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

[Aron-Ra]

The facts:

• I live in the city of Denver.
• I also live in the state of Colorado.
• I also live in the country of the United States.
• Mary lives in the city of Boulder.
• Boulder is in the state of Colorado.

What country does Mary live in? For that matter, which state?

Evilutionist: "The country of the United States, and the state of Colorado."
Cretinist: "She doesn't live in a state or country, or she does but you didn't say so."

(Sorry, couldn't resist the labels, and I mean no offense by them).

I think that was a very good example actually.

 

[OdwinOddball]

I must admit you're right about that. I've never understood how so many people I knew seemed incapable of telling a lion from a tiger, or a rat from a mouse, a spider from an insect, or a gorilla from a "monkey". However you define a "monkey", a gorilla is no more or less a monkey than we are. And its not just that either. A lot of Americans can't tell a solar system from a galaxy. Most can't distinguish atheism from material naturalism, and many don't even know the difference between capitolism and democracy, believing that a socialist government is the enemy of both, and cannot permit democratic elections. I'm really at a loss to understand the general lack of perception that is so commonplace in this country.

Its pretty simple really. We do not teach people to think, we teach them to perform. Most students never develop the ability to conceptualize abstract concepts, or use deductive/inductive reasoning to peice together independant lines of thought.

 

[Ondoher]

We are not primates or mammals or synapsids. We are not any of those categories because we are not categories. We are creatures of course.

That's a nonsequitur. That's like saying my shirt is not blue because it's not a color, it's a shirt. We are primates because we fit the definition of primate.

You say the descendants of apes will always be apes. That's true. The ancestors of apes have always been apes. The ancestors of man have always been men.

One of those statements is scienific, the other is theistic. Guess which is which.

 

[MarkT]

That's a nonsequitur. That's like saying my shirt is not blue because it's not a color, it's a shirt. We are primates because we fit the definition of primate.

According to the scientific definition, yes. Scientists made up the story through definitions and by definitions. The whole structure is held together by definitions and without the definitions, the story falls apart. It has no meaning. The definitions are the most appealing aspect of the theory. You can come to believe in evolution simply by following the definitions. So strictly speaking, you're right. It is your belief that you are a primate because evolution is by definition the best scientific explanation. I would point out one thing though. Science is studying nature. So any scientific theory about our origin has to involve a natural cause. It has to be nature begets nature somehow. Science has nowhere else to go. Indeed, as has been pointed out many times, Creation science isn't science. That's right, strictly speaking, because Creationism doesn't ask or answer the question, 'How did nature do it?' See Creation science can go where science can not go because it can break through the barrier of science and the definition of science.

 

[Ondoher]

According to the scientific definition, yes. Scientists made up the story through definitions and by definitions. The whole structure is held together by definitions and without the definitions, the story falls apart. It has no meaning. The definitions are the most appealing aspect of the theory. You can come to believe in evolution simply by following the definitions. So strictly speaking, you're right. It is your belief that you are a primate because evolution is by definition the best scientific explanation. I would point out one thing though. Science is studying nature. So any scientific theory about our origin has to involve a natural cause. It has to be nature begets nature somehow. Science has nowhere else to go. Indeed, as has been pointed out many times, Creation science isn't science. That's right, strictly speaking, because Creationism doesn't ask or answer the question, 'How did nature do it?' See Creation science can go where science can not go because it can break through the barrier of science and the definition of science.

Creationism isn't science because it doesn't propose testable explanations.

 

[MarkT]

Basically, there is no consistent way of describing all mammals without describing humans as well. Just as there is no consistent way of describing all primates without describing humans as well. And there is no consistent way of describing all apes without describing humans as well.

Functionally, yes. But the point of the theory is how characters function to help animal populations survive. I have to point out that mammals do not possess fish vertebrea but science doesn't care. All scientists can see is mammals and fish have functional vertebrea. But that's part of the story telling process. You have to create the characters, give them names, give them something to do. To science, fish and mammals are called vertebrates. But that isn't the name we give animals or why we name them. We name animals because they are different, not because they are the same. The central theme of evolution is survival ... probably why Survivor is a popular TV show. See how the members of the tribe function? They form alliances to vote people off. It's all about functionality, what works. That's the message that comes from science.

 

[MarkT]

Creationism isn't science because it doesn't propose testable explanations.

By it's own narrow definition maybe but in this world, we are the ones being tested.

 

[Ondoher]

Functionally, yes. But the point of the theory is how characters function to help animal populations survive. I have to point out that mammals do not possess fish vertebrea but science doesn't care. All scientists can see is mammals and fish have functional vertebrea. But that's part of the story telling process. You have to create the characters, give them names, give them something to do. To science, fish and mammals are called vertebrates. But that isn't the name we give animals or why we name them. We name animals because they are different, not because they are the same. The central theme of evolution is survival ... probably why Survivor is a popular TV show. See how the members of the tribe function? They form alliances to vote people off. It's all about functionality, what works. That's the message that comes from science.

