The tools of science

[juvenissun]

OK, you may insist that you are an animal.

Then tell me what is the benefit of thinking it that way? Is that you could do some animal things legitimately? Would you feel more "free" by thinking your are an animal? Could you use this recognition to defend many criminals in the court?

I am a human, not an animal.

 

[Sphinx777]

I am a human, not an animal.

Humans are bipedal primates belonging to the species Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man") in Hominidae, the great ape family. They are the only surviving member of the genus Homo. Humans have a highly developed brain, capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, and problem solving. This mental capability, combined with an erect body carriage that frees the arms for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make far greater use of tools than any other species. Mitochondrial DNA and fossil evidence indicates that modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago. Humans now inhabit every continent and low Earth orbit, with a total population of over 6.7 billion as of September 2009.

Like most higher primates, humans are social by nature. However, humans are uniquely adept at utilizing systems of communication for self-expression, the exchange of ideas, and organization. Humans create complex social structures composed of many cooperating and competing groups, from families to nations. Social interactions between humans have established an extremely wide variety of values, social norms, and rituals, which together form the basis of human society. Humans have a marked appreciation for beauty and aesthetics which, combined with the human desire for self-expression, has led to cultural innovations such as art, literature and music.

Humans are noted for their desire to understand and influence their environment, seeking to explain and manipulate natural phenomena through science, philosophy, mythology and religion. This natural curiosity has led to the development of advanced tools and skills, which are passed down culturally; humans are the only extant species known to build fires, cook their food, clothe themselves, and use numerous other technologies.

 

[laconicstudent]

OK, you may insist that you are an animal.

We are, we fit all the biological criteria.

Then tell me what is the benefit of thinking it that way?

There isn't always a "benefit". Sometimes its simply the truth.

Is that you could do some animal things legitimately? Would you feel more "free" by thinking your are an animal? Could you use this recognition to defend many criminals in the court?

Now you are just throwing out ad hominem and straw men. Its absolutely absurd. And a little sad that your argumentation has fallen to this shameless level of appeals to emotion.

I am a human, not an animal.

Humans are animals. We are not plants, fungi, bacteria or archaea, and humanity is not its own taxonomic kingdom. We do, however fit the criterion for Kingdom Animalia, therefore we are animals.


I also notes that Sphinx777 agrees with me on the taxonomy.

 

[juvenissun]

Humans are bipedal primates belonging to the species Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man") in Hominidae, the great ape family. They are the only surviving member of the genus Homo. Humans have a highly developed brain, capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, and problem solving. This mental capability, combined with an erect body carriage that frees the arms for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make far greater use of tools than any other species. Mitochondrial DNA and fossil evidence indicates that modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago. Humans now inhabit every continent and low Earth orbit, with a total population of over 6.7 billion as of September 2009.

Like most higher primates, humans are social by nature. However, humans are uniquely adept at utilizing systems of communication for self-expression, the exchange of ideas, and organization. Humans create complex social structures composed of many cooperating and competing groups, from families to nations. Social interactions between humans have established an extremely wide variety of values, social norms, and rituals, which together form the basis of human society. Humans have a marked appreciation for beauty and aesthetics which, combined with the human desire for self-expression, has led to cultural innovations such as art, literature and music.

Humans are noted for their desire to understand and influence their environment, seeking to explain and manipulate natural phenomena through science, philosophy, mythology and religion. This natural curiosity has led to the development of advanced tools and skills, which are passed down culturally; humans are the only extant species known to build fires, cook their food, clothe themselves, and use numerous other technologies.

Why don't you also make one for animal, so we can compare?

 

[Dark_Lite]

OK, let me give you one of the unanswered question:

Is it possible to have one year of time before the current status of time, correspondents to 1000 years of time of the current status?

Translation 1: Is it possible for time to elapse 1000 times faster (or slower) at somewhere else or at sometime before or under some special conditions?

Translation 2: Time could run asynchronously.

I believe that there is such a possibility (I did not invent it. I heard it from some talks of theoretical physics).

If so, the 6000 years earth history would be completely possible. Billions of years of time in the current time system could elapse in just a couple of years 6000 years ago according to the unknown nature of time.

