Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ed · 04-13-2002, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Morpho:
Hi Ed, Thanks for your reply.
What’s your rationale? If you’re arguing S=CA^z, I don’t think it necessarily applies in this case. First off, the riparian corridors connecting the fragments represent contiguous canopy forest. This means, IMO, gene flow and source/sink equilibrium can be maintained between zones. Outside of small, isolated fragments (~1 ha, no interzonal linkage), there was high diversity (53 mammal species, incl. 3 primates, and at least 3 large Felinidae; 65 bird species, including manikin (Chiroxiphia lincornis fastuosus,a deep-forest species) and at least 2 hawk species and 2 eagle species; 15 reptiles, including at least one deep-forest viper (Bothriechis schlegelii) and given the rodent population it wouldn’t surprise me if there were others – the locals claimed they’d seen a Bothrops but I have my doubts; 103 butterfly and moth species, etc). Vegetation in the larger fragments was also “normal” in diversity for a rainforest, with 55-60m trees and healthy epiphyte gardens including a number of orchid species (two of which may be new – we’re still waiting final confirmation), tank bromeliads, and other species which are fairly sensitive to dessication. Given a fair number of what are commonly considered as rainforest keystone species (i.e., a complete functional community group), no evidence of dessication, high diversity, etc, why would the system be unstable? Look, I never argued we’d see homeostasis (rainforests are typically heterogenous anyway, and we may be missing some microecosystems in the remaining fragments), but I maintain the realized biota in the concession was diverse enough to sustain the ecosystem. If you don’t agree, why not?

Well I think dessication is the key. I notice you say above that there was no evidence of dessication. When was this determination made? At the initial site visit? If there is no sign of dessication after 3-5 years then I would say that you are correct and your partner would be proved wrong.

Ed · 04-13-2002, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrDarwin:


Anybody else see the irony in this statement?

Many Christians (and Jews) believe in evolution, and that the creation myths of Genesis tell a story of creation that the people who were alive at the time could understand--i.e., that "God used ancient people as his writers of the scripture and much of it is written from their perspective."

Yes, that is true, though I have yet to see that argued in a biblically persuasive way. But even if it was, my primary reason for rejecting Darwinian evolution is not theological in nature but scientific.

GunnerJ · 04-13-2002, 08:55 AM

Quote:

As I demonstrated in the EOG thread a superintelligent hamster in your basement can be logically eliminated as creator of the universe

Quote:

Actually a better recap is that they became frustrated when they were unable to refute my argument and then forcibly transferred me to this thread and THEN went home.

BULLSHIT! The ONLY thing you demonstrated is your inability to state a position and defend it. We bacame "frustrated" when you started shifting goalposts, going off-topic, commiting flagrant logical fallacies, and refusing to deal with our counter-arguments. You were "forcably" transfered here in a rather commendable concession by the moderators to give you space to vent your off-topic ramblings about flood geology. To any OBJECTIVE observer, this is the accurate account of what happened.

Actually, screw objective observers! I've started a thread on EoG about this very subject, trolling for opinions from theists, who may be tilting in your favor. You can look it over if you like:
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000240" target="_blank">A request of all theists</a>

[ April 13, 2002: Message edited by: Rimstalker ]

lpetrich · 04-13-2002, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Ed:
As I demonstrated in the EOG thread a superintelligent hamster in your basement can be logically eliminated as creator of the universe.

However, if that hamster is capable of reaching back in time and creating some initial quantum singuarlity or whatever, it could do the job.

Quote:

(cracks that seawater flows through to produce ocean-floor hot springs)
Ed:
And as I stated earlier I am not a geologist, but possibly geologists will find out that they were bigger in the past.

And possibly there was no planetwide Noah's Flood.

Quote:

(lots of nasty pathogens and parasites...)
OC:
Well you have to remember that after Man rebelled against the king of the universe(Genesis 2) there were immediate repercussions throughout the universe and it started malfunctioning. And things that were once good including man himself became corrupted. So these organisms may have originally been symbionts or may have only parasitized animals because of Man's perfect immune system at the time. But after Man's rebellion they microevolved into more pathogenic versions of themselves and Man became more susceptible to disease after he could no longer eat of the Tree of Life that protected him from death and disease.

