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

[Aron-Ra]

That's like saying there's an enormous overlap between ape traits and human traits so apes and humans do not fit into a nested hierarchy.

There is an overlap actually. Humans are apes in precisely the same way that ducks are birds and lions are cats. Any of this beginning to sound familiar yet? Humans do fit in the nested heirarchy since all humans are apes. But only some trucks are cars and vice versa. You can't get "vice versa" with naturally reproducing organisms, that's why they fit into nested heirarchies where manufactured things don't and can't.

 

[Chalnoth]

That's like saying there's an enormous overlap between ape traits and human traits so apes and humans do not fit into a nested hierarchy.

No. The existence of the El Camino would be much like the existence of an animal with both fur and feathers (like the mythical griffon).

 

[MarkT]

And this is exactly why there is no nested hierarchy: when these advancements came along, they were placed in all vehicles. If this were a nested hierarchy, they would have been placed in only one type of vehicle, and other vehicles would have to either go without, or have completely differently-designed systems for the same purpose.

A nested hierarchy is simply a group within a group pattern.

I'm not saying cars mutate into trucks. In fact, a nested hierarchy doesn't have to suggest anything. All I'm saying is we create nested hierarchies by design and invention. We take simple things and make them more complicated. GM, for example, is organized into divisions that produce different makes and models of cars that come with options. The cars bear the name of the company that makes the car and the division and make and the model. There's something about a 2006 Cadillac XLR that makes it a Cadillac. Organizationally, there are managers and employees at various levels in a nested hierarchy. I think you want more of a 'tree of all cars' nested hierarchy. In that case you have to look at cars over time. But again, it isn't a tree that branches into trucks. I mean cars don't mutate. You can use alot of the same knowledge to build a truck and it can even resemble a car but generally a truck is designed for a different use. But the point is we create nested hierarchies. Nature does not. The phylogenetic tree is designed to show the history of life as if nature is adding traits to creatures that really don't need them in the first place but the creature exists and it is lacking a trait that, supposedly, would make it a fish and then make a fish an amphibian and so on. Genesis doesn't talk about things with a nucleus. It talks about fish and birds and plants etc. being created so there is going to be a nested hierarchy. Things are organized into companies and each company is divided into kinds that produce every kind that represent the kind. So there are nested hierarchies but more than one and that's what we can see. Living things inherit traits from their parents. Nature doesn't add on traits.

 

[Chalnoth]

You're exactly right, MarkT, cars don't mutate. This is why they don't fit into a nested hierarchy. You could try any grouping of physical traits you want with cars, and you'll almost certainly find exceptions to its listing in a nested hierarchy.

But with life, you could name any grouping of traits. Any grouping at all! Not one single trait that exists on any life form on Earth does not fit into a nested hierarchy. Not one! (at least, not when you look at a genetic level and consider the particular genes that result in that particular trait)

 

[MarkT]

You're exactly right, MarkT, cars don't mutate. This is why they don't fit into a nested hierarchy. You could try any grouping of physical traits you want with cars, and you'll almost certainly find exceptions to its listing in a nested hierarchy.

But with life, you could name any grouping of traits. Any grouping at all! Not one single trait that exists on any life form on Earth does not fit into a nested hierarchy. Not one! (at least, not when you look at a genetic level and consider the particular genes that result in that particular trait)

I just said they do. Now Aron says you can have overlapping traits and it's still a nested hierarchy, so cars can have seatbelts and CD players or be without (I guess because they are closely related) and be nested in a hierarchical manner, I guess, as long as there's something akin to a placenta to relate them. (Let's try 4 wheels). So all cars fit into a nested hierarchy.

The genetic tree of course is just another way of expressing the physical tree as genes are the factors that determine the physical traits so there are at least two ways of saying the same thing.

As to what fits where, how about the Octopus? It has a soft body like a mollusk but it has a venomous parrot-like beak. Or the Panda. It has an opposable thumb. And of course whales. They look like fish but they have a placenta.

 

[Edx]

Cars do have a kind of evolution, and we can see that in their designs. But since we know they cant reproduce like biological organisms can we know they must have been created.

