I am not sure how many "kinds" you think were on Noah's Ark. But let's take your example of cats. In the time of Noah- just one kind. Today- hundreds, maybe thousands. In the time of Abraham, then, there would have been how many?
Scientists baffled by a perfect example of Biblical kinds
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
I am not sure how many "kinds" you think were on Noah's Ark. But let's take your example of cats. In the time of Noah- just one kind. Today- hundreds, maybe thousands. In the time of Abraham, then, there would have been how many?
Both ToE and ID are not a scientific model for a scientific truth to be confirm through predictability.
For a scientific predictable model to be established in confirming a scientific claim like "repeatedly natural selection together with mutation will cause evolution starting from a single cell organism or whatever simple life form you can specified" (implicitly this occurs or can occur to *ANY* organism). Then in your model, you should be able to randomly select any final product, say, "cats and from single cell organisms", then you will be able to predictably tell under what condition (temperature, humidity and etc.) that a single cell organism can be driven step by step to a fully grown cat. You make this prediction before lab and the lab will confirm that this is repeatedly doable.
Only then it is confirmed to be a scientific truth. If the cat is randomly selected, that is, you can make this doable to any random organisms specified by any third party, then it is a scientific truth to claim that evolution occurs in all organisms by driving them from a single cell organism till a fully grown, say, mammal.
This is what a science model is. ToE is a joke, it is not a science in such a strict sense. At best, it is a science-assisted history study. While a history is completely different from a science. ID makes more in doing the same science-assisted history research, as it doesn't claim be something scientific in the first place, it's a history instead.
What the true scientific model of ToE can do today is to predictably change bacteria from bacteria.
One.
Getting back to main criticism of this approach: The text makes it clear that God created all of the different kinds in Genesis 1. The proposed "Theory of Kinds" distorts this, turning "kinds" into "superkinds", and limiting God's direct creation. So I think the theory doesn't fit the text.
I also have a concrete counter example. Think for a moment. Did God create grapevines in Genesis 1, or only a generic vine, that later gave rise to grape vines and many other types of vines?
I also have a concrete counter example. Think for a moment. Did God create grapevines in Genesis 1, or only a generic vine, that later gave rise to grape vines and many other types of vines?
gcthomas
New member
You have a unique and incorrect idea of what science is. As an example, the Science Council has defined science as "the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence."
Systematic and evidence based. See - no requirement that descriptions of processes that take deep time to occur are by necessity beyond science. Your objection is not far from the "no one was there to see it" criticism of evolution. The ToE makes predictions and those predictions are validated or rejected using evidence - the "if evolution works like we think, then if we do (this) then we should see (that), or else we'll see (the other) if we are wrong in our assumptions" format, for example.
If you really claim to believe that the entire 4 billion year process of evolution must be repeated in the lab for it to be called science, then I will have to assume you are just making a weak rhetorical point, rather than being serious.
No, that's exactly the nature of what science is. And even scientists themselves may not be able to give a correct and precise definition as they usually are only specialized in their field of study.
In the end, it's a matter of the philosophy of science. Evidence itself and prediction itself have no bearing on science directly. It's the strict definition of predictability which actually confirms a scientific truth.
In a chemical lab, you don't predict that "there will be smoke coming out" to confirm a scientific truth. You need to specific precisely what should stick with the formula model to work. When you claim that water dissolves into hydrogen and oxygen, you don't specify that only the water from the drain of your house should be used. If you declare that "water dissolves" implicitly it's all water even those from Mars.
Evidence should also be in a strict sense to refer to the oxygen quantity and hydrogen quantity produced instead of "I see smoke coming out" so it is evidenced that "chemical reaction occurs" such that "water must have been dissolved into gases. Then to say that this is a chemical law.