Ed evades the question of how Noah and his family had carried all these nasty bugs, since they had supposedly been created during the original time of creation. Their trip on the Ark might have been a great opportunity to rid the planet of these diseases. Also, that seems very vindictive of a supposedly loving being. If I sadistically beat you up and broke several of your bones just because you had called me some insulting name, would you say that I am perfectly loving?

Quote:

OC: So please define 'loving'.
Ed:
God is loving but also his moral character demands justice. And according to God, rebellion against him can only be justly punished by immediate death, but God in his mercy and lovingkindness did not immediately kill Man but instead the universe became corrupted and abnormal and was no longer a perfect home for Man so that is when these pathogenic organisms began microevolving. But also it allows humans time to repent of their rebellion and then will be allowed to live in the new earth and universe after this universe comes to an end.

That is still vindictive. Ed, in the example above, would me letting your live be considered proof that I'm a perfectly loving being?

Quote:

Mr. Darwin quoting a common apologetic:
"God used ancient people as his writers of the scripture and much of it is written from their perspective."
Ed:
Yes, that is true, though I have yet to see that argued in a biblically persuasive way. But even if it was, my primary reason for rejecting Darwinian evolution is not theological in nature but scientific.

But if someone deduced evolution by natural selection from the Bible, would you take that derivation seriously?

ex-robot · 04-13-2002, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Darwin:
I guess this all boils down to a simple question for Ed: does he believe that organisms have changed over time
Ex-robot:
he obviously does from his posts as do most creationists

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pre-Darwinian creationism had featured the belief that every species had been a separate creation. However, the "creation scientists" of the last few decades have preferred to believe in the existence of "natural kinds", which can include large numbers of species -- thus implying that an abundance of evolution and speciation has occurred.

We are no longer in the pre-darwinian era. Creationists have "preferred" to accept an abundance of change and speciation based on the evidence as they should just as evolutionists prefer to accept natural selection plus mutation rather than natural selection alone.

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Darwin:
, or does he believe in the fixity of species?
Ex-robot:
who does believe in fixity of species? I believe H. Morris addressed this strawman a long time ago.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calling that a "strawman" is grossly unhistorical.

how so? We are talking about the present and not centuries ago.

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Darwin:
Never mind the mechanisms of change; does he believe that grizzly bears and bullfrogs and flounders have always been grizzly bears and bullfrogs and flounders, as far back as their ancestry goes.
Ex-robot:
A better question would be does he believe grizzly bears have always been bears, bullfrogs have always been frogs, flounders have always been fish, etc. because he obviously believes in change over time like most creationists.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are several species of bears, including oddballs like the polar bear and the giant panda. And a large number of frog species, and an even larger number of fish species.
Fish, especially, are very diversified, so what would a "fish kind" include? Teleost fish (most familiar bony fish)? That already includes a large number of very diversified species. Gars and sturgeons and coelacanths and other bony fish? Sharks and rays? Lampreys and hagfish (jawless fish)? Worse and worse. A creationist who concludes that "fish" are a "natural kind" is conceding that a large amount of evolution has occurred!!!

depends on what you mean by large. Different species of bears are simply variations of bears and frogs. I doubt they would put all sea creatures or just fish into one kind. They believe plenty of "change" has occured of course.

Quote:

Furthermore, if bears or frogs or fish form a "natural kind", then might there be some human-ape "natural kind"?

for creationists, no! humans are special. There is a huge difference between looking at differences between a grizzly and a polar bear then looking at an ape/chimpanzee and a human. Still similar but not like the differences between bears.

Quote:

And how does one recognize "natural kinds"?

