Scientists baffled by a perfect example of Biblical kinds

[Stripe]

Tell us another story of how you are willing to suspend judgement when there isn't sufficient evidence.

Let us know when you're willing to contribute something of value to the conversation. This one is about kinds and the paucity of Darwinian terminology.

and how you are prepared to be entirely open-minded about the existence of Russell's teapot or your god for that matter.

How about I provide evidence for what I believe and you provide evidence for what you believe and we'll leave your invented nonsense where it belongs. :up:

And how about we stick to the topic? This thread is about the definition of kind — a set concept — versus the definition of species — a vague and malleable idea.

 

[Lon]

I don't think you have thought about any of this very deeply.

Stuart

Nor I you, but nothing + nothing leaves nothing, you gotta have something,if you wanna be with me.

 

[Lon]

I don't think any theorists propose an eternity of nothing, as time needs a universe and matter to be a rational concept. Since time is a property of matter in the universe, it makes no sense to talk about an ultimate causal event, since a cause requires a time before time started. There are much better proposals, especially as you agree that something has always existed - despite the idea of 'always' being rather more slippery that you seem to grasp.

:nono: There is no 'never' when things are present here and now. Further, my intellect indicates an "intellectual" purpose the universe.

Think of it this way: Survival (fittest or otherwise) makes no sense without purpose and design. We'd all have just drank poison and left from existence because we'd not have had any reason not to. Purpose begets purpose. MANY ideas of science and atheism are counter-intuitive. It doesn't matter how 'brilliantly' stupidity is postulated. THAT is why over 80% of us don't buy propositions given. Sorry other countries are so easily duped. I honestly believe Americans are intuitively smarter than buying what is intuitively against logic and reason.

For example, that thing that has always existed ("just is") could be the multi-dimensional space-time object that we call the universe (or multiverse, in the most likely theory of eternal chaotic inflation). No need to postulate entities beyond their necessity — I find it as easy to imagine a universe that 'just is' as a godly being, and see it as much more likely since it needn't have such built-in complexity that a god would need, nor need it match bronze-age mythology.

Well, I'm not going to accuse you of not thinking enough, because I've no idea how long you've done so BUT you display here what is counter-intuitive, not logical, and not tenable against the idea of something eternally existing. This, btw, is why Hawking was wrong and even inept: Philosophy is the discipline that examines whether science is true. Without it, we'd not question truths especially when science does, has, and will continue to get things wrong. Theology, too, as far as that goes.

 

[6days]

And how about we stick to the topic? This thread is about the definition of kind — a set concept — versus the definition of species — a vague and malleable idea.

Speaking of species....."Among the belief systems of the world, evolutionism can be classified as an endangered species. Though it has many followers, it is not a “healthy” belief that can survive on its own. Other belief systems survive because they are supported or confirmed by scientific evidence and rational thinking. Not so with evolution. It survives only because it enjoys special protection under the law, which is afforded only to endangered species that cannot compete without such help." Astrophysicist Jason Lisle

 

[6days]

how about we stick to the topic? This thread is about the definition of kind — a set concept — versus the definition of species — a vague and malleable idea.

"The species problem is a mixture of difficult related questions that often come up when biologists define the word "species". There are a wide range of approaches to defining how we identify species and how species function in nature; each approach is known as a species concept. The number and types of species concepts which exist are constantly changing, but there are at least 26 recognized species concepts. " Wiki.

IOW..... The word 'species' (and other classifications) is malleable belief; not science. The classifications are often used to create an illusion of common ancestry.

 

[Stuu]

How about I provide evidence for what I believe

That would make a refreshing change.

This thread is about the definition of kind — a set concept — versus the definition of species — a vague and malleable idea.

OK. Let's check out the Oxford Concise:

species n. 2 Biol. a group of living organisms consisting of related similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding, classified as a taxonomic rank below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial.

kind n. 1 a a race or species (human kind)

So it seems that whatever a species is, a kind is that, plus the vague and malleable concept of race.

