Why won’t creationists participate in open and honest debate?

[Morcova]

Meaning what? Are you saying a mushroom is an animal?

lol
no.

A mushroom is neither an animal or a plant.

I learned this in 6th grade biology.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Meaning what? Are you saying a mushroom is an animal?

Mushrooms are the visible part of fungi. Don't forget that there are 6 taxonomical kingoms: Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, Archaebacteria, and Eubacteria (the former 4 are of the Domain Eukarya, the latter 2 are of the Domain Archae & Bacteria respectively).
We are, to give our full name:
Eukaryota Animalia Chordata Mammalia Primate Hominidae Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

They have a different appearance. One is dog like. The other is cat like. If you look at their behaviour, they act like dogs and cats. You wouldn't see a lion wagging its tail or barking. They're different animals.

Taxonomy is not concerned with behaviour. Some humans are nudists and naturalists. Some humans are city-dwelling entrepreneur. Which, by your logic, is human?

How many animals drive a car to work?

How many animals are heterotrophic eykaryotes lacking cell walls? Oh, that's right, all are de dicto.

No. Functionally we're set apart from the other creatures God created. The fact is we named the animals. The animals didn't name us.

Indeed. And the definition of an animal is a heterotrophic eykaryote lacking cell walls.

The moose is a wild animal. Cows, sheep, goats, horses, camels, oxen, etc. are kinds of cattle.

Irrelevant. All are animals, since all are (sigh) heterotrophic eykaryotes lacking cell walls.

 

[Aron-Ra]

We are, to give our full name:
Eukaryota Animalia Chordata Mammalia Primate Hominidae Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Nah, let's be formal. We are Organic, Biota, Eukarya, Opisthokonta, Animalia, Eumetazoa, Bilateria, Coelemata, Deuterostomata, Chordata, Craniata, Vertebrata, Gnathostomata, Osteichthyes, Sarcopterygii, Stegocephali, Tetrapoda, Anthracosauria, Amniota, Synapsida, Therapsidae, Cynodonta, Theria, Eutheria, Euarchontoglire, Archonta, Primata, Haplorhini, Anthropoidea, Catarrhini, Hominoidea, Hominidae, Hominini, Homo, H. Sapiens.

 

[Tomk80]

A mushroom would be a plant if I'm not mistaken.

As with everything else, you are very, very wrong.

 

[MarkT]

Mushrooms are the visible part of fungi. Don't forget that there are 6 taxonomical kingoms: Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, Archaebacteria, and Eubacteria (the former 4 are of the Domain Eukarya, the latter 2 are of the Domain Archae & Bacteria respectively).
We are, to give our full name:
Eukaryota Animalia Chordata Mammalia Primate Hominidae Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

That's why I said mushroom for fungus. If I didn't think mushrooms are fungi, I wouldn't have said mushroom. You have to follow the argument Wiccan.

I wonder if your definition of what Fungi are begins and ends with "food."

 

[MarkT]

As with everything else, you are very, very wrong.

To me they are plants, generally speaking. Of course they are a different kind of plant, not a green plant.

 

[OdwinOddball]

To me they are plants, generally speaking. Of course they are a different kind of plant, not a green plant.

Thats nice, but completely meaningless. To the people who research and study the bilogy of this planet, an dto thos ethat then use this knowledge to produce goods and services, a mushroom is a fungus and is neithe r aplant nor an animal.

Your opinion on them as a non-qualified layman means jack squat.

You are free to insist that your computer is powered by a gerbil if you so choose. But if you then try to tell me(someone who makes their living by understanding computers), I will laugh in your face. This really is no different.

 

[Tomk80]

To me they are plants, generally speaking. Of course they are a different kind of plant, not a green plant.

Sorry, but they are not. Reality is what it is, not what you want it to be. In reality, fungi are not plants. Your denial of that doesn't change that reality in any way.

