Scientists baffled by a perfect example of Biblical kinds

[Jose Fly]

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

Contrast that with below where you agree that "terms can have multiple meanings". The word "species" has multiple meanings for different contexts. If that's your "stance"....well....congratulations Stripe! You really cracked the case! :chuckle:

Nope. You mocked 6 and I, implying that our opposition to evolution was unjustified because of the number of institutions that support your religion.

Nope, never said that at all. You need to learn to read better.

But instead of counting Google hits

Again you need to learn to read better. Those aren't hits from a Google search, they're tens of thousands of articles in the professional scientific literature that utilize the term and concept of "species".

You claim the term "species" is useless in science. Almost 100,000 articles in the scientific literature (from just the last 20 years) that use the term "species" directly contradict your claim.

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.

Regardless of how the scientists use the term "species" in their work, the fact remains that they do use it. Thus the claim that the term "species" is scientifically useless is demonstrably false.

You just got finished admitting my assertion was accurate.

Again, learn to read better.

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.

Then we agree once again.

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.

You've provided no support for that claim.

 

[Crucible]

Darwin was proved wrong on his finches theory. You don't see evolutionists bringing that up, though- just rhetoric on other alleged evidence proposing the exact same thing

 

[Jose Fly]

Jose....did you happen to notice they use the rubbery word of 'evolution'.

GASP!!!! You mean scientists actually use the word "evolution" when talking about evolution? NO WAY!!!

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.

Good for them.

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"

You continue to repeat the same false statements, knowing they are false. We all know what that makes you.

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've been directly shown examples of evolutionary common descent generating tangible, useful results, yet you continue to claim that they don't exist. Thus either you are very delusional or you are someone who has no concern for the truth. Take your pick.

 

[Stripe]

Contrast that with below where you agree that "terms can have multiple meanings". The word "species" has multiple meanings for different contexts. If that's your "stance"....well....congratulations Stripe! You really cracked the case! :chuckle:

Nope.

Darwinists do not take care to define species. They brandish it as if the word itself were evidence.

Nope, never said that at all. You need to learn to read better.

Right here, in fact:

Let's have some fun....
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:
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.

You presented the popularity of your religion as if it showed our opposition was unjustified. Classic case of argumentum ad populum. You should stop using those. :up:

Tens of thousands of articles in the professional scientific literature that utilize the term and concept of "species".

You need to learn to read better. Telling us that Darwinists say species a lot does nothing to dismiss the challenge that they use it in vain.

You claim the term "species" is useless in science.

Nope.

Almost 100,000 articles in the scientific literature (from just the last 20 years) that use the term "species" directly contradict your claim.

Only if you ignore the study you'd be required to do to address this challenge rationally.

Regardless of how the scientists use the term "species" in their work, the fact remains that they do use it.

Nope. Ignoring a challenge to your precious religion does not make it go away. Show us the papers among your vast collection that carefully define "species" and do not equivocate on the term.

Thus the claim that the term "species" is scientifically useless is demonstrably false.

Darwinists love declaring victory based on the number of hits they get on a search term.

Again, learn to read better.

Stripe: "Species is a vague and malleable term."
Jose: "Agreed."

You've provided no support for that claim.

Fine. Let's test the idea. Pick one of the sites you searched to get all your hits for "species" in papers and we'll look at a few to see if they clearly define the term and do not equivocate on it. :thumb:

 

[Stripe]

The first paper from your first link uses "species" once without defining the term.
The second paper from your fist link uses "species" 10 times without defining the term.
The third paper from your first link uses "species" 11 times without defining the term.
The fifth paper from your first link uses "species" 44 times without defining the term. Although it does hint at the notion that it is separating mosquitoes into species based on their DNA, but complicates matters by introducing interbreedability as a factor.

 

[Stripe]

The first paper from your first link uses "species" once without defining the term.
The second paper from your fist link uses "species" 10 times without defining the term.
The third paper from your first link uses "species" 11 times without defining the term.
The fifth paper from your first link uses "species" 44 times without defining the term. Although it does hint at the notion that it is separating mosquitoes into species based on their DNA, but complicates matters by introducing interbreedability as a factor.

Let us know how many you have to go through before you find one that defines species and does not equivocate on the term. :up:

 

[Jose Fly]

Darwinists do not take care to define species.

You've been given definitions. Apparently your memory is as faulty as your reading skills.

You presented the popularity of your religion as if it showed our opposition was unjustified. Classic case of argumentum ad populum. You should stop using those.