 

[LittleNipper]

There is an overlap actually. Humans are apes in precisely the same way that ducks are birds and lions are cats. Any of this beginning to sound familiar yet? Humans do fit in the nested heirarchy since all humans are apes. But only some trucks are cars and vice versa. You can't get "vice versa" with naturally reproducing organisms, that's why they fit into nested heirarchies where manufactured things don't and can't.

The placement of ape thumbs and toes, do not match that of humans. Apes do not communicate by talking. Humans do not have fur. The size of the brain with regard to general height and body weight do not match. Apes are animals. Humans are not animals. People who wish to place apes and man in the same catagory are either evolutionists or jilted women harboring a grudge.

PS>>>> Inanimate objects do not give birth to offspring. Such things as cars exist as the result of designers and fabricators. They do not participate in theri own existence. They do not even think.

 

[Edx]

The placement of ape thumbs and toes, do not match that of humans. Apes do not communicate by talking. Humans do not have fur. The size of the brain with regard to general height and body weight do not match.

This isnt true, apart from the brain probably. But birds, dogs or fish have much more variety than this.

Apes are animals. Humans are not animals.

Define a human, define an ape and define an animal. Otherwise the words cant meant anything.

 

[LittleNipper]

This isnt true, apart from the brain probably. But birds, dogs or fish have much more variety than this.



Define a human, define an ape and define an animal. Otherwise the words cant meant anything.

Humans were created in the image of GOD separately from the various animal kingdoms. Animals are in subjection to humans and the opposite is not true. Animals prime objective is to stablize the environment and no lord over it.

 

[Edx]

Humans were created in the image of GOD separately from the various animal kingdoms. Animals are in subjection to humans and the opposite is not true. Animals prime objective is to stablize the environment and no lord over it.

Do you or do you not have a practical definition of animal? Do you or do you not have a practical definition of ape? Untill you do, humans will be classified ape and animal becuase we fit the only workable objective definition.

Ed

 

[Baggins]

The placement of ape thumbs and toes, do not match that of humans. Apes do not communicate by talking. Humans do not have fur. The size of the brain with regard to general height and body weight do not match. Apes are animals. Humans are not animals. People who wish to place apes and man in the same catagory are either evolutionists or jilted women harboring a grudge.

PS>>>> Inanimate objects do not give birth to offspring. Such things as cars exist as the result of designers and fabricators. They do not participate in theri own existence. They do not even think.

Are you totally bald by any chance Nip?

 

[Split Rock]

As to what fits where, how about the Octopus? It has a soft body like a mollusk but it has a venomous parrot-like beak. Or the Panda. It has an opposable thumb. And of course whales. They look like fish but they have a placenta.

1. The "beak" of the octopus is not the same as that of a bird, just as a platypus' "bill" is actually not at all the same as a bird's. They are made of different polymers and have a different development.

2. The Panda does not have an opposable thumb. Its thumb is not opposable at all, instead it has a hand bone that it uses insteads. A Master Designer could have given it a true opposable thumb like he gave primates... but evolution could not.

3. Whales are not fish. They are mammals and breath air like you do. Why don't they have gills? A master Designer could have given them gills, but evolution could not.

Every one of your examples shows how a master designer did not create these creatures, but that evolution did. A designer could have cut and pasted between different animals just as car designers do today. But this is not what we see with life. This is precisely the point others have tried to make with you but you don't seem to want to understand it.

 

[Aron-Ra]

The placement of ape thumbs and toes, do not match that of humans.

Humans are apes, so that statement doesn't make sense. But if you're talking about chimpanzee hands, then you're wrong because they do match, and we proved that early in this very thread, IIRC.

Edit: No, I take that back, it was in another thread.

Apes do not communicate by talking.

The only difference between chimpanzee mouths and human mouths that make the distinction in speech is that we have a tiny bit more space in the roof of our mouths which allows us to articulate speech.

Humans do not have fur.

Yes we do. We have just as many follicles as chimpanzees do, and we have several examples of humans who have thicker longer fur covering substantial parts of their bodies.

The size of the brain with regard to general height and body weight do not match.

The only difference is the size. In every other aspect, our brains our ape brains that are just larger than any other ape's.

Apes are animals. Humans are not animals.

Yes we are animals. What do you think an animal is? Define it for me. While you're at it, define "ape" too.

People who wish to place apes and man in the same catagory are either evolutionists or jilted women harboring a grudge.

