Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ed · 01-26-2003, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich
I wonder if our favorite wildlife biologist can describe the connection -- how does one decide which species belong in the same genus, and why are they supposed to be different "created kinds". As opposed to Linnaean families being the "created kinds".

It depends on the organism. You look at the fossil record. The gaps in the fossil record help determine where God stepped in to create each group.

Oolon Colluphid · 01-27-2003, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
It depends on the organism. You look at the fossil record. The gaps in the fossil record help determine where God stepped in to create each group.

That�s very interesting Ed, thanks for the clarification. Under this scheme then, bats are a separaely created kind, for the precursors of bats are pretty well non-existant in the fossil record. And chimps and gorillas are separate, since there�s next-to-no fossils of them either. However, there�s damned good sequences for apes-to-humans, land-animals-to-whales, reptiles-to-mammals and fish-to-reptiles, for instance. So whereabouts are the dividing lines for these, that show where god stepped in to wave his wand?

Say Ed, I�m terribly sorry, I can�t remember your answer after all this time. Please please, could you remind us what the definition of �kind� is again? It�s kinda crucial, if we�re to see if your above claim�s justified, and not the steaming do-dos it appears.

DT

KnightWhoSaysNi · 01-27-2003, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
It depends on the organism. You look at the fossil record. The gaps in the fossil record help determine where God stepped in to create each group.

Speaking of gaps, I think the expression "god of the gaps" would be a more accurate description of your argument.

As DT, pointed out, we do in fact find intermediate forms in the fossil record. If we were having this conversation 10 years ago, you would no doubt argue that the lack of transitional forms between land-dwelling mammals and whales is evidence for creation. The fact that we've found intermediate forms in recent years effectively destroys that view. Pointing at gaps in our knowledge and saying "that's God there" is not only bad science, it's bad theology.

As for a definition of a "kind" let's try to narrow it down. I assume that a "kind" according to you isn't the same as a 'species'. If so, then Noah would have had to carry millions of pairs of animals on the Ark. Would you argue then that all members of a particular "kind" have a common ancestor? In that case, do you believe that house cats and Syberian tigers have a common ancestor? If not, then where do you draw the line?

(woohoo, my very first contribution to the "Ed Thread"

)

Doubting Didymus · 01-27-2003, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Darwin's Terrier
Under this scheme then, bats are a separaely created kind, for the precursors of bats are pretty well non-existant in the fossil record... However, there�s damned good sequences for apes-to-humans.

So bats, not humans, are gods chosen species. It makes perfect sense if you think about it.

6 And God came down into the garden to speak with Bat, his creation. 7 "Hello, Bat", said God. 8 "SCREECH! EEECH EECH EECH! AAAACCCHKKEEECH!" said Bat. 9 "the hairless ape?" said God to Bat, "he's there to feed you slices of apple." 10 "SKAAARGREECH!" said Bat. And God saw that it was good.

Ed · 01-30-2003, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich

Ed:
If they were originally more genetically diverse then there would be no bottleneck.

lp: Which would require some bizarre genetics like Noah, his three sons, and all their wives having several copies of a "normal" human genome in their cells.

Ed:
Not necessarily. There could have been large amounts of junk DNA that later became active. And the old DNA could have been snipped out by some presently unknown process.

lp: How ingenious. What's the DIRECT evidence for the occurrence of this remarkable genetic recombination?

There are large amounts of junk DNA that are no longer active.

Quote:

lp: ... All the Psalms say is "How marvelous! Goddidit!"
Ed:
Hardly, "the heavens declare the glory of God". ...

lp: Well-summarized by my comment.

Not completely, in order to learn the declaration we study the heavens.

Quote:

lp: ... having an open mind to the possibility of Biblical errancy?
Ed:
For a non-christian considering christianity, of course. You should put the bible to the test.

lp: I have, and I find it errant. I suggest that you read some articles on Biblical errancy some time; this site has some.

Been there, done that.

Quote:

Ed:
But someone who has experienced a relationship with God there is no desire to have such a view because we know that that God does not lie. ...

lp: Be careful; it could be some mischievous devil posing as the Xian god.

Yes, but the difference is devils lie and given their limited power it is very hard for them to pose as God. I.e. they cannot control actual events, but they can make events appear to be what they are not, similar to magic tricks, its just an illusion.

Quote:

Ed:
Given that the flood only lasted a year any break would hardly be noticed in 2 million years of strata. ...

(on the Missoula and Altai Pleistocene glacial-dam-break floods...)
Ed:
What sedimentary evidence proves the limited scope of those floods? Actually the dating of these sediments fit perfectly with the biblical account of a flood shortly after man appeared on the earth.

lp: Sedimentary evidence away from the paths of these floods..

As the Flood receded it may have left patches of evidence that look similar to local floods.

Oolon Colluphid · 01-31-2003, 04:36 AM

Erm, Ed... a 'kind' is...?

DT

lpetrich · 01-31-2003, 01:07 PM

Quote:

lp: Be careful; it could be some mischievous devil posing as the Xian god.

Ed:
Yes, but the difference is devils lie and given their limited power it is very hard for them to pose as God. I.e. they cannot control actual events, but they can make events appear to be what they are not, similar to magic tricks, its just an illusion.

However, that devil could be a very powerful being with the ability to control actual events.

Ed · 02-04-2003, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich
Ed on what kind of wildlife biologist he is:
An environmental wildlife biologist. I study the impacts of transportation projects on wildlife, I dont classify them.

Ed, thanx for coming out and describing your field of expertise.

Ed earlier:
Yes and molecular biology has also shown that the probability of Darwinian mechanisms being able to generate macroevolution as miniscule.

lp earlier:
HOW???

Ed:
F. Dretske, "Knowledge and the Flow of Information.

I've tracked down that book, and I don't see where it discusses the question of the possibility of macroevolution.

And what counts as macroevolution, anyway?

Macroevolution is evolution between major groups such as orders, families and genera.

Doubting Didymus · 02-04-2003, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
Macroevolution is evolution between major groups such as orders, families and genera.

No it isn't.

Ed · 02-08-2003, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Duvenoy
No, not a bee-eater.

Crows have often been observed using tools (put nothing past a crow), but the best example is the Woodpecker Finch of the Galapagos Islands. Darwin strikes again!

Here�s a neat article on the subject

http://www.stanfordalumni.org/birdsi...ool_Using.html

doov

Sorry, I stand corrected. Thanks Doov.

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

01-31-2003, 04:36 AM	#686
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	Erm, Ed... a 'kind' is...? DT

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.