In taxonomy we group species by the traits they have in common.

 

[ashibaka]

That's the message that comes from science.

Science doesn't send a message. Scientists might say absurd things, but facts have no bias. And facts are what get taught in school. If you don't like facts you can't substitute in more family-friendly ones. If you blot out reproduction from the biology curriculum, for example, you will have a happy Christian story, and maybe people will stop watching Desperate Housewives according to your interesting model, but kids won't learn the stuff we know.

By it's own narrow definition maybe but in this world, we are the ones being tested.

If you are answering the test of God rather than testing the theories of men, then you shouldn't even care whether creationism is supported by facts, because your belief should not waver. In that case, it's pointless to argue.

 

[bobhope]

Science doesn't send a message. Scientists might say absurd things, but facts have no bias. And facts are what get taught in school. If you don't like facts you can't substitute in more family-friendly ones. If you blot out reproduction from the biology curriculum, for example, you will have a happy Christian story, and maybe people will stop watching Desperate Housewives according to your interesting model, but kids won't learn the stuff we know.

And the human race would slowly die out.

If you are answering the test of God rather than testing the theories of men, then you shouldn't even care whether creationism is supported by facts, because your belief should not waver. In that case, it's pointless to argue.

Wouldn't God rather, in fact, that they do something more helpful and loving in their time here on this small insignificant planet? For instance, helping the poor?

 

[MarkT]

No no no. Where did you get this loopy idea? Moving to a new residence doesn't change your genetics. Every generation has a bit of genetic variance regardless where they live. The gene pool regulates it to keep that variance within certain boundaries. But if you divide the main population so they can no longer interbreed, the gene pool is dramatically reduced, and will be less able to inhibit that variation.

Ok Most of the population leaves. Sheesh. Forgive me for not saying it right. I agree with what you said and I've said the same thing many times. If some members of the main population become isolated, they would create a new population which would represent less than 100 % of the genetic pool it came from. Gradually the gene pool would shrink as species would form from species and eventually speciation will not produce viable species. Thus a limit.

And so shall they always be. That's why humans are still apes, still primates, still mammals, still vertebrates, etc. You can never grow out of your ancestry. No matter what your children may become, they will still always belong to your grandparent's ancestry, and that can't ever change.

Now why would you call our ancestor an 'ape' and the apes 'apes'? It's very confusing. If we are diverging, at least give our common ancestor another name...say ... a protohumanape. And a primate isn't an animal. Just trying to give your old story some new characters Aron.

 

[MarkT]

No no no. Where did you get this loopy idea? Moving to a new residence doesn't change your genetics. Every generation has a bit of genetic variance regardless where they live. The gene pool regulates it to keep that variance within certain boundaries. But if you divide the main population so they can no longer interbreed, the gene pool is dramatically reduced, and will be less able to inhibit that variation.

What if another group did move in. Like when people leave a theatre and another audience moves in. Would you call it evolution? The frequency of alleles changed.

 

[Ondoher]

Ok Most of the population leaves. Sheesh. Forgive me for not saying it right. I agree with what you said and I've said the same thing many times. If some members of the main population become isolated, they would create a new population which would represent less than 100 % of the genetic pool it came from. Gradually the gene pool would shrink as species would form from species and eventually speciation will not produce viable species. Thus a limit.

This is completely nonsensical. Over time, mutations add to variability in a gene pool, and this is how separated populations diverge.

Now why would you call our ancestor an 'ape' and the apes 'apes'? It's very confusing.

We call modern species apes, because they fit the definition of apes. We call our ancestors apes because they also fit the definition of apes. Also, the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimps lived more recently than the most recent common ancestor of orangutans and humans. And that would have obviously been an ape as well.

If we are diverging, at least give our common ancestor another name...say ... a protohumanape.

That would not prevent it from also being an ape.

And a primate isn't an animal.

Of course it is. What, do you think it's a plant?

Just trying to give your old story some new characters Aron.

Whatever.

 

[bobhope]

Ok Most of the population leaves. Sheesh. Forgive me for not saying it right. I agree with what you said and I've said the same thing many times. If some members of the main population become isolated, they would create a new population which would represent less than 100 % of the genetic pool it came from. Gradually the gene pool would shrink as species would form from species and eventually speciation will not produce viable species. Thus a limit.



Now why would you call our ancestor an 'ape' and the apes 'apes'? It's very confusing. If we are diverging, at least give our common ancestor another name...say ... a protohumanape. And a primate isn't an animal. Just trying to give your old story some new characters Aron.

A perfect example of not grasping the concept of groups properly. See my last post.

Edit: Thanks Aron!

 

[Tomk80]

What if another group did move in. Like when people leave a theatre and another audience moves in. Would you call it evolution? The frequency of alleles changed.

But not in the population. Evolution is the change of allele frequencies in a population.

Two different, successive audiences in a theatre would be two different populations.

 

[Tomk80]

And a primate isn't an animal.

