AiG and Checkmate

[theIdi0t]

From AiG:

"If evolutionists really spoke and wrote only about observable variation within kind, there would be no creation-evolution controversy."

Teach the Controversy.

I remember some time ago I was playing chess. I was down to my King and my opponent had a few pieces left and the end was inevitable for me. But I'd move my King back and forth and around to draw out the end for as long as I could. It was foretold to me when I moved my first pawn that "if you move this pawn, surely you will die", but I did not heed the warning. So here I was down to my King and I accidentally dropped my opponents pieces to buy time as he tried to figure out where his dropped pieces were previously placed. If it wasn't for my own stubbornness to cave in, to wave my white flag at my appointed time, I would have perhaps saved a half hour of my life for better things such as reading Dr. Dino's prison blog or singing "Behemoth is a Dinosaur a mighty sauropod".

Has AiG also reached its inevitable checkmate?

I would like to think of the whole concept of "Kind", and it seems as though the proponents of this term are staying away from molecular biology to define Kinds and leaving the task only to their senses---sights and sounds. And in this endeavor is where we find our checkmate.

Let's equate Kinds to numbers, the first group of kinds consist of 1,2,3,4,5 the second group of kinds consists of numbers 6,7,8,9,10 the third group beings 11,12,13,14,15. I am going to stop here, with only three groups for the sake of simplicity. The distance between the numbers in each Kind group is quite important, we are saying that since the difference in the phenotypes of animal 1 and 2, is only different by 1 then these two are a part of the same kind, since the difference between 2 and 3 is also one, then 1,2 and 3 are also a part of the same Kind, and we continue up to 5.

And here lies the rub. You draw the line at 5, but when someone looks at the second Kind leading with a six, they would have to wonder why 5 and 6 are separated since the difference between their phenotypes is equivalent to 1 also?

Allow to me to explain:

Let assume we categorize all the Kind-of-fish-like as the first group and the Kind-of-lizard-like as the second group. Let's assume the 4 in the fish group is the Eusthenopteron, while 5 in the fish group is Panderichthys, while the 6 in the the Creationist lizard-like group is the Tiktaalik and the 7 is Acanthostega,

Since one can see the difference between the Eusthenopteron and the Panderichthys is small enough for them to be categorized into the Kind-of-fish-like group, what stops them from seeing that the difference between these two is equivalent to the difference between the Tiktaalik at the beginning of Kind group 2 and the Panderichthys at the end of Kind group 1?

It seems to me that if AiG is set to use physical characteristics to define Kinds, then it is not long before a young inquiring Creationist sees only one Kind group and not many. Is this then the inevitable checkmate?

 

[juvenissun]

From AiG:

"If evolutionists really spoke and wrote only about observable variation within kind, there would be no creation-evolution controversy."

Teach the Controversy.

Is it possible to spell out a definition of "kind"? Even it is AiG's version? or your version?

Can't talk about a word without a definition.

 

[laptoppop]

1) AiG is just one creationist group among many
2) There's a whole field of study into working on defining "kinds" -- called baraminology.
A peer reviewed article about the status of baraminology as of last year:
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_3/baraminology.htm
An example article about work done regarding the baraminology of snakes:
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/42/42_3/snake_baramin.htm

Not even remotely close to "checkmate"

 

[Dannager]

"Gosh, guys, we keep throwing this word 'kind' around and some people are asking us what it means! We don't know that!"

"Gee, we'd better start working on making some things up so that we have something to tell those naughty free-thinking individuals."

"I have an idea! Let's create a fake field of science. We can call it Baraminology! That sounds science-y!"

"Hooray, now we're super-cool scientists!"

 

[laptoppop]

"Gosh, guys, we keep throwing this word 'kind' around and some people are asking us what it means! We don't know that!"

"Gee, we'd better start working on making some things up so that we have something to tell those naughty free-thinking individuals."

"I have an idea! Let's create a fake field of science. We can call it Baraminology! That sounds science-y!"

"Hooray, now we're super-cool scientists!"

Do you actually have anything to contribute to the discussion, or are you content at name calling and elitist derision? Do you really consider this consistent with speaking the truth in love, loving your brothers and sisters, etc?

 

[laptoppop]

Another good source for some peer-reviewed papers on baraminology is at http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/index.html .

 

[Galle]

"I have an idea! Let's create a fake field of science. We can call it Baraminology! That sounds science-y!"

Well said. Creationists are extraordinarily concerned with the appearance of science, but mysteriously can never actually do science. They're like the TSA: they keep telling us all about how they're protecting the nation and foiling terrorist plots, but whenever we actually look, we just see a bunch of thugs more concerned with how much toothpaste we're bringing on board than security.

Free hint to laptoppop: before you can honestly claim that a paper has been "peer reviewed", it has to be reviewed by actual scientists and published in an actual journal. A biscuit game with creationists more concerned with ideological compatibility than scientific rigor does not count as an actual journal.

