i am a creationist... but not strictly

[SkyWriting]

When texts tell you that cars were created, and tests confirm that a bicycle cannot turn into a car, ignoring the evidence and lining up pictures of cars to compare them does not spawn the need for an alternate interpretation. There has always been the interpretation. It has nothing to do with Darwinism. And this is the one confirmed by science.

Greg, are you denying the scientifically documented Transitional forms?

http://speedhawaii.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/1.jpg
http://media.techeblog.com/images/beetles_7.jpg
http://www.carblog.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/peugeot-hybrid3-evolution-concept-1.jpg
http://images.passionperformance.ca/photos/0/1/1/011522.jpg

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm not worried. Statistics show that the more educated you are, the less likely you are to reject the theory of evolution.

The same is true of Math theory.
Sports...
Philosophy..
Home Ec....etc.

 

[Greg1234]

Greg, are you denying the scientifically documented Transitional forms?

http://speedhawaii.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/1.jpg
http://media.techeblog.com/images/beetles_7.jpg
http://www.carblog.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/peugeot-hybrid3-evolution-concept-1.jpg
http://images.passionperformance.ca/photos/0/1/1/011522.jpg

Its undeniable!

 

[SkyWriting]

OK, I think we miscommunicated. I was using the Darwin eye quote as an example of quotemining, to make sure you were familiar with the deceptive practice of quotemining, and to make sure we agree that quotemining is deceptive.

It may or may not be.
On one hand, the poster may not be aware of the context and the unintentional result.
On the second hand, they may just be blind to the ramifications of the surrounding text.
On my third hand, it's ridiculous to think that people will make serious worldview decisions based on a quote that has been pulled out of context.

On my forth hand, why complain about quotemining used during a debate when it's the PERFECT opportunity to restore the quote BACK into it's correct context and direct people's attention both to the original text and the author originals intent.

If your interest is in promoting the value of your point of view, correcting false impressions created by quotemining is an ideal way to get people to see the truth, as you see it.

 

[Mallon]

Greg, are you denying the scientifically documented Transitional forms?

http://speedhawaii.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/1.jpg
http://media.techeblog.com/images/beetles_7.jpg
http://www.carblog.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/peugeot-hybrid3-evolution-concept-1.jpg
http://images.passionperformance.ca/photos/0/1/1/011522.jpg

Those are perfect examples of why vehicles cannot be arranged into a nested hierarchy. A motorcycle fused to a Beetle completely violates a nested hierarchy. Nothing like that is seen in the animal kingdom. No, the platypus does not simply have a duck's bill fused to it's face -- the bill is modified from mammalian mouth parts, not avian mouth parts. Hence, the platypus does not violate the nested hierarchy.

 

[Papias]

Skywriting wrote:

It {use of the eye quote from Darwin} may or may not be {the deceptive practice of quotemining}.
On one hand, the poster may not be aware of the context and the unintentional result.

note: my {} to clarify pronouns. Let me know if they are incorrect. Thanks.

If the poster is grabbing the quote from some secondary source like a creationist website, then they should know that checking the primary source is part of responsible quoting, so they are certainly at fault if they are ignorantly cutting and pasting a quote while being too lazy to responsibly check the source. Even if they were so irresponsible as to grab the quote from a creationist website and too lazy to check up on it themselves, then even in that case the original quotemining by the creationist who made the website was still dishonest.

In some cases, the creationists takes sentence fragments from different parts of the same sentence. It's hard to imagine how someone could do that without doing it intentionally.

On the second hand, they may just be blind to the ramifications of the surrounding text.

In some cases, sure. However, in most cases it is quite clear to even the most ignorant of readers. For instance, you can see this in the Darwin eye quote, where it quickly continues with "yet reason tells me....", which clearly indicates the direction this is going.

On my third hand, it's ridiculous to think that people will make serious worldview decisions based on a quote that has been pulled out of context.

Well, that may indeed be ridiculous, yet that is exactly what the creationists are trying to convince us to do, time after time, while simultaneously concealing from us the fact that the quote has been pulled out of context.

On my forth hand, why complain about quotemining used during a debate when it's the PERFECT opportunity to restore the quote BACK into it's correct context and direct people's attention both to the original text and the author originals intent.

Good point. In fact, I do that. However, in any civil discussion, it is useful to start on some common ground, that common ground being that we all (hopefully) agree that deceptive practices like quotemining are frowned upon. If the creationist won't agree on that, then that in itself shows that we've got someone who sees deception as acceptable, and thus has a pretty messed up moral compass.

Overall, on this point I think you (Skywriting) and I mostly agree. I think in any specific example of quotemining we'd probably see it similarly. Do you agree?

Papias

 

[Greg1234]

Those are perfect examples of why vehicles cannot be arranged into a nested hierarchy. A motorcycle fused to a Beetle completely violates a nested hierarchy. Nothing like that is seen in the animal kingdom. No, the platypus does not simply have a duck's bill fused to it's face -- the bill is modified from mammalian mouth parts, not avian mouth parts. Hence, the platypus does not violate the nested hierarchy.

