Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

Sometimes those cells GROW and become entirely new beings. Some plants do it there's even a few herps that do it.

And the plants become what?

So are these lizards a different kind since they don't breed via sexual reproduction?

I tend to think a lizzard is a lizzard. Bob cats and house cats can't reproduce either, but they are the same kind of animal.

What is the justification for using reproduction? The Bible?

No, not the Bible, just an easy way to look at things.

Isn't what is a species a scientific one?

"This poses a very interesting problem. Should the species Ensatina eschscholtzi be split into two or more species, or be considered a single species? If the species is to be split, where does one draw the line?"

From here

Looks like even evos are having a tough time with that one.

If so then why are you using the BIble to answer it if that is not a scientific text?

I guess you should wait to assume.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

they do... creationists aren't invited because their criticisms aren't based on science

Or rather voted down against the parents wishes by school boards.

 

[Stratnerd]

I tend to think a lizzard is a lizzard. Bob cats and house cats can't reproduce either, but they are the same kind of animal.

but I thought we were discussing "kinds" and reproduction was the way to identify it. do you now have a different criterion for "kinds"

No, not the Bible, just an easy way to look at things.

that's not how science works

"This poses a very interesting problem. Should the species Ensatina eschscholtzi be split into two or more species, or be considered a single species? If the species is to be split, where does one draw the line?"

indeed, where do we draw the line - that is, how can we justify our decisions... you're catching on but you didn't answer my question.

Looks like even evos are having a tough time with that one.

species definitions have been difficult before Darwin.. in fact it was the pre-Darwin creationists that recognized the problems.

I guess you should wait to assume.

I don't even understand what that means.

 

[Stratnerd]

Or rather voted down against the parents wishes by school boards.

both... school boards with a lick of intelligence recognize that creationism is not based on any science - as you admit and therefore doesn't belong in a science classroom.

they also recognize the fact that by bringing creationism (religious study) into the classroom they are opening up the doors to litigation - they probably rather spend the money on kids. Just ask Tangipohoa Parish where I lived for many years.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

but I thought we were discussing "kinds" and reproduction was the way to identify it. do you now have a different criterion for "kinds"

I wouldn't say different, but more than just sexual reproduction.

that's not how science works

Who ever claimed I was speaking for all of science?

indeed, where do we draw the line - that is, how can we justify our decisions... you're catching on but you didn't answer my question.

For men, yes, we have taxonomy. Our criteria, our classifications.

species definitions have been difficult before Darwin.. in fact it was the pre-Darwin creationists that recognized the problems.

Looks as if they persist, even with darwin.

 

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by Nineveh

I just wish they would add public school to the arena.

Yeah, I can see it now in biology class...

[teacher thrusts hand inside a nude male mannequin and grabs rib]

"See class, this is how God started to create the female half of the human species."

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Nineveh

"I didn't see where they said the Bible explains how God did things on the scientific front. I see them explaining where they start from, evos start with darwin."

No, I can't see where that statement about AiG says a thing about what I believe. I'd rather no slant at all, especially in public school.

Sigh. You reject my statement that ICR (not AIG, although I admit these groups are all rather equivalent in the calibre of their scientific contributions) uses Genesis as a scientific guide by stating that they didn't say that the Bible explains how God did things. Therefore, a rational person would conclude that you view explanation as an essential component to scientific inquiry. The point of my followup post was that earlier you argued that explanation was not something you wanted from science. A rational person would wonder why you restrict science to explanatory role when it suits you, but then complain about science's tendency to want to explain things when you don't like the explanations they give.

Originally posted by Nineveh
I will stick with my origional reply, it was the same to you, Strat ans john and it will stay the same as I answer it again:

You aren't arguing against the point he made about unique genetic sequences (the crux of the article).

