Fairytale?

[USincognito]

I read this twice, and I still can't tell. What is your problem with this?

Nothing more than old fashioned incredulity as per this paragraph.

Now this information states certain things but my mind says "they can't know that that actually happened.. they can only surmise.. and I'm supposed to believe this because they say it?" It sounds feasible but I certainly need more than just their word for it.

 

[Inan3]

I read this twice, and I still can't tell. What is your problem with this?

The problem is, am I supposed to just believe this because they say so and threw in a couple of pictures? and that's it?? So now everyone should believe in evolution or that the one whale was the ancester of the present day whale and in between you have the "transitional" whale because that's how they theorized it. What if they were all just three different whales? I mean, is it possible? What if? It seems most of the so called evidence is in this form of information. I still get those same recurring questions. Is it possible that it didn't happen this way? Everyone keeps saying there is evidence but all I see is a method that questions and then hypothesizes and tests their hypothesis and then concludes with what they consider the "best" possible conclusion but there is always that "what if it didn't happen that way?" question.

 

[Inan3]

Nothing more than old fashioned incredulity as per this paragraph.

What's incredulous about that? Don't you ever question things?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Now just think about your last paragraph for a minute...poorly educated folks are going to be able to destroy science???? I think not! Also, I do not think that is their intention.

Poorly educated folks got a ridiculous disclaimer plastered in the biology textbooks of my former place of residence in Georgia.

Poorly educated people are able to elect politicians who actively work to quash real science and environmental issues.

So, yeah, poorly educated people are capable of doing damage.

You just honestly and passionatley shared a part of yourself and I say, bravo. Now I ask you can you understand that there are people who feel exactly the way you do about their faith in God.

And no one here is telling them not to feel about God the way they want to. What we as scientists are saying is "don't force religion into science". It hurts science and the religion doesn't fare so well in the end either.

Everything you said above replace science and evolution with God and faith in God. Can't you empathize with them in any way? I'm not asking that you agree with them but understand them. They are as passionate and honest about it as you are.

Believe it or not I do empathize. I used to be a christian. 30+ years of active belief in God. Years of focus on trying to understand religion. Read the bible. Understand the thoughts. I still enjoy thinking about religion, only from the other side now.

But what I don't empathize with is religion attempting to upset the apple cart of science simply because some minor sect doesn't like what science tells them.

I find it sad that people can hide from learning science yet still lob rocks at science.

In my discussions with people as an atheist I come at it not with the goal of deconverting anyone, but with the understanding it is a discussion, debate, whatever. I have done my time to understand religion. So I feel capable and equipped to discuss it.

I don't think everyone who fights evolution is doing so from a sound understanding of science. I do hear lots of people repeating blather they've been spoonfed without understanding, and repeated PRATTs but so few every rise to the level of being scientifically literate enough to make a decent case.

I would gladly entertain the point of view of a scientifically literate creationist. I have a good friend who is a great chemist and a creationist. We debate the stuff all the time. I can also point out where his failure of understanding on geology comes in as well.

You say what is more important than what is going on around you? I say God and people are more important to me.

People are part of nature. Understanding nature helps you understand people.

Since God is not provable and is so open to interpretation that we have wound up with an almost infinite variety of gods, I don't see how "understanding" God can be done. I can see how it would arise from wishful thinking and warm fuzzy feelings. But then I can have those about anything.

I say that only to show that there are many who don't hold you strong convictions about science, even those that do believe in evolution. They are just not as passionate about it as you are. That's not a crime. My perception of life is that that's what makes the world go round.

Personally I just like debating science. That's what scientists do. That keeps us sharp. I don't expect the creationists will succeed in destroying the last couple centuries of science if only because they are such a minority and the rest of the world does still outnumber this country. I think it's important to battle against all forms of such theocracy.

But I'm not really that concerned that creationists will succeed. In order to succeed they'll have to do more than just tear down evolution. They'll have to build up something real.

It's easier to throw rocks at a stained glass window than to make a stained glass window. Right now all the creationists are doing is throwing rocks and begging people for funding to find more rocks.

The minute they stop throwing rocks and start doing serious anything then they are no longer a threat but just doing their job.

They say you shouldn't talk about politics and religion because people always get upset. That's because they're passionate about it.

That's precisely why come here! I love to debate politics, religion and science. I can think of no sport that is more fun.

You state that "those who attack it almost never do so out of interest in the quality of the science but for religious reasons". Would you expect any thing less from people who have given their lives to their God and their faith as you have to your passion?