Again, you need to learn to read better. I even explained in that post the specific claim that was being countered: "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".

Telling us that Darwinists say species a lot does nothing to dismiss the challenge that they use it in vain.

This is very simple. You claim that "species" is a useless term in science. 100,000 papers in the scientific literature that use the term "species" falsify your claim.

Unless you want to claim that a word can be simultaneously useless and frequently used. :chuckle:

Nope.

Again your memory is as bad as your reading skills.

Post #662: "that fact would provide exactly no defense against the accusation that species is a useless word in a scientific discussion".

Post #664: "Meanwhile, OP remains unchallenged; species is a useless term"

Show us the papers among your vast collection that carefully define "species" and do not equivocate on the term.

Again your memory is terrible. You've been given the definitions for species.

Darwinists love declaring victory based on the number of hits they get on a search term.

Yeah, we tend to examine scientific journals when discussing science. Obviously that's just crazy to a creationist.

Fine. Let's test the idea. Pick one of the sites you searched to get all your hits for "species" in papers and we'll look at a few to see if they clearly define the term and do not equivocate on it. :thumb:

Again your memory is terrible. You've been given the definitions.

The first paper from your fist link uses "species" once without defining the term.
The second paper from your fist link uses "species" 10 times without defining the term.
The third paper from your fist link uses "species" 11 times without defining the term.

Because they don't need to. The term has already been defined, remember?

Your claim (as quoted above) was that "species" is a useless term in science. The demonstrated fact that the term is widely used in science falsifies your claim.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Darwin was proved wrong on his finches theory. You don't see evolutionists bringing that up, though- just rhetoric on other alleged evidence proposing the exact same thing

Do explain how he was proven wrong on finches. You can, can't you?

 

[Jonahdog]

Of course he does, he is a real scientist

 

[Stripe]

You've been given definitions.

Yep. And Darwinists will never stick with them.

I even explained in that post the specific claim that was being countered: "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".

And your counter was an argument from popularity. You should not use those. :up:

This is very simple. You claim that "species" is a useless term in science. 100,000 papers in the scientific literature that use the term "species" falsify your claim.

Not if the word could be replaced with synonyms at no cost to the meaning.

And you've done nothing to address the challenge but insist that high usage counters the claims. It doesn't. You have to show that the use of the word is both meaningful and consistent. One of the papers hints at two definitions already. We're only three in.

Unless you want to claim that a word can be simultaneously useless and frequently used.

All of yours are. :idunno:

You've been given the definitions for species.

Now if only we could get Darwinists to stick to it. :thumb:

Yeah, we tend to examine scientific journals when discussing science. Obviously that's just crazy to a creationist.

Except you did no study. You did a word count.

Because they don't need to. The term has already been defined, remember?

There's a challenge to that, remember?

Your claim (as quoted above) was that "species" is a useless term in science. The demonstrated fact that the term is widely used in science falsifies your claim.

Nope. You're going to have to do better than count words. What you need to show is that the word is defined in the papers and used consistently.

A word count will not do that.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yep. And Darwinists will never stick with them.

Where has anyone here done that?

And your counter was an argument from popularity. You should not use those.

Obviously the point is beyond your capabilities, so I'll just leave it at that.

Not if the word could be replaced with synonyms at no cost to the meaning.

Then you need to show how that is the case.

And you've done nothing to address the challenge but insist that high usage counters the claims.

Um......yeah. When you claim "the term species is useless", in the sane world the way to counter that is to demonstrate the term being used. You know...."highly used" being the opposite of "useless" and all.

Like I said, if you want your position to be that a word can be simultaneously useless and highly used, I'm content to leave it at that.

You have to show that the use of the word is both meaningful and consistent.

Move the goalposts much?

One of the papers hints at two definitions already. We're only three in.

Again....so? We've already agreed that the word has different definitions in different contexts, just like most words in the English language.

Except you did no study. You did a word count.

Given that "highly used" is the opposite of "useless", it makes sense. The fact remains, the term "species" is a highly used term in science. Do you agree to that?

There's a challenge to that, remember?

I don't really care about your "challenges".

We've established that "species", like most words in the English language, has multiple definitions for different contexts.

We've established that "species", like other terms in science such as "gene", "life", "population", and "recruitment", can at times be vague and malleable.

And we've established that "species" is a highly used term in science.

That's pretty good! :up:

What you need to show is that the word is defined in the papers and used consistently.

