Scientists baffled by a perfect example of Biblical kinds

[Jose Fly]

Arguments from popularity are irrational

No, it's reality.

and this one also happens to be false.

Fine...show a single scientific organization or research firm that uses the concept of "kinds".

 

[Stripe]

No, it's reality.

Nope.It is not reality that all science entities do not use "kind."

And even if it were the case that none did, that fact would provide exactly no defense against the accusation that species is a useless word in a scientific discussion.

You're just desperate to maintain a discussion that leads as far as possible from the topic and are willing to spout any nonsense to get there.

Fine...show a single scientific organization or research firm that uses the concept of "kinds".

Nope.

You committed the fallacy of argumentum ad populum and got called on it. It is your responsibility to retract your nonsense argument and learn to respond rationally.

Species is a vague and malleable term, and Darwinists need it to be that way so they can insulate their ideas from challenges.

Creationists use words that are clearly defined, putting a stake in the ground whereby they might be shown wrong.

You know, science. :up:

 

[Jose Fly]

Let's have some fun....

Statement from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals)

"Evolution is one of the most robust and widely accepted principles of modern science. It is the foundation for research in a wide array of scientific fields and, accordingly, a core element in science education."

It is? Stripe and 6days have been insisting the opposite is true. How can that be?

The National Academy of Sciences (the most prestigious scientific organization in the world)...

"Evolutionary biology has been and continues to be a cornerstone of modern science. This booklet documents some of the major contributions that an understanding of evolution has made to human well-being, including its contributions to preventing and treating human disease, developing new agricultural products, and creating industrial innovations. More broadly, evolution is a core concept in biology that is based both in the study of past life forms and in the study of the relatedness and diversity of present-day organisms. The rapid advances now being made in the life sciences and in medicine rest on principles derived from an understanding of evolution."

Huh...how 'bout that? Stripe and 6days have been telling everyone that evolution is a failed concept that not only doesn't contribute to science, but actually hinders it. How can that be?

The American Geophysical Union (the largest earth sciences organization in the world)...

Evolution through natural selection is one of the great unifying theories of biology. It explains the myriad forms of life — including human — that have originated from simple beginnings early in Earth’s four and a half billion year history, and it emphasizes the interrelatedness of all living things. It is a theory in the scientific sense — a body of knowledge that has accumulated through testing of hypotheses, by observation and by experiment over a long period, so as to become accepted by the scientific community as an explanation of natural phenomena...

...An increasingly complex and competitive international economy calls for a scientifically literate public. The theory of biological evolution is one of the most important foundations of the science enterprise, and therefore education of the future workforce in evolution and other pillars of science is essential.

Now why would such a large body of scientists say that education in evolutionary biology is vital for the future workforce, if it's a failed and useless concept like Stripe and 6days keep telling us? Hmmm......:think:

As you can see from THIS LIST, we could do this for quite a long time. But I think now the prudent thing to do would be for Stripe or 6days to show us where creationist concepts like "kinds" have any support in the scientific community, and/or are being used in any way for things like biological research.

 

[Stripe]

Let's have some fun....

That's what you're good at when the topic turns to science. Anything but expose your precious religion to scrutiny

[URL="https://web.archive.org/web/20131012043816/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf"]Statement from the American Association for the Advancement of Science[/URL] (the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals)



It is? Stripe and 6days have been insisting the opposite is true. How can that be?

[URL="http://www.nap.edu/read/11876/chapter/1#xi"]The National Academy of Sciences[/URL] (the most prestigious scientific organization in the world)...



Huh...how 'bout that? Stripe and 6days have been telling everyone that evolution is a failed concept that not only doesn't contribute to science, but actually hinders it. How can that be?

[URL="http://sites.agu.org/sciencepolicy/files/2013/07/AGU-Evolution-Position-Statement_March-2012.pdf"]The American Geophysical Union[/URL] (the largest earth sciences organization in the world)...



