Using the scientific method, they would have to form testable hypotheses. Their claim the earth is 6,000 years old is a testable hypothesis. It has been tested numerous times and failed. They did not reject their hypothesis however. It became a belief unto which they searched for any evidence which could support that belief. That is not the scientific method.
Rapid Adaptation
- Thread starter 6days
- Start date
Using the scientific method, they would have to form testable hypotheses. Their claim the earth is 6,000 years old is a testable hypothesis. It has been tested numerous times and failed. They did not reject their hypothesis however. It became a belief unto which they searched for any evidence which could support that belief. That is not the scientific method.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Let's try this again. How do you know which organisms share a common ancestor and which don't?
Do raccoon dogs
share a common ancestor with wolves? (i.e. are they the same kind or not?)
If you can't answer that, your definition has no utility and is therefore pointless.
Barbarian, regarding a testable definition of "Kind."
In the sense that "every hypothesis must be testable." There must be a set of objective criteria that can be applied to determine whether or not different groups are a kind or not.
No. It means that it must be objective and measurable. If not, "kind" just means "whatever I want it to be in any particular situation." That's not even good theology, much less science. Which is not to say theology isn't as reasonable as science, BTW. The rules are just different. But throwing up undefined words is not good theology or good science.
But science does. It's a specific method. If you want to argue that "kinds" is a religious belief, then no definition is required. Of course a lot of theologians would also object to a word that was not precisely defined.
Pity. You were one of the more rational voices on the creationist side.
In the sense that "every hypothesis must be testable." There must be a set of objective criteria that can be applied to determine whether or not different groups are a kind or not.
No. It means that it must be objective and measurable. If not, "kind" just means "whatever I want it to be in any particular situation." That's not even good theology, much less science. Which is not to say theology isn't as reasonable as science, BTW. The rules are just different. But throwing up undefined words is not good theology or good science.
But science does. It's a specific method. If you want to argue that "kinds" is a religious belief, then no definition is required. Of course a lot of theologians would also object to a word that was not precisely defined.
Pity. You were one of the more rational voices on the creationist side.
Wrong, of course. Evidence can take any physical form.
Nope. Lies won't help you. The definition of kind requires common ancestry.
Nope. Evolution is bunk. Evolutionists want everything to be evolution, even the ideas of people who reject evolutionism.
Demanding that we accept the truth of your assertions is no way to conduct a rational discussion. Neither is describing your opponent's ideas incorrectly.
Would you like to try again?
Evidence, remember? Organisms can undergo great changes in response to a change in environment and they can do so quickly.
There are so many contradictions in evolutionism, it's amazing that anyone with any scientific training can accept it.
Last edited:
False dichotomies are irrational. You already know a way that the definition can be used. GA's post would have reminded you of it.
Would you like to try again?
:darwinsm:
I'd like a testable ice cream, please.
This is why evolutionists are mocked.
That's true. It's a good thing definitions are not hypotheses, wot? :chuckle:
There are. Alate knows one. You should ask her to honestly represent it here. :up:
Nope. That's why I gave a definition.
This is why evolutionists are mocked.
:mock: Darwinists.
We are justified in rejecting everything about theology from a man who says "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says.
Great.
Which word has not been defined? :loser:
:rotfl:
:mock: :blabla: barian
Alate_One writes:
It's obvious why. Both have the same problem; it's impossible to come up with a precise definition of "species" or "kind" that will always work in all cases.
And it's because there are no hard and set boundaries between living things. Darwin alluded to this fact, which is a devastating problem for creationists. If they were right, there would be nice boundaries between taxa. But instead, it's very messy with all sorts of intermediate populations and transitional forms that don't fit nicely into anyone's scheme.
"Baraminologists" argue that it's possible to build a rational "discontinuity systematics" in which they can show evolution is limited to organisms within separately created "holobaramin."
