Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: April 28, 2024, 7:19 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A Scientific Response to Creationist on: Kinds
#11
RE: A Scientific Response to Creationist on: Kinds
(April 25, 2014 at 2:10 pm)alpha male Wrote: @OP: You seem to think that creationists are stuck with the traditional Linnaean classifications. Why is that? Evolutionists propose changes to the traditional classifications all the time, typically based on genetic analyses which come out different from the morphological classifications.

Yes but we don't say there are any limits in that group. That is the problem. That is why bacteria can't be the same kind as dogs. Because if bacteria is the same kind then evolution stops at the domain level, if all dogs are the same kind that means evolution stops at the family level.
[Image: guilmon_evolution_by_davidgtm3-d4gb5rp.gif]https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Reply
#12
RE: A Scientific Response to Creationist on: Kinds
(April 25, 2014 at 3:30 pm)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote: Yes but we don't say there are any limits in that group. That is the problem. That is why bacteria can't be the same kind as dogs. Because if bacteria is the same kind then evolution stops at the domain level, if all dogs are the same kind that means evolution stops at the family level.
That's not a problem if you allow them to redraw family level classifications as necessary.
Reply
#13
A Scientific Response to Creationist on: Kinds
Really. That's the answer. If you fudge the numbers as you see fit, there's no problem.

And people wonder why "Creation Science" doesn't qualify as science.
Reply
#14
RE: A Scientific Response to Creationist on: Kinds
(April 25, 2014 at 4:18 pm)alpha male Wrote:
(April 25, 2014 at 3:30 pm)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote: Yes but we don't say there are any limits in that group. That is the problem. That is why bacteria can't be the same kind as dogs. Because if bacteria is the same kind then evolution stops at the domain level, if all dogs are the same kind that means evolution stops at the family level.
That's not a problem if you allow them to redraw family level classifications as necessary.

So in other words kind is vague. Because if that is the case no matter what we can call any group kind. I can say deuterostome kind and animal kind. The problem is not changing the taxonomic system based on new evidence, it is putting an non existent restriction for one group that is smaller and less diverse then the other group that is large and higher on the taxonomic scale can all be the same kind. So how can bacteria be the same kind and dogs be the same kind at the same time, but bacteria is a higher and more diverse group? How can one domain be the same kind but Eukaryota can not? What scientific papers are there that give a restriction on how far said group can evolve? I mean evolution is really population genetics using natural selection, and mutations.
[Image: guilmon_evolution_by_davidgtm3-d4gb5rp.gif]https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Reply
#15
RE: A Scientific Response to Creationist on: Kinds
The thought has been in my mind all day, so I am going to state it whether or not it receives praise.

"It takes all kinds".
"Never trust a fox. Looks like a dog, behaves like a cat."
~ Erin Hunter
Reply
#16
RE: A Scientific Response to Creationist on: Kinds
(April 25, 2014 at 4:33 pm)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote: So in other words kind is vague.
Yes. So is family. So is species - there's no single definition suitable for all purposes. So what?
Reply
#17
RE: A Scientific Response to Creationist on: Kinds
(April 25, 2014 at 4:39 pm)alpha male Wrote:
(April 25, 2014 at 4:33 pm)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote: So in other words kind is vague.
Yes. So is family. So is species - there's no single definition suitable for all purposes. So what?

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Family

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Species

There is a definition for both. Nice try.
[Image: guilmon_evolution_by_davidgtm3-d4gb5rp.gif]https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Reply
#18
RE: A Scientific Response to Creationist on: Kinds
(April 25, 2014 at 5:19 pm)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:
(April 25, 2014 at 4:39 pm)alpha male Wrote: Yes. So is family. So is species - there's no single definition suitable for all purposes. So what?

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Family

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Species

There is a definition for both. Nice try.

Prepare yourself for redefining the words, or failing that, the rules that define the words themselves.

Like when you point out a contradiction in a holy text, and theists reply with "well if you redefine what a contradiction is it's no longer a contradiction!"

:-|
Love atheistforums.org? Consider becoming a patreon and helping towards our server costs.

[Image: 146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif]
Reply
#19
RE: A Scientific Response to Creationist on: Kinds
(April 25, 2014 at 5:48 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:
(April 25, 2014 at 5:19 pm)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote: http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Family

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Species

There is a definition for both. Nice try.

Prepare yourself for redefining the words, or failing that, the rules that define the words themselves.

Like when you point out a contradiction in a holy text, and theists reply with "well if you redefine what a contradiction is it's no longer a contradiction!"

:-|

He can try but the difference is I go based on consensus. Because of that the definition will stay unless someone can disprove it and then we must conform to that new definition.
[Image: guilmon_evolution_by_davidgtm3-d4gb5rp.gif]https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Reply
#20
RE: A Scientific Response to Creationist on: Kinds
(April 25, 2014 at 1:46 pm)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote: But raccoons are part of the family Procyonidae, while Canidae is another different family. You are thinking of the order Carnivora in which they are both a part of.
Bleh....
Got raccoon dog mixed up with raccoon.
Oh well, live and learn.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Fine Tuning Principle: Devastating Disproof and Scientific Refutation of Atheism. Nishant Xavier 97 6773 September 20, 2023 at 1:31 pm
Last Post: Foxaèr
  Response to Darkmatter2525 ""Why Does Anything Matter?" Eik0932 23 2864 September 26, 2018 at 12:08 pm
Last Post: Angrboda
  Creationist Moral Panic Amarok 15 5622 June 13, 2017 at 10:42 am
Last Post: Mister Agenda
  Are there any scientific books or studies that explain what makes a person religious? WisdomOfTheTrees 13 2566 February 9, 2017 at 2:33 am
Last Post: Mirek-Polska
  Is atheism a scientific perspective? AAA 358 60022 January 27, 2017 at 7:49 pm
Last Post: brewer
  Theist ➤ Why ☠ Evolution is not Scientific ✔ The Joker 348 46345 November 26, 2016 at 11:47 pm
Last Post: Amarok
  ☢The Theistic Response➼ to Atheists saying, "It Doesn't mean God Did it" The Joker 195 22952 November 24, 2016 at 7:30 pm
Last Post: I_am_not_mafia
  Have you ever actually heard an response that made you stop and think? jmoney_419 32 5447 September 23, 2016 at 2:36 pm
Last Post: Thumpalumpacus
  Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge LadyForCamus 471 67604 February 17, 2016 at 12:36 pm
Last Post: LadyForCamus
  An Intersting conversation I had with a Creationist friend of mine. TanithDaUnicorn 39 5876 February 14, 2016 at 1:00 pm
Last Post: Cyberman



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)