I've said it elsewhere, I actually can understand how someone who believes their immortal soul is at stake over evolution vs creation siding with creationism.

I simply disagree that such stakes are there. And since the majority of christians appear to feel likewise I think we are reasonably safe.

I had to break away from the fear of eternal torment over honest questions. That was always the underlying fear for me (among others). I love the middle part of the Book of Job about man questioning the cosmos over the bad things that happen. What I absolutely detest about the Book of Job is God's role. He starts off by setting Job up in a "play" between him and ha satan, and when Job suffers and questions, God answers petulantly. How dare Job ask. God can do whatever he wants because he's God!

That for me sums up the good and bad of religion. The beautiful writing about human lives lived at the mercy of chance and happenstance versus the notion that God can do whatever he wants to us whenever he likes.

Good and Bad. All in one book.

I do think that you should stand up for what you believe in even if it contradicts what I believe in but I, also, think that you have to give the next person that same consideration even if it contradicts what you believe in. Don't you think that is fair and just?

In my real life I do just that. I keep my mouth shut on religion vs science. I come here to debate the topic. Otherwise it wouldn't be much of a debate forum.

Fair and just? Sure. But that isn't what keeps the intellectual process going. Honing ideas forged through active debate does that.

Again, that's why evolution is such a strong scientific theory. It like all other strong theories has been hammered and beaten and battered and questioned and studied.

If we all just got along like I get along with my religious co-workers we'd all just scoot around in silence, and sooner or later, someone would do something, and if I wasn't prepared to take on that topic then I'd lose out.

That's what debate does for me. That's what it's always done for me, in undergrad, graduate school, and beyond.

 

[Inan3]

Its already happened at least four times before in major empires that were to that moment the most technologically advanced in the world. Science was effectively destroyed in Greece, Egypt, Rome, and Persia, when the laymen populations and then political leadership fell into religious mystecism and superstition.

They admit openly that it is! It began with the mission of the Chalcedon Institute under R.J. Rushdoony. This began the political agenda of the Religious Right, and that continues with the Discovery Institute's "wedge strategy" to undermine science from within, and redefine it such that magic can be accepted as science. Yeah, that is their intention, and they said so themselves!

I think you will find that the battle began before that and not by the religious right. Madalyn Murray O'Hare won a victory in court that "caught the churches off guard" and it was then that the battle began. It was afterwards in 1965 that the Chalcedon Institute under R.J. Rushdoony was formed. http://www.chalcedon.edu/ministry.php

The following is an excerpt found at http://searchwarp.com/swa14391.htm

"I have been amazed of late that when I mention Madalyn O’Hare to anyone under twenty one years old many of them do not know who she is. In 1964 O’Hare was said to be America’s most hated women according to Life Magazine. She was hated because she single handedly managed to get prayers removed from the American public school system. In the case of, Murray v. Curlet in 1963 O’Hare won a landmark victory which summarily removed prayer from our schools. She caught the churches off guard and the best of the clergy sleeping at the wheel."

It s only when men and women try to destroy religion and use science to do so that they will come under attack. As you have said it has happened before ... 4 times. History always repeats itself because people always move out of fear. It's called war. To me that is just another proof that the Bible is true. It has predicted these things and even gives the root cause. It's too bad that that we can't have both. One day we will under the leadership of Jesus Christ when He comes back and sets up His kingdom. That's not going to be a bad day as you may surmise but it will be a good day for the Kingdom of God and for science.

I'm going to bed. I'm tired and my keyboard needs batteries. Have a good night.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Ok Pete, tell me how is it used this way?

Okay. One example is in the field of comparative genomics.

I'm sure you've heard about how scientists have been decoding genomes of various species (humans, chimps, mice, etc). As they compile all of this genomic data, they need to figure out how to use it. IOW, what can they learn from it. And comparative genomics is part of that.

Basically, they line up genomes of different species and compare them. Try to figure out which regions are similar (i.e. show evidence of being conserved) and which regions are different (i.e. have diverged). Now while it's possible to do with strict statistical comparison, applying evolution to the picture adds more context for the comparison.

Now it might help to first understand phylogenetic trees. A phylogenetic tree is basically a diagram which showcases the evolutionary relatedness of organisms. IOW, it shows which species are more closely related versus species more distantly related. Phylogenetic trees can also show approximately how long ago it was when two or more species diverged evolutionary. And if you know approximately how long ago two species diverged, you can make inferences about things like mutation rates and relative average expected genetic divergence of any given species.