 

[MarkT]

Taxonomy is not concerned with behaviour. Some humans are nudists and naturalists. Some humans are city-dwelling entrepreneur. Which, by your logic, is human?

The Bible isn't concerned with taxonomy ... or sorcery or witchcraft. The Bible says 'man' is a separate creation and the only thing 'of his flesh' is 'woman'. That's why she is called 'woman' - 'flesh of his flesh'. So there is no biorelatedness to the other creatures that were created. We're not biorelated ... 'of the same flesh'. We're not related to the animals or cattle or to the beasts of the earth or to birds or to fish.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That's why I said mushroom for fungus. If I didn't think mushrooms are fungi, I wouldn't have said mushroom. You have to follow the argument Wiccan.

You said that mushrooms are plants. They are not, and I explained why.

To me they are plants, generally speaking. Of course they are a different kind of plant, not a green plant.

No. Plants are eykaryotic, autotrophic (though some are carnivourous), photosynthetic (though some are parasitic) organisms.
Fungi are heterotrophic organisms which exhibit extracellular digestion, after which they absorb nutrition, and have cell walls.
The main difference is that plants are autotrophic, fungi heterotrophic.

The Bible isn't concerned with taxonomy ... or sorcery or witchcraft. The Bible says 'man' is a separate creation and the only thing 'of his flesh' is 'woman'. That's why she is called 'woman' - 'flesh of his flesh'. So there is no biorelatedness to the other creatures that were created. We're not biorelated ... 'of the same flesh'. We're not related to the animals or cattle or to the beasts of the earth or to birds or to fish.

I beg to differ. The evidence points to a common ancestry between the Great Ape families (including humans), between the Primates and other Mammals, between Mammals and other Vertebrates, between Vertebrates and other Chordates, between Chordates... etc.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/stringermdl.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Before_Homo (the 'Before Homo' article details the evolution of Primates from other animals, while the whole article details the evolution of humans as Primates).

Oh, look at that, I have cited evidence, and you have not. Point to the ''Liberal Church of Atheism' I belive.

 

[MarkT]

I beg to differ. The evidence points to a common ancestry between the Great Ape families (including humans), between the Primates and other Mammals, between Mammals and other Vertebrates, between Vertebrates and other Chordates, between Chordates... etc.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/stringermdl.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_e...on#Before_Homo (the 'Before Homo' article details the evolution of Primates from other animals, while the whole article details the evolution of humans as Primates).

Oh, look at that, I have cited evidence, and you have not. Point to the ''Liberal Church of Atheism' I belive

Talk Origins is not evidence. Evidence is seen. Testimonies are heard. Sources of information are cited.

Talk Origins is an evolution web site. Getting information from them is not seeing evidence.

Their claim that evolution explains everything is bogus. Nature did not and does not create categories and systems. In nature, everything takes after its own kind. One kind. Two kinds from one kind, no. Birds are birds; domestic and wild, birds of prey and scavengers, song birds, birds that fish and birds that eat seed and fruit. Everything has its own flesh. Different flesh for different kind. Nature does not create kinds. A kind is in concept a category. A family is a kind. So is a genus and a phylum and an order, etc. So I'm saying nature doesn't create families or genera or phyla etc.

The evidence: All we can see is animals possess alternative traits and even if mutations create new traits, they are only alternatives to the ones the animals already possess.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Talk Origins is not evidence. Evidence is seen. Testimonies are heard. Sources of information are cited.

Talk Origins is an evolution web site. Getting information from them is not seeing evidence.

Their claim that evolution explains everything is bogus. Nature did not and does not create categories and systems. In nature, everything takes after its own kind. One kind. Two kinds from one kind, no. Birds are birds; domestic and wild, birds of prey and scavengers, song birds, birds that fish and birds that eat seed and fruit. Everything has its own flesh. Different flesh for different kind. Nature does not create kinds. A kind is in concept a category. A family is a kind. So is a genus and a phylum and an order, etc. So I'm saying nature doesn't create families or genera or phyla etc.