Nope its the features of a motorcycle and the features of a car together as a transitional form. To say that manufacturers copy the traits of another in the building of a new model look at the human system, with traits shared in man, from the beast, when man is completely different, and not a beast. This alone refutes the nested hierarchy. The "transitional vehicle" refutes the no. 2 life line, transitional forms, and the number one, common decent. As we see this is designed structures, no Darwinism required.

 

[Mallon]

Nope its the features of a motorcycle and the features of a car together as a transitional form.

They can't be transitional because vehicles don't reproduce. You're being silly.

 

[SkyWriting]

Good point. In fact, I do that. However, in any civil discussion, it is useful to start on some common ground, that common ground being that we all (hopefully) agree that deceptive practices like quotemining are frowned upon. If the creationist won't agree on that, then that in itself shows that we've got someone who sees deception as acceptable, and thus has a pretty messed up moral compass.

Overall, on this point I think you (Skywriting) and I mostly agree. I think in any specific example of quotemining we'd probably see it similarly. Do you agree?

Papias

No.
I strongly encourage everyone to "mine away".
I don't think there is a more powerful statement than showing people the facts of what is actually said. If they refuse (or fail) to link to the source, then do it for them. If they are unable to link, do it for them.

Why would you not want YOUR post to show what is actually said?

Besides, only the moderators get to play God around here.
Everyone else just has to deal with how others behave.
It's the American way. I don't expect people to "agree" to anything other than the forum guidelines.
I just don't get this idea that people can control what others say or do.

 

[SkyWriting]

They can't be transitional because vehicles don't reproduce. You're being silly.

They don't reproduce in the same way. But many odd machines are prototypes that evolve into a production vehicle.

They may use the same
metals
parts
designs
specifications
sources
tooling
coatings
supplier...etc.

There are parallel analogies for nearly every aspect.
Or....as you say.....it might be a dead end.

 

[Papias]

Greg, did you read post #39? It was a direct request for information you said was posted, but don't seem to be helping me know what you are talking about. Please let us know if you looked at it, and what your response is. Thanks-

Papias

 

[Mallon]

They don't reproduce in the same way.

No, they do not reproduce at all. People replicate them, which isn't anywhere near analogous to a living system. Living systems self-replicate, and they do it imperfectly. Machines do not. This is why they are TERRIBLE analogues for explaining variation in living things.

 

[Greg1234]

Greg, did you read post #39? It was a direct request for information you said was posted, but don't seem to be helping me know what you are talking about. Please let us know if you looked at it, and what your response is. Thanks-

Papias

I was actually talking about this post.

 

[SkyWriting]

No, they do not reproduce at all. People replicate them, which isn't anywhere near analogous to a living system. Living systems self-replicate, and they do it imperfectly. Machines do not. This is why they are TERRIBLE analogues for explaining variation in living things.

Don't get so hung up on details. I use a robot at work. It could assemble itself given enough engineering effort. The only thing stopping it is that the cost is not justified. There's not enough profit in a robot to cover the cost of assembling one autonomously. But it could be done today.

I live about 5 miles from the most automated assembly system in the world. On the 7th floor they can shut off the lights for the night and the entire floor will assemble parts all night unsupervised.
"Just give it enough time" and you'll see machines self replicating.

And your wrong about imperfect replication. There isn't enough error to account for much of anything.

 

[Mallon]

Don't get so hung up on details.

The details are what disqualify your vehicular analogies from consideration. You should pay more attention to the details.

And your wrong about imperfect replication. There isn't enough error to account for much of anything.

Tell that to this population of wall lizards that evolved new cranial and stomach adaptations in 30+ years to survive on a primarily vegetarian diet:

Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource — PNAS

They obviously didn't replicate perfectly. No organism is a perfect replicator. You're wrong about that.

 

[Papias]

Greg wrote:

I was actually talking about this post.

OK, I see that (in a different thread, so I wounldn't call it a response to my post, but regardless). That post of yours only reiterated superficial things that cross boundaries. As I've said many points, finding that is irrelevant. It' irrelevant because a nested hierarchy doesn't claim that each and every type of adjective fits the hierarchy, because many are superficial. I even tried to illustrate this with:

Papias wrote:

And Greg, do you understand why greenness isn't evidence against a nested hierarchy? All your posts seem to be just repetitions of "but look at what is green!". Pointless.

See how the property of being green goes across the nested hierarchy of life (some frogs, snakes, birds, and starfish are all green), and how this fact is irrelevant, because to show a nested hierarchy doesn't work, you have to show that the listed features don't nest? Just picking out other features out of the air shows nothing (other than that you don't understand what a nested hierarchy is).

So your pointing back to a previous post where you still don't understand this doesn't help, in fact, it makes it look like you still don't understand that finding features outside of those listed for the hierarchy doesn't "break" the hierarchy.

As a reminder, you claimed, several times that:

:
Greg wrote

And yes vehicles can be placed in a nested hierarchy.