Going back to comparative genomics, knowing the average expected divergence in terms of the individual genomes (i.e. how much genetic difference one would expect if the two species' genomes just mutated randomly), one can then make infer what one would expect to see with respect to similarities and differences. And from that one can answer specific questions, such as if regions of the genomes appear to be under selective pressure, show evidence of evolutionary conservation, and so on. And using this, they can gain a better understanding of what is going on in those genomes, which regions are imporant and so on.

This isn't just theory, either. For example, this paper is from a company which used comparative genomics techniques on primates in doing AIDS/HIV research. Basically, using this methodology they were able to isolate genes in the chimp genomes which they believe confer resistance to the SIV virus in chimps. They are hoping to leverage that knowledge in researching treatments or possibly a cure for HIV infection.

That's just one example, but something which is relatively current. As more genomes get sequenced, comparative genomics is becoming even more imporant (in fact, I'd read a paper by a biologist which claimed that the biggest discoveries in biology over the next few decades could come from comparative genomics).

Evolutionary biology is used in numerous other ways. Population genetics is applied to pest control, conservation biology, forestry, pathology, etc. Other evolution/genomics work includes things like phylogenomics (I just recently started a thread on pharmacophylogenomics, which is phylogenomics applied to drug discovery). And some of the more esoteric applications of evolutionary theory includes software design (genetic algorithms) and industrial design.

In a nutshell, there's a whole huge world of application for evolutionary biology that unfortunately doesn't get talked about very much. I have a feeling it will start to get talked about more in the future, as this sort of stuff "trickles down" into the public school system. As it is, most of it is probably only talked about at the undergrad/graduate/professional level.

 

[Aron-Ra]

The problem is, am I supposed to just believe this because they say so and threw in a couple of pictures? and that's it??

No. There's lots more to it than just what they showed you in the intro to the concept.

So now everyone should believe in evolution or that the one whale was the ancester of the present day whale and in between you have the "transitional" whale because that's how they theorized it. What if they were all just three different whales? I mean, is it possible?

Not really, no. Because what you have isn't just three different stages in terms of morphology. Here you have three different stages in terms of chronology too. And they're not really all that different. There's actually less difference between those whales than between these dogs.

But these are four members of the SAME species! We WATCHED them evolve!

What if? It seems most of the so called evidence is in this form of information. I still get those same recurring questions. Is it possible that it didn't happen this way?

At this point, with all we know now, that would only be possible if it is also possible that your mind is living in a virtual reality matrix while your catatonic body charges robot batteries. In other words, everything would have to be an illusion and the whole of reality would have to be unreal for you to be right.

Now let's ask the alternate question: Is it possible that this tiny spec of a planet took four whole days to build, but multiple septillions of others, each with myriad intricate and inextricably integrated systems, were all spat forth simultaneously -four days later- by an invisible man chanting magic words?

Is it possible that anyone could claim to know "absolute truth" about something no one can honestly say he knows anything about? Especially when the only hints we have of him at all are a dozen or so violently-conflicting compilations each written by ignorant primitives who believed in spell casting? I mean, we are talking about something that is utterly imperceptible by any verifiable means, and certainly impossible according to everything we do know about anything at all. Yet we have all these yahoos pretending its "absolutely true" and they know everything about it, and without error. All the most brilliant men in the history of civilization reluctantly admit that they have no reason to believe in such things at all, but every goober in the trailer park claims to know this seemingly imaginary friend personally. Of course when you visit the equivelent environment in Asia, then the locals claim to "know" Buddha, Vishnu, Krishna, Ahura-Mazda, or Guru Nanak in exactly the same way and for all the exact same reasons.

Is it possible that all these characters exist?
Is it possible that any of them do?
Is is possible that none of them do?

I've said many times that the Jewish Torah, the [20] Christian gospels, the Qur'an of Islam, Bahá’u’lláh's Kitab-i-Aqdas, the Bhakti's Bhagavad-Gita, the Hindu Vedas, the Adi-Granth of the Sikhs, the Avestas of Zarathustra, the Book of Mormon, and the Urantia Book are all declared to be the "absolute truth" and the "revealed world" of the "one true god", and believers of each say all the others are deceived.

Is it possible that all of them really know the truth they claim to know? Is it possible that ALL of them are deceived?

Is magic possible? Is there any reason to believe that incantations can cause intricate systems to poof out of nothing fully-formed and artificially aged? Is it possible for snakes or donkeys to talk? Is it possible to stop the sun in the sky? Is it possible to stop the moon at the same time? Is it possible to "witness" something you've never actually seen?