Move the goalposts much?

While you're trotting those goalposts out of the stadium, maybe you should ask yourself why scientists would have to define a term that has already been defined?

 

[ok doser]

looks like jose has a bit of time left after lunch before he has to rush back to the seventh grade :wave2:

 

[Stripe]

Where has anyone here done that?

You freely admit that the definition is malleable. :idunno:

Obviously the point is beyond your capabilities, so I'll just leave it at that.

You made a fallacious argument. You should retract it. :thumb:

Then you need to show how that is the case.

You're good at word counts; surely you can do a search and replace. :up:

Um......yeah. When you claim "the term species is useless", in the sane world the way to counter that is to demonstrate the term being used. You know...."highly used" being the opposite of "useless" and all.

Sorry. Lots of things are popular and useless. You're going to have to do a lot more than count votes.

Like I said, if you want your position to be that a word can be simultaneously useless and highly used, I'm content to leave it at that.

All yours are. :idunno:

Move the goalposts much?

Nope. From the start the argument has been that the term species is vague and malleable.

Again....so? We've already agreed that the word has different definitions in different contexts, just like most words in the English language.

Hard of reading, aren't you?

The problem is that Darwinists do not respect the context and multiple definitions. They present the word as if it always means something easily understood. They never define it.

"Highly used" is the opposite of "useless."

Nope.

The opposite of "highly used" is "rarely used." The opposite of "useless" is "useful."

Species is a useless term.

I don't really care about your "challenges".

Then you should stop discussing it. :wave2:

We've established that "species", like most words in the English language, has multiple definitions for different contexts.

Hard of reading, aren't you? This is not the problem.

We've established that "species", like other terms in science such as "gene", "life", "population", and "recruitment", can at times be vague and malleable.

Hard of reading, aren't you? This is not the problem.

And we've established that "species" is a highly used term in science.

Which does nothing to address the challenge.

That's pretty good! :up:

It's enough for a Darwinist to maintain his faith in his religion.

Move the goalposts much?

It's called a conversation. Try to keep up. :up:

Maybe you should ask yourself why scientists would have to define a term that has already been defined?

Because they brandish the term as if it is evidence while equivocating on the definitions.

 

[Jose Fly]

You freely admit that the definition is malleable.

Yep, just like "gene", "life", "population", "recruitment", and a host of other terms in biology.

You're good at word counts; surely you can do a search and replace.

So your rebuttal to the demonstrated fact that the term "species" is highly used was "Not if the word could be replaced with synonyms at no cost to the meaning", but you are not going to put that rebuttal to any sort of test.

Therefore your rebuttal is empty and baseless, and can be safely rejected as such.

Sorry. Lots of things are popular and useless. You're going to have to do a lot more than count votes.

Thus your argument is indeed that a word can be simultaneously useless and highly used.

I'm good with you making that argument all you want, as often and loudly as possible. :up:

From the start the argument has been that the term species is vague and malleable.

From the start, eh? Let's keep that in mind.

The problem is that Darwinists do not respect the context and multiple definitions. They present the word as if it always means something easily understood. They never define it.

Again your memory issues are noted. The term has been defined.

Hard of reading, aren't you? This is not the problem.

Hard of reading, aren't you? This is not the problem.

Which does nothing to address the challenge.

Just above you state "From the start the argument has been that the term species is vague and malleable". Then when I state "We've established that "species" can at times be vague and malleable", you respond "that's not the problem".

Looks like the actual problem is you not being able to keep your arguments straight from one post to the next. Let's see if I can help you out....

You and I have established and agreed that:

1) The term "species", like most words in the English language, has different definitions for different contexts.

2) The term "species", like other terms in science such as "gene", "life", "population", and "recruitment", can at times be vague and malleable.

3) The term "species" is a highly used term in science.

Since we agree on all that, we don't need to keep going over them. It seems your only remaining point of contention is that a word can simultaneously be useless and highly used. And as I said, I encourage you to repeat that (preferably in the context of creationism and Christianity) as often and loudly as you can.

 

[Stripe]

Yep, just like "gene", "life", "population", "recruitment", and a host of other terms in biology.

Hard of reading, aren't you?

So your rebuttal to the demonstrated fact that the term "species" is highly used was "Not if the word could be replaced with synonyms at no cost to the meaning", but you are not going to put that rebuttal to any sort of test.

Therefore your rebuttal is empty and baseless, and can be safely rejected as such.

