Author Topic: I don't get YEC.  (Read 34502 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #377 on: September 10, 2013, 06:29:20 PM »
Quote
Can you give a specific example of this?

Well, The fact that it's really called "Neo-Darwinian" should be a giveaway that something has changed, which I believe is Lamarckism. "Punctuated Equilibria" is the idea that evolutionary change happens really fast sometimes, and really slow other times. So fast, in fact, that it leaves no fossils that show novel things appearing. So slow, in fact, that it's not observable today.

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2125
  • Darwins +135/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #378 on: September 10, 2013, 06:48:27 PM »
Well, The fact that it's really called "Neo-Darwinian" should be a giveaway that something has changed, which I believe is Lamarckism. "Punctuated Equilibria" is the idea that evolutionary change happens really fast sometimes, and really slow other times. So fast, in fact, that it leaves no fossils that show novel things appearing. So slow, in fact, that it's not observable today.

What's your source here? And what does Neo-Darwinism mean to you? From the Biology courses I took during my undergrad I never once heard the term Neo-Darwinism, so I don't believe it's an accurate representation of the modern view on biological evolution.
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #379 on: September 10, 2013, 07:12:14 PM »
Quote
What's your source here? And what does Neo-Darwinism mean to you? From the Biology courses I took during my undergrad I never once heard the term Neo-Darwinism, so I don't believe it's an accurate representation of the modern view on biological evolution.

I don't have a list of sources, but I'll look for what I mean: http://necsi.edu/projects/evolution/evolution/grad+punct/evolution_grad+punct.html

Neo-Darwinism is a term used to distinguish it from the original Darwinism of Darwin because of Mendelian Genetics/Lamarckism. I've heard it pretty often, and I think it's a good distinction but some people don't, I would guess because it may incite questions and/or doubts about Darwin?    http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=neo-darwinism    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5266
  • Darwins +602/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #380 on: September 10, 2013, 07:23:18 PM »
Right, just like darwinian evolution is rationalized to fit data. I realise it's not a specific narrative, but still it must be adhered to by any scientist in the mainstream.
That's exactly the problem.  Evolutionary theory is rationalized to fit the data, whereas YECism rationalizes the data to fit the Biblical narrative.  Scientific methodology itself is the process of rationalizing explanations to fit the available observational data.  I will leave it to you to explain how a field that attempts to fit the data to an existing narrative is scientific.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
"Decades of research" is too broad a statement. Anyway, I could in turn point out decades of research on creation, in response to your claim.
Granted, the sheer amount of research performed is not meaningful in and of itself.  It's the quality of the research that matters, as well as the goal to which it's applied.  Concerning that, YECism, to the best of my knowledge, has as its goal to show that the Biblical narrative is an accurate description of the creation of the world, whereas the various fields of science have as their goal to understand the universe on its own terms.  I will leave it to you to explain how the former is a more worthwhile goal than the latter.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
"The majority of scientists" are not the ones who define truth, just like the majority used to believe creation. "No scientist worth their salt" sounds like the No true Scotsman fallacy. There are plenty of PhDs who would agree that evolution is incorrect, what makes you say they are not worth their salt?
Are these other PhDs biologists who have studied evolutionary theory as part of their field?  If they are not, then their PhDs do not qualify them to have an expert opinion on the subject.