Good question.

xr

ex-robot · 04-13-2002, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrDarwin:
That is precisely why I worded my question as I did. If creationists don't have a problem with several species of bears evolving from a single ancestral bear species, then why do they have a problem with several genera, e.g., bears, canids and mustelids, evolving from a single ancestral carnivore ancestor? Where do they draw the line?

This is a good question in its present form, but I don't believe any lay creationist will be able to provide an adequate answer unless they have a direct line to the almighty creationist, Wise.

xr

lpetrich · 04-13-2002, 02:23 PM

Quote:

LP:
Pre-Darwinian creationism had featured the belief that every species had been a separate creation. ...
Ex-robot:
We are no longer in the pre-darwinian era. Creationists have "preferred" to accept an abundance of change and speciation based on the evidence as they should just as evolutionists prefer to accept natural selection plus mutation rather than natural selection alone.

Since the Bible is a pre-Darwinian book, does that make it a similar historical curiosity?

And creationists are trying to have it both ways, accepting and rejecting evolution as it is propagandistically expedient for them to do so. They are reluctant to describe what makes some grouping a "natural kind", most likely because any attempt to do so would be too embarrassing.

Quote:

Mr. Darwin:
, or does he believe in the fixity of species?
Ex-robot:
who does believe in fixity of species? I believe H. Morris addressed this strawman a long time ago.
LP:
Calling that a "strawman" is grossly unhistorical.
Ex-robot:
how so? We are talking about the present and not centuries ago.

The Bible was written centuries ago -- is it equally worthless?

Quote:

(on whether a grizzly bear was always a grizzly bear or always simply a bear, whether a bullfrog was always a bullfrog or always simply a frog, and whether a flounder was always a flounder or always simply a fish.)
LP:
There are several species of bears, including oddballs like the polar bear and the giant panda. And a large number of frog species, and an even larger number of fish species.
Fish, especially, are very diversified, so what would a "fish kind" include? Teleost fish (most familiar bony fish)? That already includes a large number of very diversified species. Gars and sturgeons and coelacanths and other bony fish? Sharks and rays? Lampreys and hagfish (jawless fish)? Worse and worse. A creationist who concludes that "fish" are a "natural kind" is conceding that a large amount of evolution has occurred!!!
Ex-robot:
depends on what you mean by large. Different species of bears are simply variations of bears and frogs. I doubt they would put all sea creatures or just fish into one kind. They believe plenty of "change" has occured of course.

Evolution, by any other name, is still evolution. But your comment about the ancestors of flounders still being fish suggests belief in the existence of a "fish kind".

Quote:

LP:
Furthermore, if bears or frogs or fish form a "natural kind", then might there be some human-ape "natural kind"?
Ex-robot:
for creationists, no! humans are special. There is a huge difference between looking at differences between a grizzly and a polar bear then looking at an ape/chimpanzee and a human. Still similar but not like the differences between bears.

Very convenient. But how is a human-ape "natural kind" much more absurd than a "natural kind" that includes all of the jawless fish, cartilage fish (sharks and rays), and bony fish?

Quote:

LP:
And how does one recognize "natural kinds"?
Ex-robot:
Good question.

It's good that you see a major weakness in the creationists' position.

[ April 13, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]

ex-robot · 04-14-2002, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LP:
Pre-Darwinian creationism had featured the belief that every species had been a separate creation. ...
Ex-robot:
We are no longer in the pre-darwinian era. Creationists have "preferred" to accept an abundance of change and speciation based on the evidence as they should just as evolutionists prefer to accept natural selection plus mutation rather than natural selection alone.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since the Bible is a pre-Darwinian book, does that make it a similar historical curiosity?

I could care less.

Quote:

And creationists are trying to have it both ways, accepting and rejecting evolution as it is propagandistically expedient for them to do so. They are reluctant to describe what makes some grouping a "natural kind", most likely because any attempt to do so would be too embarrassing.

Thats nice, but they still don't believe in fixity of species.

