Fairytale?

[Schroeder]

There are myriad organic chemicals available in many places, and even visible in space right now. But chemicals do not "evolve" in the sense that life does. Biological evolution requires genetic inheritence. How the first genes came to be is obviously a different process, since there are no ancestors to inherit those genes from.

SO are you saying that genes do not have a ancestor. SO they are looking to see IF or how the first genes came to be. genes are what hold the info to make life function. As in eating reproduction ect. I have a hard time seeing how life can arise from chenicals or organic chenicals with the ability to have info in them already to do things it needs to do to survive. It would in a since need to know what its environment is like and what is available to consume for energy. I can see why one would avoid this and start with life then proceed. I will admit at first a saw the theory as absolute nonsense BUT in all this debating i find a lot of it to make since in a way. BUT i found most of it is just evolution at work, i havent seen evidence to convince me of it being from one common ancestor. maybe from one common kind(or whatever) then evolving to what we have now. like a type of bird, fish, land reptile,mammal or different types. Original "kinds" evolving into what we have know. but i would say they didnt evovle up but lost genes(or info) i use these words loosely because we just focus on the "terms" of them. As in i am being general hoping you get the point i am trying to make.

 

[Aron-Ra]

his incentive was HATE not religion.

What's the difference? Historically, nearly every hate group ever formed rallleyed around religion to unite them.

 

[TheOutsider]

Its nice to have a group to lay all yourproblems on or all the lies of the world on. you make it sound as if they were trying to rule the world. NOPE that would be the left wing liberals and one worlders

What the heck?!?

 

[Loudmouth]

SO are you saying that genes do not have a ancestor. SO they are looking to see IF or how the first genes came to be. genes are what hold the info to make life function. As in eating reproduction ect.

The regulation of genes is just as important, if not more important, as the genes themselves.

I have a hard time seeing how life can arise from chenicals or organic chenicals with the ability to have info in them already to do things it needs to do to survive.

Atoms already have information in them, so I really don't see where the problem is. Also, incredulity is not evidence and it makes for a poor argument. I have a hard time seeing how photons can be a wave or a particle, but never both at the same time. However, this is exactly how photons act.

It would in a since need to know what its environment is like and what is available to consume for energy.

Changes in temperature may have been the first energy source. Deep sea vents have been proposed as regions where this type of energy could be used.

BUT i found most of it is just evolution at work, i havent seen evidence to convince me of it being from one common ancestor.

What type of evidence would convince you? What evidence would convince you that chimps and humans share a common ancestor?

 

[Aron-Ra]

All the nazis said they believed in creation, and I would bet that not one among them said -anything- about evolution. So your assertions are not only unjustified, they are wrong.

I will have to look and see. i am not a historian of hitler and the riech. I doubt it much and there actions proved they were NOT christians. i would think EVEN you would agree with this. no matter what they said. YOu said you knew more of scripture then me so you should know they werent.

The Bible is chock-full of grisly injustices and violent criminality condoned or ordered by your god to be visited against helpless women and children of other races. So it is hardly coincidental that Christianity is well-known to be the bloodiest religion in history, with more atrocities committed in the name of Christ than for any other catalyst. So when yet another Christian hate group, like the Christian Identity, or the Westboro Baptists, or the KKK say they're doing God's work by violating some other group, that seems rather typical to me. I mean, I've heard Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and several other leaders of the fundamentalist faith say very similar things many times.

"You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress of humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or ever mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world."
--Bertrand Russell, (1872-1970) English philosopher, historian, logician, mathematician, advocate for social reform, pacifist, and prominent Rationalist.

I have to be exact on everything i right dont I.

As do I, of course.

yes some nut creationist may, but not ALL which is what you keep saying ALL ......

When I make a generalization, I make sure it is defensibly accurate. If it proves not to be, then I change my position as necessary until it is defensibly accurate. You should do the same.

Yes, Hitler explained exactly that.

he did in a way but he did not give details of killing all the jews and others he deemed unworthy or less human doing experiments on them.

Go back and read the citations again, and confirm them with the source. Yes he did.

The Christian Identity are not the KKK, but they are Christian -because they rever the Bible, declare Christ as their savior and adhere to every tenet of the Nicene Creed. How do you define what a Christian is?

Christ said you would no them by there LOVE. so it would be NOT what they say they believe but HOW THEY ACT. not that hard you know. But it keeps you from lumping us all into a group. its a lot easier to judge one in a gropup then individually. thats to much work.