In any case,, scientific methodology is not about proving things correct in the first place.  You can't prove that something is correct via science, you prove that it fits the available data.  If a scientist claims that science is about proving things correct, then yes, I do question whether they are worth their salt, because to get such a basic tenet of scientific methodology wrong suggests that they do not have a good grasp on the subject.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
There is reason to doubt evolution, just like there is reason to doubt c-14 dating methods, at least on the high end. For example, they require the presumption that the amount of earth biomass has been constant in order to keep a constant amount in living tissue, the rate of decay has always been the same, there has been no change in the amount of c-14 in the atmosphere, etc, all of which are unproved and unprovable.
If you actually had evidence that showed that these things were not constant in the past, then you would have a point.  But barring evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to assume that biomass has been constant, the rate of decay has not changed significantly, etc.  But without that evidence, such statements are only speculative and thus useless.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
It's not ad hominem if it's not an attempt to disprove an argument. And to be fair, going around not questioning things is, well, stupid. It fits the definition of ignorance.
Please do not waste my time by trying to play games with semantics.  Making insulting comments about a person or a group as part of an argument is by definition ad hominem, because you are making the focus on the people you are attacking as part of your point.  You can make the point about an attitude without attacking people in the process; please do so in the future.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
I would call evolution a pseudoscience, indeed. And yes I have questioned whether the bible is false, tho I'm not sure how you differentiate between other questions about it. I suppose I should ask, have you questioned whether evolution is false?
Yes, I have.  However, evolution explains the way things work too well to be a made-up pseudoscience, and it does not require that other branches of science be made to fit it or else they must be false.  This is not the case with YECism, as your first post in this thread indicated.  It is simply incompatible with certain aspects of science (evolution for one, but there are others).  In order to be a YECist, you have to consider those things false; if you do not, you cannot by definition be a YECist, because they are incompatible with the Biblical narrative that YECism holds as true.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Are you referring to evolutionary biology? I have heard of at least one. But you're right, the fact is there aren't many in any fields. On the other hand, this doesn't make them wrong.
It isn't just evolutionary biology, but yes, the key point is that there are not many YECists in science.  And while that does not make them wrong, it certainly does not help prove them right - which is more important.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Maybe this is the biggest issue. There is a limit to speciation, as any breeder will tell you. All cats came from the same ancestors, all dogs came from the same ancestors, all horses and zebras came from the same ancestors, but they are all the same type of animal, really. They are a different species by name, but none of them come any closer to being something other than what they are i.e. from dog to cat, from horse to tiger. Sometimes they change enough so that they cannot mate, but they stay the same type of animal.
But this argument does not contradict the idea that there could have been a parent organism that had traits of both cats and dogs (for example), and ultimately diverged into cats and dogs (and so on).  Certainly, there is not such an organism now, but that does not mean anything.That is the problem here - YEC asserts that this cannot have been the case, without actual evidence as far as I can tell.  But other things, such as the similarity between DNA of similar types of animals compared to the similarity of traits between those same animals, strongly suggest otherwise.

Well, here's an example.  Let's say I asked you to give me a list of animals that you would consider reptilian.  Would you include birds on it?  Probably not.  Yet birds do share traits with reptiles (for example, they both have scales, and bird feathers are made by the same tissues that produce scales in reptiles), they both lay shelled eggs, and their organ and bone structures are similar to each other.  They have diverged far more than the minor differences between breeds of dogs, but they've had much longer to do it in.  The point being that if you can have organisms that have diverged that much, there's no reason to think that it's impossible that cats and dogs didn't originally share a similar ancestry, given that the similarities between them (generally speaking) are far greater than the similarities between reptiles and birds.

(source: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html)

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6763
  • Darwins +819/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #381 on: September 10, 2013, 07:39:37 PM »
Quote
Can you give a specific example of this?

Well, The fact that it's really called "Neo-Darwinian" should be a giveaway that something has changed, which I believe is Lamarckism. "Punctuated Equilibria" is the idea that evolutionary change happens really fast sometimes, and really slow other times. So fast, in fact, that it leaves no fossils that show novel things appearing. So slow, in fact, that it's not observable today.

You're getting your good ideas mixed up. Neo-Darwinism, the term , was coined by a friend of Darwin's, indeed because of new findings by Lamarck and stuff. You seem shocked that anyone would try to update scientific information. Something that, in this century, is done daily.

But the punctuated evolution thing, as you tried to explain it, is all wrong. When a biologist says that evolution happened quickly, he isn't talking Internet-fast, he is talking biology-fast.  And so slow we cant observe it? thats cute. Did you make that up ourself or read it in a comic book?

In biological term, a newly evolved species changing trait that shows up in merely 25,000 years is considered lickity split. And indeed such changes can and do leave fossil evidence.

And if it is so slow we can't observe it, then it hasn't happened.

People who feel a need to cram all of reality into 6,000 years have a hard time appreciating the actual timeframe of both the universe and of life. So when they see terms like "punctuated equilibrium" they get all excited and redefine it to mean what they want it to mean instead of what science says it means. And then they try to argue about it.

Wanting everyone else to go along with your pretend reality is asking a bit much.

