Human & Ape Inquiry

SLP

Senior Member
May 29, 2002
2,369
660
✟21,532.00
Faith
Atheist
By following the guidlines I presented (from another source). First, can they breed? If they can, they're the same kind, if not, they aren't (except under situations that may be the result of the Fall). The latter part is not referring to different kinds, but to known kinds that normally breed. Then there are those who don't normally breed, which are different kinds. How hard could that be to understand?
:rolleyes:
Oh my... :

First, can they breed? If they can, they're the same kind, if not, they aren't (except under situations that may be the result of the Fall).

Yet when Shemjaza wrote:

"If they can breed then they are the same kind... but if not, they might still be."​

and I congratulated him, you replied, all condescendingly:

"That wasn't how I said it... now you're using each other's quotes for rebuttal."​

But that IS 'how you said it!'

First, can they breed? If they can, they're the same kind, if not, they aren't (except under situations that may be the result of the Fall).

"If they can breed then they are the same kind... but if not, they might still be."​

Wow, he totally "misrepresented" you and your creation 'scientist' heroes.....:rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0

SLP

Senior Member
May 29, 2002
2,369
660
✟21,532.00
Faith
Atheist
And you were just quoting the Bible a few minutes ago???
Yes.
Who observed the acts of creation? And wrote about them?
Are you claiming Jehovah was His own witness,m and that He wrote about them?

Are you familiar with the fallacy of begging the question and/or special pleading?
 
Upvote 0

SLP

Senior Member
May 29, 2002
2,369
660
✟21,532.00
Faith
Atheist
But seriously...
I presented one article they wrote and it knocked the wind out of you, almost to the point of being hysterical.

This article, yes?
What Are “Kinds” in Genesis?

By Bodie and Georgia, yes?
I thought it was very good..

Well sure - what, with your science background I'm sure you found their essay with 3 whole citations and 1 footnote to totally explain creationism regarding what a Kind is.

"Often, people are confused into thinking that a “species” is a “kind.” But this isn’t necessarily so."

Hmmmm.... OK. Not 'necessarily so.' Let's take a closer look.

"And frankly, the word species is difficult to define, whether one is a creationist or not!"​

True - and the very nature of evolution and biology make that understood - population dynamics, interbreeding, etc., all tell us why it is difficult to come up with a single all-encompassing definition of species.
Yet, in creationism, we are told that the Creative acts produced discreet entities. A horse "Kind" was poofed like magic from dust of the ground (I suppose), all at once. No hybridization produced The Horse Kind. No accumulation of mutations. Nothing like that. God made A Horse, and there it was.

But then creationists ran into trouble - if that is so, then there are a LOT... A LOT.. of Kinds to account for on the Ark.
No problem - creationists just co-opted some evolution, and declared that "Kind" was roughly equivalent to "Family" ala Linnaeus, and welcomed all manner of MACROEVOLUTION.
But that was problematic, since creationists hate macroevolution - they hate it so much, that they have concocted fake definitions of it to argue against it! So, how to get around the dreaded macroevolution.... hmmm...


"So a good rule of thumb is that if two things can breed together, then they are of the same created kind. "​

Ok - WHY??? Where would the variation come from if the Kinds were initially Created? The bible does not seem to indicate that horses AND zebras AND hyracotheria were of the Horse Kind, does it? Sounds like wishy-washy definition making.

"As an example, dogs can easily breed with one another, whether wolves, dingoes, coyotes, or domestic dogs. When dogs breed together, you get dogs; so there is a dog kind. "​

But not Foxes? So there was a created Fox kind. Even though they are basically dogs. But dogs and foxes have extensive karyotypic differences, so interbreeding is not likely. What about bears? There is an extinct critter called a dog-bear. Bears and dogs are both Caniforms.
The paper that Georgia and Bodie cite used a tiny amount of mitochondrial DNA to look only at Canids - yet there are many papers that use the same kind of data to look at the bigger picture - why did Bodie and Georgia not use any of them, I wonder? They accept analyses using mtDNA analyzed using the PAUP phylogenetic analysis software, so why not this paper:

Mitogenomic analyses of caniform relationships. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 45 (3): 863-874?

This paper used complete mitochondrial genomes to look at all Caniforms - here is one of the figures:

1-s2.0-S1055790307002242-gr1.jpg



I do hope that you are not one of the many creationists that actually seem to think that these phylogenetic trees are simple made-up...
It is like Georgia and Bodie specificllay sought out a paper that only look at dogs, such that they could make it look like their position had scientific merit. For this more extensive paper shows that dogs and foxes are closely related, and are as a group related to pandas, badgers, seals, and bears. Showing something like this would have been devastating to their tidy little "Kind" story, I suppose.

Using your science background, explain to us the fatal scientific flaws of this paper.

