BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka--Contd...

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Stu
Date: 14 May 12 - 03:02 PM

I'm not saying you're stupid Pete, you keep telling us you are, for instance: "i am not personally equal to pursueing the argument". Codswallop of course, anyone can learn anything they want to. I firmly believe that we can all learn and in fact, learning is integral to a happy life.

Truth is, if you wanted to be equal in pursuing the argument you could be, you simply choose not to. You might be a witness for God, but he'll thank you for taking the time to learn a bit more about the world you believe he created when defending him.

As for what keeps me here, I love science. Along with the arts it gives us insight into our nature, and it values truth. Contrary to what you believe about scientists, I value integrity, honesty and an open mind whilst I research my subject are, palaeontology (I'm quite new to being a scientist, having come to it late in life - I am a graphic artist by trade). The universe is such a wonderful, inspiring and incredible place and we are on such a wonderful journey, if we can curb our selfishness and excesses we can reach our not inconsiderable potential.

When you know a bit of science, the world becomes even more wonderful. Learn a bit of basic geology and you see the landscape you live in through different eyes . . .learn a bit about biology and the process that is life gains beauty and luminance . . . there is so much depth. The more you learn, the more depth is revealed, the more wondrous it all becomes. Eventually you come across something you want to know and can't find an answer to and become a scientist, and start looking for your own answers. Another corpuscle in the flow of science gathering data and disseminating information.

Part of the core of this is interconnectedness. We are not separate from nature but part of it. We are made of the same elements as stars and the earth we walk on. We are part of a story so vast, complex and wonderful it blows your mind. That said, it is explicable. Although we get it wrong, misinterpret and misunderstand the scientific community, through genuine openness and co-operation finds the answers to the tiny part of the universe we study in our disciplines. But also it's rigorous,

For my part, I think here is no greater calling than science or art. In these arenas lies the truth of our true nature, for me there is no need for a third party. We are the universe made conscious, and no tale devised by mankind could ever top that concept as it is already as beautiful and profound as can be, and science will only help illuminate it further.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Musket
Date: 15 May 12 - 04:24 AM

You set of dozy buggers.......

You realise, of course, that the ultimate conclusion of this debate is that pete will have won and those who are getting exasperated in getting him to see reason will have been converted by him? I'll start a whip round for some tambourines.

It's how they do it, you know. They wear you down. Works now and has been working for 2,000 years so they have it down to an art form.

Pointing and laughing, the only cure.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 May 12 - 09:31 AM

Steve Shaw

Let me press you further, as you appear to have adopted a quasi-religious fervour about this particular remark, almost as if it had emanated from the quill of a gospel writer.

No Steve, it comes from debate about the philosophy of science and the scientific method throughout the twentieth century. It is the result of agreement between scientists and forms a cornerstone of the scientific method. None of this comes from me. It is part of first year undergraduate science teaching.

What science does the remark refer to? The process of science (not provisional - it definitely occurs)? The history of science? Textbooks, journals, articles? Peer review? Scientists? Evidence? The findings of science? You think, perhaps, that every finding of science in history is, er, provisional? Why's that, then? Because you suspect that what I see as red is exactly the same as what you see as blue? That there must always be an alternative explanation on the table for everything, no matter how improbable (now there's religion for you!)? Are you talking about the nuts and bolts of everyday science, technology and medicine as they affect all our lives, as practised in laboratories by technicians who just want to get home for their tea?

Without going into detail, Yes. In particular with respect to Textbooks, journals, articles? Peer review? If your work doesn't allow the possibility of experiments that could, potentially, falsify it, it won't get published in the scientific literature. No argument.

You set this statement against mine as though the two are sharply at odds with each other, yet you, as an alleged scientific thinker, appear to have forgotten that an equivocal statement can't actually be the opposite of anything.

Uncertainty is the opposite of certainty.

Can't you go off and join a cricket team or something?

I was that little school swot who was very good at science but terrible at sport. I'll stick to what I know.