Edit: spelling errors and clarification
« Last Edit: September 10, 2013, 07:56:33 PM by ParkingPlaces »
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2125
  • Darwins +135/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #382 on: September 10, 2013, 08:04:46 PM »
Neo-Darwinism is a term used to distinguish it from the original Darwinism of Darwin because of Mendelian Genetics/Lamarckism. I've heard it pretty often, and I think it's a good distinction but some people don't, I would guess because it may incite questions and/or doubts about Darwin?    http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=neo-darwinism    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html

Thanks for the links, I checked them out.

I still have a problem with the term Neo-Darwinism, but it isn't because it "may incite questions and/or doubts about Darwin". The theory of evolution has come a long way: 1859-2013. The patterns and processes and mechanisms of evolution have been rigorously tested over the past 154 years. Using a term coined in the 18th century to describe the modern theory of evolution as a whole seems...misleading. I can't help but think when people use the word Darwinism they want to portray the image of one dead man's dated theory that was shunned two centuries ago.
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13059
  • Darwins +355/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #383 on: September 10, 2013, 08:08:59 PM »
When I read CC's comments, it's almost like I'm reading him plagiarize an encyclopedia but, mixing up the words so it's not direct plagiarism.

I mean, take the "Neo-Darwinism" comment, seems as if he's just spouting what wiki says, almost word-for-word.

 I could be wrong.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #384 on: September 10, 2013, 08:10:18 PM »
Quote
That's exactly the problem.  Evolutionary theory is rationalized to fit the data, whereas YECism rationalizes the data to fit the Biblical narrative.  Scientific methodology itself is the process of rationalizing explanations to fit the available observational data.  I will leave it to you to explain how a field that attempts to fit the data to an existing narrative is scientific.

Ok, I misunderstood what you said the first time. Evolution scientists fit evolution to match data AND creation scientists fit creation to match data. The biblical narrative doesn't tell you everything, but science fills the gaps, and the theories of how creation happened exactly have changed, tho obviously not so much as to contradict the narrative. The fact that evolution scientists have the wide scope of "evolution" doesn't make it large enough so that there can be data that contradicts it. In either case ALL data MUST be in the realm of the model according to its scientists, and I would say that all data fits current creation theory, thus making it a science.

Quote
Concerning that, YECism, to the best of my knowledge, has as its goal to show that the Biblical narrative is an accurate description of the creation of the world, whereas the various fields of science have as their goal to understand the universe on its own terms.  I will leave it to you to explain how the former is a more worthwhile goal than the latter.

All science has a purpose. If it is to show how the world began or how your car runs is irrelevant. I never made a claim that it is somehow more important than other sciences.

Quote
If you actually had evidence that showed that these things were not constant in the past, then you would have a point.  But barring evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to assume that biomass has been constant, the rate of decay has not changed significantly, etc.  But without that evidence, such statements are only speculative and thus useless.

I could make the same argument you are making. There is no evidence to support the assumptions, so why should it be believed?

Quote
Yes, I have.  However, evolution explains the way things work too well to be a made-up pseudoscience, and it does not require that other branches of science be made to fit it or else they must be false.

It certainly does require that all sciences fit it, see quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution

Quote
(Evolution) general condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must bow and which they must satisfy henceforward if they are to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a curve that all lines must follow

Quote
But this argument does not contradict the idea that there could have been a parent organism that had traits of both cats and dogs (for example), and ultimately diverged into cats and dogs (and so on).  Certainly, there is not such an organism now, but that does not mean anything.That is the problem here - YEC asserts that this cannot have been the case, without actual evidence as far as I can tell.  But other things, such as the similarity between DNA of similar types of animals compared to the similarity of traits between those same animals, strongly suggest otherwise.

Well, here's an example.  Let's say I asked you to give me a list of animals that you would consider reptilian.  Would you include birds on it?  Probably not.  Yet birds do share traits with reptiles (for example, they both have scales, and bird feathers are made by the same tissues that produce scales in reptiles), they both lay shelled eggs, and their organ and bone structures are similar to each other.  They have diverged far more than the minor differences between breeds of dogs, but they've had much longer to do it in.  The point being that if you can have organisms that have diverged that much, there's no reason to think that it's impossible that cats and dogs didn't originally share a similar ancestry, given that the similarities between them (generally speaking) are far greater than the similarities between reptiles and birds

Right. The main difference between evolutionism and creation is that in one, it is assumed that an ancestor of cats and dogs existed, and in the other it is assumed they did not. Neither one has conclusive proof. There are many things that seem to indicate that things cannot change into others, like the fact that such an animal that fathered cats and dogs is not in the fossil record when plenty of cats and dogs are http://www.nbcnews.com/science/dna-fossil-suggests-dogs-were-domesticated-33-000-years-ago-1C8737029

different genetic codes, which have no way to change into another http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Utils/wprintgc.cgi

Widely varying amount of polyploidy and chromosomes in the plant and animal kingdoms, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploid

Similarities don't necessarily imply common ancestry, as is commonly assumed. It could just as easily be for common purpose, or because of a common designer.