Is that a helpful enough contribution for you?

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Speaking of species....."Among the belief systems of the world, evolutionism can be classified as an endangered species. Though it has many followers, it is not a “healthy” belief that can survive on its own. Other belief systems survive because they are supported or confirmed by scientific evidence and rational thinking. Not so with evolution. It survives only because it enjoys special protection under the law, which is afforded only to endangered species that cannot compete without such help." Astrophysicist Jason Lisle

From irc.org: "After completion of his research at the University of Colorado, Dr. Lisle began working in full-time apologetics ministry, focusing on the defense of Genesis."

And in this case he is lying, and bringing the University of Colorado into disrepute in the process. They should strip him of his beloved PhD.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

nothing + nothing leaves nothing

Lots of negative plus lots of positive equals zero.

I can't help it if you refuse to educate yourself about this.

Stuart

 

[Lon]

Lots of negative plus lots of positive equals zero.

I can't help it if you refuse to educate yourself about this.

Stuart

:nono: It is 'neutral.' Even zero degrees is not 'nothing.' It is still a temperature that just happens to fall on a randomly assigned number line to 0. Such is -17.7778 Celsius but being a negative, doesn't even make it a 'lack of temperature.' The temperature, in fact, is 'something.'

Nothing + nothing leaves nothing, you gotta have somethin,if you wanna be with me.

 

[Stuu]

:nono: It is 'neutral.'

What is neutral?

Stuart

 

[Lon]

What is neutral?

Stuart

Matter and energy (the same thing, actually) are "positive" and gravitational energy of space-time is "negative" and so the total energy of the universe is zero. That sure sounds like a synonym for nothing to me.

You are simply talking about the difference between 'states.' A thing in resting state still exists.

Who said it had to conform to what humans think is logical?
Stuart

Without God, for you, humans are the only thing left. It has to conform to logic or there is no point in discussing it because ONLY 2 humans here are interested. For me, the knowledge that God does exist, demands it.

 

[Stuu]

You are simply talking about the difference between 'states.'

Am I?

Without God, for you

Yes indeed.

It has to conform to logic or there is no point in discussing it because ONLY 2 humans here are interested.

So it doesn't matter to you that, for example, quantum mechanics isn't logical. You are still determined to apply logic to it.

For me, the knowledge that God does exist, demands it.

What, your god belief demands that you apply logic where logic doesn't work? Good grief.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

OK. Let's check out the Oxford Concise: species n. 2 Biol. a group of living organisms consisting of related similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding, classified as a taxonomic rank below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial.

So lions and tigers are the same species, right?

kind n. 1 a a race or species (human kind)

Darwinists hate reading.

So it seems that whatever a species is, a kind is that, plus the vague and malleable concept of race.

Nope.

Try reading the threads you jump in on.

 

[gcthomas]

BUT you display here what is counter-intuitive,

Yes, it is. That is why physics is hard.

not logical,

It is certainly logical. What you should have said was that you didn't understand the logic.

and not tenable against the idea of something eternally existing.

Please explain what you mean by 'eternally existing' in the absence of a concept of time, as time in an internal property of objects within the universe.

This, btw, is why Hawking was wrong and even inept:

What was he wrong about, and how have you verified your (in)expert judgement?

Philosophy is the discipline that examines whether science is true. Without it, we'd not question truths especially when science does, has, and will continue to get things wrong. Theology, too, as far as that goes.

What does your philosophy have to say about the nature of time? Really, I'd like to hear it, since I have brought up the problem of imagining a 'cause' for the 'beginning' of the universe several time, but no-one has addressed it.

 

[Stripe]

Yes, it is. That is why physics is hard.It is certainly logical. What you should have said was that you didn't understand the logic.Please explain what you mean by 'eternally existing' in the absence of a concept of time, as time in an internal property of objects within the universe.What was he wrong about, and how have you verified your (in)expert judgement?What does your philosophy have to say about the nature of time? Really, I'd like to hear it, since I have brought up the problem of imagining a 'cause' for the 'beginning' of the universe several time, but no-one has addressed it.