Now why would such a large body of scientists say that education in evolutionary biology is vital for the future workforce, if it's a failed and useless concept like Stripe and 6days keep telling us? Hmmm......:think:

As you can see from [URL="http://ncse.com/media/voices/science"]THIS LIST[/URL], we could do this for quite a long time. But I think now the prudent thing to do would be for Stripe or 6days to show us where creationist concepts like "kinds" have any support in the scientific community, and/or are being used in any way for things like biological research.

One would have thought you would learn. Logical fallacies do not work, no matter how much effort you put into them.

It does not matter how many people you can find to agree with you, science is done by analyzing evidence, not counting votes.

Meanwhile, OP remains unchallenged; species is a useless term, while kind has a rock-solid and clear definition.

 

[Jose Fly]

Nope.It is not reality that all science entities do not use "kind."

Then show where one does. Talk is cheap.

And even if it were the case that none did, that fact would provide exactly no defense against the accusation that species is a useless word in a scientific discussion.

You can post anonymous accusations in a religious internet forum all you like, but that doesn't affect reality. Again, that "species" had different meanings in different contexts, and is a malleable term no more makes it "useless" than the same does for "gene" or "life".

You committed the fallacy of argumentum ad populum and got called on it.

You need to educate yourself on what that fallacy actually is. The fallacy of argumentum ad populum would be if I said, "All these scientific organizations support evolution. Therefore evolution is true."

However, I said no such thing. Instead the question at hand is the relative status of evolution and evolutionary concepts versus creation and creationist concepts in the world of science. The only way to answer that is to look into the world of science and see if anyone has weighed in on the subject. As we found, it's not even close. Every single scientific organization that has weighed in has unequivocally supported evolution and denounced creationism.

Do you understand the difference between "Scientific organizations support evolution, therefore evolution is true" (fallacy) and "Scientific organizations support evolution and denounce creationism, therefore evolution is widely accepted and utilized in science, whereas creationism is not"?

If you don't, try reading it again.

Creationists use words that are clearly defined, putting a stake in the ground whereby they might be shown wrong.

You know, science. :up:

So I'm curious....where did you get this notion that in science, all terms must be forever set in stone and apply universally?

 

[Stripe]

Then show where one does. Talk is cheap.

Nope. You asserted the fallacy and are desperate to keep the topic focused on your nonsense rather than the challenge to your precious religion.

Retract your nonsense argument. :up:

You can post anonymous accusations in a religious internet forum all you like, but that doesn't affect reality. Again, that "species" had different meanings in different contexts, and is a malleable term no more makes it "useless" than the same does for "gene" or "life".

You must be used to dealing with people like Cabinetmaker who can't remember what they wrote five minutes earlier.

Define your terms and stick to them. Vague concepts are fine as long as there's context and no equivocation. However, Darwinists sell species like it is evidence all by itself.

You need to educate yourself on what that fallacy actually is.

Nope. When you say:

It is? Stripe and 6days have been insisting the opposite is true. How can that be?

Huh...how 'bout that? Stripe and 6days have been telling everyone that evolution is a failed concept that not only doesn't contribute to science, but actually hinders it. How can that be?

Now why would such a large body of scientists say that education in evolutionary biology is vital for the future workforce, if it's a failed and useless concept like Stripe and 6days keep telling us? Hmmm......:think:

As you can see from [sources] we could do this for quite a long time. But I think now the prudent thing to do would be for Stripe or 6days to show us where creationist concepts like "kinds" have any support in the scientific community, and/or are being used in any way for things like biological research.

and argue against the challenges to your religion by counting hands and institutions, you are committing the fallacy of an appeal to popularity.

You need to stop trying to sell nonsense.

We know why you won't though. You are desperate to protect your religion from scrutiny.

The fallacy of argumentum ad populum[/URL] would be if I said, "All these scientific organizations support evolution. Therefore evolution is true."

Or if you tried to cast doubt on the opposition using the popularity of your cult.