Nope. Your "therefore" does not follow from your premises. I have provided a means of testing. That I have not carried it out does not mean my objection is invalid.

And a high word count still does not establish the propriety of the word.

Thus your argument is indeed that a word can be simultaneously useless and highly used.

Yep. Your argument is that a "high word count" (A) establishes "usefulness" (B).

Your argument is: A, therefore B.
My objection is: !(A, therefore B).

Darwinists love calling a high count "quality."

I'm good with you making that argument all you want, as often and loudly as possible.

Great. :up:

A high word count does not establish usefulness.

Again your memory issues are noted. The term has been defined.

There are multiple ways it can be defined. Evolutionists take no care to specify which definition the are using and constantly equivocate.

Just above you state "From the start the argument has been that the term species is vague and malleable". Then when I state "We've established that "species" can at times be vague and malleable", you respond "that's not the problem".

Yip.

Because you ignore the rest of the problem. Darwinists use vague, malleable words to insulate their religion against scrutiny. They even brandish the word as if it were evidence itself.

Looks like the actual problem is you not being able to keep your arguments straight from one post to the next.

Nope.

You have not acknowledged the challenge, preferring to talk about nonsense.

 

[Jose Fly]

I have provided a means of testing. That I have not carried it out does not mean my objection is invalid.

Get back to us when you actually do it.

Yep.

Ok, thanks.

Your argument is that a "high word count" (A) establishes "usefulness" (B).

Yes, a word being highly used does indeed establish that the word is useful.

Darwinists use vague, malleable words

Like every person in the entire world.

to insulate their religion against scrutiny. They even brandish the word as if it were evidence itself.

You've not provided any support for those two things at all. Therefore they are empty, baseless assertions and can safely be rejected as such.

 

[Stripe]

Get back to us when you actually do it.

Were you expecting us to just ignore your fallacious reasoning? That I have not done a search and replace on every instance of "species" in scientific journals does not establish that the challenge is unfounded.

Yes, a word being highly used does indeed establish that the word is useful.

Nope. For a word to be useful in a scientific context, it has to be strictly defined and each instance has to stick to that meaning.

This is especially significant when the concepts supporting the term are being challenged.

There is no debate over concepts like "life," but "species" carries evolutionary baggage. In fact, Darwinists defend the word's malleable nature by saying it is to be expected, which is to assume the truth of their religion and essentially use the word as if it were evidence.

You've rabbited on no end about silly things like word counts because you're not willing to respond to the challenge.

Like every person in the entire world.

If I were to equivocate, I would expect to be called on it; you seem to think that having equivocation built into your religion justifies your belief.

You've not provided any support for those two things at all.

Darwinists hate reading.

 

[patrick jane]

What time is it in Taipei ?

 

[Jose Fly]

That I have not done a search and replace on every instance of "species" in scientific journals does not establish that the challenge is unfounded.

Like I said, when you do this test, let us know.

For a word to be useful in a scientific context, it has to be strictly defined and each instance has to stick to that meaning.

According to who?

There is no debate over concepts like "life,"

Lol! Are you serious? You probably should at least Google a bit before saying things like that, lest you look silly. :chuckle:

but "species" carries evolutionary baggage. In fact, Darwinists defend the word's malleable nature by saying it is to be expected, which is to assume the truth of their religion and essentially use the word as if it were evidence.

Well given that we see populations evolving all the time, it's hardly an assumption.

If I were to equivocate, I would expect to be called on it; you seem to think that having equivocation built into your religion justifies your belief.

So we'll add "can't handle the fact that words often have multiple meanings" to your list of quirks.

 

[Stripe]

Like I said, when you do this test, let us know.

Are you expecting us to forget your nonsense assertion that I need to do the test or my challenge is false?

Nope, the "search and replace" challenge remains valid regardless of how little effort I put into testing it.

According to who?

Darwinists hate considering ideas; they much prefer a person to critique.

Lol! Are you serious? You probably should at least Google a bit before saying things like that, lest you look silly.

Try sticking to the topic. :up: Nobody is confused over "life."

Well given that we see populations evolving all the time, it's hardly an assumption.

Nope. Evolution is just a theory.

And building equivocation into your religion does not make it rational; it just hides your nonsense from your own eyes.

So we'll add "can't handle the fact that words often have multiple meanings" to your list of quirks.

Nope.

Equivocation is not a necessary part of the existence of homonyms.

The challenge remains unanswered.