From your following post -

Note "not necessarily." Know what that means? That they might be, but might not be. But they might be.

Er, yes. That's the point I'm trying to make. MIGHT BE isn't TRUE.

Note the bit about falsifiability. It does not say that good science is always falsifiable. It qualifies the claim by referring merely to cheating and witness

Oh dear. I try not to come down to your level of childish abuse but sometimes you are a bit of a muppet.

More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are:
...
(5) Its is falsifiable.

Simple statement. (Ruse and other science witnesses). is not a qualification, it is a reference to the court testimony of Dr Michael Ruse who was one of the science witnesses at the trial. His testimony is here - http://www.antievolution.org/projects/mclean/new_site/pf_trans/mva_tt_p_ruse.html

Here is an extract -

Q: [...]In connection with the attributes of science and this issue of testability, does the concept of falsifiability mean anything to you?

A: Yes. The concept of falsifiability is something which has been talked about a great deal by scientists and others recently. It's an idea which has been made very popular by the Austrian-English philosophist, Karl Popper. Basically, the idea of falsifiability is that there must be, as it were, if something is a genuine scientific theory, then there must, at least, conceivably be some evidence which could count against it. Now, that doesn't mean to say that there's actually going to be evidence. I mean, one's got to distinguish, say, between something being falsifiable and something being actually falsified.

But what Popper argues is that if something is a genuine science, then at least in the fault experiment, you ought to be able to think of something which would show that it's wrong.

For example, Popper is deliberately distinguishing science from, say, something like religion. Popper is not running down religion. He's just saying it's not science. For example, you take, say, a religious statement like God is love, there's nothing in the empirical world which would count against this in a believer. I mean, whatever you see-- You see, for example, a terrible accident or something like this, and you say, "Well, God is love. It's free will," or, for example, the San Francisco earthquake, you say, "Well, God is love; God is working his purpose out. We don't understand, but nothing is going to make me give this up."

Now, with science, you've got to be prepared to give up.

This is the line that TIA has been taking (rather futilely) with Pete by trying to get him to come up with grounds under which creationism could be falsified to qualify as science.

If you think Ruse was wrong, you are saying the creationists should have won back in 1982.

Unfortunately..... this opens up a whole new bag of worms/area of interest. Try putting "michael ruse evolution" into Google.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: John P
Date: 15 May 12 - 09:51 AM

the ultimate conclusion of this debate is that pete will have won

pete has already won. A bunch of smart and educated people are taking him seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: saulgoldie
Date: 15 May 12 - 10:34 AM

"A bunch of smart and educated people are taking him seriously."

Or perhaps using him as a foil against which to hone their arguments. I don't think anyone really takes him seriously, perhaps not even him. And why should we? This is a discussion with no real consequences. OTOH, when this moves out into the *real world* and wants to become public policy, THEN it becomes REAL and important.

And the unfortunate part of this is that there ARE people out there who want to make this kind of silliness into public policy. So we, as thinking people living in a fact-based reality, must figure out a way of dealing with this mindset so that they don't cause damage.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Bill D
Date: 15 May 12 - 10:34 AM

"pete has already won. A bunch of smart and educated people are taking him seriously."

Pete can't lose. He is comfortable in his beliefs, and the way he presents them is unwavering. In many ways, he has the easiest approach to the world. Remember, his position is only an extreme version of what we debate in vain with others who espouse religious views that do NOT deny evolution.

Those of us who 'know' the flaws in his assumptions & reasoning are only honing our own arguments.... and at the same time, Pete is solidifying HIS positions. Religious beliefs are not the only sort that can be debated like this.... in the past we have had set-tos about aliens, Astrology, reincarnation, out-of-body experiences....etc. I assume that there are those who have managed to convince themselves that the Holocaust "didn't really happen".

Humans are interesting AS the only animal which is able to 'believe' things.... and to reflect on our own thought processes. That very ability means that in the billions of people now living, there are astounding things that are accepted as 'fact' that others cannot comprehend HOW they can think that way.

