Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Modern creationism makes no sense

Page 22 of 29 [ 456 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 ... 29  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

04 Jun 2010, 12:54 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Your Russian history professor suggested primary sources for you to study on your own, and yet this is not learning the material by yourself due to the professor's recommendation of materials? Perhaps a Q&A site should be set up where people can ask people with PhD's where to find materials to read....

She helped point me towards some sources that I would not likely have stumbled upon on my own, and she also did an excellent job in organizing a coherent reading list based on her decades of scholarly experience. That's the type of thing that you can't just type into Google and find. And then within technical fields, there are realities of how to properly apply various techniques that are not conveyed well (or at all) in textbooks. The instructor for my math modeling course was able to show us how it's done in the "real world," and that leaves us better prepared than any textbook would.

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
I bet if you just sent a PhD an e-mail, they might respond.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. In my experience, professors at Cornell (at least from their bio department) are very responsive.

Quote:
Honestly, your peer group is a lot better than your professor group.

Not in the bio department they aren't... filthy pre-meds.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

04 Jun 2010, 10:35 am

Orwell wrote:
Not in the bio department they aren't... filthy pre-meds.

Ok, your ideallized peer group. I also didn't mean every peer of yours either, just the few that are of value.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,670
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

04 Jun 2010, 2:52 pm

I think this thread has gone off topic.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

04 Jun 2010, 2:57 pm

Jono wrote:
I think this thread has gone off topic.

HERESY!! !! !! !! !



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

04 Jun 2010, 3:07 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Jono wrote:
I think this thread has gone off topic.

HERESY!! !! !! !! !


Time to flame this thread:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dmE-emrrAs[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aph-3zEacuw[/youtube]



LiendaBalla
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,736

04 Jun 2010, 6:57 pm

Jono wrote:
.. that life adapts to it's environment via natural selection.


I beleive in those. My religious kin refuse to, however. They don't beleive in evolution of any kind with hundreds of different breeds of dogs, many kinds of birds, and different images of humanoids that cross paths on a daily basis.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

04 Jun 2010, 9:29 pm

LiendaBalla wrote:
Jono wrote:
.. that life adapts to it's environment via natural selection.


I beleive in those. My religious kin refuse to, however. They don't beleive in evolution of any kind with hundreds of different breeds of dogs, many kinds of birds, and different images of humanoids that cross paths on a daily basis.


Not completely true. Like Orwell, you could claim "the vast majority this or that", but I for one am a creationist that accepts variation within kind, whereas "kind" is generally approximated by the "family" level of the two and five kingdom taxonomic systems. All the different "kinds of birds"... "birds" being an order and the kinds being, for a lot of most populations, psittacus (parrot) and passer (finch/sparrow/canary/etc) are primarily seen and these are different kinds. There are other "kinds" within the order of birds in general though, as I'm fairly certain all owls would be of the same kind as would all ducks (perhaps geese, swans, and ducks are all of the same kind, but I don't know). I'm not going into detail as I'm certain I've already stated something incorrectly and it will get nitpicked, but this is not just an idea of mine, see:

http://creation.com/a-baraminology-tuto ... es-poaceae



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

04 Jun 2010, 9:39 pm

Jono wrote:
.. that life adapts to it's environment via natural selection.


Life adapts to its environment by the culling of the unfit. Those members of a species which are unsuited to the environment face the choice of migration or extinction. However, the adaptation possible by natural selection is limited to the genetic material which is already in the population. The miracle of particles to people "evolution" is not natural selection, but rather the hope of and faith in novel genetic material and nascent organs appearing via luck. Natural selections' role is not to produce change, but to weed out unfit genetic changes.



