Jump to content


Photo

Noah Had Two Of Every Kind On The Ark


  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

#81 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 13 February 2009 - 01:10 PM

I'm perfectly capable of explaining what a species is, with the caveat that the subject is rather complex in its details and your lack of a technical background would limit your understanding.

View Post

:lol: Grasping at the esoteric straws are we? Basically, you're smart and Ikester's dumb. So that's why he doesn't understand... I see. Didn't the Catholic church use this kind of reasoning with an intuitive little monk named Martin Luther? The unquestionable power that used to be ascribed to Clergy has now shifted to the paleontologists, geologists, biologists and theoretical physicists, as long as they're evolutionists, of course. ;)

We all know that educated people like Paul Nelson, Michael Behe, William Demski, David Berlinski and Dean Kenyon really don't deserve their degrees because they don't believe evolution. :rolleyes:

#82 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 13 February 2009 - 01:12 PM

I guess we need to scrub all of Charles Darwin's thoughts out of the textbooks because he only had a theology degree...

...bye, bye, Chuck.

#83 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 13 February 2009 - 01:15 PM

If you want to consider "kind" as synonymous with "species," I'm perfectly capable of explaining what a species is, with the caveat that the subject is rather complex in its details and your lack of a technical background would limit your understanding. So, given that caution, if you're ready to listen, I'm ready to speak.


A species is any group that shares the same genotype.It can't be determined simply from the phenotype (morphology) and it can't be determined simply from the fact that two populations are no longer interfertile.

Mutations can accumulate between two isolated populations resulting in infertility between the populations,but the genotype is the same.




Thanks.

#84 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 13 February 2009 - 01:20 PM

Mutations can accumulate between two isolated populations resulting in infertility between the populations,but the genotype is the same.

View Post

You're talking about prezygotic barriers here right? Like a Teacup Chiwawa and a Great Dane are chemically fertile but not inter fertile because of physical barriers. Sometimes these barriers are based solely on geography.

I guess Eskimos and Kalahari bushmen should be considered different species. :rolleyes:

Edit: (Never mind they already tried that type of reasoning and it resulted in messes like the Holocaust and Cambodian genocide.)

#85 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 13 February 2009 - 01:58 PM

I'm perfectly capable of explaining what a species is, with the caveat that the subject is rather complex in its details and your lack of a technical background would limit your understanding.  So, given that caution, if you're ready to listen, I'm ready to speak.

View Post



Oh I've got to hear this one. There's not a biologist in this world who can define a species. It is one of the most hotly debated topics in science. You must be pretty good if you think you have the answers.

#86 easystreet

easystreet

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 65
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Occidental, California

Posted 13 February 2009 - 02:50 PM

Linnaeus was highly educated in many areas,but he is known as the father of taxonomy and ecology.

Father of ecology? Odum, Shelton, and others are considered fathers of ecology, but Linnaeus? I doubt it.

He classified plant kinds as being higher than the species level because he observed hybrids from different genera.A hybrid between a cabbage and a radish has been observed.

I'm afraid that either you or your sources have rather garbled the history of Linnaeus. Linnaeus set up a hierarchy of categories that in some respects resembled the modern hierarchy. For example, he grouped all birds together in a category that he called Aves. However, his higher categories had nothing to do with hybridization.

#87 easystreet

easystreet

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 65
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Occidental, California

Posted 13 February 2009 - 03:03 PM

Oh I've got to hear this one.  There's not a biologist in this world who can define a species.  It is one of the most hotly debated topics in science.

So, according to you, if biologists debate a definition, no definition exists? Of course biologists define species. Open any biology textbook. Definitions differ to some degree, but the vast majority are are built around the biological species concept developed by Ernst Meyer and others during the so-called Grand Synthesis of the 1920s and 1930s. It is true that no single definition adequately covers all of the different situations found in nature, but why should it? Why would we expect nature to comport itself in a way that comfortably lends itself to the linguistic and mental categories devised by us humans?

#88 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 13 February 2009 - 03:06 PM

Hi easystreet,


Father of ecology? Odum, Shelton, and others are considered fathers of ecology, but Linnaeus? I doubt it.


Arguing from ignorance sure is becoming a common thing for you.Were'nt you the one claiming nobody around here is qualified to have an educated opinion in a previous post?

Carl Linnaeus (Latinized as Carolus Linnaeus, also known after his ennoblement as  Carl von Linné (help·info), May 23 [O.S. May 13] 1707 – January 10, 1778) was a Swedish botanist, physician, and zoologist, who laid the foundations for the modern scheme of binomial nomenclature. He is known as the father of modern taxonomy,and is also considered one of the fathers of modern ecology.


http://en.wikipedia....arolus_Linnaeus

I'm afraid that either you or your sources have rather garbled the history of Linnaeus.