If you're arguing against an idea, then you necessarily have to treat those who promote that idea as a group. it is not possible to separate every person and judge him individually. But if I were to do as you say, then I must also tell you that I've known many extremely hateful Christians in my life, and a very few truly good and admirable ones. But most of the atheists I've known or know of seem more loving of all things than most Christians. So it is that hard you know?

Not only that, but the more indoctrinated and obsessed with religion any person is, the more prone they are to extremist beliefs, and prejudice of some sort always precedes that. And the more religious such a person is, the more easily he or she could be manipulated into performing horrendous acts which they think are justified by faith, but which most non-religious people would consider unthinkable under any circumstances. The New World Order needs obediant and unquestioning minions, and religion is how they hope to get them.

BUT that would make you have to think about it and reason through the false ideas.

Having done that my whole life, I'm wondering what it would take to get you to do the same?

your amusing.

Why? Your position is that your position is absolutely correct, free from error of any kind, perfect in every way, and must never change no matter what, and you have apologetics to automatically rationalize away everything which otherwise implies that your initial assumption contains some flaw. And you know there has to be one! You don't know everything and you can't be right about everything. But you think your interpretation of Bronze age fables has to be absolutely perfect anyway.

My position is that I have been wrong before, and must still surely be wrong about something somewhere. Unlike you, I want my understanding to improve. So I must find where those errors are, and I must know how to correct them. But I don't want to try and convince myself that whatever I already believe is the truth. Instead, I want to find out what the truth really is!

The very term, "Aryan nation" was based largely on Hindu mythology, another religious reference. Occultism and religious fascination ruled the Third Reich. None of them knew anything about evolution at all, and there is no indication from any source anywhere to imply that any of them were motivated by evolution in any way. All of that was just another baseless assertion made by creationists trying to associate evolution with anything evil.

Well there christians though if they were actual christians they would have nothing to do with such ideas. I guess i was right it is HOW you act not what you say you are.

You know, rather than being unified at all, there are at least a couple hundred different denominations of Christians, not only believing differently, but often conflicting with each other violently. Very few of them are in your denomination, and even some of your own fold don't believe as you do. Most Christians aren't your sort of Christian. Sometimes even you aren't your sort of Christian. And I know many Christians who would say that you aren't a "true" Christian, and they would base that on what you "show", and the fact that you believe so very differently than so many of the Biblical scholars do.

Its nice to have a group to lay all yourproblems on or all the lies of the world on. you make it sound as if they were trying to rule the world. NOPE that would be the left wing liberals and one worlders. And there getting closer every day.

I don't know how you could be so confused about this. But while you're laying your problems on generalized groups like the "left-wing liberals", (rather than judging each of them as individuals) I should point that they are opposed to this "New World Order", and that it is the Right-Wing who is promoting it!

Martin Luther didn't just found Protestant Christianity; he founded the creationism movement too. He was the first to promote the idea that anything and everything could be dismissed from consideration simply by saying "That doesn't prove anything." And that, so far, has been your whole strategy.

Like i said i care less of him. he did some good and bad. i follow Christ. YOu just assume not understand this and lump me in with a group.

I don't assume anything, and I certainly don't pretend not to understand. Do you deny that you are a creationist? Do you deny that you are a Protestant Christian? Or do you lump yourself into both of those groups?

So can she be "saved" and be an evolutionist at the same time? Yes or no?

YES. how does this help you prove anything. I am not perfect i have issues so what. If i am wrong about GOd creating in seven days he wont kick me out and i dont think he will kick one out if they feel he did it through evolution.

Thank you. That is actually quite an enormous admission, because the main lie on which the entire creationism movement is based is that one cannot be a "true" Christian or be "truly" saved if they accept science even when that challenges their sacred dogma. Writers for the Discovery Institute admitted this as part of thier agenda to maintain that illusion anyway. Your rejection of their most foundational falsehood is therefore a giant step in the right direction!

I think your in a fairy tale if you think the world is a nice place. WORLD as in the beliefs and ideas the atmosphere. NOT the planet and its natural life as in the trees animals ect. that i would say is wonderful and amazing.