They figure gorillas and chimps are one holobaramin, while humans are another. Just gorillas and chimps differ from one another, they say, but have a common ancestor, just as what they assume to be human races differ from one another, but have a common ancestor. The baraminology diagram shows an "apobaramin" (two unrelated groups) with two "holobaramin" ( humans with the various supposed races , and apes, with gorillas and chimpanzees).
The whole idea hits a wall when we get to genetics. Genetic analysis (which baraminologists use for determining the relationships in a "holobaramin") shows that there are no biological human races, and that humans and chimps are more alike genetically than either is to gorillas.
And not surprisingly, Huxley won a debate with Owens on evolution, when he showed that Owen's own anatomical data showed humans and chimpanzees to be closely related.
Etymologically, I think it probably should be "minbara", but that's nit-picking.
It's obvious why. Both have the same problem; it's impossible to come up with a precise definition of "species" or "kind" that will always work in all cases.
And it's because there are no hard and set boundaries between living things. Darwin alluded to this fact, which is a devastating problem for creationists. If they were right, there would be nice boundaries between taxa. But instead, it's very messy with all sorts of intermediate populations and transitional forms that don't fit nicely into anyone's scheme.
"Baraminologists" argue that it's possible to build a rational "discontinuity systematics" in which they can show evolution is limited to organisms within separately created "holobaramin."
They figure gorillas and chimps are one holobaramin, while humans are another. Just gorillas and chimps differ from one another, they say, but have a common ancestor, just as what they assume to be human races differ from one another, but have a common ancestor. The baraminology diagram shows an "apobaramin" (two unrelated groups) with two "holobaramin" ( humans with the various supposed races , and apes, with gorillas and chimpanzees).
The whole idea hits a wall when we get to genetics. Genetic analysis (which baraminologists use for determining the relationships in a "holobaramin") shows that there are no biological human races, and that humans and chimps are more alike genetically than either is to gorillas.
And not surprisingly, Huxley won a debate with Owens on evolution, when he showed that Owen's own anatomical data showed humans and chimpanzees to be closely related.
Etymologically, I think it probably should be "minbara", but that's nit-picking.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Asking whether two animals are the same kind or not is a false dichotomy?
It's the PURPOSE of your definition!
You are ridiculous.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
It's not surprising that creationists would be most upset by Christians. Atheists can just be considered wrong. But Christians are a rebuke against creationists. Hence the frantic effort by creationists to convince themselves that Christians are dishonest.
Sorry. My definition works in every situation. That is the nature of a definition; it must apply in every situation. That is why "species" is not scientific; it has a multitude of "definitions" that keep it a vague and malleable term.
Asserting the truth of your religion is not convincing.
You mean like how birds do not turn into lizards and fish don't change into people? :chuckle:
Nope. The false dichotomy was to pretend that I have to be able to answer your question or else the definition is not valid.
You should quit with the logical fallacies. :Clete: taught me too well.
Nope. There is only one purpose of any definition: To lock a word into a specific context and scenario so that it can be used in a rational discussion.
You are ridiculous.
:darwinsm:
Barbarian observes:
It's impossible to come up with a precise definition of "species" or "kind" that will always work in all cases.
Everyone knows why you won't tell us what it is.
Which is why dictionaries give multiple definitions for many words? :think:
As Darwin pointed out. This is a devastating problem for creationism; if species were created individually, we'd be able to define them precisely. But because they evolve from existing species, that kind of definition is impossible.
And it's because there are no hard and set boundaries between living things.
(Stipe hates Christianity)
But that's not a religious idea, Stipe. It's just a fact. There are all sorts of half-species, quarter-species,and so on.
Barbarian observes:
If they were right, there would be nice boundaries between taxa.
For example, the way there is considerable argument about the birdlike dinosaurs, many with feathers, avian respiratory systems, and so on. It's really a matter of opinion at what point reptiles leave off and birds begin.
Likewise the only precise difference between reptiles and mammals is that mammals have the jaw joint at the dentary bone, rather than at the articular. But there is in the fossil record, right at the transition point, an animal with both joints.
