Jump to content


Photo

A Question For The Creationists


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

#41 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 15 November 2012 - 02:35 PM

"This is the "kind" of denialism that evolutionists, for some reason, seem to think is a good argument, rather than something that simpy exposes just how far they are willing to go to avoid the obvious. I like to think of it as the "let's pretend there aren't any kinds" game."

No, it's the "I can't show you something unless I know what you want to see" practical dilemma.

"Doesn't common sense dictate that dogs and cats are different kinds of animals?"

Yes, but so are dogs and other dogs. Do you want to see another breed, another species, another genus, what? Be specific. And please don't be a jerk about it, I bent over backwards trying to answer your question and gave you plenty of information about speciation which you ignored entirely and acted like I blew you off.

"Doesn't an honest human being recognize that the animal kingdom is divided into higher level groupings than species?
Or do you consider a cat a species of dog?"

If you want an example of a degree of difference greater than that of speciation then SAY SO. How the hell do you expect me to show you something you can't even describe?

"Do you have any scientific evidence that speciation leads to morphological change? In other words change in itself is not enough."

Morphological change doesn't require speciation, it happens constantly within every gene pool, hell every human family (family traits are an example of morphological change).

These two animals don't need to be different species to be morphologically different:

http://3.bp.blogspot...nPA_468x460.jpg

Speciation doesn't cause morphological change it just severs the exchange of genes and removes the only mechanism preventing two populations of animals from being more and more different than each other over time. It's like the dynamics of language, languages change gradually as new slang arises and over thousands of years they change to the point that they're not recognizable as the same language (though they have some characteristics in common like some words sound somewhat similar, they might still use the same alphabet etc). So for instance most european languages have a common "ancestry", which is why they use the same 26 letter roman alphabet. When two populations speaking the same language split apart and don't communicate their languages continue to change until eventually (if there is little communication or none whatsoever) they will be unable to understand each other. This is like speciation, when two populations of the same species can no longer share DNA because they're separated by a geological barrier or something else, it's like they can no longer update their vocabulary (gene pool) and eventually they will get so different that they will no longer be able to breed. At which point there is no mechanism to keep them similar.

"Sure, the border between one kind of animal and another might be blurry at times, but "blurriness" and difficulty in making a precise definition is not an excuse to ignore what is obvious and what can be observed even by a child."

We're not talking about observations, we're talking about standards of evidence. You are demanding proof but won't tell me what constitutes proof, which puts you in the position of being able to say "not good enough" no matter what possible evidence I could possibly provide, which is what creationists usually do anyway in my experience, if they acknowledge your evidence at all.

The degrees of difference between species are "fuzzy" because species themselves are not absolutely defined to begin with. The morphology of a chicken is described taxonomically but if a chicken was born with three legs it would still be considered a chicken despite the definition of a chicken describing a two-legged animal, because that three legged chicken could still most likely breed with two-legged chickens. So when you talk about degrees of difference and won't be more specific about what you want I just can't help you.

"As I pointed out, this is a smokescreen argument aimed at splitting hairs and pretending that things we see every day don't exist simply because they lack a "specific meaning".

Asking you to be specific in your demands is not a "tactic". And you might recall I tried to guess what you wanted and give you examples of it anyway and you ignored me. Acting like I'm dodging a question I've already tried to answer is disingenuous.

#42 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 15 November 2012 - 04:52 PM

Morphological change doesn't require speciation, it happens constantly within every gene pool, hell every human family (family traits are an example of morphological change).


What??? You cannot seriously claim that a great dane has been morph'ed into something different from a dog simply because it is larger than a chiwawa. Both are dogs are they not? Biological morphology is not simply a synonym for change. It constitutes a combination of changes to the degree that the classification used no longer applies.

You are demanding proof but won't tell me what constitutes proof


YOU are the one who mentioned "coherent scientific terms" and I called you out on that. YOU are the one who said "words like "kind" of animal or "distinct form" have no "specific meaning", and yet you now seem to admit that there is also a problem with the word speciation (known and the "speciation problem") so please don't be a hypocrite. If species aren't absolutely defined then what on earth are you doing trying to tell me to be "specific"?

Do you or do you not see that dogs and cats are different groupings of animals? Now please be honest about this!
  • Calypsis4 likes this

#43 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 15 November 2012 - 09:34 PM

"What??? You cannot seriously claim that a great dane has been morph'ed into something different from a dog simply because it is larger than a chiwawa."