Is it possible to know the unknowable? Is it possible that impossible things are possible? Is it possible that all the things we've already demonstrated and verified to be true are actually impossible? Is it possible that everything you know is wrong? Is is possible that everything anyone knows is wrong?

Is it possible that all of the combined experts with advanced education in critical analytical science on every topic in every nation are all entirely wrong about everything, and only the incurious C students who believe what they read in the Weekly World News are "absolutely" and "infallably" right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD2RdNptj84

Or is it profoundly more probable that impossible things can't really happen, and that the things we've already proven can and and do happen are infinitely more reasonable explanations?

Everyone keeps saying there is evidence but all I see is a method that questions and then hypothesizes and tests their hypothesis and then concludes with what they consider the "best" possible conclusion but there is always that "what if it didn't happen that way?" question.

This is what it comes down to.​

 

[Aron-Ra]

I think you will find that the battle began before that and not by the religious right. Madalyn Murray O'Hare won a victory in court that "caught the churches off guard" and it was then that the battle began. It was afterwards in 1965 that the Chalcedon Institute under R.J. Rushdoony was formed.

It started earlier than that, when people fled the theocracies of Europe in pursuit of religious freedom, and immediately began pursecuting each others religions once they got here. The learned and largely irreligious founding fathers recognized this. Thus the US was founded as the first ever secular nation. But the religionists retaliated with a pair of massive religious revivals nearly a century apart and each concentrating on converting the "common folk". After the second such revival, they added "in God we trust" to the currency, and then later on, they added "under God" to an originally poetic pledge. Freedom of religion had already been suspended because even the state was pushing religion by then, and they were pushing one religion to the exclusion of all others. THEN the few remaining secularists stepped in.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I think it's the models themself that I question but not sure of the terminology. What do you mean by the "phenomenon"?

The phenomenon of evolution is the actual change in allele frequency.

Maybe I can explain it this way. Here's something that I looked at http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/index.php a site for the University of California Museum of Palenontolgy. It's a great site very user friendly.

Now this information states certain things but my mind says "they can't know that that actually happened.. they can only surmise.. and I'm supposed to believe this because they say it?" It sounds feasible but I certainly need more than just their word for it.

The website is useful, but I wouldn't use it as an introduction to evolutionary thought.

Transitional forms
Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time.


Pakicetus (below left), is described as an early ancestor to modern whales. Although pakicetids were land mammals, it is clear that they are related to whales and dolphins based on a number of specializations of the ear, relating to hearing. The skull shown here displays nostrils at the front of the skull.

A skull of the beluga whale that roams the seas today (below right) has its nostrils placed at the top of its skull. It would appear from these two specimens that the position of the nostril has changed over time and thus we would expect to see intermediate forms.

Note that the nostril placement in Aetiocetus is intermediate between the ancestral form Pakicetus and the modern beluga — an excellent example of a transitional form in the fossil record!

Is this a quote from the website? I can't see any rebuttle

 

[Lilandra]

I don't demonstrate an understanding of evolution because I don't see it as a viable truth.

The point is how can you claim a scientific theory is not viable truth if you don't understand it? Do you make a similar claim about Atomic Theory not being viable truth?

Science is not limited by your understanding of it.

The more I hear and read about it makes me less convinced that it is true not more.

The more you hear of it from where? It should be a simple matter to link your sources and explain why you are convinced evolution is not true.

I do not doubt the sincerity of those who believe in it but I really have been presented anything that I find convincing.

That you believe that people believe in evolution is telling. Science is accepted tentatively not believed in like a religion. New information can change what was previously accepted unlike religion.

Don't get me wrong I have been given volumes of information but not what I consider evidence. I have been told that there is a lot of evidence even told what they consider the evidence is but I don't find any of it "as" evidence. I wish I could explain what I am trying to say better but it doesn't seem to be coming out correctly at the moment.

Perhaps the fault is you have been given more evidence than you can consider at one sitting.

If you would please, it may be simpler to start at the beginning.

Answer this simple question. What is evolution?

 

[USincognito]

The following is an excerpt found at http://searchwarp.com/swa14391.htm

"I have been amazed of late that when I mention Madalyn O’Hare to anyone under twenty one years old many of them do not know who she is. In 1964 O’Hare was said to be America’s most hated women according to Life Magazine. She was hated because she single handedly managed to get prayers removed from the American public school system. In the case of, Murray v. Curlet in 1963 O’Hare won a landmark victory which summarily removed prayer from our schools. She caught the churches off guard and the best of the clergy sleeping at the wheel."

