Jump to content


Photo

Creationists, What Do You Define As A Kind?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
229 replies to this topic

#221 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 February 2010 - 10:06 AM

Cited by mere opinion (i.e. without observed empirical evidence).

View Post


The specimen study (Wilson et al, 1967) is empirical and is cited based on its findings.

Does quoting scripture constitute mere opinion?

#222 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 February 2010 - 10:26 AM

The specimen study (Wilson et al, 1967) is empirical and is cited based on its findings.

View Post


So they empirically observed what they claim happened over ten thousand years ago? That would be miraculous, to say the least.


Does quoting scripture constitute mere opinion?

View Post


No, because it’s as empirical as your attempts at evolutheism claims. We can extend this out-and-out if you wish. In other words, how empirical is “evolutiondidit” or “naturedidit”?

#223 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 February 2010 - 12:11 PM

So they empirically observed what they claim happened over ten thousand years ago?  That would be miraculous, to say the least.


Inspection of a specimen necessitates that it is observed. In post 88 of the linked thread I explain how inferences about natural history can be drawn from empirical method, none of which is any more miraculous than police observing fingerprints on a knife in their reconstruction of a murder no one witnessed.

http://www.evolution...opic=2981&st=80

No, because it’s as empirical as your attempts at evolutheism claims. We can extend this out-and-out if you wish. In other words, how empirical is “evolutiondidit” or “naturedidit”?

View Post


The TOE is empirically based. We observe traces (relics, genetics, species distribution etc.) of events we did not witness and witness speciation events that correspond to the theory. One might question a given interpretation but the use of evidence is empiricism (as opposed to the dogmatism of promoting the testimony of an empirically falsified creation account in a pre-enlightenment text).

The phrase "evolutheim" incorrectly implies that belief in evolution requires a leap of faith comparable to belief in the divinity of Christ. Evolution is supported by observation and experiment.

#224 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 15 February 2010 - 12:29 PM

Inspection of a specimen necessitates that it is observed.  In post 88 of the linked thread I explain how inferences about natural history can be drawn from empirical method, none of which is any more miraculous than police observing fingerprints on a knife in their reconstruction of a murder no one witnessed.

View Post

Inferences from natural history can only draw reasonable conclusions from recorded history. ANYTHING beyond that is mere speculation, and has nothing to do with empiricism. To pretend otherwise is faith based, and basically boarders on religion dependant upon the dogmatism used in defense of inferring the speculation as fact.

In order to match the fingerprint to the killer, you need the killer’s fingers. If you don’t have the killers fingers to make the match, you are wandering around in mere speculation.




The TOE is empirically based.  We observe traces (relics, genetics, species distribution etc.) of events we did not witness and witness speciation events that correspond to the theory. 
One might question a given interpretation but the use of evidence is empiricism (as opposed to the dogmatism of promoting the testimony of an empirically falsified creation account in a pre-enlightenment text).

View Post

One can definitely question the interpretation, because it is nothing more that that… And an interpretation (i.e. someone’s opinion), is not a fact. Were it a fact, the word “FACT” would be used, not interpretation. Therefore, defending a speculation (or interpretation) as a fact is dogmatism, and has absolutely nothing to do with empiricism. Further, defending the dogmatism of macro evolution , and criticizing the empiricism of creation is hypocritical at best.

The phrase "evolutheim" incorrectly implies that belief in evolution requires a leap of faith comparable to belief in the divinity of Christ.  Evolution is supported by observation and experiment.

View Post

Adaptation within a species is supported by observation; evolution (especially macro) is supported by faith alone. And attempting to promulgate macroevolution at this forum IS against the forum rules. Need I remind you again? i.e. as in warning…

#225 Scanman

Scanman

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • West Virginia

Posted 15 February 2010 - 01:52 PM

And attempting to promulgate macroevolution at this forum IS against the forum rules. [b][color=red]Need I remind you again?

Isn't this a debate forum? How can attempting to defend and put forward (promulgate) the concept of macroevolution, be against the rules?