So basically you are denying uniformitarianism. You do realize the consequences of denying uniformitarianism right?

Also, this is still a form of philosophical skepticism. "Well, it MIGHT have happened this way" It's no different than mindlight's hypothesis of light magically working different outside the solar system. The mathematical constructs of astrophysics aren't going to give this possibility. Even if it were possible for them to give it, you still have the age old problem of the Omphalos Hypothesis (which is what you are proposing is a specialized variant of). The Omphalos Hypothesis isn't theologically valid because it disagrees with several points of scripture. Things like "God is not an author of confusion" and so forth.

Also... you have "heard it from some talks of theoretical physics?" Exactly what kind of talks involving theoretical physics? Talks run by YECist organizations that stand on the same shaky philosophical skepticism, or actual credible talks with perhaps actual scientific work to back it up? Basically, do you have a source for this kind of research?

 

[Sphinx777]

Why don't you also make one for animal, so we can compare?

Animals are a major group of mostly multicellular, eukaryotic organisms of the kingdom Animalia or Metazoa. Their body plan eventually becomes fixed as they develop, although some undergo a process of metamorphosis later on in their life. Most animals are motile, meaning they can move spontaneously and independently. All animals are also heterotrophs, meaning they must ingest other organisms for sustenance.

Most known animal phyla appeared in the fossil record as marine species during the Cambrian explosion, about 542 million years ago.

 

[juvenissun]

Animals are a major group of mostly multicellular, eukaryotic organisms of the kingdom Animalia or Metazoa. Their body plan eventually becomes fixed as they develop, although some undergo a process of metamorphosis later on in their life. Most animals are motile, meaning they can move spontaneously and independently. All animals are also heterotrophs, meaning they must ingest other organisms for sustenance.

Most known animal phyla appeared in the fossil record as marine species during the Cambrian explosion, about 542 million years ago.

So, the definition of an animal has 10 items (for example) of information.
And the definition of human has 100 items of information, which contains the 10 items for animal. Is it justified to say that human IS an animal because every item for animal fits the character of human?

Is it justified to classify the EU with others into a same category in this diagram because they shared some characters?

 

[Skaloop]

So, the definition of an animal has 10 items (for example) of information.
And the definition of human has 100 items of information, which contains the 10 items for animal. Is it justified to say that human IS an animal because every item for animal fits the character of human?

Yes. Because those ten items are the defining characteristics of an animal. Every other animal also has 100 items of information, but is an animal because it fits the ten necessary ones.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes. Because those ten items are the defining characteristics of an animal. Every other animal also has 100 items of information, but is an animal because it fits the ten necessary ones.

The main argument is the quoted statement is obviously not true. That is the basis of my taxonomy argument.

If you like, we can use a chimp, which is the most "advanced (?)" animal for a comparison. And, if we do that, we need to make a scale system, so it would show the intensity of a character, for example, fear, what are the behaviors of fear for a chimp and what are the behaviors of fear for human. (Do we need to consider the behavior of fear of a earthworm?)

Sigh, I can't believe that I have to explain this to a human.

 

[juvenissun]

So basically you are denying uniformitarianism. You do realize the consequences of denying uniformitarianism right?

Also, this is still a form of philosophical skepticism. "Well, it MIGHT have happened this way" It's no different than mindlight's hypothesis of light magically working different outside the solar system. The mathematical constructs of astrophysics aren't going to give this possibility. Even if it were possible for them to give it, you still have the age old problem of the Omphalos Hypothesis (which is what you are proposing is a specialized variant of). The Omphalos Hypothesis isn't theologically valid because it disagrees with several points of scripture. Things like "God is not an author of confusion" and so forth.

Also... you have "heard it from some talks of theoretical physics?" Exactly what kind of talks involving theoretical physics? Talks run by YECist organizations that stand on the same shaky philosophical skepticism, or actual credible talks with perhaps actual scientific work to back it up? Basically, do you have a source for this kind of research?

I am a geologist. So I know well the meaning of uniformitarianism in geology. I never think it is true. On the contrary, I know it is not true in geology.