What world do you live in? And why is it not as nice as mine? Sure we have issues with all these religious minions trying to take away all our rights and destroy the planet in the process, but I don't concentrate on those incidental and impermanent influences when I talk about the world.

your a master at twisting things and words and words and such. you would be a good propogandist

I'm sure I would be a good propagandist. I'd make a fine polititian, salesman, evangelist, or miltary recruiter too -if it weren't for the fact that I hate deception so very much. Because you see, I don't "twist" anything. It only seems that way to you because your perception is already warped, and I'm trying to straighten it out.

I couldn't care less what you believe. I've only ever been interested in why you believe it.

Well i dont think you could understand WHY i believe it. since you dont believe in FAITH. And my faith isnt based on nothing, its based on experiences which i CANNOT prove to you or show evidence of becasue it happened in the passed and at times did not deal with anything physical or material. which is why you ask such loaded guestion you know cant be answered, just to try and make us seem ignorant or wrong.

It wasn't a loaded question. You said I was wrong for saying faith wasn't based on evidence. Now you admit I was right after all. But if you have no evidence -of any kind- then you have no reason either.

 

[Aron-Ra]

SO are you saying that genes do not have a ancestor.

Not a living ancestor, no. Life is defined as any organic protein which replicates and reproduces -and- can maintain metabolic homeostasis. There are things in nature which meet some of these requirements, but can't count as life without the last one too. By this definition, even viruses are not "alive" despite the fact that they can be killed. They already have genes and can even evolve, but they're not living. Now if some viral strain ever can maintain its own internal chemical balance without requiring a host organism, then we'll see abiogenesis happen. But that event is almost as difficult as the formation of the neucleotides themselves. The rest of it is relatively simple. Some of the intricacies within the cell seem outrageously complex, but a lot of it is just simple chemical reactions or molecular polarity. The membranes even form themselves automatically on contact with water.

SO they are looking to see IF or how the first genes came to be. genes are what hold the info to make life function. As in eating reproduction ect. I have a hard time seeing how life can arise from chenicals or organic chenicals with the ability to have info in them already to do things it needs to do to survive.

If it isn't quite alive yet, then "survival" shouldnn't be an issue.

And you're going about this all wrong. If you look hard enough, you're bound to find things science can't answer. And right now you're trying to use that to throw away things science has already answered. The point is, that science offers a method of how to find out what the answers really are, and how to know if they're the correct ones. Religion doesn't do either one. Religion tells you to shut up and believe what they tell you to believe. Religion assumes its own conclusion and refuses to test it. It can't answer anything, and all it can do is to say, "Gee, I don't know how anything works or why anything is as it is - therefore it must be magic." That's why creationism is worthless; that, and the fact that anytime someone says, "Look it wasn't magic, it was _____ ", then the creationists put on their "armor of God", (which sheilds the mind against reason) so that they never know any better than whatever they wanna still believe.

I can see why one would avoid this and start with life then proceed.

I'm not avoiding anything. How genes formed isn't yet well understood. But the subsequent evolution of life is an entirely different process which as well proven as ever need be in any court of law, and is infinitely more interesting than the origin of life anyway.

Think about it. If they announce tomorrow that some biotech corporation has finally figured out the right combination of chemicals, pressures, temperatures, radiation and perifrial circumstances required for RNA cells to form naturally, and these conditions are consistent with what we could expect from a partially-molten and still-forming earth, then what would that mean to you?

And when is it EVER permissible to say, "I don't yet know enough to figger it out, so it must be magic."?

I will admit at first a saw the theory as absolute nonsense BUT in all this debating i find a lot of it to make since in a way. BUT i found most of it is just evolution at work, i havent seen evidence to convince me of it being from one common ancestor. maybe from one common kind(or whatever) then evolving to what we have now. like a type of bird, fish, land reptile,mammal or different types. Original "kinds" evolving into what we have know. but i would say they didnt evovle up but lost genes(or info) i use these words loosely because we just focus on the "terms" of them. As in i am being general hoping you get the point i am trying to make.

No one dares define the term, "kind", largely because it wouldn't do the creationists any good if they did. Because there are many different "kinds" of cattle, and birds are a "kind" of dinosaur, and humans are a "kind" of ape, and there's no way around any of that.

And because of the amount of horozontal gene transfer going on just prior to when life began to evolve on its own, the closest you'll find to any "original kind" is the superkingdom/clade, Eukarya.

That's as close as you'll ever likely get to any "single" common ancestor too. Because once these life-forms finally qualified as "alive" and were finally "evolving" according to the processes of genetic inheritence, then eukaryotes wouldn't technically have been descended from, or in fact "related to" the other "superkingdoms" of life. So technically, there really isn't a single common ancestor for all life, even if there is one for all us eukaryotes.