It keeps us busy trying to make sense of it all...Pete is just ahead of most of us in having less to cope with. Right, Pete? ☺

I have tried in my ways to explain my points... and others have done it their ways.... and between us, we have left a pretty good set of examples for those who stumble on this thread in the future-- if they to dare to read much of it.

It makes little difference to me if Pete holds to his 'unusual' beliefs.... but it IS important in the USA these days that some Conservatives are trying to get their religious positions into school textbooks and into state laws. That requires serious effort to combat.

I believe in "freedom of religion"... but 'freedom OF religion' also implies freedom FROM religion for those who wish it. As far as I can tell, Pete is not insisting that WE believe as he does.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Bill D
Date: 15 May 12 - 11:29 AM

Interesting.. saulgoldie & I posted at the same time, with similar conclusions..(I just take longer to say anything)

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 May 12 - 03:44 PM

Not as long as Snail takes to say nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Stu
Date: 16 May 12 - 05:45 AM

The good thing about this thread, and other threads discussing religion is it really makes you look at your own feelings on the subject. I don't see anything in the arguments presented by the YEC's that challenges my own position on the subject.

In some ways, that's a shame because it would be good to have some really meaningful dialogue, but perhaps therin lies the point - do YEC's actually have anything interesting to say?

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: BrendanB
Date: 16 May 12 - 07:04 AM

I echo that Jack, I am convinced that this sort of dialogue helps to clarify one's own views. It has also been valuable in exposing me to better informed people who have pointed me towards further reading and research - Snail's most recent post is a case in point. I suspect that this thread is reaching its natural conclusion so thanks for the entertainment and instruction.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Stu
Date: 16 May 12 - 09:24 AM

I'll plug the OU course on Darwin and Evolution, which is an excellent primer on the subject which I really enjoyed - especially gathering the snails for the practical!

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: BrendanB
Date: 16 May 12 - 09:36 AM

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll see if I can find the materials for sale on line - it's a while since I did an OU course, the last was Understanding Music, since discontinued, but way back in the mists of wossname I did the Science foundation course, the start of a long relationship with Milton Keynes!
I'm not sure that I'll be hunting snails however, I think that I'll rely on our virtual Snail for enlightenment!

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: TheSnail
Date: 16 May 12 - 10:10 AM

Don't remember gathering snails when I did OU Evolution. The only experiment I remember is growing mutant tomatoes. I think Prof Steve Jones did his doctoral thesis on snails.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Stu
Date: 16 May 12 - 10:57 AM

Snails (Cepaea sp.) were collected to study the distribution of various polymorphs within each species, based on the banding and colours of their shells. It's part of a bigger project that is open to the public and can be found here: www.evolutionmegalab.org

It's great fun rooting for snails in the local park in the pissing rain!

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 May 12 - 04:18 PM

i guess that in some respects i do have less to cope with .there have been some things that i am not at present,if ever ,academic enough to debate further,but mostly because most arguments amount to argument from authority and assertion without substance.
i have often pointed out that abiogenesis is impossible and the fossil record is largely lacking in anything evidencing gradualistic change .i have quoted evolutionists admitting as much.
of course you could quote christian compromisers with darwinism,but to be a valid equivalent IMO it should be creationist scientist quote.
and you may be able to find something ,as their studies are still ongoing, not withstanding some atheists assertions to the contrary!

i read most of the ruse court testimony and found some of it quite entertaining.i thought the cross examination mostly done a good job demonstrating his inconsistencies and prejudice against creationists.

i heard an interesting snippet on a radio sermon though i cant ref it.
maybe you,s can vouch for or deny its accuracy;-
herbert spencer d 1903;said the basic elements of science are -
time-force-action-space-matter.
if correct i doubt if he considered the biblical text-

TIME          FORCE   ACTION    SPACE       MATTER.

in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.gen 1v1
best   pete

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 16 May 12 - 04:54 PM

Bloody hell - they're teaching this shite (i.e. YEC) in British schools now. The second dark age of Christian igorance dawns. Be afraid. Be very afraid...