The evidence: All we can see is animals possess alternative traits and even if mutations create new traits, they are only alternatives to the ones the animals already possess.

That's exactly how evolution works! Except that we've seen (several times) one species of birds producing two or more new "kinds" of birds.

 

[Chalnoth]

Talk Origins is not evidence. Evidence is seen. Testimonies are heard. Sources of information are cited.

Yes, and if you would read the website, you would understand that their sources of information are quite well-cited. You are welcome to go through their citations to see if they are being faithful to the source material, but talkorigins is designed with a popular audience in mind, and as such is going to be much easier to understand than the source material.

The evidence: All we can see is animals possess alternative traits and even if mutations create new traits, they are only alternatives to the ones the animals already possess.

No. That's not the only thing that we can see. We can also see that those traits which animals possess form a definite pattern. Specifically, they form a nested hierarchy. All apes are primates. All primates are placental mammals. All placental mammals are mammals. And so on and so forth. There is no bird-mammal in existence, which is to be expected seeing as birds and mammals evolved from cousin species.

What does this mean? Well, there are a set of very specific characteristics that are in common with all birds: they have a unique lung system, they have feathers, and their forelimbs form wings in a specific way.

All mammals have a different set of characteristics in common: they produce milk for feeding the young, they have hair/fur, they have a unique ear, and they have specialized teeth.

Never will you see an animal with any of the characteristics I laid out for birds that is the same with one of the characteristics that I laid out for mammals. Not once. Not ever. Take bats, as an example. Bats are a flying mammal that uses its forelimbs as wings. But if you look at the bone structure of a bat wing vs. a bird wing, you will find a radically different structure. You will also never find an animal that provides milk for its young, but has feathers. Nor will you find an animal that has the lungs of a bird, but has fur.

Evolution demands that you will find such a nested hierarchy of commonality: once a species diverges into two species, the evolutionary path that one species takes will never be accessible by the other species. And this nested hierarchy goes all the way down to the simplest life forms on Earth.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Talk Origins is not evidence. Evidence is seen. Testimonies are heard. Sources of information are cited.

My statement was blatent satire. But

Talk Origins is an evolution web site. Getting information from them is not seeing evidence.

Correct. Neither does reading the Bible prove the Bible. But this is a mostly text-based telecommunication; there are limits to how exactly we can 'see' the evidence. Besides, I would think that if Talk Origins fabricated evidence, then someone would have noticed.
That said, Talk Origins is a very valid source of information. If you think you can refute their arguments, or think you have found a flaw in their logic, then please, post it, and we'll debate it. But their arguments come from clearly cited references. Do you doubt them?

Their claim that evolution explains everything is bogus.

Incorrect. Talk Origin show via logical deduction from observed evidences that the Biological Phenomenon of Evolution has and is occuring, and that the Theory of Evolution is both valid and sound. They do not claim in the slightest that it 'explains everything'.

Nature did not and does not create categories and systems. In nature, everything takes after its own kind. One kind. Two kinds from one kind, no.

Self contradictory. You claim the physical universe (or, at least, the biological world) is non-systematic, chaotic, truely random, but then you invoke a system into it: 'everything takes after its own kind. One kind'. Which is it?

Birds are birds; domestic and wild, birds of prey and scavengers, song birds, birds that fish and birds that eat seed and fruit.

Tautology. A bird is a bird because of the Law of Identity: A = A for all A.

Everything has its own flesh.

Incorrect.
1) Parasitic organisms are partly composed of their hosts 'flesh', as per the definition.
2) Only animals have 'flesh'. What of plants?
3) What of non-biological mattar? Does that count under 'everything'?

Different flesh for different kind. Nature does not create kinds. A kind is in concept a category. A family is a kind. So is a genus and a phylum and an order, etc. So I'm saying nature doesn't create families or genera or phyla etc.

Self-contradictory. You claim there are these 'kinds', presumably a collective term for the taxonomical catagories and subcatagories, and then you claim that they do not exist!

