AiG and Checkmate

[laptoppop]

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.

Did you read the articles?

I apologize if my being fed up comes across as insulting -- I was trying to be factual, not insulting. I'm just tired of the name calling, etc. I want to discuss real issues and facts, not have to respond to no-content posts.

 

[laptoppop]

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.

Thank you. And again, I apologize for coming off insulting back. I guess I've been in a bit surly mood tonight and get tired of "taking it"

 

[laptoppop]

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.

No, creationists give preference to humans because according to Scripture they are the only ones made in the very image of God. Genesis accords humans a very special place in creation, and we accept this.

(BTW, many, if not most TEs would accept this as well. Even if Genesis is a fable, one of the spiritual lessons is that man is special.)

Jesus did not come to seek and save lost animals. He came in love, to save humans.

 

[Mallon]

Did you read the articles?

Pop, you're acting as though the articles have any relevance to the question of delineating "kinds". They don't. I've read them, and nowhere do they explain how to objectively distinguish between baramins. What constitutes a "baramin"? They can't say! Heck, the Tom Hennigan article assumes a priori that snakes are a holobaramin in their own right! How can he be sure that, say, the more inclusive Squamata is not a holobaramin?

 

[Galle]

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

Are you still trying to claim that Gonzalez was some sort of martyr for the IDC cause? This claim has thoroughly disproved in ChristianForums, never mind the rest of the internet. You haven't shown that there's some sort of irrational bias against IDCists; you've just shown that IDCists have a massive persecution complex.

Your bizarre conspiracy theories in no way legitimatize creationist "journals". If creationists really wanted to actually do science, they'd submit their papers to actual journals. If they felt they were unfairly rejected, they could show just that. Yet they never do. Instead they whine about how reality has a liberal/atheistic/anti-Christian bias and create websites dedicated to showcasing their ideology rather than scientific research.

 

[Galle]

No, creationists give preference to humans because according to Scripture they are the only ones made in the very image of God.

Well, so much for science then. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Dannager]

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.

On the other hand, I haven't enough fingers and toes to count the number of times a creationist has decided it's easier to frame criticism as "elitist slander" than to seriously consider that the criticism could be valid. Calling it slander suddenly means that it doesn't have to be taken seriously, right?

 

[laptoppop]

Are you still trying to claim that Gonzalez was some sort of martyr for the IDC cause? This claim has thoroughly disproved in ChristianForums, never mind the rest of the internet. You haven't shown that there's some sort of irrational bias against IDCists; you've just shown that IDCists have a massive persecution complex.

Not such that I've seen -- maybe I've missed something - want to provide a link? Note that your standing is "thoroughly disproved" and compare that to the facts cited in the link I provided.

Your bizarre conspiracy theories in no way legitimatize creationist "journals". If creationists really wanted to actually do science, they'd submit their papers to actual journals. If they felt they were unfairly rejected, they could show just that. Yet they never do. Instead they whine about how reality has a liberal/atheistic/anti-Christian bias and create websites dedicated to showcasing their ideology rather than scientific research.

I *work* for a professional society that publishes a number of professional journals (about 14 peer-reviewed magazines, 14 technical peer reviewed journals, we sponsor ~300 conferences each year, etc.) Each of them have editorial limits. Each of the editors can decide the article is not worth proceeding further, or it lies outside the scope of the publication or conference. (I am not an editor -- I'm part of the IT dept.)

It is not a conspiracy -- however, it is understandable for editors to reject articles they consider pseudo-science because they represent a view so far outside of the mainstream. It is reasonable for a physics journal concentrating on hot fusion to reject "free energy" articles out of hand.

 

[Galle]

On the other hand, I haven't enough fingers and toes to count the number of times a creationist has decided it's easier to frame criticism as "elitist slander" than to seriously consider that the criticism could be valid. Calling it slander suddenly means that it doesn't have to be taken seriously, right?

This is an old trick. Pick out some "insult" and complain about that rather than address anything of substance. The result is that it's perfectly acceptable to misrepresent evolutionary theory and to libel scientists as Nazis, but the second someone responds, even with so mild a criticism as to call the offending creationist "ignorant", then it's an outrage! Heck, I've seen non-creationists told that they're "as bad as Osama bin Laden" just because they disagreed with the creationists. Needless to say, the comments of these non-creationists were never actually addressed.

As for having enough fingers, use binary. Being able to count up to 2^10 - 1 (or 2^20 -1 with flexible toes) should be enough. One hopes. <_<

 

[Dannager]

As for having enough fingers, use binary. Being able to count up to 2^10 - 1 (or 2^20 -1 with flexible toes) should be enough. One hopes. <_<

Hey! There's an idea!

 

[laptoppop]

Well, so much for science then. Thanks for proving my point.

This is a Christian forum about origin theology -- are you seriously criticizing calling Man something special and made in the image of God? Yes -- *it is beyond the limited realm of scientific investigation* -- but it is still TRUE.

 

[laptoppop]

On the other hand, I haven't enough fingers and toes to count the number of times a creationist has decided it's easier to frame criticism as "elitist slander" than to seriously consider that the criticism could be valid. Calling it slander suddenly means that it doesn't have to be taken seriously, right?