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #385 on: September 10, 2013, 08:11:35 PM »
When I read CC's comments, it's almost like I'm reading him plagiarize an encyclopedia but, mixing up the words so it's not direct plagiarism.

I mean, take the "Neo-Darwinism" comment, seems as if he's just spouting what wiki says, almost word-for-word.

 I could be wrong.

-Nam

Plagiarize an encyclopedia? That's possible? Besides what if I am?

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #386 on: September 10, 2013, 08:18:00 PM »
Quote
Using a term coined in the 18th century to describe the modern theory of evolution as a whole seems...misleading. I can't help but think when people use the word Darwinism they want to portray the image of one dead man's dated theory that was shunned two centuries ago.

That's probably true of Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism both, which is why they may be unpopular, but they both are used to describe today's evolution, occasionally.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dynamic-darwinism

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13059
  • Darwins +355/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #387 on: September 10, 2013, 08:23:39 PM »
CC,

Yeah, it's possible.

Because then you're presenting yourself as more intellectual than you actually are. I suck at science, I also suck at math but I don't go around to websites and "copy" what they say, and regurgitate it here as if I already know about it to support my position.

Other Christians do the same thing but about their individual viewpoints of their religion that inline with others like them.

The difference between them and you is that they usually source it before-the-fact rather than after-the-fact, like you.

You speak about Neo-Darwinism like it's a subject you know a lot about but reads more like you copied it from somewhere--which is also fine, if you source it.

Talking smart doesn't make you smart. And those here who are smart will rip you a part on such subjects.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #388 on: September 10, 2013, 08:29:15 PM »
CC,

Yeah, it's possible.

Because then you're presenting yourself as more intellectual than you actually are. I suck at science, I also suck at math but I don't go around to websites and "copy" what they say, and regurgitate it here as if I already know about it to support my position.

Other Christians do the same thing but about their individual viewpoints of their religion that inline with others like them.

The difference between them and you is that they usually source it before-the-fact rather than after-the-fact, like you.

You speak about Neo-Darwinism like it's a subject you know a lot about but reads more like you copied it from somewhere--which is also fine, if you source it.

Talking smart doesn't make you smart. And those here who are smart will rip you a part on such subjects.

-Nam

Fair enough.

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2125
  • Darwins +135/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #389 on: September 10, 2013, 08:31:31 PM »
There are many things that seem to indicate that things cannot change into others, like the fact that such an animal that fathered cats and dogs is not in the fossil record when plenty of cats and dogs are [...]

Miacid.
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #390 on: September 10, 2013, 08:38:05 PM »
There are many things that seem to indicate that things cannot change into others, like the fact that such an animal that fathered cats and dogs is not in the fossil record when plenty of cats and dogs are [...]

Miacid.

OK, I'll take that. I mean, obviously I don't think it really is ancestral but I wasn't aware of it's existence.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12555
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #391 on: September 10, 2013, 08:40:26 PM »
What evidence can you bring forth that contradicts it being ancestral?
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #392 on: September 10, 2013, 08:48:50 PM »
What evidence can you bring forth that contradicts it being ancestral?

Nothing comes to mind, especially since like I said I just learned about it. But as I said earlier, similarity does not necessarily imply ancestry.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12555
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #393 on: September 10, 2013, 08:50:03 PM »
Well the "obviously" implied to me that you had something other than default rejection behind your...well, rejection.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #394 on: September 10, 2013, 08:52:22 PM »
Well the "obviously" implied to me that you had something other than default rejection behind your...well, rejection.