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Darwin:
, or does he believe in the fixity of species?
Ex-robot:
who does believe in fixity of species? I believe H. Morris addressed this strawman a long time ago.
LP:
Calling that a "strawman" is grossly unhistorical.
Ex-robot:
how so? We are talking about the present and not centuries ago.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Bible was written centuries ago -- is it equally worthless?

So what if it is? Creationists still currently don't believe in fixity of species even if some did in the past.

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(on whether a grizzly bear was always a grizzly bear or always simply a bear, whether a bullfrog was always a bullfrog or always simply a frog, and whether a flounder was always a flounder or always simply a fish.)
LP:
There are several species of bears, including oddballs like the polar bear and the giant panda. And a large number of frog species, and an even larger number of fish species.
Fish, especially, are very diversified, so what would a "fish kind" include? Teleost fish (most familiar bony fish)? That already includes a large number of very diversified species. Gars and sturgeons and coelacanths and other bony fish? Sharks and rays? Lampreys and hagfish (jawless fish)? Worse and worse. A creationist who concludes that "fish" are a "natural kind" is conceding that a large amount of evolution has occurred!!!
Ex-robot:
depends on what you mean by large. Different species of bears are simply variations of bears and frogs. I doubt they would put all sea creatures or just fish into one kind. They believe plenty of "change" has occured of course.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evolution, by any other name, is still evolution. But your comment about the ancestors of flounders still being fish suggests belief in the existence of a "fish kind".

I think it is pretty much accepted that are more than one "fish" kind according to creationsts. I should have said "or always simply a fish within its kind".

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LP:
Furthermore, if bears or frogs or fish form a "natural kind", then might there be some human-ape "natural kind"?
Ex-robot:
for creationists, no! humans are special. There is a huge difference between looking at differences between a grizzly and a polar bear then looking at an ape/chimpanzee and a human. Still similar but not like the differences between bears.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very convenient. But how is a human-ape "natural kind" much more absurd than a "natural kind" that includes all of the jawless fish, cartilage fish (sharks and rays), and bony fish?

It's not IF someone claimed that.

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LP:
And how does one recognize "natural kinds"?
Ex-robot:
Good question.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's good that you see a major weakness in the creationists' position.

I always have.

xr

Ed · 04-14-2002, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrDarwin:

Originally posted by Ed:

Parasites and pathogens would have surivived in their host organsims that were on the ark or floating on vegetation mats. Land plants would have survived either by Noah putting some on the ark, some floating on mats, and some surviving as seeds and later germinating. In ancient times aquatic organisms may have been like present day anadromous aquatic organisms. Migration.

MD : Hmmm, I don't generally like to bring in biblical arguments, but if you're going to make them, you're going to have to back them up. And the problem with the "floating mats" theory is this: in Genesis 6:17 God told Noah,

"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish." (KJV, "And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.")

So if you believe that any creatures that were not on the ark managed to survive, you're calling God a liar. Meanwhile, according to Genesis 7:21-23,

quote:
Every living thing that moved on the earth perished-birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark." (KJV: "And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.)

So if you believe that any creatures that were not on the ark managed to survive, you are saying the Bible is wrong. So which is it, God lied to Noah or the Bible got it wrong?

First, to the ancient hebrews plants did not have the "breath of life" in them. Second, as I stated earlier most of the scriptures were written from the perspective of the people living at the time. They knew of nothing of microscopic pathogens and even if they did they would have probably considered them not to have the breath of life in them either. Therefore there was not any real reason for Him to mention them.

Ed · 04-14-2002, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:

Originally posted by Ed:

Who said anything about a 6000-10,000 year old geology? We don't know when the flood was, it may have been a million years ago.

RA: 6000-10,0000 is the range of dates given by young earth creationists for the flood.

The wasn't much difference in the pollen spectrum a million years ago either, other then slightly different species being represented.

You keep jumping through hoops and throwing out situations that you think might prove science wrong. Have you ever stopped to think that you might be wrong?

-RvFvS

Not usually, because without God science is an irrational leap of faith. And without Christianity modern science probably would have never come into existence.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.