It really doesn't pay to double down on your nonsense. Better yet, dispense with all the fallacies and deal with the challenges you face.

That's what a scientists would do. :up:

the question at hand is the relative status of evolution and evolutionary concepts versus creation and creationist concepts in the world of science.

Nope. OP, remember?

Darwinists hate the topic.

Where did you get this notion that in science, all terms must be forever set in stone and apply universally?

Nice try, but nope.

You have to deal with what I say, not respond to what you wish I had said.

Species is a vague and malleable term. It is next to useless in a scientific context. If Darwinists would define the term and stick to it, we could manage a rational conversation.

However, this thread has been going an age and we still can't get an evolutionist to put his beliefs in the spotlight.

 

[Jose Fly]

Nope.

So you can't point to a single scientific organization that utilizes the concept of "kinds". Therefore your statement "It is not reality that all science entities do not use "kind."" is an empty assertion, and can be safely dismissed as such.

Define your terms and stick to them.

I have. But then you object when the term is used differently in different contexts (e.g., extant vs. extinct, sexual vs. asexual), and doesn't apply universally.

The question is, why do you think that's a problem for "species" but not one for "gene", "life", or the myriad of other terms in biology that have different meanings in different contexts and don't apply universally?

Vague concepts are fine as long as there's context and no equivocation.

So you're OK with "species" having different meanings in different contexts, and there being exceptions?

Nope. When you say...and argue against the challenges to your religion by counting hands and institutions, you are committing the fallacy of an appeal to popularity.

So if I'm wondering how well evolution is supported and utilized in science compared to creation, how would you suggest we go about answering that?

Or if you tried to cast doubt on the opposition using the popularity of your cult.

We've established that evolution is supported and utilized by every scientific organization that has ever weighed in, whereas by the same metric creationism is denounced and not at all utilized. That's simply a fact of reality.

Does that mean evolution is therefore true? No, that would be the fallacy of arguing from popularity. But it does mean that all your (and 6days') claims about the status and utility of evolution within science are completely false.

Nice try, but nope.

"Nope" what? Are you now saying you don't think scientific terms have to be set in stone and apply universally?

Species is a vague and malleable term.

At times, yes. Other times it is not.

It is next to useless in a scientific context.

What is this empty assertion based on?

If Darwinists would define the term and stick to it, we could manage a rational conversation.

Again, I have defined the term and haven't deviated.

 

[Stripe]

So you can't point to a single scientific organization that utilizes the concept of "kinds". Therefore your statement "It is not reality that all science entities do not use "kind."" is an empty assertion, and can be safely dismissed as such.

Nope.

You're just desperate to focus on anything except the issue at hand. It's a common tactic for Darwinists. They will make a nonsense argument, then demand evidence when called on it. You committed the fallacy, you retract your nonsense. :up:

Meanwhile, OP goes unanswered.

I have.

Nope. You freely admit it is vague and malleable.

The question is, why do you think that's a problem for "species" but not one for "gene", "life", or the myriad of other terms in biology that have different meanings in different contexts and don't apply universally?

You should try reading my answer to this question instead of continually asking it. :up:

So you're OK with "species" having different meanings in different contexts, and there being exceptions?

Hard of reading, aren't you?

So if I'm wondering how well evolution is supported and utilized in science compared to creation, how would you suggest we go about answering that?

I'd suggest you stick to the topic. :up:

We've established that evolution is supported and utilized by every scientific organization that has ever weighed in, whereas by the same metric creationism is denounced and not at all utilized. That's simply a fact of reality.

Nope. You brandished the popularity of your idea as if it countered our opposition to your religion. That is the fallacy of the argument from popularity. You should not use those. :up:

Does that mean evolution is therefore true? No, that would be the fallacy of arguing from popularity. But it does mean that all your (and 6days') claims about the status and utility of evolution within science are completely false.

Nope. This one, for example: Species is a vague and malleable term, next to useless in a scientific discussion.