I did not say that, "seriously" or otherwise. Stop dishonestly putting words in my mouth please.

"Both are dogs are they not? Biological morphology is not simply a synonym for change. It constitutes a combination of changes to the degree that the classification used no longer applies."

No, morphology is the shape of an organism and morphological change is a change in the shape of an organism. You asked if I had any "scientific evidence that speciation leads to morphological change" and I explained that morphological change happens long before speciation, and you proceeded to bite my head off and pretend words don't mean what they mean.

"YOU are the one who mentioned "coherent scientific terms" and I called you out on that."

Yes, I remember. Asking you what in the world you were trying to say was, according to you, just part of my insidious plan to rule the world, mwahahahaha! ::strokes cat::

"YOU are the one who said "words like "kind" of animal or "distinct form" have no "specific meaning",

Yes, I "did", because they "don't".

"and yet you now seem to admit that there is also a problem with the word speciation (known and the "speciation problem") so please don't be a hypocrite."

There is no problem with the word "speciation", species are just difficult to define describe because they're defined more by their biological limitations than by their absolute characters because no two individuals of any species are identical. How this makes me a hypocrite for not magically being able to answer a question before you ask it however is beyond me. I didn't make life the way it is - if you have a beef take it up with the creator.

"If species aren't absolutely defined then what on earth are you doing trying to tell me to be "specific"?"

Okay, don't be specific. But don't complain to me that I can't answer a meaningless question.

"Do you or do you not see that dogs and cats are different groupings of animals? Now please be honest about this!"

You asked the exact same question in your last reply and I answered it at length. Then you got pissed off that I agreed with you.

Another broken record, lovely.

#44 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 15 November 2012 - 09:40 PM

What??? You cannot seriously claim that a great dane has been morph'ed into something different from a dog simply because it is larger than a chiwawa. Both are dogs are they not? Biological morphology is not simply a synonym for change. It constitutes a combination of changes to the degree that the classification used no longer applies.



YOU are the one who mentioned "coherent scientific terms" and I called you out on that. YOU are the one who said "words like "kind" of animal or "distinct form" have no "specific meaning", and yet you now seem to admit that there is also a problem with the word speciation (known and the "speciation problem") so please don't be a hypocrite. If species aren't absolutely defined then what on earth are you doing trying to tell me to be "specific"?

Do you or do you not see that dogs and cats are different groupings of animals? Now please be honest about this!


Uppsala, this person is not only not honest in his statements but he can't even think coherently. At your discrestion, brother, but perhaps it's time to cut him loose.

Best wishes.

#45 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:45 AM

There is no problem with the word "speciation", species are just difficult to define.


Being "difficult to define" IS a problem!

If you can admit that then surely you also adimt that there is no problem with the word "kind", it is just difficult to define.

#46 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:50 AM

Uppsala, this person is not only not honest in his statements but he can't even think coherently. At your discrestion, brother, but perhaps it's time to cut him loose.

Best wishes.


Yes Cal, I have to agree. I like to give people an "honest" chance to present their views, but when someone says something like "morphology is the shape of an organism" then he is nothing but a bluffer and hardly worth taking seriously. Biological morphology is NEVER defined in such simple terms as a "change in shape". I have also tried to take into consideration that agno is young, impulsive, and passionate, but that is no excuse for childishness. This guy is obviously an argumentative time-waster...

#47 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 16 November 2012 - 03:16 AM

There are many different criteria for the definition of species

1- They look the same, (yes that is it) .... however this has flaws due to some species having differences in size between the sexes (forgot the name of that)

2- They can produce viable offspring... this also has its flaws as seen in the wolbachia virus for insects which turn infected individuals female and that only infected individual can mate together.. Under this definition this virus creates a new "species" however luckily Biologists have enough sense to realise that this is not the case.


Therefore the definiton of species is not as clear cut as the evolutionist would like. In my first year of uni we had an evolutionist who studied squid use the definition of species in terms of different breeds of squid... He said that he was unsure if they could breed together, however if they could then this would mean that every cross-breed would technically be a new species.. meaning that his initial analysis of species is incorrect.

Seems like smoke and mirrors compared to teh concise definitions given by all other sciences...

#48 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 16 November 2012 - 01:05 PM

Being "difficult to define" IS a problem!