And by this logic, a Ferrari is not a car.

Grouping things: one of the many concepts still not understood by creationists.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Ok Most of the population leaves. Sheesh. Forgive me for not saying it right. I agree with what you said and I've said the same thing many times. If some members of the main population become isolated, they would create a new population which would represent less than 100 % of the genetic pool it came from. Gradually the gene pool would shrink as species would form from species and eventually speciation will not produce viable species. Thus a limit.

No sir. The pool doesn't shrink. As we grow, and our cells replicate, many of them, hundreds of thousands or millions over a lifetime -will mutate. The most you usually get from this is that siblings, even identical twins, continue to "grow apart" becoming more distinct from each other as time goes on. If any of these mutations find happen to be inheritable, then they'll be passed on so that sons will not look exactly like thier fathers. That's pretty much how it works. In humans, every individual in any generation already bears well more than 100 mutations at the point of conception. As I said, over time, and several successive generations, the gene pool will usually restrict aberrations somewhat. But when that pool is reduced, the mutations are less restricted and more dramatic changes can dominate. The result is, the gene pool grows, thus no limit.

Now why would you call our ancestor an 'ape' and the apes 'apes'? It's very confusing.

Yes it is. Its as if one spoke of Americans referring only to citizens of the United States. But of course Canadian and Mexican citizens are Americans too, even if they've never been to the US.

If we are diverging, at least give our common ancestor another name...say ... a protohumanape.

How about Australopithecus or Ardipithecus? The problem is they're always apes, but we can't tell exactly when they're human too. Many people now consider Australopithecines human, though I'm sure you would not.

And a primate isn't an animal.

Yes it is. All primates are animals including humans. You are an animal according to every criteria required of that word.

animal (n-ml) n.
any organic (Carbon-based) replicative RNA/DNA protein organism:
(a) consisting of multiple diploid cells which each contain a nucleus;
(b) which perform chemical reactions and acheive homeostasis;
(c) who's gammete cells have a posterior flagella;
(d) which must ingest and digest other organisms in a digestive tract in order to sustain themselves.
--Biological definition​

 

[MarkT]

No sir. The pool doesn't shrink. As we grow, and our cells replicate, many of them, hundreds of thousands or millions over a lifetime -will mutate. The most you usually get from this is that siblings, even identical twins, continue to "grow apart" becoming more distinct from each other as time goes on. If any of these mutations find happen to be inheritable, then they'll be passed on so that sons will not look exactly like thier fathers. That's pretty much how it works. In humans, every individual in any generation already bears well more than 100 mutations at the point of conception. As I said, over time, and several successive generations, the gene pool will usually restrict aberrations somewhat. But when that pool is reduced, the mutations are less restricted and more dramatic changes can dominate. The result is, the gene pool grows, thus no limit.

What aberrations? You've got an animal population with genes coding for different characters. You can mix and match genes and get variety. You can isolate some members and perhaps lose something genetically. I mean Africans are more likely to get sickle cell anemia for instance. But when you cross breed animals, mostly you get alternative linked characters like eye color and coat color coming out.

Now you say hidden abberations come out like some kind of demon. I don't think so. Any mutations caused by a mutagen would not come out as a new character. Any damage that can not be repaired would cause tumors and cancer. I don't think new genes are created. I think genes can be lost and traits can become fixed.

I agree sons don't look exactly like their fathers. Alot depends on the mother.

But you seem to be agreeing with me when you say the gene pool is reduced. I said it shrinks. Same thing. If there's something important that doesn't get passed on, it affects the population. I think, if you start with a pool that represents the original kind, with every possible variation present, then a new population that could be missing a factor or two is possible and traits would become fixed. I think after further speciation you might get deformities but the kind of animal wouldn't change. At least, I've never seen any evidence of it. Some flightless birds use their wings as flippers but I don't think they are becoming fish even though their environment isn't the typical bird environment.

I seriously doubt limits would not exist. Limits are everywhere in nature.

 

[MarkT]

Yes it is. All primates are animals including humans. You are an animal according to every criteria required of that word.


animal (n-ml) n.
any organic (Carbon-based) replicative RNA/DNA protein organism:
(a) consisting of multiple diploid cells which each contain a nucleus;
(b) which perform chemical reactions and acheive homeostasis;
(c) who's gammete cells have a posterior flagella;
(d) which must ingest and digest other organisms in a digestive tract in order to sustain themselves.
--Biological definition

What did I just say about definitions? This is what I mean. All you're doing is stating what's written in every biology book. That's not an argument. You want me to start quoting scripture at you? Ok. You're wrong. The Bible says, "The Lord God formed man of dust from the ground." Genesis 2:7

 

[Ondoher]

What did I just say about definitions? This is what I mean. All you're doing is stating what's written in every biology book. That's not an argument. You want me to start quoting scripture at you? Ok. You're wrong. The Bible says, "The Lord God formed man of dust from the ground." Genesis 2:7

Every biology book agrees that primates are animals, therefore they are not.