I love your implication here: who cares how sloppy he is with his non-crux points? And in any case, yes I am dealing with his core issue. He's manipulating the data to make the sequences seem more unique than they really are. And he never tells us how unique either the evolutionary model or the ID model would predict, so how could he possibly claim his data favors one or the other? And when I looked at what a simplified version of an evolutionary model would predict (simplified to help his case), I found no obvious difference between that and what he reported. How much more direct a rebuttal do you need?

Originally posted by Nineveh
Did you use BLAST?

Yes, and you? It makes it relatively easy to do pairwise comparisons. Brewer had to work hard to get the four-taxon summary. I wonder why...?

Originally posted by Nineveh
I would have to take your word there is an argument, because I haven't seen it.

Click here for an overview. But I wouldn't get too excited about the article itself. They inadvertently demonstrate that it will be impossible to define "kinds" in a non-arbitrary way, much less one that could be reasonably linked to the actual Biblical kinds.

Originally posted by Nineveh
Well, perhaps you might want to offer a little more on the topic than just your word for it?

See link above.

Originally posted by Nineveh
: looks at watch :

Breeding season?

You can hunt "muley-deer" in Montana.

Oh, okay , you're not talking about mules the way the rest of the world does, you're talking about mule deer and white-tailed deer. Mules are horse-donkey hybrids. Real different from mule deer. That's why scientists like scientific names!

Originally posted by Nineveh
a : involving or reproducing by reproductive processes (as cell division, spore formation, fission, or budding) that do not involve the union of individuals or germ cells <asexual reproduction> <an asexual generation> b : produced by asexual reproduction

Cells don't divide into anything other than cells. I don't understand how you are using this as an argument.

Then while you're looking up ring species and Ensatina, you might want to check up on asexual reproduction and Cnemidophorus.

 

[Stratnerd]

I wouldn't say different, but more than just sexual reproduction.

so change when its convenient?

Who ever claimed I was speaking for all of science?

obviously you're talking as a creationist - not as or for science - obviously.

Looks as if they persist, even with darwin.

like other problems of science - we are at least understanding that justification based on BIOLOGICAL principles is going to get us much further.

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Nineveh
I tend to think a lizzard is a lizzard. Bob cats and house cats can't reproduce either, but they are the same kind of animal.

So the ability to reproduce doesn't really have anything to do with being the same kind or not, does it?

Originally posted by Nineveh
No, not the Bible, just an easy way to look at things.

Ah, there we go.

Originally posted by Nineveh
"This poses a very interesting problem. Should the species Ensatina eschscholtzi be split into two or more species, or be considered a single species? If the species is to be split, where does one draw the line?"

From here

Looks like even evos are having a tough time with that one.

Yeah, but it's a different issue. Trying to fit Ensatina into a single species concept is pointless, but far from being a "problem" for evolutionary theory, it actually provides a nice example of evolution and speciation in action. In contrast, it presents an actual problem for you if you're claiming that the notion of Biblical kinds is defined in terms of reproduction. Which you did before, although you don't seem to now. The recognition of Biblical kinds is, I think, the core issue for scientific creationists to confront if they hope to contribute positive evidence support for their perspective, if for no other reason than this is the only biological issue they will consistently disagree with evolutionary biologists about.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by aharvey

You reject my statement that ICR (not AIG, ..uses Genesis as a scientific guide by stating that they didn't say that the Bible explains how God did things.

Labwork explains how things work, not the Bible. Why is this so hard to understand? ICR's statements didn't claim the Bible to be technical. You said that's not what you meant by "guide", so there we have it.

I love your implication here: who cares how sloppy he is with his non-crux points? And in any case, yes I am dealing with his core issue. He's manipulating the data to make the sequences seem more unique than they really are.

Either diffent things have wholey unique sequences or they don't.

And he never tells us how unique either the evolutionary model or the ID model would predict, so how could he possibly claim his data favors one or the other?

Ok, he claims fruitflies have 50% unique sequences. Where did he err? Either other creatures share some of those and they are less, or no other creature share those sequences and they are 50% unique.