"I saw macro evolution occurred" such that "evolution exists" such that "organisms must have evolved from <whatever simpler form>", thus ToE must be true. That's exactly the leverage used in the case of evolution. This is not a science, it is a deception!
gcthomas
New member
So much is wrong with your post that you can't even have carefully read what I carefully wrote. It IS interesting that you consider non-scientists are best positioned to define science when your words prove that your knowledge of science is as weak as your argument. Just two examples are "water dissolves into hydrogen and oxygen" and your confusion of scientific laws with theories. If you don't understand the basic language you are using to describe science, how can you feel so well placed to judge it? Dunning—Kruger effect, I believe.
You need to study a human brain in order to see how a truth is best confirm by it. It's you who failed to see the point. It is your faith by defying logic to say that only a group of certain humans should be capable of defining what the nature of science is.
It is a famous fallacy to defy reasoning by saying that "because you are a student and that man is a teacher such that what the teacher says should be more correct".
Nope.
God created each kind, which would reproduce exclusively within itself.
The "superkinds" you made up is taken from a simple description of the situation as it might have been preflood when there was a population of cats that spawned lions, tigers and others. It's not a "superkind," it's a "super cat kind," as in it supersedes many groups of large cats.
And you've simply asserted a "limiting of God's direct creation" without even explaining what your objection is or basing it on anything I have said that might contradict scripture.
He likely made grapevines, which have produced all the grapevines we see today. He likely did the same for other vines.
Last edited:
I can actually tell you more about the nature of what science is;
=====
To me, humans usually apply fallacious concepts without their own awareness.
Science usually goes through 3 stages to determine a scientific truth,
1) Observation
Science is basically dealing with a set of rules behind a repeating pattern. Observation is achievable basically because the pattern itself can be repeated infinitively. Say, you can observe how the earth revolving around the sun because the number of times the earth revolving the sun is infinitive.*
2) Formulation
Through the possibly infinitive observations, you can develop theories about how it repeats. You can then try to quantitatively describe how it repeats, say, using a formula.
3) Prediction
Prediction is to put your quantitative descriptions (formulated rules) into tests. If they predict correctly, the set of rules discovered/formulated by you is considered a truth (a formal scientific truth). If the prediction fails or doesn’t fail within an acceptable variance (say, due to equipment capability limit), the set of rules you developed is considered falsified.
To simply put a set of rules behind a repeating pattern is considered "proven" when the prediction of the pattern using this set of rules doesn't fail.
For an example, water dissolves into hydrogen and oxygen. This holds true no matter what. That is, you make a prediction (that water must dissolve into H2 and O2) before each and every experiment and that your prediction will never fail. You deserve a Nobel Prize shall your this prediction actually fails.
A human brain thus realizes/recognizes that it is a truth as the numerous predictions never fail.
This is the nature (predictability and falsifiability) of what science is.
*
As for gravity, the related laws are proven as its behavior is repeatedly predictable. However, we don't know yet the true nature of gravity. Plus that we don't have a united theory (super theory) for the 4 known field theories. I believe that what limits us to explore further is that we cannot penetrate into other time-space dimensions to observe, formulate and predict the outcomes. We are confined within a 3D ball-like universe. On the other hand, even when one day we discovered the true nature of gravity and we developed a super theory which works for all the field forces, it won't falsify today's gravitational theory as the theory is considered proven. There will be a paradigm shift though. Just like the discovery of relativity is not a falsification of the Newtonian laws, it's just a paradigm shift. The Newtonian laws stand by themselves under a certain paradigm where they can be repeatedly verified through their predictability.
=====
To me, humans usually apply fallacious concepts without their own awareness.
Science usually goes through 3 stages to determine a scientific truth,
1) Observation
Science is basically dealing with a set of rules behind a repeating pattern. Observation is achievable basically because the pattern itself can be repeated infinitively. Say, you can observe how the earth revolving around the sun because the number of times the earth revolving the sun is infinitive.*
2) Formulation
Through the possibly infinitive observations, you can develop theories about how it repeats. You can then try to quantitatively describe how it repeats, say, using a formula.
3) Prediction
Prediction is to put your quantitative descriptions (formulated rules) into tests. If they predict correctly, the set of rules discovered/formulated by you is considered a truth (a formal scientific truth). If the prediction fails or doesn’t fail within an acceptable variance (say, due to equipment capability limit), the set of rules you developed is considered falsified.