As for the talks about theoretical physics, there are many. A convenient one is a thread posted in the science forum: http://www.christianforums.com/t7412250/. It would be interest to see what do you think about the cosmic inflation idea. It is certainly an impossibility, but is seriously considered by all physicists.

Sorry, I got to run. I may come back for your other points later.

 

[Dark_Lite]

As for the talks about theoretical physics, there are many. A convenient one is a thread posted in the science forum: http://www.christianforums.com/t7412250/.

I've read about Omega Point before. It's controversial, and a bit out there. Though it is interesting, I wouldn't call it "mainline physics" by any stretch of the imagination. The problem always comes back to the idea that what is identified as God is still very vague.

 

[Skaloop]

The main argument is the quoted statement is obviously not true. That is the basis of my taxonomy argument.

If you like, we can use a chimp, which is the most "advanced (?)" animal for a comparison. And, if we do that, we need to make a scale system, so it would show the intensity of a character, for example, fear, what are the behaviors of fear for a chimp and what are the behaviors of fear for human. (Do we need to consider the behavior of fear of a earthworm?)

Sigh, I can't believe that I have to explain this to a human.

I can't believe you think you explained anything.

 

[laconicstudent]

*Sigh*

Lets try to explain it simply

"Animal" is a term that covers a wide range. It is a broad category covering everything from jellyfish (cnidaria and ctenophora), sponges (porifera) through fish (invertebrate) and sea stars (Echinodermata) and higher vertebrates.

We fit the very general definition of Kingdom Animalia. Therefore, we are animals. Taxonomists then classify animals by increasingly specific criteria to fit them into phylum, orders, classes, families, genus, and finally the unique traits that make them a species within a genus.

Humans count as animals because we are motile, have cell differentiation, and we are heterotrophes (we eat our food, instead of photosynthesizing or something like autotrophes)

We do these things, therefore, we are animals.

 

[Dark_Lite]

It should also be noted that the Omega Point theory does not jive with YECism either. It builds off the observations of modern science.

 

[juvenissun]

*Sigh*

Lets try to explain it simply

"Animal" is a term that covers a wide range. It is a broad category covering everything from jellyfish (cnidaria and ctenophora), sponges (porifera) through fish (invertebrate) and sea stars (Echinodermata) and higher vertebrates.

We fit the very general definition of Kingdom Animalia. Therefore, we are animals. Taxonomists then classify animals by increasingly specific criteria to fit them into phylum, orders, classes, families, genus, and finally the unique traits that make them a species within a genus.

Humans count as animals because we are motile, have cell differentiation, and we are heterotrophes (we eat our food, instead of photosynthesizing or something like autotrophes)

We do these things, therefore, we are animals.

I have told you several times. It is a bad classification.
In science, if you do not classify things in a right way first, you can not see the detail situations.

 

[juvenissun]

It should also be noted that the Omega Point theory does not jive with YECism either. It builds off the observations of modern science.

All these models do not appear because of YEC. But none of them positively disprove YEC as they appeared one after another. On the contrary, all of them provided more possibilities that the YEC could be true.

It is rare to have this situation in science.

 

[laconicstudent]

I have told you several times. It is a bad classification.

You offer no real justification for this statement beyond, basically, "I say so"

In science, if you do not classify things in a right way first, you can not see the detail situations.

But we can see the detail at the level of Family, Genus and species. You are just offended that science also shows the big picture by classifying at the level of Kingdom and Domain.

 

[laconicstudent]

All these models do not appear because of YEC. But none of them positively disprove YEC as they appeared one after another. On the contrary, all of them provided more possibilities that the YEC could be true.

It is rare to have this situation in science.

Young Earth Creationism is flat-out disproved by Radiometric dating.

 

[juvenissun]

Young Earth Creationism is flat-out disproved by Radiometric dating.

Are you a biology major?
If so, I won't spend time to argue with you on that, unless you raise a good question.

 

[laconicstudent]

Are you a biology major?

What does being a biology major have to do with anything? You don't have to even be in college to understand this. A high schooler could explain the radioactive decay and use the equations.

If so, I won't spend time to argue with you on that, unless you raise a good question.

I'm not the one raising questions and objections to established physics.