The evidence: All we can see is animals possess alternative traits and even if mutations create new traits, they are only alternatives to the ones the animals already possess.

Self-contradictory. You say that a new trait is just an old trait. Which is it? New or old?
You have not cited any evidence. I have cite sources of evidence. My evidence shows that intra-species variation can lead to adaptation and speciation.

 

[MarkT]

No. That's not the only thing that we can see. We can also see that those traits which animals possess form a definite pattern. Specifically, they form a nested hierarchy. All apes are primates. All primates are placental mammals. All placental mammals are mammals. And so on and so forth. There is no bird-mammal in existence, which is to be expected seeing as birds and mammals evolved from cousin species.

What does this mean? Well, there are a set of very specific characteristics that are in common with all birds: they have a unique lung system, they have feathers, and their forelimbs form wings in a specific way.

All mammals have a different set of characteristics in common: they produce milk for feeding the young, they have hair/fur, they have a unique ear, and they have specialized teeth.

Never will you see an animal with any of the characteristics I laid out for birds that is the same with one of the characteristics that I laid out for mammals. Not once. Not ever. Take bats, as an example. Bats are a flying mammal that uses its forelimbs as wings. But if you look at the bone structure of a bat wing vs. a bird wing, you will find a radically different structure. You will also never find an animal that provides milk for its young, but has feathers. Nor will you find an animal that has the lungs of a bird, but has fur.

Evolution demands that you will find such a nested hierarchy of commonality: once a species diverges into two species, the evolutionary path that one species takes will never be accessible by the other species. And this nested hierarchy goes all the way down to the simplest life forms on Earth.

Well you can classify alot of things into a nested hierarchy. For example, Talk Origins uses cars as an example. So cars can be classified in a hierarchical manner. The thing is, the fact that cars are manufactured and designed is quickly forgotten. Most anything that fits into a nested hierarchy is manufactured, designed. So what can and what can not fit into a nested hierarchy can be seen this way.

Everything that can be, is manufactured and designed. That includes the things that we manufacture and design, like cars and books. Everything that can not be, is made by nature and natural processes, like rocks and minerals. That includes things that don't change, like the elements. So things that can be classified in a hierarchical manner are designed and manufactured and things that can't be are made by natural processes. So the phyogenetic tree is obviously man made and designed. A natural process can not create anything that can be classified in a hierarchical manner. As we can see, the things made by nature and natural processes, like rocks, can not be classified in a hierarchical manner and almost anything made and designed by man can be. It follows that living things were manufactured and designed.

 

[Tomk80]

Well you can classify alot of things into a nested hierarchy. For example, Talk Origins uses cars as an example. So cars can be classified in a hierarchical manner. The thing is, the fact that cars are manufactured and designed is quickly forgotten. Most anything that fits into a nested hierarchy is manufactured, designed. So what can and what can not fit into a nested hierarchy can be seen this way.

But you cannot, and this is something talkorigins also states but you somehow missed, classifiy cars in a twin-nested hierarchy. Neither can you, with cars, show that one nested hierarchy is more parsimoneous than a different one, which is possible with biological organsisms. These differences between possibilities of classification are significant, but somehow you have skipped that bit.

Everything that can be, is manufactured and designed. That includes the things that we manufacture and design, like cars and books. Everything that can not be, is made by nature and natural processes, like rocks and minerals. That includes things that don't change, like the elements. So things that can be classified in a hierarchical manner are designed and manufactured and things that can't be are made by natural processes. So the phyogenetic tree is obviously man made and designed. A natural process can not create anything that can be classified in a hierarchical manner. As we can see, the things made by nature and natural processes, like rocks, can not be classified in a hierarchical manner and almost anything made and designed by man can be. It follows that living things were manufactured and designed.

So which to article did you read? Linky? Because I am fairly certain you missed its meaning completely.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Talk Origins is not evidence. Evidence is seen. Testimonies are heard. Sources of information are cited.