Yes. Obviously my belief in creation was not overturned in the couple of minutes it took to reply

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5266
  • Darwins +602/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #395 on: September 10, 2013, 09:14:49 PM »
Ok, I misunderstood what you said the first time. Evolution scientists fit evolution to match data AND creation scientists fit creation to match data. The biblical narrative doesn't tell you everything, but science fills the gaps, and the theories of how creation happened exactly have changed, tho obviously not so much as to contradict the narrative. The fact that evolution scientists have the wide scope of "evolution" doesn't make it large enough so that there can be data that contradicts it. In either case ALL data MUST be in the realm of the model according to its scientists, and I would say that all data fits current creation theory, thus making it a science.
Actually, no, creation scientists fit the data into their existing beliefs about creation.  As you say, they are just trying to fill the gaps between what they already 'know' from the Biblical narrative - but if a part of science conflicts with that narrative, then they consider it false.  As you do, with evolutionary theory.  You simply can't accept it as true, because it contradicts the Biblical narrative.  It doesn't matter that it isn't actually contradicted by anything else we've actually discovered through science - it matters that it contradicts the YEC Biblical narrative.

That, by the way, gives the lie to your words that "all data fits current creation theory".  All data that YEC scientists are willing to accept as valid fits current creation theory, but that is not all data.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
All science has a purpose. If it is to show how the world began or how your car runs is irrelevant. I never made a claim that it is somehow more important than other sciences.
Yes, all science has a purpose.  But the purpose of YECism is not truly scientific, because it seeks not to fit itself to the data no matter where they lead, but to fit what data it can into itself, disregarding the rest and claiming that any science that uses that data is flawed or false.  As you do with evolutionary theory, radiometric dating, and other branches of established science that don't work with the YEC narrative.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
I could make the same argument you are making. There is no evidence to support the assumptions, so why should it be believed?
Because we have never once found anything that shows the degree of variations that would be necessary to call radiometric dating into question.  If the Earth were only 6,000 years old, and thus such variations existed, then it is extremely unlikely that we would have found no signs of them whatsoever.  Yet...we have found no such signs.  It doesn't prove it, certainly, but the lack of such proof is much more damaging to your claims than it is to the basic scientific assumptions you criticize.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
It certainly does require that all sciences fit it, see quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution
This is false, and arguably a lie.  The wiki article you linked is actually about a 1973 paper written by a theistic biologist who criticized the sort of anti-evolution creationism you espouse.  His argument is not that evolution requires that biology fits it, but that evolution fits into the established science of biology so well that dismissing it (as you do) makes biology largely nonsensical.

By the way, the statement you quoted was written by a Jesuit, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.  As such, it is his opinion rather than mainstream science.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Right. The main difference between evolutionism and creation is that in one, it is assumed that an ancestor of cats and dogs existed, and in the other it is assumed they did not. Neither one has conclusive proof. There are many things that seem to indicate that things cannot change into others, like the fact that such an animal that fathered cats and dogs is not in the fossil record when plenty of cats and dogs are http://www.nbcnews.com/science/dna-fossil-suggests-dogs-were-domesticated-33-000-years-ago-1C8737029
This is disingenuous and very probably dishonest of you.  YECism does not simply 'assume' that there is no common ancestor of cats and dogs, it assumes that they were created by YHWH somewhat in excess of 6,000 years ago.  The very article you linked shatters that assumption into pieces, and I have very little doubt that you would not even hesitate to cast as much doubt as you could on the "33,000 year" figure...yet you are willing to use that same article to support your contention that there are fossils of cats and of dogs but not of some organism that had traits of both.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
different genetic codes, which have no way to change into another http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Utils/wprintgc.cgi
Nobody is arguing that a cat's genetic codes would transform into a dog's, or anything else along those lines.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Widely varying amount of polyploidy and chromosomes in the plant and animal kingdoms, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploid
So what?  This doesn't really advance your argument any.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Similarities don't necessarily imply common ancestry, as is commonly assumed. It could just as easily be for common purpose, or because of a common designer.
No, it doesn't imply common ancestry by itself.  But when you have physical similarities that are roughly matched by DNA similarities, it is much more probable that they do have a common ancestor.

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #396 on: September 10, 2013, 09:50:27 PM »
Quote
Actually, no, creation scientists fit the data into their existing beliefs about creation.  As you say, they are just trying to fill the gaps between what they already 'know' from the Biblical narrative - but if a part of science conflicts with that narrative, then they consider it false.  As you do, with evolutionary theory.  You simply can't accept it as true, because it contradicts the Biblical narrative.  It doesn't matter that it isn't actually contradicted by anything else we've actually discovered through science - it matters that it contradicts the YEC Biblical narrative.