To simply put a set of rules behind a repeating pattern is considered "proven" when the prediction of the pattern using this set of rules doesn't fail.
For an example, water dissolves into hydrogen and oxygen. This holds true no matter what. That is, you make a prediction (that water must dissolve into H2 and O2) before each and every experiment and that your prediction will never fail. You deserve a Nobel Prize shall your this prediction actually fails.
A human brain thus realizes/recognizes that it is a truth as the numerous predictions never fail.
This is the nature (predictability and falsifiability) of what science is.
*
As for gravity, the related laws are proven as its behavior is repeatedly predictable. However, we don't know yet the true nature of gravity. Plus that we don't have a united theory (super theory) for the 4 known field theories. I believe that what limits us to explore further is that we cannot penetrate into other time-space dimensions to observe, formulate and predict the outcomes. We are confined within a 3D ball-like universe. On the other hand, even when one day we discovered the true nature of gravity and we developed a super theory which works for all the field forces, it won't falsify today's gravitational theory as the theory is considered proven. There will be a paradigm shift though. Just like the discovery of relativity is not a falsification of the Newtonian laws, it's just a paradigm shift. The Newtonian laws stand by themselves under a certain paradigm where they can be repeatedly verified through their predictability.
Jose Fly
New member
Then how did such a thing become part of the "Biblical model of creation"?
Jose Fly
New member
Stripe gives us yet another illustration of how it's impossible to advocate creationism honestly....
Post #229: I ask Stripe if he thinks natural selection occurs, and he answers "Sure".
Post #299: He claims that "creatures adapt in predictable and repeatable ways according to changes in their environment" and adds, "No random mutations, no natural selection".
Creationism....:rotfl:
Post #229: I ask Stripe if he thinks natural selection occurs, and he answers "Sure".
Post #299: He claims that "creatures adapt in predictable and repeatable ways according to changes in their environment" and adds, "No random mutations, no natural selection".
Creationism....:rotfl:
gcthomas
New member
You are presenting the standard procedure that I teach to 12-year-old students starting their first laboratory courses, but of course the reality is rather more nuanced. I am wondering what level I need to pitch this discussion, since what I have written seems to have gone ignored by you or not understood. Have you studied science beyond tenth grade?
6days
New member
Good description. It agrees with Hawkins said.
Evolutionism and creationism are beliefs about the past. Both sides examine the same evidence but make opposite conclusions based on apriori beliefs.
For example... Creationists say that the appearance of design is evidence of a designer. Evolutionists say things have the appearance of design, but they can't allow themselves to consider a designer.
Nope. Natural selection happens. It's just so insignificant that it can be safely ignored.
Jose Fly
New member
How did you come to that conclusion?
Also, regarding this "cat kind"....exactly how did you creationists establish that such a "kind" exists?
And, how did rapid adaptation become part of the "Biblical model of creation" (given your statement, "Nobody claimed rapid change was spelled out in the Bible"?)
Greg Jennings
New member
Why can't you answer a question? All you do is chant the same four or five phrases over and over again like you have some sort of OCD.
Do you want to know the definition of species? Because we've been down this road before, and you just end up whining about how there is no clear-cut, all-encompassing definition of species in biology. There are many exceptions to the rules. That's just how things are in the real world sometimes. I'll use the example I gave 6days that he ignored and that you will as well I have no doubt: It's a general rule in physics that when a substance changes from a liquid to a solid it loses volume and gets smaller. However, one very big exception to this rule is water, which of course expands when it freezes.
So how about you name one of your scientists who (according to you) think that humans evolved from rocks?
Greg Jennings
New member
Okay so you seem to firmly believe that. I'm assuming you also believe in the notion of a very young Earth (6000-10000 yrs)?
If yes, how familiar are you with geology? Not animals, just geology
Greg Jennings
New member
Never mind, man. You don't have to answer me. I see what I'm dealing with