If you can admit that then surely you also adimt that there is no problem with the word "kind", it is just difficult to define.

Being "difficult to define" IS a problem!

If you can admit that then surely you also adimt that there is no problem with the word "kind", it is just difficult to define.

This semantic stuff is frustrating to no end. I said there is no problem with "speciation" which is actually very specifically defined (and which you said there is a problem with), then said there is a problem with defining species themselves and talked about that. Speciation and species are not the same word and do not have the same meaning at all.

#49 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 16 November 2012 - 01:11 PM

Yes Cal, I have to agree. I like to give people an "honest" chance to present their views, but when someone says something like "morphology is the shape of an organism" then he is nothing but a bluffer and hardly worth taking seriously. Biological morphology is NEVER defined in such simple terms as a "change in shape". I have also tried to take into consideration that agno is young, impulsive, and passionate, but that is no excuse for childishness. This guy is obviously an argumentative time-waster...

So a change in the size and shape of an animal isn't a change in it's morphology? And not only is it not a change but I should be blocked for suggesting size is a morphological characteristic and that animal morphology changes within the species barrier?

Whatever dude, if you're that childish and that desperate to find a flimsy excuse to block people who don't agree with you that you would block someone over not being specific enough in a comment, go ahead and block me. You will anyway.

#50 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:36 PM

This semantic stuff is frustrating to no end. I said there is no problem with "speciation" which is actually very specifically defined (and which you said there is a problem with), then said there is a problem with defining species themselves and talked about that. Speciation and species are not the same word and do not have the same meaning at all.


Umm see my above post #47

Speciation is underpinned on the word species therefore if the word species is undefined then the foundation for speciation is also undefined... Since speciation is a species becoming a different species, however if you cannot define what a species is then how can you define speciation? Essentially you're being ignorant to the problems or you're misinformed.

As I keep on telling you just because you say stuff doesn't make it true.... You need to give evidence or arguments for these claims, not merely make claims and then say that because you said something makes it true.

I have demonstrated observed known cases where the species definitions (two because its not precise) are not "specifically defined" as you say.

#51 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 16 November 2012 - 05:46 PM

So a change in the size and shape of an animal isn't a change in it's morphology? And not only is it not a change but I should be blocked for suggesting size is a morphological characteristic and that animal morphology changes within the species barrier?

Whatever dude, if you're that childish and that desperate to find a flimsy excuse to block people who don't agree with you that you would block someone over not being specific enough in a comment, go ahead and block me. You will anyway.


Only a change in the basic body plan constitutes change on a species level... Consider dogs, they are many different sizes however they are the same species... The also have the same basic body plan, (except for some variations as per size etc). However they would have a different basic body plan to a cat, or a horse or a fish etc..

Therefore slight changes such as beak length / paw size etc are not speciation since its merely a new breed of the same species...

#52 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:32 PM

I wasn't talking to you and you know I'm not responding to you any more so stop clogging up every single thread on this site with responses, accusations and arguments. Unless you prefer to talk to yourself and hijack other peoples' threads.

#53 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:46 PM

I wasn't talking to you and you know I'm not responding to you any more so stop clogging up every single thread on this site with responses, accusations and arguments. Unless you prefer to talk to yourself and hijack other peoples' threads.


That is what a forum is for... Or are you saying that you do not accept arguments against your position, even after your entire forum rant about how I (apparantly) do such a thing. You're a hypocrite.

You claim that no-one ever replies to your responses, but then when you get refuted time and again you complain and then say the above which equates to "la la la la la la la I'm not listening" (another thing you accused me of)..

I never hijacked anyones thread, I have been responding to you.. If you make claims about me on a thread then who am I not to respond, even when said claims have nothing to do with the OP...


Therefore all your accusations are actually the things YOU do, stop complaining, stop blaiming others, take accountability (something I was trying to get you to do earlier), and be intellectually honest.

Want to debate this? Post in MY thread, its my thread so I don't care if it goes off topic, as I can always make another.


Now back to the thread here...

You never addressed my post (which is what you do constantly) care to address the post. I demonstrated to you that speciation is linked to species (its common knowledge so not sure how you didn't know this?), and because the definition of species is undefined to a point then speciation itself is similarly fuzzy. Care to address this or will you dodge and complain again?