I haven't seen a more incorrect history of these events, well ever.

1. Madilyn Murray O'Hare did not "single handedly" remove prayers from the American public school system.
2. O'Hare didn't even go "single handedly" before the Supreme Court, her case was consolidated with Abington v. Schempp which was the case the SCOTUS decided.
3. There were plenty of precidents including Cantwell v. Connecticut, Everson v. Board of Education and Engle v. Vitale (all of which are on the Abington v. Schempp Wiki link).

The website is useful, but I wouldn't use it as an introduction to evolutionary thought.

I disagree. That is an excellent website for an introduction to evolutionary theory. The problem is it's not going to have the detailed information on every subject they discuss the Inan is requesting. What Inan needs to do is start Googling those subjects and read further.
Pakicetus
Aetiocetus
Beluga+evolution
5 minutes of searching and I'd guess about an hour of checking out the hits, but Inan didn't want to do the extra work.

It's easier to shrug your shoulders and say the intro site didn't give enough details.

 

[Aron-Ra]

The more I hear and read about it makes me less convinced that it is true not more.

The more you hear of it from where? It should be a simple matter to link your sources and explain why you are convinced evolution is not true.

Or she could answer the question I asked her in post #256. So far she's written four posts responding to comments made since then. But she seems to be consciously avoiding the most important question. Its hard to show someone something when they've promised themselves not to see it.

 

[Lilandra]

Or she could answer the question I asked her in post #256. So far she's written four posts responding to comments made since then. But she seems to be consciously avoiding the most important question. Its hard to show someone something when they've promised themselves not to see it.

Great minds think alike. Perhaps with the same sorts of delusions of grandeur.

But, yes they are similar questions and she should be able to answer them especially to justify her conclusion that evolution is not "viable truth."

Personally, I would appreciate any information that shows that I am in error about evolution being viable.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Evolutionary biology is used in numerous other ways. Population genetics is applied to pest control, conservation biology, forestry, pathology, etc. Other evolution/genomics work includes things like phylogenomics

Whereas creationism answers nothing, explains nothing, contributes nothing, offers nothing, and is good for nothing. Its only practical application is as a tool of devious political manipulation -once enough of the population has been reduced to undereducated and incurious gullible reactionary sycophants easily duped by even the weakest propaganda into serving as the unwitting minions of an Orwellian pseudotheocracy. Otherwise, it is entirely counterproductive. Creationism offers no benefit to anyone who believes in it. To call it pseudoscience is to be inappropriately polite. Its even bad theology!

 

[Split Rock]

Maybe I can explain it this way. Here's something that I looked at http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/index.php a site for the University of California Museum of Palenontolgy. It's a great site very user friendly.

Yes, I agree it is a good site.

Now this information states certain things but my mind says "they can't know that that actually happened.. they can only surmise.. and I'm supposed to believe this because they say it?" It sounds feasible but I certainly need more than just their word for it.

So, you agree it is "feasible," but feel it is only "surmized" to be true? Do you want absolute proof? You are not getting any from science. Are you supposed to be believe it because they say so? No. Because whale evolution is supported by the preponderance of the physical evidence.

You only saw one line of evidence leading to the conclusion that whales evolved from terrestrial ungulates. There is more:

1. Whales have tiny vestigial leg/ pelvic bones buried in their bodies. While these form attachments for the reproductive organs, most snakes get by without such remnants.

2. Whales are sometimes found with small rear legs (atavisms or "throw-backs) indicating they have the genetic information to produce legs. http://edwardtbabinski.us/whales/

3. Whale embryos produce small leg-buds that in terrestrial mammals develop into legs. In whales, they are reabsorbed after forming. Also, whales start with nostrils at the tip of the snout (like most mammals). The nostrils then migrate to the top of the head during development. http://darla.neoucom.edu/DLDD/

In addition, whale embryos produce rudimentary teeth which are reabsorbed
Quote:
Amongst toothed whales and certain seals, there is only one functional generation of teeth; this condition is called monophyodont. In those creatures, a rudimentary deciduous dentition is formed, but is resorbed without erupting.
http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci...eDentition.htm

4. We have found many fossils of whale-like animals in the fossil record (before modern whales are found) with small but complete rear legs and nostrils located between the tip of the nose and the present location in modern whales. All dated to the Eocene.