And it's anyone's call..
And accordingly, the fish that have been found with functional legs are a matter of discussion, because they blur the distinction between fish and tetrapods. It's anyone's call, for those that are very intermeditiate between the two.
This is why creationists are so unwilling to talk facts. The last thing they want to do is get lured out into the open and talk facts. So we have to patiently wait for them to get worked up enough to lose their caution.
Gotcha again.
It's impossible to come up with a precise definition of "species" or "kind" that will always work in all cases.
Everyone knows why you won't tell us what it is.
Which is why dictionaries give multiple definitions for many words? :think:
As Darwin pointed out. This is a devastating problem for creationism; if species were created individually, we'd be able to define them precisely. But because they evolve from existing species, that kind of definition is impossible.
And it's because there are no hard and set boundaries between living things.
(Stipe hates Christianity)
But that's not a religious idea, Stipe. It's just a fact. There are all sorts of half-species, quarter-species,and so on.
Barbarian observes:
If they were right, there would be nice boundaries between taxa.
For example, the way there is considerable argument about the birdlike dinosaurs, many with feathers, avian respiratory systems, and so on. It's really a matter of opinion at what point reptiles leave off and birds begin.
Likewise the only precise difference between reptiles and mammals is that mammals have the jaw joint at the dentary bone, rather than at the articular. But there is in the fossil record, right at the transition point, an animal with both joints.
And it's anyone's call..
And accordingly, the fish that have been found with functional legs are a matter of discussion, because they blur the distinction between fish and tetrapods. It's anyone's call, for those that are very intermeditiate between the two.
This is why creationists are so unwilling to talk facts. The last thing they want to do is get lured out into the open and talk facts. So we have to patiently wait for them to get worked up enough to lose their caution.
Gotcha again.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
In 6000 years there would be roughly 250 generations of humans.
Here is diversity in 1 generation:
These girls are twins.
No variation left after 1 generation? This is after 250 generations. The speculation attached to your science is definitely flawed - or you are just trying to cover your lies hoping no one will notice.
What would you like us to "ignore" next?
Confusing color for genetic variation isn't a sensible thing, because it's generally only a few genes involved. Notice the younger twins look almost identical, except for hair and skin color. We are culturally conditioned to make distinctions on color, but it's not much, genetically.
Indeed, evolutionists have demonstrated that there are no biological human races, regardless of the "baraminologists."
Indeed, evolutionists have demonstrated that there are no biological human races, regardless of the "baraminologists."
Multiple times in this thread alone, in fact. This is why you are considered the most dishonest poster on this site.
That a word can have different definitions does not diminish what I said. Words are defined to lock them to a context or scenario so they can be used in rational discussions. That words can have multiple definitions just means we have to watch for the fallacy of equivocation; a favorite among atheists.
Begging the question is a logical fallacy.
Apart from the fact that fish do not turn into people; dogs never give birth to cats.
Given that you will never define species, that's not surprising. However, your assertions are next to useless in a scientific setting.
When you have evidence that is a bit better that a few vague appearance-related similarities, let us know. :up:
And yet the difference between the two groups are innumerable.
Mudskippers are transitional between fish and something. :darwinsm:
This is why evolutionists are mocked.
We would love to talk facts. The problem is, you define facts out of existence; case-in-point being your refusal to define "species."
The last thing evolutionists want to do is get lured out into the open and talk facts. So we have to patiently wait for them to get worked up enough to lose their caution.
A kind is defined as all the organisms descended from a common ancestor population.
Gotcha again.
Surprise!