Do you deny that you're descended from eukaryotes?

 

[ReverendDG]

What the heck?!?

i second this, hitler and liberals goes together like peanut butter and zykion b!

 

[Inan3]

Not a living ancestor, no. Life is defined as any organic protein which replicates and reproduces -and- can maintain metabolic homeostasis. There are things in nature which meet some of these requirements, but can't count as life without the last one too. By this definition, even viruses are not "alive" despite the fact that they can be killed.

They already have genes and can even evolve, but they're not living.

Now if some viral strain ever can maintain its own internal chemical balance without requiring a host organism, then we'll see abiogenesis happen. But that event is almost as difficult as the formation of the neucleotides themselves. The rest of it is relatively simple. Some of the intricacies within the cell seem outrageously complex, but a lot of it is just simple chemical reactions or molecular polarity. The membranes even form themselves automatically on contact with water.
If it isn't quite alive yet,

then "survival" shouldnn't be an issue.

And you're going about this all wrong. If you look hard enough, you're bound to find things science can't answer. And right now you're trying to use that to throw away things science has already answered. The point is, that science offers a method of how to find out what the answers really are, and how to know if they're the correct ones. (Like making up definitions like the one above?) Religion doesn't do either one. Religion tells you to shut up and believe what they tell you to believe. Religion assumes its own conclusion and refuses to test it. It can't answer anything, and all it can do is to say, "Gee, I don't know how anything works or why anything is as it is - therefore it must be magic." (but we don't have to make up things to make our theory count) That's why creationism is worthless; that, and the fact that anytime someone says, "Look it wasn't magic, it was _____ ", then the creationists put on their "armor of God", (which sheilds the mind against reason) so that they never know any better than whatever they wanna still believe. (how little you know about it)
I'm not avoiding anything. How genes formed isn't yet well understood. But the subsequent evolution of life is an entirely different process which as well proven as ever need be in any court of law, and is infinitely more interesting than the origin of life anyway. (and we know everything decided in a court of law is ALWAYS right, don't we?)

Think about it. If they announce tomorrow that some biotech corporation has finally figured out the right combination of chemicals, pressures, temperatures, radiation and perifrial circumstances required for RNA cells to form naturally, and these conditions are consistent with what we could expect from a partially-molten and still-forming earth, then what would that mean to you? It will never happen! So don't bet the house on it!

And when is it EVER permissible to say, "I don't yet know enough to figger it out, so it must be magic."? You're words not Creationists.
No one dares define the term, "kind", largely because it wouldn't do the creationists any good if they did. Because there are many different "kinds" of cattle, and birds are a "kind" of dinosaur, and humans are a "kind" of ape, and there's no way around any of that. Kind = what ever kind we are talking about. An ape produces apes. Birds produce birds. Cows produce cows. Humans produce humans. ETC ETC ETC How's that for you? You shouldn't have dared me. I couldn't resist.

And because of the amount of horozontal gene transfer going on just prior to when life began to evolve on its own, the closest you'll find to any "original kind" is the superkingdom/clade, Eukarya. What a nice little fairytale "in the superkingdom of clade the baby Eukarya was formed but was not alive yet. All the kingdom celebrated for they knew all their hopes and dreams hung here on this...this...alive/dead imagination. How sweet.

That's as close as you'll ever likely get to any "single" common ancestor too. Because once these life-forms finally qualified as "alive" and were finally "evolving" according to the processes of genetic inheritence, then eukaryotes wouldn't technically have been descended from, or in fact "related to" the other "superkingdoms" of life. (huh???) So technically, there really isn't a single common ancestor for all life, even if there is one for all us eukaryotes. (Oh please don't tell all those in the kingdom of clade...it will break their hearts....but their probably not alive yet so it's okay)

Do you deny that you're descended from eukaryotes?

This is the biggest fairytale I have ever heard. You even included a picture of the castle. And you guys wonder WHY I WONDER WHY intelligent people believe this junk!!! You guys were really kidding, right? You do understand after all. Hey, you had me going there for a while. So funny. I know you guys can't really believe this stuff. I get it now. Nice Joke!

 

[Lilandra]

This is the biggest fairytale I have ever heard. You even included a picture of the castle. And you guys wonder WHY I WONDER WHY intelligent people believe this junk!!! You guys were really kidding, right? You do understand after all. Hey, you had me going there for a while. So funny. I know you guys can't really believe this stuff. I get it now. Nice Joke!