I'll leave it to the readers to decide if your posts have been insulting or not.

 

[Dannager]

I'll leave it to the readers to decide if your posts have been insulting or not.

Yeah, because your opinion on the matter definitely was not evident from the above post.

 

[Galle]

Not such that I've seen -- maybe I've missed something - want to provide a link? Note that your standing is "thoroughly disproved" and compare that to the facts cited in the link I provided.

Then you haven't looked.
http://chronicle.com/daily/2007/05/2007052103n.htm (from http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/05/post_2.phphttp://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/05/post_2.php) ). Do note that this is hardly a unique sample.

It is not a conspiracy -- however, it is understandable for editors to reject articles they consider pseudo-science because they represent a view so far outside of the mainstream. It is reasonable for a physics journal concentrating on hot fusion to reject "free energy" articles out of hand.

And so if I found a paper describing a perpetual motion machine from a pseudo-scientific, anti-thermodynamics "journal", would you think it legitimate? Would you go out and invest a few million dollars in this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity? What if I found a homeopathy "journal" What about a journal describing how to build a warp drive from a toaster and microwave?

The fact remains: if creationists could honestly claim that they were being unfairly shut out of scientific journals, they'd be able to show us their submissions and the reasons these submissions were rejected. They don't even try.

 

[laptoppop]

Pop, you're acting as though the articles have any relevance to the question of delineating "kinds". They don't. I've read them, and nowhere do they explain how to objectively distinguish between baramins. What constitutes a "baramin"? They can't say! Heck, the Tom Hennigan article assumes a priori that snakes are a holobaramin in their own right! How can he be sure that, say, the more inclusive Squamata is not a holobaramin?

OK, I'll go through the articles and pull some relevant quotes. It will be especially from the first article (the snake article was given as example of further development of a particular aspect, not generalized method -- that's common in science, eh?), and articles linked from the third link (you need to scroll down a bit to see the relevant articles on that one).

BTW - thanks for a discussion post. I apologize for my surly mood tonight.

 

[Galle]

This is a Christian forum about origin theology -- are you seriously criticizing calling Man something special and made in the image of God? Yes -- *it is beyond the limited realm of scientific investigation* -- but it is still TRUE.

I wasn't aware that being Christian meant I was supposed to be dishonest and egotistical. In fact, I had this strange idea that Christianity upheld the exact opposite values!

The fact of the matter is that setting up humans as a distinct kind separate from the rest of God's creations has nothing to do with facts or logic and everything to do with ego. You can't get out of this by attributing your claims to God, either. Creationism is your thing, not God's and if you're going to claim that humans are unique, you are going to need to support it yourself.

 

[laptoppop]

Then you haven't looked.
http://chronicle.com/daily/2007/05/2007052103n.htm (from http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/05/post_2.php). Do note that this is hardly a unique sample.

Sorry - first link requires a subscription, and 2nd link is broken.

And so if I found a paper describing a perpetual motion machine from a pseudo-scientific, anti-thermodynamics "journal", would you think it legitimate? Would you go out and invest a few million dollars in this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity? What if I found a homeopathy "journal" What about a journal describing how to build a warp drive from a toaster and microwave?

The fact remains: if creationists could honestly claim that they were being unfairly shut out of scientific journals, they'd be able to show us their submissions and the reasons these submissions were rejected. They don't even try.

Nice implied slam on creationist journals without any *data* or specifics.

There are plenty of early examples -- after a certain point, its not worth it. They are more interested in advancing the knowledge base and spreading the message than fighting against secular journals.

 

[laptoppop]

I wasn't aware that being Christian meant I was supposed to be dishonest and egotistical. In fact, I had this strange idea that Christianity upheld the exact opposite values!

The fact of the matter is that setting up humans as a distinct kind separate from the rest of God's creations has nothing to do with facts or logic and everything to do with ego. You can't get out of this by attributing your claims to God, either. Creationism is your thing, not God's and if you're going to claim that humans are unique, you are going to need to support it yourself.

Wow. It has nothing to do with ego - but everything to do with Scripture. Scripture says that man is special, made in the image of God, and needing the incredible love gift of Jesus. Am I correct that other TEs do not support this, or do you (other TEs) accept the general atheistic position that we are all animals?

 

[theIdi0t]

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

I don't think I understand the concept of bounded variation within Kinds? What exactly does that mean on the biological and Genetic level?

Interesting -- if I presented a overly simplified view of evolution, I'd get slammed.

Well, there is an overly simplified definition of evolution: "change in the frequency of genes in a population". I'm curious to know if you even know the definition of Kind? Perhaps you can provide a laymen summary of the term, rather than resorting to links of sites that don't provide the answer to the question either?

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.

I'm not claiming checkmate, I'm claiming that checkmate is inevitable when I am looking at my opponent and noticing he is down to his King, while I still have a queen and two bishops on the table. The King may still prevail but all bets are on me.

Also, I was referring to those who support the idea of evolution occurring within Kinds, and not so much alternative creationists positions which I have yet to be familiar with.

 

[Dannager]

Sorry - first link requires a subscription, and 2nd link is broken.

The link is broken because you didn't copy and paste it, you just clicked on it and didn't remove the parentheses at the end.