Last edited:
Species, Kinds, and Evolution
by John Wilkins, University of Queensland
Creationists oppose the idea that species can evolve indefinitely and charge evolutionary biologists with failing to define their terms properly. In this article I want to trace briefly the history of the idea of species and show that it is in fact a virtue of biology that it tries to make its terms follow the evidence rather than to define them all up front. The idea that species were universally thought to be fixed prior to Darwin is simply wrong — many creationist thinkers of the classical period through to the 19th century thought that species could change. The issue of evolution was, in fact, impossible to suggest until the claim was made that species were fixed, and as soon as it was suggested, so too was evolution. There has been a longstanding vagueness about living "kinds" that goes back to the classical era and that follows from good observation. What is more, nothing in the biblical or theological traditions requires that species are fixed, only that kinds exist, which neither evolutionists nor traditional creationists ever denied...
You can read more at the source: http://ncse.com/rncse/26/4/species-kinds-evolution
6days
New member
Actually, written accounts are always accepted as evidence in historical or forensic science.
The very best evidence of our beginnings comes from the only One who was there.
Rapid adaptation and change is observational science. And, as others have said, this process usually, if not always involves a loss of pre-existing genetic info. For example, all dogs have likely descended from some type of wolf. That fits with scientific evidence, and with God's Word.
Wrong. Using dogs as an example again..... The original created pair having a full complement of genetic info , and no mutations. Bottlenecks would only happen later as genetic info was lost, mutations accumulated and populations became isolated.
"Creationists do not have an exact definition of the original created kind for the same reasons that taxonomists cannot precisely define species: every imaginable gradation between species exists."
-- http://ncse.com/cej/2/3/defining-kinds-do-creationists-apply-double-standard
-- http://ncse.com/cej/2/3/defining-kinds-do-creationists-apply-double-standard
Evolutionists hate reading.
A kind is defined as all of the organisms that are descended from a common ancestor population.
That there is another definition for kind — referring to a person's nature — is not a rational concern.
Last edited:
(Barbarian attempts to shame Stipe into telling us what his definition of "kind" is:
It's impossible to come up with a precise definition of "species" or "kind" that will always work in all cases.Everyone knows why you won't tell us what it is.
(Barbarian fails)
Stipe dodges:
Multiple times in this thread alone, in fact. This is why you are considered the most dishonest poster on this site.
Ah yes. Stipe would like to tell us the truth, but the Dishonest Barbarian won't let him. How clever of you.
Stipe asserts:
That is the nature of a definition; it must apply in every situation.
Barbarian asks:
Which is why dictionaries give multiple definitions for many words? :think:
Technically, it refutes what you said. As you just realized, most definitions don't apply in every situation.
Barbarian obeserves:
As Darwin pointed out. This is a devastating problem for creationism; if species were created individually, we'd be able to define them precisely. But because they evolve from existing species, that kind of definition is impossible.
Stipe explains why he doesn't want to talk about that:
(Stipe made an unintentional joke; cool)
Barbarian observes:
And it's because there are no hard and set boundaries between living things.
And accordingly, the fish that have been found with functional legs are a matter of discussion, because they blur the distinction between fish and tetrapods. It's anyone's call, for those that are very intermeditiate between the two.
Nor does evolutionary theory say they should. (Stipe enjoys arguing with himself; he loses less often that way)
As Darwin pointed out, it's impossible to make a definition that will always apply, precisely because of evolution. It's just a fact. There are all sorts of half-species, quarter-species,and so on.
Yep. This is why the problem is an impossible one for creationism. If it were true, species would be easy to define. But as you know, they evolved, and so there can be no precise definition. You claim to have some definition that you can't tell us, because the Evil Barbarian won't let you. However, your assertions are next to useless in a scientific setting.
Barbarian observes:
If they were right, there would be nice boundaries between taxa.For example, the way there is considerable argument about the birdlike dinosaurs, many with feathers, avian respiratory systems, and so on. It's really a matter of opinion at what point reptiles leave off and birds begin.
Feathers on a dinosaur don't seem very vague, nor does an avian respiratory system on a dinosaur. And of course, there's that heme molecule isolated from a T-rex that turned out to be structurally more like that of birds than of other reptiles, which is precisely what evolutionary theory predicts.
Now we all understand that with nothing to say about this, you're going to resort to hand-waving. That's understandable. But you must realize that it won't help you much.