Okay, she has to be a parody trying to make Christians look dumb. Or her powers of argumentation are so weak that she has been reduced to trolling.

The parody thing spares some faith in humanity.

A castle? What the hell?!

 

[Aron-Ra]

Life is defined as any organic protein which replicates and reproduces -and- can maintain metabolic homeostasis. There are things in nature which meet some of these requirements, but can't count as life without the last one too. By this definition, even viruses are not "alive" despite the fact that they can be killed.

They already have genes and can even evolve, but they're not living.

Now if some viral strain ever can maintain its own internal chemical balance without requiring a host organism, then we'll see abiogenesis happen. But that event is almost as difficult as the formation of the neucleotides themselves. The rest of it is relatively simple. Some of the intricacies within the cell seem outrageously complex, but a lot of it is just simple chemical reactions or molecular polarity. The membranes even form themselves automatically on contact with water.
If it isn't quite alive yet, then "survival" shouldnn't be an issue.

And you're going about this all wrong. If you look hard enough, you're bound to find things science can't answer. And right now you're trying to use that to throw away things science has already answered. The point is, that science offers a method of how to find out what the answers really are, and how to know if they're the correct ones. (Like making up definitions like the one above?)

I didn't make that up. But if you think you could do better, how would you define "life" in the biological sense?

Religion doesn't do either one. Religion tells you to shut up and believe what they tell you to believe. Religion assumes its own conclusion and refuses to test it. It can't answer anything, and all it can do is to say, "Gee, I don't know how anything works or why anything is as it is - therefore it must be magic." (but we don't have to make up things to make our theory count)

That's right. We leave that nonsense to religion.

That's why creationism is worthless; that, and the fact that anytime someone says, "Look it wasn't magic, it was _____ ", then the creationists put on their "armor of God", (which sheilds the mind against reason) so that they never know any better than whatever they wanna still believe. (how little you know about it)

I'm sure you know some parts of it that I don't. But I know about a lot that you don't know too.

I'm not avoiding anything. How genes formed isn't yet well understood. But the subsequent evolution of life is an entirely different process which as well proven as ever need be in any court of law, and is infinitely more interesting than the origin of life anyway. (and we know everything decided in a court of law is ALWAYS right, don't we?)

It is when we use genetic evidence, and that's what I'm talking about -in addition to an overwhelming preponderance of every other kind of evidence too, especially when that has always been in the complete absence of any evidence to the contrary.

The thing is, science doesn't work like a court of law because science has a rule against proving anything right. You can't posatively prove a negative either. All you can do is disprove competing explanations. Because if we could prove anything right, the way a court of law does, then we'd be like creationists, and we'd act like we had "absolute truth", and would consequently never learn anything more.

Think about it. If they announce tomorrow that some biotech corporation has finally figured out the right combination of chemicals, pressures, temperatures, radiation and perifrial circumstances required for RNA cells to form naturally, and these conditions are consistent with what we could expect from a partially-molten and still-forming earth, then what would that mean to you? It will never happen! So don't bet the house on it!

That potential reality must terrify you. I mean, over the course of my life, people have told me that no one would ever see a new species evolve, that no one would ever create a whole organism out of scratch in a lab, that no one would ever find transitional species like turtles with half-shells, fish with feet, dinosaurs with feathers, or transitional humans half-way between modern men and the traditional concept of apes. But since then, all these things have come to pass. So think about it seriously, and answer the question.

And when is it EVER permissible to say, "I don't yet know enough to figger it out, so it must be magic."? You're words not Creationists.

Wrong again. That was part of the Discovery Institute's "expert" testimony; that science should undermined and redefined such that astrology and excuses blaming "the supernatural" could be considerd scientific. That's the primary reason why they're so opposed to rationalism, uniformitarianism, and methodological naturalism; they wanna blame invisible ghosts using incantations and magic spells.

No one dares define the term, "kind", largely because it wouldn't do the creationists any good if they did. Because there are many different "kinds" of cattle, and birds are a "kind" of dinosaur, and humans are a "kind" of ape, and there's no way around any of that. Kind = what ever kind we are talking about. An ape produces apes. Birds produce birds. Cows produce cows. Humans produce humans. ETC ETC ETC How's that for you? You shouldn't have dared me. I couldn't resist.