 

[Galle]

Do you actually have anything to contribute to the discussion, or are you content at name calling and elitist derision? Do you really consider this consistent with speaking the truth in love, loving your brothers and sisters, etc?

So laptoppop, are you ever going to define "kind" in a useful way for us? If I were to show you the fossils of two different organisms, could you tell us if they belong to the same kind? If I were to show the same two fossils to a different creationist, would he come to the same conclusion?

 

[laptoppop]

Well said. Creationists are extraordinarily concerned with the appearance of science, but mysteriously can never actually do science. They're like the TSA: they keep telling us all about how they're protecting the nation and foiling terrorist plots, but whenever we actually look, we just see a bunch of thugs more concerned with how much toothpaste we're bringing on board than security.

Nice. "They" -- lumping all "creationists" as one. When you have something to really add to the discussion I'll be interested. In the meantime, you might try actually reading some of the more advanced creationist literature and not just getting your information 2nd hand.

Free hint to laptoppop: before you can honestly claim that a paper has been "peer reviewed", it has to be reviewed by actual scientists and published in an actual journal. A biscuit game with creationists more concerned with ideological compatibility than scientific rigor does not count as an actual journal.

OK, so unless they agree with you, no matter the educational background of the reviewers they are not "actual scientists". Sheesh! Oh, and an "actual journal" couldn't POSSIBLY be a creationist journal. More non-content slander. This may make you feel "superior" but it is totally without substance. If you want to convince anyone, you might try facts, not just scorn without backup.

 

[laptoppop]

You know, it is often requested that creationists "correct" each other around here. I can probably count on one hand the times I've seen any TEs distancing themselves from elitist slander.

 

[laptoppop]

So laptoppop, are you ever going to define "kind" in a useful way for us? If I were to show you the fossils of two different organisms, could you tell us if they belong to the same kind? If I were to show the same two fossils to a different creationist, would he come to the same conclusion?

You know, before you post something like this, you might just try looking at the links I already referenced. It will help keep you from looking stupid.

As for the fossils - that's a non-sequitor. Creationists have no problems with the identification of the critters and plants, etc. represented by fossils - just the timelines and means of deposition.

 

[Galle]

You know, before you post something like this, you might just try looking at the links I already referenced. It will help keep you from looking stupid.

Did it ever occur to you to respond honestly and intelligibly to a post instead of making a claim, walking away, and whining about those who have further questions?

As for the fossils - that's a non-sequitor. Creationists have no problems with the identification of the critters and plants, etc. represented by fossils - just the timelines and means of deposition.

Do you even know what a non-sequitur is? No, but that's not the topic here. So let's skip that insult.

I'm asking if creationists could categorize by kinds from fossils because it's never at all clear what data creationists think they need to tell one kind from another. Since creationists are always going on about how there's some sort of "kind barrier", it is significant. If a kind is equivalent to "species", then creationists have a huge problem when it comes to, say, Homo erectus. On the other hand, if a kind is more equivalent to "genera" or "family", then things are different.

 

[theIdi0t]

Is it possible to spell out a definition of "kind"? Even it is AiG's version? or your version?

Can't talk about a word without a definition.

In short:

Kind = well this animal kind-of looks like that animal, so they are the same "Kind".

Not even remotely close to "checkmate"

The problem pop is that no matter which move you make, checkmate is inevitable. You can prolong it for some time if you choose, but the end is nigh.

I broke down 15 into three groups of 5, but it makes no difference if you broke down 15 into five groups of 3. Because the difference between 2 and 3, will still be equal to the difference between the 3 of the first Kind group and the 4 of the second Kind group.

If you go as far as to claim that evolution occurs within Kinds, you have just handed the atheistic scientist his victory . Once the supporters inquire about the mechanics of their own system, they'll start to see that there is no place to draw a line between Kinds.

I'm happy that you brought those websites to our attention. I've always been taken back by how terse the language of Creation Science websites are, particularly when their primary audience are laymen. They continue to speak of Kind and yet not a single creationist on this forum seems to understand what the word means.

I defined it for you as Kind= kind-of-looks-like, it seems that all these sites that you presented seem to agree with this, so there should be no confusion between you and I, on what the term really means.

 

[Deamiter]

I wouldn't be one to claim that creationists can't do science, but I do question the value of a creationist "peer reviewed" journal. What's the point of peer review if the purpose of the review is even in part to ensure that no dissenting (non-creationist) articles may be published?

Further, the allowing of extreme errors such as an r^2 value of 1 (as with the Setterfield publications which later asserted that the r^2 value was equal to the chi^2 value etc...) when not a single point falls on a fitted curve suggest that review is PRIMARILY focused on rejecting non-creationist content rather than ensuring accuracy as with the vast majority of peer-reviewed journals.

I suppose if you define "peer" as "creationist" it works just fine, but it shouldn't be compared with the standard peer-reviewed journals where articles are reviewed by experts throughout the field no matter their expressed views on a subject.