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: BrendanB
Date: 16 May 12 - 05:29 PM

If I understood Penny's post correctly earlier in the thread no British school that teaches creationism as a science can receive state funding. Some schools teach the ideas of creationism within religious studies. I think that provided there is no suggestion that such stuff should be believed it does no harm for older pupils to be taught what some people believe.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Bill D
Date: 16 May 12 - 07:46 PM

That's an 'interesting' way of interpreting Spencer's quote, Pete. But that is how someone constructing a sermon might do it.

(I personally own Spencer's major work and find it is not exactly what serious scientists refer to these days. He is historically interesting, but not mainstream.)

The thing about your remark: " the fossil record is largely lacking in anything evidencing gradualistic change .i have quoted evolutionists admitting as much." is: We are not lucky enough to have every stage in evolution laid out. Most animals did not die 'conveniently'. But, it is NOT true that we do not see "gradualistic change". We do not see ALL stages of it, but we can date many, many fossils and see THAT the changes represent evolutionary progress. For some commoner species, we actually do see a fairly representative 'gradual' series!
(All that 'evolutionists' admit is, as I have said, that we don't have every step.... and if we did, there would not be enough museums in the world to hold millions of specimens.)

As to abiogenesis, it is quite possible! Science has synthesized certain amino acids and shown how they could combine.

from the Wikipedia article:(read it and the links in it- it says much more)
"Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", were shown to be synthesized in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments that involved the simulation some of the hypothetical conditions of the early Earth. Other equally fundamental biochemicals, such as nucleotides and saccharides can arise in a similar manner."

Perhaps "God" controlled what happened way back then - we can't test THAT in a laboratory.... but it did happen.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: frogprince
Date: 16 May 12 - 09:49 PM

Abiogenesis is the scientific study of the origin of life from inorganic matter.

"i have often pointed out that abiogenesis is impossible" - Pete

Genesis chapter 2, verse 7: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground"

I would have to agree with Pete on this; there's no way that statement in the Bible could be true.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 12 - 09:59 PM

Analogy, frogprince. Metaphor.

But pete can't accept that that is what it is. He wants it literal.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: frogprince
Date: 16 May 12 - 10:21 PM

Ah, Don? : ) I know, but, why should someone who takes Genesis dead literally say that abiogenesis is impossible? Some of the sources further define abiogenesis in terms of strictly natural processes. Some of them just give the root definition that I gave.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 17 May 12 - 05:21 AM

No problem

Star struck Pete gets his magic pixies to wave their magic wands and his book of fairy tales supplies all the answers.

Teaching creationism as being an interpretation of scripture that faith relies on to a greater or lesser extent is good education and helps children understand where people are coming from.

But teaching it as fact? I got a bollocking from my lad's teacher because he believed me when I said for fun that wind farms are all about giant fans to counteract global warming.

The lecture I got, rightly so, would serve to explain why the teaching of superstitious claptrap is tantamount to child abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Penny S.
Date: 17 May 12 - 06:14 AM

The problem is, as Pete hinted a while back, that the group to which he belongs holds that evolution is the claptrap, children are being taught error, and it is important to prevent this.

This would presumably be because, on the one hand, their immortal souls are at risk, and one the other, that society would be better if it were founded on their beliefs rather than grounded on the ideas that can be drawn from evolution.

Arguing that to teach untruths is child abuse is not, therefore, going to be convincing, since, to them, it is an argument in their favour.

Gradual evolution - I have previously referred to the development of micraster heart urchins in the Chalk. Obviously these are heart urchins at the beginning of the sequence and heart urchins at the end, just heart urchins with different features, so maybe this is not convincing. It can be written off as microevolution. I may add to this the development of the horse (see Wikipedia) where a long sequence from little eohippus to modern equus (which they point out does not necessarily mean that each step is in a direct line of descent from the previous) shows a gradual change in time. Technically, this may be called macroevolution. See distinctions from an Indian university Other examples are given. Darwin's finches, camels, elephants.