The choice is yours :D

#54 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 17 November 2012 - 04:50 AM

stop clogging up every single thread on this site with responses, accusations and arguments.


Isn't that what you have been doing the last few days?
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#55 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 17 November 2012 - 08:49 AM

Isn't that what you have been doing the last few days?


That is exactly what he's been doing since he came on board.

#56 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,111 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 18 November 2012 - 07:43 AM

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that evolution could be proven to your satisfaction. What would be the danger in that?

Suppose it were a fact that evolution via natural selection is the correct explanation for the diversity of life we see on earth today. What would that mean to you, and for your religious convictions and beliefs?

I'm seriously asking here - how would evolution being true endanger you or change what you believe in any way?

Rich


Putting the two ideas of evolution and creationism side by side--which one would you choose? Creationism is simply more efficient rendering any entertainment of evolution obsolete. Evo is simply not a viable alternative for intelligent beings with finite life spans. To use such a slow process would not allow us to get anything done. Additionally it has a non specific goal (you never know what youu are goinh to get).

Humans don't use evolution to bring anything into existence--they use creativity. Moreover humans “created” the evolution idea!

However since we, according to evolutionist, don’t have free choice obviously evolution caused me to believe in God and creationism. Evo made both of us believe what we do! Accordingly I can’t change my view I (we) don’t have free choice!
  • Calypsis4 likes this

#57 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 18 November 2012 - 02:40 PM

Putting the two ideas of evolution and creationism side by side--which one would you choose? Creationism is simply more efficient rendering any entertainment of evolution obsolete. Evo is simply not a viable alternative for intelligent beings with finite life spans. To use such a slow process would not allow us to get anything done. Additionally it has a non specific goal (you never know what youu are goinh to get).

Humans don't use evolution to bring anything into existence--they use creativity. Moreover humans “created” the evolution idea!

However since we, according to evolutionist, don’t have free choice obviously evolution caused me to believe in God and creationism. Evo made both of us believe what we do! Accordingly I can’t change my view I (we) don’t have free choice!


Interesting thoughts, Mike.

The neo-Darwinian atheists are fond of blaming 'God' or what they say we believe about God for all the problems in the world. If there is a tornado that kills people it's God's fault. If there is a famine that kills thousands, it's God's fault. If people die of disease, it's God's fault. So it is with poverty, child rape, murder, etc. etc. etc. It's all 'God's' fault (you know, the One they don't believe in?).

But...........if we concede to their belief and attitude about such things and 'admit' that there is no God after all then what are we left to blame for all the great evils in the world?

Answer: it's evolutions fault!Posted Image
  • gilbo12345 and Bonedigger like this

#58 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 19 November 2012 - 02:58 AM

I actually think it is evolutions fault that the moral standards have declined. When people turn from God and the objective morality that is founded on him then there is no accountability for people's actions, they can simply do what they will and if no-one find out then its all good. The evolutionist may appeal to human nature as a foundation and arbiter however deep down they know that we are not to be trusted, (hence the definition of subjective).

I wouldn't trust myself with keeping myself in line, and whilst I'm a bit lost at the moment at least I admit as such, (its the first step to recovery ;) )

#59 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 19 November 2012 - 07:43 AM

I actually think it is evolutions fault that the moral standards have declined. When people turn from God and the objective morality that is founded on him then there is no accountability for people's actions, they can simply do what they will and if no-one find out then its all good. The evolutionist may appeal to human nature as a foundation and arbiter however deep down they know that we are not to be trusted, (hence the definition of subjective).

I wouldn't trust myself with keeping myself in line, and whilst I'm a bit lost at the moment at least I admit as such, (its the first step to recovery Posted Image )


Their morals are purely of their imagination as shaped usually by the atheist community they associate with.

#60 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,111 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 23 November 2012 - 12:59 AM

Interesting thoughts, Mike.

The neo-Darwinian atheists are fond of blaming 'God' or what they say we believe about God for all the problems in the world. If there is a tornado that kills people it's God's fault. If there is a famine that kills thousands, it's God's fault. If people die of disease, it's God's fault. So it is with poverty, child rape, murder, etc. etc. etc. It's all 'God's' fault (you know, the One they don't believe in?).

But...........if we concede to their belief and attitude about such things and 'admit' that there is no God after all then what are we left to blame for all the great evils in the world?

Answer: it's evolutions fault!Posted Image






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users