Last edited by iamnotaparakeet on 04 Jun 2010, 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

04 Jun 2010, 9:41 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Not completely true. Like Orwell, you could claim "the vast majority this or that", but I for one am a creationist that accepts variation within kind, whereas "kind" is generally approximated by the "family" level of the two and five kingdom taxonomic systems. All the different "kinds of birds"... "birds" being an order and the kinds being, for a lot of most populations, psittacus (parrot) and passer (finch/sparrow/canary/etc) are primarily seen and these are different kinds. There are other "kinds" within the order of birds in general though, as I'm fairly certain all owls would be of the same kind as would all ducks (perhaps geese, swans, and ducks are all of the same kind, but I don't know). I'm not going into detail as I'm certain I've already stated something incorrectly and it will get nitpicked, but this is not just an idea of mine, see:

http://creation.com/a-baraminology-tuto ... es-poaceae

The problem with baraminology is that it is completely arbitrary. Looking at the data, the same evidence that tells us all owls are related also tells us that owls and parrots are related, and the same data tells us birds and reptiles are related. And why are humans a separate kind? In any other pair of species, the level of similarities that exist between Homo Sapiens and Pan Troglodytes would lead baraminologists to classify them as the same "kind."


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

04 Jun 2010, 9:47 pm

Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Not completely true. Like Orwell, you could claim "the vast majority this or that", but I for one am a creationist that accepts variation within kind, whereas "kind" is generally approximated by the "family" level of the two and five kingdom taxonomic systems. All the different "kinds of birds"... "birds" being an order and the kinds being, for a lot of most populations, psittacus (parrot) and passer (finch/sparrow/canary/etc) are primarily seen and these are different kinds. There are other "kinds" within the order of birds in general though, as I'm fairly certain all owls would be of the same kind as would all ducks (perhaps geese, swans, and ducks are all of the same kind, but I don't know). I'm not going into detail as I'm certain I've already stated something incorrectly and it will get nitpicked, but this is not just an idea of mine, see:

http://creation.com/a-baraminology-tuto ... es-poaceae

The problem with baraminology is that it is completely arbitrary. Looking at the data, the same evidence that tells us all owls are related also tells us that owls and parrots are related, and the same data tells us birds and reptiles are related. And why are humans a separate kind? In any other pair of species, the level of similarities that exist between Homo Sapiens and Pan Troglodytes would lead baraminologists to classify them as the same "kind."


All classification schemes are completely arbitrary, however they can be useful in determining secondary characteristics, such as behavior patterns associated with various varieties of animals and toxicity or edibleness of plants and fungi.

Also, the human foot is dissimilar enough to all apes to count us a separate kind.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

04 Jun 2010, 10:00 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
All classification schemes are completely arbitrary,

Not true at all. Modern phylogenetics is based on hard quantitative data.

Quote:
Also, the human foot is dissimilar enough to all apes to count us a separate kind.

Not buying it at all. In other places baraminologists allow a greater range of variation to be classified as the same kind.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

04 Jun 2010, 10:05 pm

Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
All classification schemes are completely arbitrary,

Not true at all. Modern phylogenetics is based on hard quantitative data.


Yeah, about as quantitative as homology gets.

Orwell wrote:
Quote:
Also, the human foot is dissimilar enough to all apes to count us a separate kind.

Not buying it at all. In other places baraminologists allow a greater range of variation to be classified as the same kind.


Links or get the farce out.



jc6chan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,257
Location: Waterloo, ON, Canada

04 Jun 2010, 11:24 pm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/news ... 05lead.asp
Something to look at.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

05 Jun 2010, 12:07 am

I give up. I should have learned long ago that trying to talk sense to creationists is about as productive as teaching differential equations to my cat.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

05 Jun 2010, 12:12 am

Orwell wrote:
I give up. I should have learned long ago that trying to talk sense to creationists is about as productive as teaching differential equations to my cat.


Finally.
The parakeet is not capable of thinking. It's not worthwhile interacting with him.



Gromit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 May 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,302
Location: In Cognito

05 Jun 2010, 6:34 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
All classification schemes are completely arbitrary,

Prove it. I'll make it simple for you by offering you a simple classification scheme, with few criteria and very limited content, and which you probably know better than biological classifications: the periodic table of elements.