Well, if you're going to take on the challenge, then do it already. What is a dinosaur? And what exactly does the word, "cattle" mean? What is an ape? Because apes produce apes and humans are a kind of ape. Just like birds produce birds and ducks are a kind of bird. Understand?

And because of the amount of horozontal gene transfer going on just prior to when life began to evolve on its own, the closest you'll find to any "original kind" is the superkingdom/clade, Eukarya. What a nice little fairytale "in the superkingdom of clade the baby Eukarya was formed but was not alive yet. All the kingdom celebrated for they knew all their hopes and dreams hung here on this...this...alive/dead imagination. How sweet.

Actually this was confirmed through genome sequencing of all eukaryan life-forms. We don't do fairy tales like you do.

That's as close as you'll ever likely get to any "single" common ancestor too. Because once these life-forms finally qualified as "alive" and were finally "evolving" according to the processes of genetic inheritence, then eukaryotes wouldn't technically have been descended from, or in fact "related to" the other "superkingdoms" of life. (huh???)

They couldn't be related through any sort of recognizeable family tree because that can't start to develop until there are ancestor-descendant lineages without all that bacterial gene transfer

So technically, there really isn't a single common ancestor for all life, even if there is one for all us eukaryotes. (Oh please don't tell all those in the kingdom of clade...it will break their hearts....but their probably not alive yet so it's okay)

I sense in you much fear. There's no need for it. Truth is kind of like sex. It only hurts the first time you get it, but it gets better later on, once you're used to it.

A 'clade' is a taxonomic term for an ancestral lineage which also serves as a parent category in systematic classification. Its a monophyletic series of groups within groups. For example, Eukarya is an evolutionary lineage of organisms who all inherited a particular trait, (in this case, cellular nuclei) and carried that trait throughout all the subsets or "daughter" clades/categories.

Now, since you avoided this question before, let me ask it again. Do you deny that you're descended from eukaryotes?

This is the biggest fairytale I have ever heard. You even included a picture of the castle. And you guys wonder WHY I WONDER WHY intelligent people believe this junk!!! You guys were really kidding, right? You do understand after all. Hey, you had me going there for a while. So funny. I know you guys can't really believe this stuff. I get it now. Nice Joke!

If all the best and brightest minds in every nation or faith in the modern world accept this, including 99.86% of all the world's "earth and life" scientists, then obviously it is because they understand it, -and you won't.

 

[FoeHammer]

………. No one dares define the term, "kind", largely because it wouldn't do the creationists any good if they did. Because there are many different "kinds" of cattle, and birds are a "kind" of dinosaur, and humans are a "kind" of ape, and there's no way around any of that.

That’s funny dictionary.com lists nine entries for ‘’kind’’ and the very first one, with a little tweaking is quite adequate…..
a class or group of individual objects, people, animals, etc., of the same nature or character, or classified together because they have traits in common.
…..Snip the red.
As ever you fail to give an explanation as to why creationists must accept the ‘’scientific’’ classification system (as a whole or in part) rather than rely on our own observations and understanding.

FoeHammer.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That’s funny dictionary.com lists nine entries for ‘’kind’’ and the very first one, with a little tweaking is quite adequate…..
a class or group of individual objects, people, animals, etc., of the same nature or character, or classified together because they have traits in common.
…..Snip the red.
As ever you fail to give an explanation as to why creationists must accept the ‘’scientific’’ classification system (as a whole or in part) rather than rely on our own observations and understanding.

FoeHammer.

Because you are passing it off as science!

 

[FoeHammer]

Because you are passing it off as science!

Tell me why we must accept the ''scientific'' classification system?

FoeHammer.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Tell me why we must accept the ''scientific'' classification system?

FoeHammer.

Because it works and it's consistent -- unlike the YEC system.

 

[FoeHammer]

Because it works and it's consistent -- unlike the YEC system.

It works and is consistent with what?

FoeHammer.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Tell me why we must accept the ''scientific'' classification system?

FoeHammer.

You don't. You can have your own system, if you so choose. Of course, one's view of history influences what systems you can choose: Last Thursdayism allows one to group animals as one sees fit, whilst the standard scientific model pretty much restricts one to a ancestral hierarchical system.
But as I said before, if you are to propose a scientific theory, you must either integrate it into the scientific system, or discredit the scientific system, or propose a better system. Indeed, the scientific system is remarkably useful; can you propose a better one?