 

[Mallon]

With exception to the veiled insults being tossed around (both ways), I have to agree with those in doubt of the concept of a "biblical kind." Until the baraminologists can actually come up with some sort of objective diagnosis delineating "kinds", then their work is nothing more than hearsay (can they tell me whether Tiktaalik and Panderichthys belonged to the same "kind", for example?). Besides that, if they limit their criteria to hybridization (animals "reproducing after their own kind"), then they have no hope of ever recovering original "kinds" because 99% of all life on earth is dead and gone.

 

[theIdi0t]

You know, it is often requested that creationists "correct" each other around here. I can probably count on one hand the times I've seen any TEs distancing themselves from elitist slander.

Well, I do think that our fellows TEs have been a bit harsh on you, and I don't think your argument thus far deserves the scorn you have been receiving. (And I'm wondering if I have said anything in this post that might have came off as such as well, though I don't believe so.)

On Fridays I usually watch Bill Maher, and his audience is by in large composed of liberals and every so often he has a Republican as a guest, and the poor right-winger can barely get out a word without the audience booing him down. Sometimes you want to cheer them on, other times you feel guilty for cheering.

 

[laptoppop]

Did it ever occur to you to respond honestly and intelligibly to a post instead of making a claim, walking away, and whining about those who have further questions?


Do you even know what a non-sequitur is? No, but that's not the topic here. So let's skip that insult.

I'm asking if creationists could categorize by kinds from fossils because it's never at all clear what data creationists think they need to tell one kind from another. Since creationists are always going on about how there's some sort of "kind barrier", it is significant. If a kind is equivalent to "species", then creationists have a huge problem when it comes to, say, Homo erectus. On the other hand, if a kind is more equivalent to "genera" or "family", then things are different.

Read the links.

 

[laptoppop]

In short:
Kind = well this animal kind-of looks like that animal, so they are the same "Kind".

WAY oversimplified. Did you read the links?

The problem pop is that no matter which move you make, checkmate is inevitable. You can prolong it for some time if you choose, but the end is nigh.

I broke down 15 into three groups of 5, but it makes no difference if you broke down 15 into five groups of 3. Because the difference between 2 and 3, will still be equal to the difference between the 3 of the first Kind group and the 4 of the second Kind group.

If you go as far as to claim that evolution occurs within Kinds, you have just handed the atheistic scientist his victory . Once the supporters inquire about the mechanics of their own system, they'll start to see that there is no place to draw a line between Kinds.

Actually I would not say evolution occurs within Kinds -- I would say that bounded variation and natural selection works within Kinds.

I'm happy that you brought those websites to our attention. I've always been taken back by how terse the language of Creation Science websites are, particularly when their primary audience are laymen. They continue to speak of Kind and yet not a single creationist on this forum seems to understand what the word means.

I defined it for you as Kind= kind-of-looks-like, it seems that all these sites that you presented seem to agree with this, so there should be no confusion between you and I, on what the term really means.

Interesting -- if I presented a overly simplified view of evolution, I'd get slammed. If you want to erect a sham then claim checkmate - fine. The reality is much more complex than your definition -- and the research is really just getting underway over the last 15 years or so.

 

[Galle]

In short:

Kind = well this animal kind-of looks like that animal, so they are the same "Kind".

I would add that creationists also recognize kinds in such a way that humans are always separate from other animals. Homo neanderthals might or might not be included with Homo sapiens, Homo erectus might or might not be included with genera Pan. It doesn't matter if a kind is so small that dogs are their own kind or if kind is so general that all bacteria form a kind. Modern humans are always, always set apart. In the end, the whole "baraminology" ruse is an attempt to set humans apart and make it sound sciency. It's driven by pure ego, not by any particular evidence or logic.

 

[laptoppop]

I wouldn't be one to claim that creationists can't do science, but I do question the value of a creationist "peer reviewed" journal. What's the point of peer review if the purpose of the review is even in part to ensure that no dissenting (non-creationist) articles may be published?

Further, the allowing of extreme errors such as an r^2 value of 1 (as with the Setterfield publications which later asserted that the r^2 value was equal to the chi^2 value etc...) when not a single point falls on a fitted curve suggest that review is PRIMARILY focused on rejecting non-creationist content rather than ensuring accuracy as with the vast majority of peer-reviewed journals.

I suppose if you define "peer" as "creationist" it works just fine, but it shouldn't be compared with the standard peer-reviewed journals where articles are reviewed by experts throughout the field no matter their expressed views on a subject.

In the general scientific community both ID and especially YEC is seen as a subject to ridicule, not to take seriously. You may not want to admit it, but there are plenty of examples of prejudice in the academic community. For example http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/733rlosv.asp

So what is the alternative? Establish your own journals. There are a number of different journals, with different standards of review. The best ones require review by PhDs in the field being addressed.

All journals limit themselves in scope in one way or another - these are no different.

Creationist groups are often criticized for admitting openly that they believe there is a God, and they believe in God's ability to reveal and communicate. Many other scientific groups reject all mention of God as unscientific -- but they rarely mention that up-front.