However, these too can be argued to be within "kinds" by creationists.

But dinosaurs producing birds, for which change there are more and more genuine transitional fossils being found, would not be. (Yes, Archeoraptor was a fake, but its source fossils were not, and one, Microraptor, was a genuine intermediate between dinosaurs and birds. Arguing from fakes, while ignoring the vast number of genuine evidence is spurious. Piltdown does not invalidate all the African hominims and so disprove evolution. I have suggested Pete would make his song more effective by dropping that reference.)

While fact checking on dino-birds, I found the first google suggestion was a creationist site about evolutionist fraud. It included Piltdown and Archeoraptor, but also a number of cases where there had been misinterpretation, subsequently corrected through the normal processes of science, such as the initial identification of Neanderthals as shambling brutes because of the failure to identify the effects of rickets. It referred to the corrections showing the intelligence, altruism, skills and spiritual dimension of Neanderthals.

I am getting concerned at the way that when I search for scientific details in this field, the early search results are frequently from creationist sites, and I have to be very picky and go through a few pages. If my search terms are very technical, I get the Royal Society, JSTOR, Wiley et al, behind paywalls.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Stu
Date: 17 May 12 - 08:27 AM

Microraptor isn't so much an intermediate between non-avian and avian dinosaurs (birds, if you will), it's more a branch on the tree with them. It's later than Archaeopteryx which is still considered a bird despite some recent discussion on the subject.

Bird evolution is a fascinating, complex subject. We're finding feather-like integumentary structures on dinosaurs far removed from birds and and it's possible feathers evolved before dinosaurs did. There is a constant stream of new and exciting discoveries on a pretty much weekly basis regarding avian dinosaur and their relatives' phylogeny and morphology and I suspect things are gong to get even more exciting in the future.

Heck, we even know Archaeopteryx had black flight feathers, other dinosaurs had black and white plumage, reds and russets also feature.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Penny S.
Date: 17 May 12 - 01:38 PM

OK, I was a bit lax there - and what a lot of new stuff you've given me there. I seem to remember the feather was one of the features that used to surface in creationist arguments as evidence of something that had no purpose in a form less than the fully developed flight feather.

I have been thinking of these things as members of a cohort between definitely dinosaur and definitely bird, some of which would go on to be birds, and some not. So that even if a particular species did not go on to be an ancestor, it could indicate the direction things were moving. Is that reasonable?

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 May 12 - 06:12 PM

bill-i read that even dawkins admits the urey miller experiments lead to a dead end .even the hoped for protein would be inadequate for life.and that is with controlled tests by intelligent creators .
if they come to a dead end it is even more unlikely that life can arise without benefit a creator.dawkins proposes RNA but sarfati in the "greatest hoax on earth" outline the problems in this idea.thats probably as far as i am capable of taking this .

penny-i did'nt spot anything in your link that supports macro change.
as you say the YEC position is of change within types.this of course is not just argument countering darwinism, but noted by creationists before darwin.

pete

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Paul Burke
Date: 18 May 12 - 06:41 PM

pete- browse foe up to date experiments. Urey et al was sixty years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Bill D
Date: 18 May 12 - 07:40 PM

As Paul says...there are many new experiments
The point is that we have synthesized the amino acids. Nature took many millions of years to get from basic chemicals to recognizable life forms. All that is necessary to know in order to make the theory feasible is that we know the building blocks were there and that we HAVE replicated the 1st steps.

Don't forget, Pete, that claiming a 'creator' doesn't even begin to answer why or how such a thing happened. Even science doesn't know "why there is something, rather than nothing".... but all religion does is ignore the question and assert an answer.... and I'm afraid that "God says He did it." doesn't carry much weight when one book written by men is the only data.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Paul Burke
Date: 18 May 12 - 07:55 PM

Which came first- the arse or the elbow?