Protocetus, Dorudon and Basilosaurus
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/evolution_of_whales/

Dorudon atrox
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm

Basilosaurus cetoides and Zygorhiza kochii http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/BasilAndDor.htm

Recently, an astragalus anklebone has been found as part of a Rodhocetus fossil skeleton. This type of ankle bone is only found in artiodactyls (even-toed ungulates). (Scientific American, 2004, vol14 (2), PP 20-21.)

5. Whales are genetically more similar to cows and hippos (artiodactyls) than to other fully aquatic mammals, such as sea lions and seals.
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/wh.ph.os.html

While no one line of evidence may be completely convincing, all these lines of evidence taken together provide convincing evidence for the evolution of whales from terrestrial ancestors.

There is also a more extensive treatment of this topic by Arikay in the Thread Archive: http://www.christianforums.com/t1473381

 

[Aron-Ra]

You only saw one line of evidence leading to the conclusion that whales evolved from terrestrial ungulates. There is more:

I was impressed with Ed Babinksi's explanation of cetacean evolution. My page on that looks laughable by comparison.

 

[FoeHammer]

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.

There really is no need. The point I am trying to make is that the scientific classification system is a man made system and therefore arbitrary.
For the purposes of ''study'' you can classify anything you like for any reason you like, it makes no difference to me until you use that classification in an attempt to prove to me (and others) that you are right and I am wrong on a particular point. Take the case of men being apes... Similarity in form and/or function shows that we are similar in form and/or function and nothing more. It is no more evidence of evolution than it is of creation.
As a creationist, who believes that Adam and Eve were created in the image of God, why can I not say that I accept, for the purpose of study, the scientific classification system but take exception to the inclusion of man with apes? If I make this one distinction to what degree (if any) would it impact the classification and study of living organisms?

(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.

See above.

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

I am not arguing against the scientific position I am arguing against your conclusions that you claim are based on it.
And you have neglected to explain to me why, if evolution is true, any of this matters. (paraphrased from http://foru.ms/t6053243&page=4 post #36)

FoeHammer.

 

[Lilandra]

Mr. Hammer, your points lead to obvious questions.

There really is no need. The point I am trying to make is that the scientific classification system is a man made system and therefore arbitrary.

The Bible was written by men and is therefore arbitrary.
Science isn't try to sell anyone on anything, the purpose is to study nature.

For the purposes of ''study'' you can classify anything you like for any reason you like, it makes no difference to me until you use that classification in an attempt to prove to me (and others) that you are right and I am wrong on a particular point. Take the case of men being apes... Similarity in form and/or function shows that we are similar in form and/or function and nothing more. It is no more evidence of evolution than it is of creation.
As a creationist, who believes that Adam and Eve were created in the image of God, why can I not say that I accept, for the purpose of study, the scientific classification system but take exception to the inclusion of man with apes? If I make this one distinction to what degree (if any) would it impact the classification and study of living organisms?

Why the arbitrary position that man is not related to apes, but the rest of the classification system share common ancestry?

See above.I am not arguing against the scientific position I am arguing against your conclusions that you claim are based on it.
And you have neglected to explain to me why, if evolution is true, any of this matters. (paraphrased from http://foru.ms/t6053243&page=4 post #36)

FoeHammer.

Evolution is also the scientific conclusion after rigorous testing.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

And you have neglected to explain to me why, if evolution is true, any of this matters. (paraphrased from http://foru.ms/t6053243&page=4 post #36)

Evolutionary biology, including common descent, is an applied science. It's used in various applications including medical research, agriculture, etc. See my post #266 in this very thread.

 

[Nathan Poe]

There really is no need. The point I am trying to make is that the scientific classification system is a man made system and therefore arbitrary.

By your own implicit definition, any other classification system, being man-made, would be at least as arbitrary.

For the purposes of ''study'' you can classify anything you like for any reason you like, it makes no difference to me until you use that classification in an attempt to prove to me (and others) that you are right and I am wrong on a particular point. Take the case of men being apes... Similarity in form and/or function shows that we are similar in form and/or function and nothing more. It is no more evidence of evolution than it is of creation.
As a creationist, who believes that Adam and Eve were created in the image of God, why can I not say that I accept, for the purpose of study, the scientific classification system but take exception to the inclusion of man with apes? If I make this one distinction to what degree (if any) would it impact the classification and study of living organisms?

To the degree that you have made a completely arbitrary exception to the scientific classification system -- a system which you yourself criticized as already too arbitrary.