Yes, and you? It makes it relatively easy to do pairwise comparisons. Brewer had to work hard to get the four-taxon summary. I wonder why...?

And so the fruitfly he claims has 50% really has...?

Click here for an overview. But I wouldn't get too excited about the article itself. They inadvertently demonstrate that it will be impossible to define "kinds" in a non-arbitrary way, much less one that could be reasonably linked to the actual Biblical kinds.

Thank you for the link, I'll look at it tonight

Oh, okay , you're not talking about mules the way the rest of the world does, you're talking about mule deer and white-tailed deer. Mules are horse-donkey hybrids. Real different from mule deer. That's why scientists like scientific names!

You are right, my example was incorrect. I guess I should have used killer whale and dophin.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

so change when its convenient?

I'm only allowed one criteria?

obviously you're talking as a creationist - not as or for science - obviously.

I never claimed to speak for all of ID or creationism either.

like other problems of science - we are at least understanding that justification based on BIOLOGICAL principles is going to get us much further.

And finding out at the molecular level it's going to be much harder.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by aharvey

So the ability to reproduce doesn't really have anything to do with being the same kind or not, does it?

Gee... and Strat only allows me one criteria, how many do you guys get?

Yeah, but it's a different issue. Trying to fit Ensatina into a single species concept is pointless, but far from being a "problem" for evolutionary theory, it actually provides a nice example of evolution and speciation in action. In contrast, it presents an actual problem for you if you're claiming that the notion of Biblical kinds is defined in terms of reproduction. Which you did before, although you don't seem to now.

As I recall, there seems to be plenty you don't know either. But it's nice to get pigeon holed on one point, I guess.

The recognition of Biblical kinds is, I think, the core issue for scientific creationists to confront if they hope to contribute positive evidence support for their perspective, if for no other reason than this is the only biological issue they will consistently disagree with evolutionary biologists about.

Actually, I think it goes back to abiogenesis and the big bang, if it can't get here, who cares how to classify it?

 

[Stratnerd]

I'm only allowed one criteria?

you only stated one and I can't read minds. So what are you're criteria for kinds and how do you justify them?

I never claimed to speak for all of ID or creationism either.

OK?

And finding out at the molecular level it's going to be much harder.

what is?

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

you only stated one and I can't read minds. So what are you're criteria for kinds and how do you justify them?

I look at the physical attributes first. Then how it behaves.

 

[Free-Agent Smith]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

1. There is no "Truth" in science so your question is illogical

2. Facts get incorporated and our explanations change.

then you just make stuff up to make it fit. this is why I keep saying creationists pound round pegs into round holes.



Creationist have no need of this since Truth is already known.

I am only going to comment on your post Strat.....

I know it's been awhile since I was a kid but don't the round pegs just kind of slide into the round holes?

 

[Jukia]

Originally posted by Nineveh

I look at the physical attributes first. Then how it behaves.

And your rationale for this is what???

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Gee... and Strat only allows me one criteria, how many do you guys get?

To define Biblical kinds? We don't need any! But seriously, the thing about Biblical kinds is that, unlike any biological classification concept, every single kind has exactly the same ultimate definition: it was created from nothing by God completely independently of every other kind. Feel free to use as many criteria as you need to generate a scheme that allows you to accurately identify organisms that share, or don't share, that special, unambiguous status. But be prepared to explain how your criteria accomplish that task!

Originally posted by Nineveh

As I recall, there seems to be plenty you don't know either. But it's nice to get pigeon holed on one point, I guess.

I don't have a problem with "I don't know" as an answer, but you've never even hinted that you don't have all the answers, you just keep changing your position while denying you're doing any such thing.

Originally posted by Nineveh

Actually, I think it goes back to abiogenesis and the big bang, if it can't get here, who cares how to classify it?