Barbarian observes:
Likewise the only precise difference between reptiles and mammals is that mammals have the jaw joint at the dentary bone, rather than at the articular.
Name some. You're going to be surprised
Not yet. They just (like a few other fish) get out of water and move around. Some of them can actually climb trees. But they aren't at all transitional to tetrapods for many anatomical reasons. Would you like to learn about that?
But the Evil Barbarian won't let you. Yes, you've told us.
It's impossible to do a precise and always-applicable definition of species. As Darwin pointed out, this could not be done, if evolution is true. That's a problem that creationists will never be able to solve. If they were right, it would be easy.
See above. You're not easy to lure into such a discussion, but this time you forgot.
And we gotcha again. But at least you didn't let me trick you into telling us your definition of "kind."
It's impossible to come up with a precise definition of "species" or "kind" that will always work in all cases.Everyone knows why you won't tell us what it is.
(Barbarian fails)
Stipe dodges:
Multiple times in this thread alone, in fact. This is why you are considered the most dishonest poster on this site.
Ah yes. Stipe would like to tell us the truth, but the Dishonest Barbarian won't let him. How clever of you.
Stipe asserts:
That is the nature of a definition; it must apply in every situation.
Barbarian asks:
Which is why dictionaries give multiple definitions for many words? :think:
Technically, it refutes what you said. As you just realized, most definitions don't apply in every situation.
Barbarian obeserves:
As Darwin pointed out. This is a devastating problem for creationism; if species were created individually, we'd be able to define them precisely. But because they evolve from existing species, that kind of definition is impossible.
Stipe explains why he doesn't want to talk about that:
(Stipe made an unintentional joke; cool)
Barbarian observes:
And it's because there are no hard and set boundaries between living things.
And accordingly, the fish that have been found with functional legs are a matter of discussion, because they blur the distinction between fish and tetrapods. It's anyone's call, for those that are very intermeditiate between the two.
Nor does evolutionary theory say they should. (Stipe enjoys arguing with himself; he loses less often that way)
As Darwin pointed out, it's impossible to make a definition that will always apply, precisely because of evolution. It's just a fact. There are all sorts of half-species, quarter-species,and so on.
Yep. This is why the problem is an impossible one for creationism. If it were true, species would be easy to define. But as you know, they evolved, and so there can be no precise definition. You claim to have some definition that you can't tell us, because the Evil Barbarian won't let you. However, your assertions are next to useless in a scientific setting.
Barbarian observes:
If they were right, there would be nice boundaries between taxa.For example, the way there is considerable argument about the birdlike dinosaurs, many with feathers, avian respiratory systems, and so on. It's really a matter of opinion at what point reptiles leave off and birds begin.
Feathers on a dinosaur don't seem very vague, nor does an avian respiratory system on a dinosaur. And of course, there's that heme molecule isolated from a T-rex that turned out to be structurally more like that of birds than of other reptiles, which is precisely what evolutionary theory predicts.
Now we all understand that with nothing to say about this, you're going to resort to hand-waving. That's understandable. But you must realize that it won't help you much.
Barbarian observes:
Likewise the only precise difference between reptiles and mammals is that mammals have the jaw joint at the dentary bone, rather than at the articular.
Name some. You're going to be surprised
Not yet. They just (like a few other fish) get out of water and move around. Some of them can actually climb trees. But they aren't at all transitional to tetrapods for many anatomical reasons. Would you like to learn about that?
But the Evil Barbarian won't let you. Yes, you've told us.
It's impossible to do a precise and always-applicable definition of species. As Darwin pointed out, this could not be done, if evolution is true. That's a problem that creationists will never be able to solve. If they were right, it would be easy.
See above. You're not easy to lure into such a discussion, but this time you forgot.
And we gotcha again. But at least you didn't let me trick you into telling us your definition of "kind."
About five times already in this thread. This is why you are known as the site's most dishonest member.
Gotcha again!
Surprise!