It's like challenging someone to a gunfight but telling them they can only shoot with their feet, while actually not allowing any encumberances to your own side.

Peace

#226 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 15 February 2010 - 02:36 PM

Isn't this a debate forum? How can attempting to defend and put forward (promulgate) the concept of macroevolution, be against the rules?

It's like challenging someone to a gunfight but telling them they can only shoot with their feet, while actually not allowing any encumberances to your own side.

Peace

View Post


Macroevolution is against the rules because it has no empiracle evidence, but that's not the main reason. The main reason is because many people try to claim macroevolution as observed absolute fact, when in reality it is a faith based claim.

I'm not sure if the discussion of Macroevolution is against the rules, but I believe it's the promotion that it is an observed absolute fact that's against the rules.

#227 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 February 2010 - 02:43 PM

Inferences from natural history can only draw reasonable conclusions from recorded history. ANYTHING beyond that is mere speculation, and has nothing to do with empiricism.  To pretend otherwise is faith based, and basically boarders on religion dependant upon the dogmatism used in defense of inferring the speculation as fact.


To speculate is to conjecture without good reason. Theories of natural history can be credibly induced from empirical method just as can any other theory.

In order to match the fingerprint to the killer, you need the killer’s fingers. If you don’t have the killers fingers to make the match, you are wandering around in mere speculation.


To connect print to killer you need a match, not necessarily a finger - the print could be on file and killer never apprehended. Similarly, to meaningfully connect a trace to a past event you need a successfully predictive hypotheis (i.e. that other observations match the trace).

One can definitely question the interpretation, because it is nothing more that that… And an interpretation (i.e. someone’s opinion), is not a fact. Were it a fact, the word “FACT” would be used, not interpretation. Therefore, defending a speculation (or interpretation) as a fact is dogmatism, and has absolutely nothing to do with empiricism. Further, defending the dogmatism of macro evolution , and criticizing the empiricism of creation is hypocritical at best.


An opinion is inherently subjective. An interpretation can aspire to objectivity and be subsequently tested and potentially falsified. All observation include perception and interpretation. A fact is a statement that is sufficiently objective that it would be perverse to attempt to falsify. TOE is a fact as interpretation of observations have been tested without falsifying it and futher observations match its predictions. Your accusations of dogmatism and hypocrisy are unfounded.

Adaptation within a species is supported by observation; evolution (especially macro) is supported by faith alone. And attempting to promulgate macroevolution at this forum IS against the forum rules. Need I remind you again? i.e. as in warning…

View Post


You asked me about the empirical nature of the TOE's explanatory power. I had not been promulgating anything other than the evolutionary history of hymenoptera. The rules prohibiting equivocating on the nature of evolution by passing off adaptation as "molecules to man" which is something I do not do. In previous threads you have engaged with me regarding cases of observed speciation - the London Underground mosquito, Lake Victoria fish etc.

#228 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 15 February 2010 - 02:49 PM

Tommy, the Lake Victorian Fish and the London Underground Mosquito is not an example of Macro-evolution.

It is micro-evolution at best, and can be easily demonstrated as straight forward adaptation, all which includes existing information within the genome.

Micro-evolution is not evolution. It is simply breeding in the works of in and out traits... of which can be physically observed, re-bred in breeding programs, and in nature.

The word Micro-evolution can be misleading, and lead people to think that it is evolution in working processes, of the most part... it isn't.

#229 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 2010 - 02:57 PM

YEC is such a hypocritical position.
You would like to classify different kinds, and yet, you recognise, that despite enormous differences, a whale and a bat are both mammals. Im willing to bet that, if YEC did develop into a natural science- the natural science- it would promptly recognise that common descent has had a part in developing the world. Otherwise, its just:

"and the lord god created them after their own kind.. but left enough simliarity to cause arguments about common ancestry"

View Post


The ancestry is common because the template for all life is the same (RNA-DNA). Now why did not a different template evolve if evolution is always evolving into something better?

#230 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 2010 - 02:58 PM

I'm closing the thread until this is worked out,




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users