That's such a bonehead statement that I don't believe for a second that it accurately represents your viewpoint. Do you "believe" cell theory? Even though cell theory doesn't explain the origins of the universe and life, much less the origins of the cell? Do you think cells are not worth our attention if we can't explain how the universe originated? Do you "believe" gravitational theory, or atomic theory, or the heliocentric theory, even though none of them explain the origin of the universe, gravity, atoms, or the solar system? Are these things not worth caring about if we can't explain how they got here? Then why does evolutionary theory have to explain these things before you consider its explanation of the things it was designed to explain? Which, incidentally, does involve how life got to its present state, contrary to your statement. Its relevance to the origin of the universe is comparable to the relevance of cell theory, germ theory, and I'd say most other theories that you never feel the need to dismiss because they don't explain the origin of the universe.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by aharvey

But seriously, the thing about Biblical kinds is that, unlike any biological classification concept, every single kind has exactly the same ultimate definition: it was created from nothing by God completely independently of every other kind. Feel free to use as many criteria as you need to generate a scheme that allows you to accurately identify organisms that share, or don't share, that special, unambiguous status. But be prepared to explain how your criteria accomplish that task!

And in evo we don't know how many we have to start with we only know they all must be related.

Have all the gaps been filled in the "anscestral" slots of the evo "tree"?

I don't have a problem with "I don't know" as an answer, but you've never even hinted that you don't have all the answers, you just keep changing your position while denying you're doing any such thing.

What position did I change and when did I deny it?

***

To you it's more important to classify things according to presupposed criteria to prove X number of things spawned all the diversity we have today. It seems to be an important thing to you. You have spent a lot of time and money on school for it.

To me, picking up a story in the middle doesn't make much sense. If you want me to believe evolution, you need to give me a starting point. I need to know where the matter came from and how it got into the forms we now enjoy around us.

You said earlier today you haven't yet arrived at your conclusion on "how the ball got rolling". To me, what you do with the ball later has a lesser degree of importance.

 

[aharvey]

Nineveh,

If you don’t mind, I’ve moved the specific discussion about Brewer’s paper over here to the thread specificially about Brewer’s paper. This Coral Ridge thread is huge, has major subthreads on diverse topics, and is getting too hard to sift through. I only brought Brewer up here because you were strangely silent on the original thread. Any problems with this?

Originally posted by Nineveh

And in evo we don't know how many we have to start with we only know they all must be related.

Have all the gaps been filled in the "anscestral" slots of the evo "tree"?

I’ll take this as “don’t expect any further discussion of the problems with Biblical kinds, I’d rather harp on the problems with evolution.� No worries; I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the concept of Biblical kinds is unresolvable and unusable.

If we ‘know’ that all life is related, then we do ‘know’ how many times life happened: once. It’s kinduva definitional thing.

Modern systematic methods do not concern themselves overly with identifying hypothetic ancestors. Doing so does not help to establish relationships among actual organisms, and is considered too speculative to be of much use.

Originally posted by Nineveh

What position did I change and when did I deny it?

ICR does not use the Bible as a scientific guide because it does not use the Bible to explain how things happen (no explanation means no science) vs. Science should just describe things, not try to explain them. You’re still denying that these are contradictory positions.

We’ll see what you do with the one concerning Brewer and uniqueness.

Originally posted by Nineveh

To you it's more important to classify things according to presupposed criteria to prove X number of things spawned all the diversity we have today. It seems to be an important thing to you. You have spent a lot of time and money on school for it.

To me, picking up a story in the middle doesn't make much sense. If you want me to believe evolution, you need to give me a starting point. I need to know where the matter came from and how it got into the forms we now enjoy around us.

Do you feel this way about gravity? Atoms? Cells? Germs? The solar system?
Why not?

Originally posted by Nineveh

You said earlier today you haven't yet arrived at your conclusion on "how the ball got rolling". To me, what you do with the ball later has a lesser degree of importance.

I have no problem with your feeling that way. All that means is that evolutionary biology is a less important scientific discipline to you personally than cosmology. It doesn’t mean that evolutionary biology is wrong because it is not cosmology, does it? There are lots of other scientific disciplines that are not cosmology; in fact, all of them except cosmology! Does that mean they’re all wrong too?