Talk Origins is an evolution web site. Getting information from them is not seeing evidence.

TalkOrigins provides lists of sources for every single one of their articles. Perhaps if you had ever been there, you'd have known that.

Their claim that evolution explains everything is bogus. Nature did not and does not create categories and systems. In nature, everything takes after its own kind. One kind. Two kinds from one kind, no. Birds are birds; domestic and wild, birds of prey and scavengers, song birds, birds that fish and birds that eat seed and fruit. Everything has its own flesh. Different flesh for different kind. Nature does not create kinds. A kind is in concept a category. A family is a kind. So is a genus and a phylum and an order, etc. So I'm saying nature doesn't create families or genera or phyla etc.

Nature does not create "kinds."

The evidence: All we can see is animals possess alternative traits and even if mutations create new traits, they are only alternatives to the ones the animals already possess.

So, your evidence is what you don't see.

 

[Chalnoth]

Well you can classify alot of things into a nested hierarchy. For example, Talk Origins uses cars as an example. So cars can be classified in a hierarchical manner. The thing is, the fact that cars are manufactured and designed is quickly forgotten. Most anything that fits into a nested hierarchy is manufactured, designed. So what can and what can not fit into a nested hierarchy can be seen this way.

Think about this for a moment. A nested hierarchy means that anything that is developed for one type of car would never ever be used in another type. For example, when we started making cars, they had no air conditioning. If this was a nested hierarchy system like we see in biology, we would expect to see one lineage of cars develop air conditioning, and that particular machinery would never be used in any other line of cars. Now, we might develop air conditioning a second time for another line of cars, but it would be a very different implementation. The end function would be similar (though not identical), but all of the pieces that make it up would be quite different. And this new form of air conditioning would never be used outside of this other family of cars.

This obviously is not what happens. Cars do not fit into a strict nested hierarchy, because when people develop a new system for one type of car, that system is migrated to other types whenever it is found to be useful. We never see such migration of traits among life forms.

 

[Ondoher]

Well you can classify alot of things into a nested hierarchy. For example, Talk Origins uses cars as an example. So cars can be classified in a hierarchical manner. The thing is, the fact that cars are manufactured and designed is quickly forgotten. Most anything that fits into a nested hierarchy is manufactured, designed. So what can and what can not fit into a nested hierarchy can be seen this way.

The problem with forming a nested hierarchy out of cars is that:

1. You will invariably find a car that would belong in more than one grouping. For instance, my old Hyundai Sonata had a Mitsubishi motor in it.
2. Two or more people developing such a nested heirarchy will produce vastly different results.

This is not true of living beings.

Everything that can be, is manufactured and designed. That includes the things that we manufacture and design, like cars and books. Everything that can not be, is made by nature and natural processes, like rocks and minerals. That includes things that don't change, like the elements. So things that can be classified in a hierarchical manner are designed and manufactured and things that can't be are made by natural processes. So the phyogenetic tree is obviously man made and designed. A natural process can not create anything that can be classified in a hierarchical manner. As we can see, the things made by nature and natural processes, like rocks, can not be classified in a hierarchical manner and almost anything made and designed by man can be. It follows that living things were manufactured and designed.

Except that you have it backwards. Created things do not actually form natural, nested hierarchies.

 

[TheCommonPatriot]

That's exactly how evolution works! Except that we've seen (several times) one species of birds producing two or more new "kinds" of birds.

In what setting, exactly, did you or "we" see the evolution of a bird into something other than a bird? Darwin's tree of life requires that a single ancestor produced all of the species we see today. The question is not the internal changes within birds but the production of a species "other than bird" from a particular species of bird. Seeing two birds with different characteristics makes them differing "species" only in our own human categorization of those life forms. This does not, in and of itself, indicate the "evolution of new species" but only a difference within a single type of animal.

No my friend, this does not give you evolution. This only gives you a great many variations of bird.

Peace Be With You.