Perhaps we should all rely on your consistantly accurate accounts.






Thanks.

#89 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 15 February 2009 - 05:45 AM

Evolutionists (of which I am one) don't wish to explain the meaning of "kind" because the term has no agreed-upon scientific meaning.  It's that simple, and all this business about pondering "what they choose not to believe . . . too devastating" is pure hokum that you made up yourself.  If you want to consider "kind" as synonymous with "species," I'm perfectly capable of explaining what a species is, with the caveat that the subject is rather complex in its details and your lack of a technical background would limit your understanding.  So, given that caution, if you're ready to listen, I'm ready to speak.

View Post


The reason there is no agreement is because it's supports creation. It will "never" get a scientific meaning just because of that one fact.

The word kind has been used in creation for as long as the Bible has existed. So how long does it take to agree on something? Eternity? There is really no excuse for this except one of bias. Unless you would like to explain why the word kind is so unscientific and even though it is a common word that cannot be agreed upon?

Also, some of the most uneducated people have:
1) Made the most money (owner of Walmart was a farmer who had "basic" education). Do you make as much money as Walmart does?
2) Have made some of the biggest break throughs.
3) Have invented stuff that changed all our lives (Henry Ford dropped out of school at 15). Have you invented something as life changing as a car?

So your attempt here to imply that top education makes truth or lies does not work. I have met some very educated people who I considered stupid because they had no common sense. They could rattle off answers for questions in a text book, but could not even balance their own check books. One I knew never changed the oil in their car since new and could not understand why it blew up at 10,000 miles. :P

Education proves nothing.

Example: Ever heard of Erin Brockovich? Even though she had no education as being a lawyer, she helped a firm win a case that to this day is the largest judgement of it's kind. http://www.brockovich.com/bio.htm

So what was your point with that post?

#90 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 15 February 2009 - 05:49 AM

I also find it funny that when a debate cannot be won on it's merits, it soon resorts to discrediting of the people who disagree. This just shows how weak the evidence is when people have to resort to how more educated they are than someone else to exalt themselves over others in order to even get the upper hand in a debate.

#91 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 16 February 2009 - 12:33 PM

So, according to you, if biologists debate a definition, no definition exists?

View Post


No, not according to me, but according to any system of logical argument. That's what science is ya know. It's just a logical paradigm.

If you build your logical arguments on words that don't have definite meanings in context then the whole argument is worthless, because it's foundations are meaningless.

For instance Biology is the study of life. Well please pray tell how we can have a science that can't even define what it is studying. Within Biology, evolution is built on loose definitions. Macro evolution is defined as one species evolving into another. Well please explain how you can falsify something that you can't even define.

No other science is like Biology. In Biology you have no problem defining DNA, RNA, a cell, a mitochondria, but a species and life are difficult to define.

This is the foundation of abiogenesis, and it is the foundation of evolution. It is bad logic.

Of course biologists define species.  Open any biology textbook.  Definitions differ to some degree, but the vast majority are are built around the biological species concept developed by Ernst Meyer and others during the so-called Grand Synthesis of the 1920s and 1930s.

View Post


Ive read many Biology textbooks. You were the one bragging that you could define a species. So do it. I'm waiting patiently. I'm tired of evos complaining about kinds when we define it clearly yet they brag about species when the definitions are unclear.

It is true that no single definition adequately covers all of the different situations found in nature, but why should it?  Why would we expect nature to comport itself in a way that comfortably lends itself to the linguistic and mental categories devised by us humans?

View Post


Because logic is built on definitions. That's why. And if we all descended from some sort of simple bacteria, then we should be able to define clearly what a bacterial species is. But we can't. Why is that?

I think the answer is simple. Once a definition has been fixed, the the process of falsification can begin. But if you leave the definitions open to evolve, then the theory evolves along with it. That's why it is poor logic, and not good science.

#92 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 16 February 2009 - 01:51 PM

I think the answer is simple. Once a definition has been fixed, the the process of falsification can begin. But if you leave the definitions open to evolve, then the theory evolves along with it. That's why it is poor logic, and not good science.



In his short treatise EXPERIMENTS IN PLANT HYBRIDIZATION mentioned above Mendel incessantly speaks of "constant characters", "constant offspring", "constant combinations", "constant forms", "constant law", "a constant species" etc. (in such combinations the adjective "constant" occurs altogether 67 times in the German original paper). He was convinced that the laws of heredity he had discovered corroborated Gärtner's conclusion "that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change". And as Dobzhansky aptly put it: "It is...not a paradox to say that if some one should succeed in inventing a universally applicable, static definition of species, he would cast serious doubts on the validity of the theory of evolution".




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users