Bodie and Georgia continue with their fantasy:

"From a biblical perspective, though, land animals like wolves, zebras, sheep, lions, and so on have at least two ancestors that lived on Noah’s ark, only about 4,300 years ago. These animals have undergone many changes since that time."​

4300 years ago..

The Egyptian Old Kingdom dates to as long ago as 2575 BC, or ~4500 years ago.
Weird that they didn't seem to notice this giant flood that killed them all.

Sorry, but there is little reason to go beyond this in their essay - cherry picking a science article and relying on obviously incorrect dates for their claims renders them unreliable.

Well, OK - one more thing:

" If two animals can produce a hybrid, then they are considered to be of the same kind. However, the inability to produce offspring does not necessarily rule out that the animals are of the same kind, since this may be the result of mutations (since the Fall)....As they did this [became fruitful and multiplied post-flood], natural selection, mutation, and other mechanisms allowed speciation within the kinds to occur."​

First, what is the logic for cursing non-humans for 'the Fall'? What did hyenas or wombats do to have their descendants cursed with mutations? Seems unnecessarily cruel to me.

Anyway - cool how creationists simply adopt evolution when it suits them. This is likely because they cannot weasel their way out of the facts.

. and I don't need to prove anything to you; you need to prove something to me.

Just did. Can you accept it? Or will you flail and dodge and condescend some more? Or will you blow it all off with a snarky one-liner?
You're just being more hyper about your position is all, maybe because you feel like you're in a corner.
Yes, that must be it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Astrophile

Newbie
Aug 30, 2013
2,268
1,515
76
England
✟230,965.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Widowed
In what way has your knowledge about scientific methodology been confirmed and corrected here?

I think that my understanding of the scientific method has improved. In particular, I now understand that scientific theories are provisional explanations of facts, that there is no such thing as scientific proof, and that all facts, hypotheses and theories are undergoing a continuous process of testing that leads to modification or rejection.
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
What about the time and more importantly, the events over time are you disputing?
Are you proposing all the kinds being created at separate points in time with millions of years of events in between?
I'm not disputing anything in regard to time and events. I've repeatedly said it's unknown (whether linear, bent, or a combination) especially prior to Adam. The fact that we do not understand it alone, makes any hypotheses you have regarding deep time and contradiction of the Bible questionable.

Once again, this "observable vs historic" science divide is creationist fiction.
Easily said, but I think anyone not in an 'evolutionary protective stance' can see otherwise.


"Micro observation" is not a real term.
Microevolution is not a made-up term – it’s even in Wikipedia (basically, identical processes on different scales). And as the Bible warns us, scoffers will project backwards in time.


Here's a question for you then:
Could you tell the difference between an organism that was created out of thin air (via divine intervention) versus an organism that came about via reproduction from a previous generation of organisms?
And if so, how?
We were created out of the earth, and the answer to your question is 'No,' not if God so desired.


LOL!
Wow - well, I can't expect much more from a person that thinks the bible is 100% true and accurate.
I shall conclude that you could not understand their "science" sufficiently to explain it.
I'll file this under the list of other false conclusions I've noted here.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Easily said, but I think anyone not in an 'evolutionary protective stance' can see otherwise.

Sweeping generalization aside, this has nothing to do with evolution. This has to do with understanding how science works.

Microevolution is not a made-up term – it’s even in Wikipedia (basically, identical processes on different scales). And as the Bible warns us, scoffers will project backwards in time.

You said "micro observation", not microevolution. Was that a typo on your part?

We were created out of the earth, and the answer to your question is 'No,' not if God so desired.

Then science is irrelevant here.
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I think that my understanding of the scientific method has improved. In particular, I now understand that scientific theories are provisional explanations of facts, that there is no such thing as scientific proof, and that all facts, hypotheses and theories are undergoing a continuous process of testing that leads to modification or rejection.
Very good! I have the same thoughts with one exception. I don’t like the use of the term ‘facts’ in this regard... I think it's misleading. To me, ‘facts’ are undisputed evidences, not evidence that is still open to interpretation, the latter being the case with macroevolution. This evidence and resulting speculations need to be continually challenged, including perspectives other than scientific testing.
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Sweeping generalization aside, this has nothing to do with evolution. This has to do with understanding how science works.
Exactly!

You said "micro observation", not microevolution. Was that a typo on your part?
Observation of microevolution processes... surely you understand, or are you scrambling again?

Then science is irrelevant here.
When it comes to 'how' God created us... yes!
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private

Right. Then I would suggest dropping this "historical" versus "observational" science dichotomy, because that's not a thing that exists in science. It's just something creationists made up.

Observation of microevolution processes... surely you understand, or are you scrambling again?

No, I did not understand because "micro observation" is not a real term. That's why I suggested sticking to real terminology for ease of communication.