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Bill D
Date: 18 May 12 - 08:32 PM

Must have been the arse.... they seem to have more varieties.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 May 12 - 05:32 PM

well bill;i assume the many new experiments have not obtained their objective ,and whatever may have been achieved still has matter and human effort to facilitate however much is.
in the meantime we still have something rather than nothing,which IMO is what would [not] be if there were no cause sufficient.and in this i have every right to believe the revelation of a self existent,eternal creator is as valid as you to believe it has some unexplained cause.simple science so far still posits that anything existing has to have a sufficient cause -last i heard!.
is utter nothing a sufficient cause?

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 May 12 - 06:19 PM

OK, explain how your putative eternal creator could have existed where there was nothing.

No matter, no space, no time = no eternal entity.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: frogprince
Date: 19 May 12 - 10:07 PM

"anything existing has to have a sufficient cause"

So...what caused God ?

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 May 12 - 10:23 PM

That was the refutation that tripped up Thomas Aquinas. Unanswerable.

The Church made him a saint anyway.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: DMcG
Date: 20 May 12 - 03:48 AM

Not quite, don f, as I understand it. Aquinus asserted that the first cause was God. There are at least two basic flaws in his argument: one that it is simply asserted that this is the way out of the infinite regress, the other that even if FirstCause exists, it does not necessarily have any attributes of God as commonly understood. It could, for example have attributes much more like BigBang.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: DMcG
Date: 20 May 12 - 04:44 AM

By way of injecting some interest into this thread, it might be worth examing another issue here. There seems to me a flaw in 'Origins' and many the documents that flow from it - and, by a happy coincidence the same flaw is in the Bible - namely, the assumption that the whole concept of a species is valid. I can, and do, accept evolution occurs, and that we, as a sentient life form' can cluster gene-machines and call them goats, or sheep, or whatever, but the older I get the more I feel that the concept of 'species' is a structure we humans impose on the world rather than what is actually there, in the same way we impose seven colours on the light spectrum. In short: the concept of species is digital but I grow more and more convinced it is continuous at a macro level, (in the sense that a liquid or sand is continuous, though composed of discrete particles; I agree that at the DNA level things are digital). I think this issue is exemplified by beetles where the various species can only be distingished by highly trained specialists.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 May 12 - 08:59 AM

by beetles where the various species can only be distingished by highly trained specialists

The important difference is whether they can be distinguished by other beetles.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: DMcG
Date: 20 May 12 - 09:33 AM

LOL! Yes, its important to the beetle, but it doesn't follow that divisions we think are significant bother the beetle one iota (and also things we've not noticed might be vital!)

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: frogprince
Date: 20 May 12 - 11:09 AM

I've thought about that when looking at birding guides, too; the North Livingston County Taupe Breasted Warbler, the South Livingston County Beige Breasted Warbler...          : )

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 May 12 - 03:28 PM

My rather flippant, off the cuff remark did have a serious intent. For the purposes of taxonomy, species may well be distinguished by the number of spots on their wing cases, the colour of their winter plummage, the number of petals...
The other definition is "a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.". In this sense, it is not a "structure we humans impose on the world"" but a practical reality and has nothing to do with the human ability to distinguish between species.
Nothing is ever that simple of course. Lions and Tigers don't mate in nature because, under normal circumstances, they never meet. When they do (thanks to human interference), the offspring are of limited viability. (Google on Ligers and Tiglons). Other obvious examples are mules and zebroids. On the other hand, the Ruddy Duck from the Americas has caused problems by crossbreeding with the European White Headed Duck.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: saulgoldie
Date: 20 May 12 - 03:39 PM

And still...how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? The scientific method of inquiry cannot possibly evaluate that. But the fantasy world can probably come up with thousands of answers, all perfectly explainable. And depending on which Bible you refer to and how you cherry-pick your "evidence," possibly thousands more. Whatever.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 May 12 - 03:41 PM

by another coincidence-or maybe not-the article on CMI site today is on the competing theories re-evaluating the big bang.