Everyone fits the data to their belief, whether it is evolution or creation, because they already "know". "Discovered through science" is begging the question, because you have to assume evolution is true before you discover things about evolution which supposedly contradict creation.

Quote
That, by the way, gives the lie to your words that "all data fits current creation theory".  All data that YEC scientists are willing to accept as valid fits current creation theory, but that is not all data.

Point me some data, and I will point you some creation.

Quote
Because we have never once found anything that shows the degree of variations that would be necessary to call radiometric dating into question.  If the Earth were only 6,000 years old, and thus such variations existed, then it is extremely unlikely that we would have found no signs of them whatsoever.  Yet...we have found no such signs.  It doesn't prove it, certainly, but the lack of such proof is much more damaging to your claims than it is to the basic scientific assumptions you criticize.

What kind of variations are you looking for? "If fossil x has y amount of c-14, it is z years old", is the assumption that is used, and ANYthing that is dated with c-14 will be recorded as a certain age, but that will never take into account the problems I suggested, and therefore there cannot be any signs of error.

Quote
This is false, and arguably a lie.  The wiki article you linked is actually about a 1973 paper written by a theistic biologist who criticized the sort of anti-evolution creationism you espouse.  His argument is not that evolution requires that biology fits it, but that evolution fits into the established science of biology so well that dismissing it (as you do) makes biology largely nonsensical.

By the way, the statement you quoted was written by a Jesuit, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.  As such, it is his opinion rather than mainstream science.

Why are you calling me on using theistic evolutionists? Atheism much more clearly demands evolution. http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Darwin_made_it_easy_to_become_an_intellectually_fulfilled_atheist

Quote
This is disingenuous and very probably dishonest of you.  YECism does not simply 'assume' that there is no common ancestor of cats and dogs, it assumes that they were created by YHWH somewhat in excess of 6,000 years ago.  The very article you linked shatters that assumption into pieces, and I have very little doubt that you would not even hesitate to cast as much doubt as you could on the "33,000 year" figure...yet you are willing to use that same article to support your contention that there are fossils of cats and of dogs but not of some organism that had traits of both.

The article I quoted presumably uses carbon dating, which I already discussed. Would you rather I quote creationist sources? Because you seem to be upset about anything else.

Quote
Nobody is arguing that a cat's genetic codes would transform into a dog's, or anything else along those lines.

Different Genetic codes are a much more difficult hurdle to overcome than you seem to think. Yes, dogs and cats have the same genetic code, but this was used as a more general argument against evolution.

Quote
Quote
Widely varying amount of polyploidy and chromosomes in the plant and animal kingdoms, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploid
So what?  This doesn't really advance your argument any.

It's another hurdle for evolution to overcome.

Quote
No, it doesn't imply common ancestry by itself.  But when you have physical similarities that are roughly matched by DNA similarities, it is much more probable that they do have a common ancestor.

Thats certainly not always the case http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9402-bats-and-horses-get-strangely-chummy.html
« Last Edit: September 10, 2013, 09:54:47 PM by ChristianConspirator »

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3082
  • Darwins +280/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #397 on: September 10, 2013, 10:15:24 PM »
Neo-Darwinism is a term used to distinguish it from the original Darwinism of Darwin because of Mendelian Genetics/Lamarckism. I've heard it pretty often, and I think it's a good distinction but some people don't, I would guess because it may incite questions and/or doubts about Darwin?

No, it's a bad distinction because it lumps together a testable and useful theory (Mendelian inheritance) with a debunked flight of fancy (Lamarckism) as if they were compatible.  They're not.

From the Mendelian theory we get the idea of genetic dominance or recessiveness, whereby a blue-eyed parent and a brown-eyed one will tend to have brown-eyed offspring unless the brown-eyed parent is carrying an eye colour gene with one brown element and one (suppressed) blue element, and even so each child has only a 50/50 chance of getting the blue eyes.  It is the basis of modern medical genetics, allowing us to treat many inheritable disorders.