When it comes to 'how' God created us... yes!

So... why are you arguing about science again? :scratch:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Right. Then I would suggest dropping this "historical" versus "observational" science dichotomy, because that's not a thing that exists in science. It's just something creationists made up.
Science has so many provisional explanations, some descriptive terminology seems useful.

No, I did not understand because "micro observation" is not a real term. That's why I suggested sticking to real terminology for ease of communication.
Well, I explained it to you, so you should understand the next time.

So... why are you arguing about science again?
You totally scrambled this one... you've even forgotten.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Science has so many provisional explanations, some descriptive terminology seems useful.

That's not why creationists invented the "historical" versus "observational" dichotomy. They did it for the purpose of arguing against science they don't like.

By doing so they've created a misrepresentation of how science works to their followers that then needs to be corrected in discussions like these.

Well, I explained it to you, so you should understand the next time.

Or you could just use proper terminology from the start.

You totally scrambled this one... you've even forgotten.

Then enlighten me. Why are you arguing about science?
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Then enlighten me. Why are you arguing about science?
I believe it was mainly because I said, "the promoted model of macroevolution is impossible to observe, impossible to re-create, incapable of being accurately measured, impossible to study without the fallibility of men in such an attempt, and on and on"... and you disagree of course.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I believe it was mainly because I said, "the promoted model of macroevolution is impossible to observe, impossible to re-create, incapable of being accurately measured, impossible to study without the fallibility of men in such an attempt, and on and on"... and you disagree of course.

The beginning of this dialog started when you claimed macroevolution wasn't testable and I corrected that.

But my question is in broader sense. Since you appear to have adopted a philosophical position whereby the results of scientific inquiry don't have any meaning, why do you care what science concludes?
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The beginning of this dialog started when you claimed macroevolution wasn't testable and I corrected that.
You thought you did, but your answer still only amounts to testing a phantom state by projecting backwards.

Since you appear to have adopted a philosophical position whereby the results of scientific inquiry don't have any meaning,
Where did you get such an idea? Just because I question the interpretation of evidence in regard to macroevolution, does not mean I find the results of all scientific inquiry meaningless.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
You thought you did, but your answer still only amounts to testing a phantom state by projecting backwards.

That appears to be a very muddied interpretation if that's what you took from my posts on the subject. :scratch:

Where did you get such an idea? Just because I question the interpretation of evidence in regard to macroevolution, does not mean I find the results of all scientific inquiry meaningless.

When I asked you this: "Could you tell the difference between an organism that was created out of thin air (via divine intervention) versus an organism that came about via reproduction from a previous generation of organisms?"

And your answer was "No".

Since you have no way to distinguish between different scenarios, why do you care about what science says about the origin of species?
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
When I asked you this: "Could you tell the difference between an organism that was created out of thin air (via divine intervention) versus an organism that came about via reproduction from a previous generation of organisms?"

And your answer was "No".

Since you have no way to distinguish between different scenarios, why do you care about what science says about the origin of species?
You left off a very important qualifier to my 'No' (I've noticed you guys do that a lot), which was "not if God so desired."
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,821
45
✟917,556.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
You left off a very important qualifier to my 'No' (I've noticed you guys do that a lot), which was "not if God so desired."
That qualifier doesn't add any information. Nothing is changed about what you know and can demonstrate.

"Can you survive a car accident?"
"Will I get a new job?"
"Will the Sun rise tomorrow?"

"not if God so desired."
 
  • Agree
Reactions: pitabread
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
You left off a very important qualifier to my 'No' (I've noticed you guys do that a lot), which was "not if God so desired."

That qualifier doesn't really add anything useful. Not unless you happen to have an empirical way of determining the specific desires of said creative being.

Which based on the fact that the first part of your answer was still "No", it sounds like you do not.

Regardless, you've avoided answering the question a couple times now. Here it is a again:

Since you have no way to distinguish between different scenarios [creation out of thin air vs natural reproduction], why do you care about what science says about the origin of species?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,222
3,311
U.S.
✟652,664.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
That qualifier doesn't add any information. Nothing is changed about what you know and can demonstrate.

"Can you survive a car accident?"
"Will I get a new job?"
"Will the Sun rise tomorrow?"

"not if God so desired."
That qualifier doesn't really add anything useful. Not unless you happen to have an empirical way of determining the specific desires of said creative being.

Which based on the fact that the first part of your answer was still "No", it sounds like you do not.

Regardless, you've avoided answering the question a couple times now. Here it is a again:

Since you have no way to distinguish between different scenarios [creation out of thin air vs natural reproduction], why do you care about what science says about the origin of species?
The qualifier shows that I just didn't say "No," whether you think it adds anything, or not.
 
Upvote 0