 

[Psudopod]

It works and is consistent with what?

Reality.

Seriously, what else should it be consistent with?

 

[Aron-Ra]

No one dares define the term, "kind", largely because it wouldn't do the creationists any good if they did. Because there are many different "kinds" of cattle, and birds are a "kind" of dinosaur, and humans are a "kind" of ape, and there's no way around any of that.

That’s funny dictionary.com lists nine entries for ‘’kind’’ and the very first one, with a little tweaking is quite adequate…..
a class or group of individual objects, people, animals, etc., of the same nature or character, or classified together because they have traits in common.
…..Snip the red.

Of course that definition is inadequate for biology, and rather than tell you why, I suppose I should show you -with a little introduction to herpetology.

If evolution from common ancestry is not true, and some flavor of special creation of different (as yet unidentified "kinds") is true, then there would be some surface level(s) in a cladogram where you would accept an actual evolutionary ancestry. But there must also be subsequent levels in that twin-nested hierarchy where life-forms would no longer be the same "kind", and wouldn't be biologically related anymore. At that point, they would be magically created separate "kinds" from those listed around it, and they would only be in those categories "in the mind of man", as seems to be your stance. Throw away any ideas you have about the importance of any other argument you might be thinking about. None of them compare to this. If creationism is true of anything more than a single ancestor of all living things, or if the concept of common ancestry is fundamentally mistaken, then there MUST be a point in the tree where taxonomy falls apart, where what we see as related to everything is really unrelated to anything else. And unless you're a Scientologist or a Raelian, that criteria must apply to other animals besides ourselves. So my challenge to you is this, open up Google.com and investigate any cladograms you can find, (I suggest the Tree of Life pages as they are peer-reviewed) and find for me where that mystic division is in any or all of the following sets of questions below.

Is the short-tailed goanna related to the Perentie and all other Australian goannas?
Are all Australian goannas related to each other and to the other monitor lizards of Indonesia and Africa?
Are today's varanids related to the giant goannas of Australia's past?
Are terrestrial monitors related to the mosasaurs of the Cretaceous?
Are Varanoids related to any other Anguimorphs including snakes?
Are any Anguimorphs also related to scincomorphs and geckos?
Are all Scleroglossa also related to iguanids and other squamates?
Are all of squamata related to each other and all other lepidosaurs?
Are all lepidosaurs related to placodonts and plesiosaurs?
Are Lepidosauromorphs related to archosaurs and other diapsids?
Are all diapsids related to anapsids, or synapsid "reptiles" like dimetrodon?
Are all reptiles related to each other and all other amniotes?
Are all amniotes related to each other and to all other tetrapods?
Are all tetrapods related to each other and to all other vertebrates?
........and so on.

Which of these are biologically related?
Which of these were magically created?

As ever you fail to give an explanation as to why creationists must accept the ‘’scientific’’ classification system (as a whole or in part) rather than rely on our own observations and understanding.

Your observations are welcome of course. But science can't limit itself to your understanding.

Tell me why we must accept the ''scientific'' classification system?

(1) Because there's no other option. One might quibble about linnaean taxonomy v. phylogenetic systematics, but since they're both scientific, they're overlapping and almost entirely concordant. So there's this method and nothing else. This is the only one that works. This is the only one there is.

(2) Because you're arguing against the scientific position, so you have to refer to these terms as they use them.

But if you'd like to come up with your own system of classification, I'd love to see it. Just explain how it would work, and how you would define what we now know as cattle, birds, dinosaurs, and apes.

 

[Loudmouth]

It works and is consistent with what?

FoeHammer.

Why wouldn't you? Afterall, it was constrcuted by a creationist.

 

[Inan3]

Okay, she has to be a parody trying to make Christians look dumb. Or her powers of argumentation are so weak that she has been reduced to trolling.

The parody thing spares some faith in humanity.

A castle? What the hell?!

Well at least you paid attention, Lilandra, and picked up on my gender.

I am not trolling, the last thing I want is an argumentative response. I'll leave the trolling to you mates. Parody possibly because I was "poking some affectionate fun at the work itself, the subject of the work". I do think you all need to laugh at yourselves a little. You guys are a little too serious at times.

Come on!! Are you saying you couldn't see the similarities of that "tree of life" picture with that of a "castle"? The castle image did "so go" with my analogy of the kingdom of clade. As a matter of fact, I thought it was quite cute and original.