Go talk about your religion in another thread. :up:

 

[Lon]

Yes, it is. That is why physics is hard.

Well, the more complicated it gets, it is.

It is certainly logical. What you should have said was that you didn't understand the logic.

Um, no. I am aware of space and vacuums. I'm also aware that such is contested among scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers so your simple assertion game wins no dice. Solomon (a Bible guy) said there is nothing new under the sun.

Please explain what you mean by 'eternally existing' in the absence of a concept of time, as time in an internal property of objects within the universe.

You are quickly going to argue yourself, into the position, of believing an incorporeal God 'can' exist (and even has to exist). I'm all for that. I believe eternal is a quality over duration, eternity is the succession of endless moments and I agree it is the product of the eternal.

What was he wrong about, and how have you verified your (in)expert judgement?

:chuckle: You have NO idea what my degree or secondary is. He said philosophy is dead. Nice to see you exalt and worship him even when he comments out of his area of study as well :chuckle:

What does your philosophy have to say about the nature of time? Really, I'd like to hear it, since I have brought up the problem of imagining a 'cause' for the 'beginning' of the universe several time, but no-one has addressed it.

Something is eternal, which means it is in a state of being, but I agree with you that it is timeless, yet must necessarily carry the property of endless time, for it is responsible for the universe. As I said, for you, I think it concession that God surely can exist because you are explaining those kinds of properties that are beyond the physical. When I say it is impossible for something to come from nothing, I am not saying in the physical sense. I think it good speculation (conversation I'm having with Stuu). It is untrue, however, that a lack of physical presence equals 'nothing' as he asserts. Even a vacuum is something, else matter couldn't show up. I'm still working on black holes, but it seems even in the vacuum, it is moving 'something' from one place to another, even if it is unaccounted for somewhere along the way.

 

[Lon]

So it doesn't matter to you that, for example, quantum mechanics isn't logical. You are still determined to apply logic to it.

This is a little like asking me if I stopped beating my wife. Quantum mechanics, isn't illogical. Is it graspable? No, but that's different, and I'm not sure 'no' is even the right answer, just 'not now.' There is no point in studying quantum mechanics if we can't eventually figure it out. I've no idea why atoms will act differently if we are watching them as opposed to not. I don't, however, think it necessarily illogical. "Maybe they like us."

What, your god belief demands that you apply logic where logic doesn't work? Good grief.

Stuart

When it comes to talking about God. Paul says to be ready to give reason.

 

[Jose Fly]

Speaking of species....."Among the belief systems of the world, evolutionism can be classified as an endangered species. Though it has many followers, it is not a “healthy” belief that can survive on its own. Other belief systems survive because they are supported or confirmed by scientific evidence and rational thinking. Not so with evolution. It survives only because it enjoys special protection under the law, which is afforded only to endangered species that cannot compete without such help." Astrophysicist Jason Lisle

Nice to see Lisle, creationist employed at the anti-science orgnanization AiG, simultaneously state the longest running falsehood in the history of creationism, while also chalking evolution's unanimous support and utility in the sciences up to a conspiracy.

:chuckle:

 

[Stuu]

Go talk about your religion in another thread. :up:

gcthomas 1
Stripe 0

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

This is a little like asking me if I stopped beating my wife. Quantum mechanics, isn't illogical. Is it graspable? No, but that's different, and I'm not sure 'no' is even the right answer, just 'not now.' There is no point in studying quantum mechanics if we can't eventually figure it out. I've no idea why atoms will act differently if we are watching them as opposed to not. I don't, however, think it necessarily illogical. "Maybe they like us."

The situation at the moment is that you can make mathematical models with useful predictive power without being able to hold a picture of the quantum concepts in your mind. Maybe we just have to get used to doing that.

When it comes to talking about God. Paul says to be ready to give reason.

That's an excellent response!

But now we expose Saul of Tarsus to the accusation that he didn't really understand the implications of quantum mechanics.

Stuart