"Nope" what? Are you now saying you don't think scientific terms have to be set in stone and apply universally?

Nope. You should try not moving the goalposts all over the place. :up:

At times, yes. Other times it is not.

:darwinsm:

Which means it always is. :chuckle:

What is this ... assertion based on?

Facts. According to some counts, there are 26 different ways "species" can be used. Yet, most of the time, Darwinists brandish the word as if it were evidence all by itself.

I have defined the term and haven't deviated.

By calling it malleable and vague? That's not much of a definition.

 

[Jose Fly]

Nope. You freely admit it is vague and malleable.

At times it is, other times it isn't. That however does not mean I haven't provided definitions.

Nope. You brandished the popularity of your idea as if it countered our opposition to your religion. That is the fallacy of the argument from popularity. You should not use those.

As I showed via citation, it is you who needs to be educated on what the fallacy is.

Species is a vague and malleable term

Agreed.

next to useless in a scientific discussion.

Let's put that assertion to the test.

If we go to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and do a search for published papers that have the term "species" in either the title or abstract, we get over 6,000 results in just the last 20 years.

If we go to the journal Nature, we get over 76,000 results.

If we go to the journal Science, we get over 3,000 results.

Therefore your claim is demonstrably false.

Facts.

And as we see above, the facts directly contradict your baseless assertion.

By calling it malleable and vague? That's not much of a definition.

Do you have the same objection to the terms "gene", "life", "population", "recruitment", and all other terms in biology that have multiple meanings depending on context, and have exceptions?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Darwinists hate dealing with people who reject their religion. They cannot abide a rational discussion, so they will pretend there is no challenge to answer and hide.

You're seriously saying that the "evolutionists" are hiding from you? Who do you think you're fooling?

There is a mountain of evidence to contradict you on these pages. Not only that, but it shows that you are the one who simply won't answer any question. Probably because even you know you've lost.


But YECs don't really understand how evidence works, do they?

 

[Greg Jennings]

That's what you're good at when the topic turns to science. Anything but expose your precious religion to scrutiny



One would have thought you would learn. Logical fallacies do not work, no matter how much effort you put into them.

It does not matter how many people you can find to agree with you, science is done by analyzing evidence, not counting votes.

Meanwhile, OP remains unchallenged; species is a useless term, while kind has a rock-solid and clear definition.

This is kind of sad. You've been reduced to "Nuh-uh. I'm right."

 

[Jonahdog]

Jose and Greg: Give it up. Not worth any attempt to explain reality to Stripey. He must follow the oral myths from several thousand years ago or his life will fall apart

 

[Stripe]

At times it is, other times it isn't. That however does not mean I haven't provided definitions.

If you've provided multiple definitions, you've supported my stance.

As I showed via citation, it is you who needs to be educated on what the fallacy is.

Nope. You mocked 6 and I, implying that our opposition to evolution was unjustified because of the number of institutions that support your religion. Classic argumentum ad populum. You should stop using those. :up:

Let's put that assertion to the test.

OK! Now we're talking. :thumb:

But instead of counting Google hits, how about we read some of those articles and see how many of them explicitly define the particular flavor of "species" they mean and whether they stick to that meaning.

Therefore your claim is demonstrably false.

Uh, no. Counting how many times people say "species" does nothing to show that it is being used rationally.

And as we see above, the facts directly contradict your baseless assertion.

:darwinsm:

You just got finished admitting my assertion was accurate.

Do you have the same objection to the terms "gene", "life", "population", "recruitment", and all other terms in biology that have multiple meanings depending on context, and have exceptions?

No.

As explained, terms can have multiple meanings. If they are defined explicitly and that definition is adhered to, or if the context makes the meaning clear, then there is no problem.

The problem is that Darwinists do not take any such care with the term "species." They brandish it as if the word were evidence by itself.

 

[6days]

Evolution is one of the most robust and widely accepted principles of modern science. It is the foundation for research in a wide array of scientific fields and, accordingly, a core element in science education.