in light of my last post outlining the eternal,self existent nature of God as the bible witnesses to;it is an illogical challenge to say who caused him.you may say you dont believe in him but IMO it is nonsence to ask who or what caused him.
don challenging how he can exist if there was nothing before creation.
it is not the christian position that nothing was before."in the beginning God..." gen 1v1 "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.."john 1v1"..from everlasting to everlasting thou art God. ps 90v2.
rather it is an atheist position[which don t appears to defend?]that has posited absolutely nothing some time past[though some dispute how that is understood ;as the CMI article discussed]
in such godless philosophy a spiritual realm wherein God dwells is excluded.what remains is no cause for origins other than it just happened.
pete

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: DMcG
Date: 20 May 12 - 04:12 PM

The other definition is "a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.". In this sense, it is not a "structure we humans impose on the world"" but a practical reality and has nothing to do with the human ability to distinguish between species.
Nothing is ever that simple of course.

I agree on all counts, especially the latter! As a definition, interbreeding is not too useful sorting out dinosaurs, obviously, but nor can we really use it to determine whether a fox-like creature is capable of cross-breeding with a wolf-like creature. Suppose only 0.1% of the offspring is viable to the extent of being able to have its own offspring. Should we count that as 'able to cross breed' or not? And if we did accept that, would we actually carry out the cross-breeding experiment that long in practice anyway? Probably not. And if you do accept it, how about 0.01, 0.001 etc etc.

Now, I've deliberately overstated my position to some extent. I'm quite happy to agree there are groups that definitely won't cross-breed however many candle-lit suppers we give them; it's more that I grow suspicious of a litmus test that says that creature is or is not a lion, for example. It's more accurate to say that there is some idealisation of what a lion is (shades of Plato!) but everything we call a lion is actually an almost-lion. Moreover, when an animal live in packs or prides, there can be genetic variation between them sufficient to identify an individual as belonging to a specific pride. That smacks of the very early stages of differenciation that could in time lead to new species, even though they are capable of interbreeding at the moment.

I am no expect on the matter, but it wouldn't suprise me if some of the Galapagos finches could interbreed, for example.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: DMcG
Date: 20 May 12 - 04:20 PM

'expert', not 'expect'. Sigh... As usual, assume my posts come from someone incapable of typing. You won't be far wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Bill D
Date: 20 May 12 - 05:19 PM

"...and in this i have every right to believe the revelation of a self existent,eternal creator is as valid as you to believe it has some unexplained cause.

Yes...as I have agreed before. The difference is that I think 'God' is an "unexplained cause", so it makes no difference what you call the 'first cause'. The other difference is that you attribute 'conscious caring & planning' to your first cause, and I make no such assumption.... indeed, I don't even necessarily believe there WAS a single 'casual event', God or otherwise. Since it is not something we can prove, I don't worry about it. What concerns me is what we do with the existence we have, and interpreting supposed scripture is not what I care to spend time on.
At least science & mathematics can do checks on each other. Interpreting scripture is a HUMAN argument.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Penny S.
Date: 20 May 12 - 05:42 PM

Re Ruddy Ducks - another bird variation is the circum-polar gull distribution. There is a ring of gull "species" around the north pole, members of which can breed with adjacent members, but where the end species, the Herring Gull and the Lesser Black-backed Gull, which can be found together in Europe do not normally do so.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 May 12 - 06:19 PM

Uh. . . ?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 May 12 - 07:48 PM

""in the beginning God..." gen 1v1 "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.."john 1v1"..from everlasting to everlasting thou art God. ps 90v2.""

So, when exactly was the beginning?.....Four and a half billion years ago?

And please don't tell out and out lies! You know damn well if you've actually read anything I've said, that I am NOT an Atheist.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 May 12 - 07:57 PM

""George W Bush has even been named patron of the creationist movement and was last year honoured at Kentucky Fry University with a Masters in Young Earth Studies.""

That definitely settles it!

If Geedub believes, it just has to be total f**king nonsense.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: YEC Eureka--Contd...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 May 12 - 08:05 PM

lIKE "tRICKLE DOWN?