From Lamarckism comes the dubious idea that offspring can inherit traits that the parent acquired in its lifetime.   As ova and sperm are generally already developed before the event that changed the parent, it's highly unlikely that the child would be affected unless the change also identically altered the sperm or ovum.  It's really only useful in explaining behaviours passed from parent to child, not anything at the biochemical level.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2013, 10:19:30 PM by Astreja »
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12555
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #398 on: September 10, 2013, 10:16:51 PM »
Everyone fits the data to their belief, whether it is evolution or creation, because they already "know". ...

Not everyone is that dishonest.  You've been hanging out in the wrong crowds.  There are those of us who are trained to change what we know in light of new information.  Have you ever tried that?
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3082
  • Darwins +280/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #399 on: September 10, 2013, 10:18:14 PM »
Plagiarize an encyclopedia? That's possible? Besides what if I am?

Then you need to clearly cite your references whenever you insert them into a post, or you're in violation of the WWGHA rules.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #400 on: September 10, 2013, 10:33:45 PM »
Neo-Darwinism is a term used to distinguish it from the original Darwinism of Darwin because of Mendelian Genetics/Lamarckism. I've heard it pretty often, and I think it's a good distinction but some people don't, I would guess because it may incite questions and/or doubts about Darwin?

No, it's a bad distinction because it lumps together a testable and useful theory (Mendelian inheritance) with a debunked flight of fancy (Lamarckism) as if they were compatible.  They're not.

From the Mendelian theory we get the idea of genetic dominance or recessiveness, whereby a blue-eyed parent and a brown-eyed one will tend to have brown-eyed offspring unless the brown-eyed parent is carrying an eye colour gene with one brown element and one (suppressed) blue element, and even so each child has only a 50/50 chance of getting the blue eyes.  It is the basis of modern medical genetics, allowing us to treat many inheritable disorders.

From Lamarckism comes the dubious idea that offspring can inherit traits that the parent acquired in its lifetime.   As ova and sperm are generally already developed before the event that changed the parent, it's highly unlikely that the child would be affected unless the change also identically altered the sperm or ovum.  It's really only useful in explaining behaviours passed from parent to child, not anything at the biochemical level.

I wouldn't call it "bad" so much as unfortunate for evolution because it exposed where Darwin was incorrect. The fact that Lamarckism was debunked is the purpose of the "Neo" part

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #401 on: September 10, 2013, 10:37:19 PM »
Everyone fits the data to their belief, whether it is evolution or creation, because they already "know". ...

Not everyone is that dishonest.  You've been hanging out in the wrong crowds.  There are those of us who are trained to change what we know in light of new information.  Have you ever tried that?

Nope!

But, there are several scientists who are former evolutionists because there was the light of new information like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12555
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #402 on: September 10, 2013, 10:44:39 PM »
Back up, bro.  You said that everyone fits the data to their belief.  Then you cited someone who supposedly changed his mind in light of new data.

So which is it?  Were you lying before, or are you wrong now?  It's one or the other.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3082
  • Darwins +280/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #403 on: September 10, 2013, 10:47:08 PM »
I wouldn't call it "bad" so much as unfortunate for evolution because it exposed where Darwin was incorrect. The fact that Lamarckism was debunked is the purpose of the "Neo" part

CC, Darwin's theory did not spring into existence complete and perfect, like Athena from Zeus's head.  Science is like the calculus of a curve:  You rough out a theory based on your initial data, mapping rectangles that don't quite match the curve.  A new generation corrects errors, makes new measurements on better equipment, and smooths out the curve some more.  This process continues until someone comes up with a new theory that is a better explanation of known facts.

And sometimes there are elements of the older theory that are useful enough to keep around for everyday use.  That's why it's still important to know Newtonian physics even after Einstein formulated his theories and took physics to a new level.



Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #404 on: September 10, 2013, 10:47:42 PM »
Back up, bro.  You said that everyone fits the data to their belief.  Then you cited someone who supposedly changed his mind in light of new data.

So which is it?  Were you lying before, or are you wrong now?  It's one or the other.

Yah got me. People fit the data to the view until they realize that their view is convoluted so much that it must change. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12555
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #405 on: September 10, 2013, 10:51:17 PM »
Not always.  Part of thinking rationally is training ourselves not to get too personally attached to our beliefs.  A good jury, for example, will review evidence and come to a conclusion based on it, even if it contradicts their preconceived beliefs.  This does actually happen, and doesn't require that anyone believe their worldview to be convoluted.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.