can be demonstrated to exist, it's merely a logical deduction.
In any case, let me reiterate my statement then:
Our universe is the only observable plane that is known to exist.
quote:
It's the people that believe that the Bible cannot be used to study the universe that are wrong.
The Bible's information comes to us from a plane that perhaps we cannot necessarily observe with our current laboratory techniques, but because it is demonstrably divine, it's as trustworthy as God himself. Therefore, it is the greatest piece of evidence we have to date.
Can you show how it is demonstrably divine?
quote:
The development of new structures and chemical pathways have not been demonstrated to happen or even be possible.
I believe I've listed numerous examples of new structures arising before.
Dante
_____________________________
Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita mi ritrovai per una selva oscura ché la via diritta era smarrita.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Defining the created kinds in baraminology - 2/14/2010 2:23:26 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 5613
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Can you show how it is demonstrably divine? Why don't you take this to the The Bible folder and become educated?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