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by aharvey

If you don’t mind, I’ve moved the specific discussion about Brewer’s paper over here to the thread specificially about Brewer’s paper. This Coral Ridge thread is huge, has major subthreads on diverse topics, and is getting too hard to sift through. I only brought Brewer up here because you were strangely silent on the original thread. Any problems with this?

No, I said what I had to say about it over here. When I saw your new thread though, I sort of wondered at how this guy has gotten under your skin. A guy who is just as, if not more qualified doesn't have faith in evo. I just figure there are more than Brewer at AiG that would have the same effect on you.

I’ll take this as “don’t expect any further discussion of the problems with Biblical kinds, I’d rather harp on the problems with evolution.� No worries; I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the concept of Biblical kinds is unresolvable and unusable.

I'm sorry, but that isn't true. My interests lie elsewhere, so this particular topic hasn't given me reason to investigate much further than to satify my own mind. I found a couple of links I think are well more stated than I could ever be. I find them resonable and expresses my thoughts. Perhaps you would care to look at them, perhaps not, but here they are:

1st
2nd

If we ‘know’ that all life is related, then we do ‘know’ how many times life happened: once. It’s kinduva definitional thing.

How do you mean, "all life is related"?

But I would still be very interested in getting your ( john's and Strat's) ideas on how you felt it all started. Surely you have given it thought.

Modern systematic methods do not concern themselves overly with identifying hypothetic ancestors. Doing so does not help to establish relationships among actual organisms, and is considered too speculative to be of much use.

So in essence the "anscestor" slots of the evo tree are empty?

ICR does not use the Bible as a scientific guide because it does not use the Bible to explain how things happen (no explanation means no science) vs. Science should just describe things, not try to explain them. You’re still denying that these are contradictory positions.

No. I assumed you meant "scientific guide book" as in, "look here in Hezakiah 5 v 3 the workings of the atom!". You explained that is not what you meant. So my argument that I don't know anyone who believes the Bible is used as a "scientific text book" is still accurate but it's an argument that doesn't fit because you didn't mean "guide" in a "scientific text book" sense.

But to make my stand absolutely clear:
The results of labwork need no slant. Describing 60,000 differences in a comparison can stand on it's own. It needs neither evo to give a slant, nor the Bible to give a slant. The fact is there are X number of differences. The rest is trying to get the facts to fit into either a naturalistic world view or a Biblical world view.

We’ll see what you do with the one concerning Brewer and uniqueness.

So fruiflies really don't have 50% unique sequences?

Do you feel this way about gravity? Atoms? Cells? Germs? The solar system?
Why not?

How is understanding what we know about gravity starting in the middle? Once again I am drawn to the question, where did the material come from for darwin to start? Is he starting with a single cell? A whole chicken? The chicken egg? Where?

I have no problem with your feeling that way. All that means is that evolutionary biology is a less important scientific discipline to you personally than cosmology. It doesn’t mean that evolutionary biology is wrong because it is not cosmology, does it?

No, and I never claimed such a thing.

There are lots of other scientific disciplines that are not cosmology; in fact, all of them except cosmology! Does that mean they’re all wrong too?

I think you are taking a leap there. I have no problems with science in general. I love science, it's fun, fascinating, and useful.

However, it appears because I don't see the evidence that men and apes share a common anscestor, nor birds and dinos, I'm pretty much blasted for it. But, I guess I would be more worried if someone who has devoted their life to evo-biology didn't put up a fight to at least justify the time and money they have spent on attaining a degree in it.

If the evidence were there my opinion could change. But "if", "maybe", "could be" isn't enough to change my view. Beside the the missing parts of the story like where did the material come from and how did it get in a form to be useful to darwin. Those are points I can't ignore.

As usual, I won't be on for the next couple of days, so any replies from me will be Sunday evening. I'll be out enjoying the weekend I hope yours is enjoyable, too.