Jose....did you happen to notice they use the rubbery word of 'evolution'. Biblical creationists use the same science studying the change in heritable traits from one generation to the next. Biblical creationists study...perform science based on study of the increase / decrease in the frequency we see a certain gene within a gene pool. They study the diversity resulting from pre-existing genetic information. If that is what you mean by evolution, then all Biblical creationists are evolutionists.

But... if by the word of 'evolution', you refer to the belief system of common ancestry...you are once again guilty of the fallacy of equivocation....(Bait and switch). Common ancestry beliefs hinder scientific progress. That belief system has never lead to one new technology nor one advancement in medicine. As A.S.Wilkens says (evolutionist and editor of journal Bioessays) "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea, and at the same time a highly superfluous one"

or...as Dr.Marc Kirschner says (founding chair of Dept. of Systems Biology Harvard Medical) "In fact over the last 100 years, almost all biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself...."

 

[6days]

Nope. You mocked 6 and I, implying that our opposition to evolution was unjustified because of the number of institutions that support your religion. Classic argumentum ad populum. You should stop using those. :up:

Haha...Its not going to happen..... Its the best evidence they have...popular opinion.

 

[6days]

But YECs don't really understand how evidence works, do they?

On the contrary..... YEC's not only understand evidence but willing to follow it to the Creator God of the Bible. Various evolutionists have basically said they would rather believe in little green men (Dawkins says 'aliens') than to follow evidence leading to our Creator.

 

[Jonahdog]

On the contrary..... YEC's not only understand evidence but willing to follow it to the Creator God of the Bible. Various evolutionists have basically said they would rather believe in little green men (Dawkins says 'aliens') than to follow evidence leading to our Creator.

No, you have it backwards. YEC's start with the oral myth of a very particular "Creator God" and then cherry pick whatever bits and pieces they can find to support that. Just look at AiG.

Once that decision is made any intellectual curiosity goes out the window.

 

[Jonahdog]

or...as Dr.Marc Kirschner says (founding chair of Dept. of Systems Biology Harvard Medical) "In fact over the last 100 years, almost all biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself...."

You aren't suggesting that Dr. Kirschner does not accept the fact of evolution over millions, and even several billion years are you? Because that would be dishonest, wouldn't it? Unless of course you had the intellectual honesty to check with him or read something he wrote in detail, other than cutting and pasting from whatever your current favorite YEC site is.

Or maybe the YEC bait and switch?

The consistent dishonesty of those who claim to be Christian continues to astound.

 

[6days]

You aren't suggesting that Dr. Kirschner does not accept the fact of evolution over millions, and even several billion years are you?.

No Mr Strawman. What makes his statement so interesting is that HE DOES BELIEVE in billions of years.

 

[Greg Jennings]

On the contrary..... YEC's not only understand evidence but willing to follow it to the Creator God of the Bible. Various evolutionists have basically said they would rather believe in little green men (Dawkins says 'aliens') than to follow evidence leading to our Creator.

You don't really get this: YOU don't get to retroactively decide how the universe and life formed. Nobody does. All we can do is look at the evidence and use it to put the puzzle together, like a murder case. You don't have to be there to know who committed the crime. You can use evidence to figure out who did it, with what, and why. And similarly, we use evidence from the past to put a picture of what happened together.

Of all of the major scientific bodies (there are dozens of them), not a single one rejects evolution and not s single one accepts YECism. These are the best scientific minds in the world, and they are directly contradicting your statement that, "Science supports a young Earth."


Currently the evidence on life's origins is scant, and will almost certainly continue to be. That's why there are multiple hypotheses and combinational hypotheses in the scientific community for the first appearance of life, ranging (there's that word again. Do you understand it now?) from extraterrestrial origin (meteorite is more likely than intelligent alien overlords :chuckle to "primordial soup" to a possible creator to simply "I don't know."


Could you provide the Dawkins alien quote for me, please?