You can see that I've put life forms in a nested hierarchy where each feature I listed doesn't violate the hierarchy. We are waiting for you to do the same for cars, listing a dozen or so features (which aren't names), where none of the features you list violate the hierarchy. Look, you can even pick your own features.

Still waiting, after dozens of posts........


Papias

 

[Greg1234]

Greg wrote:



OK, I see that (in a different thread, so I wounldn't call it a response to my post, but regardless). That post of yours only reiterated superficial things that cross boundaries. As I've said many points, finding that is irrelevant. It' irrelevant because a nested hierarchy doesn't claim that each and every type of adjective fits the hierarchy, because many are superficial. I even tried to illustrate this with:

Papias wrote:

See how the property of being green goes across the nested hierarchy of life (some frogs, snakes, birds, and starfish are all green), and how this fact is irrelevant, because to show a nested hierarchy doesn't work, you have to show that the listed features don't nest? Just picking out other features out of the air shows nothing (other than that you don't understand what a nested hierarchy is).

So your pointing back to a previous post where you still don't understand this doesn't help, in fact, it makes it look like you still don't understand that finding features outside of those listed for the hierarchy doesn't "break" the hierarchy.

As a reminder, you claimed, several times that:

:
Greg wrote
​

You can see that I've put life forms in a nested hierarchy where each feature I listed doesn't violate the hierarchy. We are waiting for you to do the same for cars, listing a dozen or so features (which aren't names), where none of the features you list violate the hierarchy. Look, you can even pick your own features.

Still waiting, after dozens of posts........


Papias

Read post referenced again. And the one ofter that.

 

[Papias]

Greg wrote:

Read post referenced again. And the one ofter that.

I did Greg. Can you show some reason for me to believe that you don't think your mentioning of some other feature (like a creature being green) is relevant to a nested hierarchy?

From reading those posts, it is clear that you think finding other features that don't fit the nested hierarchy is relevant, when of course, as anyone who understand a nested hierarchy knows, it is not. The whole basis of your objections for page after page shows that you don't get what a nested hierarchy is, and those posts (especially) show that.

Now, here is the nested hierarcy from the other thread. You have still told us you can make a nested hierarchy of cars, and here we are, still waiting.

Papias wrote:

Biggest Nest:

1 Is cellular (made of a cell or cells)
2 Has cells with a nucleus & mitochondria
3 Is made up of many cells, not just one
4a contains chloroplasts, lacks muscle and nerve tissue.
4b lacks chloroplasts, has muscle and nerve tissues
4a1 can reproduce by spores
4a2 can reproduce by seed
4a2a has one seed leaf
4a2b has two seed leaves
4a2a1 produces aloe burn gel
(also within 4) :
5 lacks spinal cord
5a has stinging tentacles
5b lacks stinging tentacles
6a has spinal cord and a post-anal tail at some point in life
6b has ventral nerve cord
7 has hinged single jaw
8a has feathers
8a1 has one fovea
8a2 has two foveas
8b has true (schuted) hair at some point in life
8b1 has non-placental birth
8b2 has placental birth
8b2a has hooves
8b2b has large, fast growing incisors
8b2c has GULOP loss at certain genomic location
8b2c1 has tail as adult
8b2c2 wears clothes

(smallest nests)

Now I know we could make a much more detailed nested hierarchy, with many more levels and dozens more features, and it would still be fully nested. However, this is a start – I count around 15-20 features here. Since Greg has said he can make a nested hierarchy of cars, it should be easy for him to make a nested hierarchy of car with just a dozen features (that aren’t names).

Papias

 

[Greg1234]

Greg wrote:



I did Greg. Can you show some reason for me to believe that you don't think your mentioning of some other feature (like a creature being green) is relevant to a nested hierarchy?

From reading those posts, it is clear that you think finding other features that don't fit the nested hierarchy is relevant, when of course, as anyone who understand a nested hierarchy knows, it is not. The whole basis of your objections for page after page shows that you don't get what a nested hierarchy is, and those posts (especially) show that.

Now, here is the nested hierarcy from the other thread. You have still told us you can make a nested hierarchy of cars, and here we are, still waiting.

Papias wrote:



Papias

I don't think you did. Traits like "green" are not used.

 

[Papias]

I don't think you did. Traits like "green" are not used.

Greg, I used the trait "green" to illustrate that your use of other features is not evidence against a nested hierarchy. The traits you use are like the "green" trait.

Traits like "green" certainly are used in your post. For instance, the trait "blue eyes" is like the "Green" trait in exactly the same way - it is taking a similarity that is not one of the nested features and thinking that it is somehow evidence against a nested hierarchy, while ignoring those features that are in the hierarchy (which I listed again for you). You do the same "green" mistake again and again, not just in that post (such as with the trait "a mouth that looks like a duck's bill"), but througout this and other threads, for dozens of posts.

I'm hoping that you are finally starting to see that your use of traits like "green" are irrelevant to the nested hierarchy, and only serve to drive home the point that Greg still doesn't understand what a nested hierarchy is.

Papias