Or they're intelligent rational people who have some idea what they're talking about. None of this applies to anyone denying that categorization.

PS>>>> Inanimate objects do not give birth to offspring. Such things as cars exist as the result of designers and fabricators. They do not participate in theri own existence. They do not even think.

Exactly! Now would you mind explaining that to MarkT? Because he's still trying to assign cars a nested heirarchy, and doesn't understand why that won't work.

 

[LittleNipper]

Are you totally bald by any chance Nip?

Actually, because I'm going to be Shepherd #1 in an Christmas program, I presently have a beard and shoulder length hair.----for real...
I grow hair. I don't have fur. I have a hairy chest, but it still is hair and and not fur. Fur can be pulled out in clumps and animals molt big time.... Men and women do go bald---- just how many bald chimps have you ever seen. I suppose it happens ----- but then again....

 

[Aron-Ra]

Actually, because I'm going to be Shepherd #1 in an Christmas program, I presently have a beard and shoulder length hair.----for real...
I grow hair. I don't have fur. I have a hairy chest, but it still is hair and and not fur. Fur can be pulled out in clumps and animals molt big time.... Men and women do go bald---- just how many bald chimps have you ever seen. I suppose it happens ----- but then again....

There have been many bald chimps and other virtually hairless apes.

One of the defining traits of great apes is that they have sparse hair relative to lesser apes. Chimpanzee hair, for example, cannot be pulled out in clumps like cat or rabbit hair can, because their "fur" really is hair, and not fur in the same that cats or rabbits have fur.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Actually, because I'm going to be Shepherd #1 in an Christmas program, I presently have a beard and shoulder length hair.----for real...
I grow hair. I don't have fur. I have a hairy chest, but it still is hair and and not fur. Fur can be pulled out in clumps and animals molt big time....

Look at your hairbrush; look at your bedsheets. Humans lose hair all over the place constantly.

 

[MarkT]

Exactly! Now would you mind explaining that to MarkT? Because he's still trying to assign cars a nested heirarchy, and doesn't understand why that won't work.

Cars - have wheels, a steel body frame to hang doors on and run wires along, an engine to burn fossil fuel, seats for carrying passengers, lights for running at night.

Fossil fuels were known before wheels, 2 wheels were known before 4 wheels, seats were known before steel, steel was known before electricity, electricity before lights, and an engine before cars.

So a car is an engine powered, electric light using, steel framed, seated, 4 wheeled, 2 wheel, wheeled, fossil fuel burning vehicle.

 

[Chalnoth]

MarkT, all you're proving is that there are many different classification schemes, and cars fit into one of those schemes. And the classification scheme into which cars fit is not a nested hierarchy.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Cars - have wheels, a steel body frame to hang doors on and run wires along,

Some cars don't have that. Some cars have carbon fiber, fiberglas, or aluminum instead of steel.

an engine to burn fossil fuel,

Some cars are electric, solar, or even steam driven. Some run on recycled vegetable oil, and a few even run on water!

seats for carrying passengers, lights for running at night.

Fossil fuels were known before wheels, 2 wheels were known before 4 wheels,

Some cars only have three wheels.

seats were known before steel, steel was known before electricity, electricity before lights, and an engine before cars.

Yet the first cars were run on man-power.

So a car is an engine powered, electric light using,

The first cars didn't have lights.

steel framed, seated, 4 wheeled, 2 wheel, wheeled, fossil fuel burning vehicle.

And in any one lineage, Volkswagen Beetles for example, we can go from amphibious steel bodies with rear wheel drive air-cooled, popper-style aluminum rear-mounted engines with carborators for leaded fuel

- straight over to front wheel drive plastic composite bodies with iron-based front-mounted water-cooled fuel injected engines which can only run on unleaded fuels and sink like stones in water. Just in that one lineage alone, there still can be no nested heirarchy!

 

[Chalnoth]

and a few even run on water!

A small comment on this: the whole water as fuel thing is ridiculous, to say the least. Water is not a fuel source. What this guy appears to be doing is using electrolysis to separate water into hydrogen and hydrogen peroxide, then reacting the two to reform water. Hydrogen and hydrogen peroxide do indeed make water, and will release energy in doing so, but you don't gain back as much energy as you put in originally.