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

Modern creationism makes no sense

Page 23 of 29 [ 456 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 ... 29  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

05 Jun 2010, 6:57 am

Gromit wrote:
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.


You're correct, I shouldn't have said "all" anyhow. Chemistry is inherently a more quantitative subject than biology anyhow though. Taxonomic systems are by default more qualitative though, and usually are based upon morphological differences or feeding differences or otherwise qualitative criteria with a Boolean "true/false" value. In chemistry you have the quantitative differences of electronegativity, atomic radius, etc, which do appear to be in accord with the periodic table. However, even the periodic table is arbitrary in the sense that it is only descriptive and not prescriptive.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 Jun 2010, 8:28 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.


I was able to teach differential equations to my cat. It was my pet jackass that had difficulty.

ruveyn



Gromit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

05 Jun 2010, 8:42 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
However, even the periodic table is arbitrary in the sense that it is only descriptive and not prescriptive.

Wikipedia wrote:
Mendeleev was not the first chemist to do so, but he went a step further by using the trends in his periodic table to predict the properties of those missing elements, such as gallium and germanium (Ball, Philip, 2002. The Ingredients: A Guided Tour of the Elements, p. 105. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-284100-9,)

That makes it prescriptive.

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Taxonomic systems are by default more qualitative though, and usually are based upon morphological differences or feeding differences or otherwise qualitative criteria with a Boolean "true/false" value. In chemistry you have the quantitative differences of electronegativity, atomic radius, etc, which do appear to be in accord with the periodic table.

Use molecular phylogenies, if you like. You can also compare phylogenies based on independent traits. The prediction of evolutionary theory is that they should be highly correlated. They are. Evolutionary theory also predicts that the same should be true for as yet undiscovered species. That makes it prescriptive. You can test that prediction at moderate cost if you learn taxonomy and know where to look for new species. Does creationism have anything to say about this that is not based on ad hoc assumptions?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 Jun 2010, 10:04 am

Gromit wrote:
Does creationism have anything to say about this that is not based on ad hoc assumptions?


Creationism has nothing useful to offer. Not one thing.

ruveyn



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

05 Jun 2010, 10:22 am

ruveyn wrote:
Creationism has nothing useful to offer. Not one thing.

ruveyn

Nope, you're wrong: comedy. :P



01001011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

05 Jun 2010, 4:52 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
... 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


Quote:
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.


On one hand, iamnotaparakeet asserts that there are rigid evolution barriers between kinds. On the hand s/he asserts the classification is arbitrary (which is indeed the case as s/he never give any rigorous definition of kind). This is just self defeating. FAIL. :lol:



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

06 Jun 2010, 2:09 am

Gromit wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
However, even the periodic table is arbitrary in the sense that it is only descriptive and not prescriptive.

Wikipedia wrote:
Mendeleev was not the first chemist to do so, but he went a step further by using the trends in his periodic table to predict the properties of those missing elements, such as gallium and germanium (Ball, Philip, 2002. The Ingredients: A Guided Tour of the Elements, p. 105. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-284100-9,)

That makes it prescriptive.


No, it doesn't make it prescriptive, it indicates cogency of induction but it is still descriptive rather than prescriptive. It is predictive, but not prescriptive.

So then, how would biological taxonomic classification schemes make any predictions even? Or are they more useful for being able to categorize based upon characteristics and then utilize as a method for determining the standard nomenclature?



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

06 Jun 2010, 2:10 am

01001011 wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
... 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


Quote:
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.


On one hand, iamnotaparakeet asserts that there are rigid evolution barriers between kinds. On the hand s/he asserts the classification is arbitrary (which is indeed the case as s/he never give any rigorous definition of kind). This is just self defeating. FAIL. :lol:


Why are you so lazy as to not even see my profile where it says I'm male... oy.



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

06 Jun 2010, 2:12 am

ruveyn wrote:
Creationism has nothing useful to offer. Not one thing.

ruveyn

Creationism offers hope and salvation.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

06 Jun 2010, 2:18 am

Gromit wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Taxonomic systems are by default more qualitative though, and usually are based upon morphological differences or feeding differences or otherwise qualitative criteria with a Boolean "true/false" value. In chemistry you have the quantitative differences of electronegativity, atomic radius, etc, which do appear to be in accord with the periodic table.

Use molecular phylogenies, if you like. You can also compare phylogenies based on independent traits. The prediction of evolutionary theory is that they should be highly correlated. They are. Evolutionary theory also predicts that the same should be true for as yet undiscovered species. That makes it prescriptive. You can test that prediction at moderate cost if you learn taxonomy and know where to look for new species. Does creationism have anything to say about this that is not based on ad hoc assumptions?


'1) Theory T predicts observation O;
2) O is observed;
∴ T is true.

1) If I had just eaten a whole pizza, I would feel very full;
2) I feel very full;
∴ I have just eaten a whole pizza.'

And that is affirming the consequent.

Making predictions and having them occur is to speak in favor of a theory, since if the prediction was not observed then the theory would be obviously false, since that would be shown through denying the consequent which is valid.

As for predictions, I don't know and I'm not looking it up for you, but there is a criterion of viable hybridization for creatures to be within the same monobaramin.



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

06 Jun 2010, 2:34 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
'1) Theory T predicts observation O;
2) O is observed;
∴ T is true.

Actually, T cannot claim to be the truth
and T is supported by evidence.

But, T cannot claim truthness.
T is falsifiable.

For theory T to make it a valid theory it cannot claim absolute certainty.

And your alternative theory has the problem of being unfalsifiable.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

06 Jun 2010, 2:50 am

greenblue wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
'1) Theory T predicts observation O;
2) O is observed;
∴ T is true.

Actually, T can't claim to be the truth
and T is supported by overwhelming evidence.

But, T can't claim truthness.
T is falsiable.

For theory T to make it a valid theory it cannot claim absolute certainty.


Greenblue, I think that "overwhelming evidence" is not proper to say, since, although a theory may have a heck of a lot of evidence in its favor (whether actually or in interpretation merely) all it takes is evidence in opposition to the theory to falsify it, such as the absence of the possibility of "a step by step progression" from one organism to the next.



Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

06 Jun 2010, 4:03 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
1) If I had just eaten a whole pizza, I would feel very full;
2) I feel very full;
∴ I have just eaten a whole pizza.'


Faulty.

Number 2 could be caused by any other number of conditions, such as the steak and baked potato that I just ate as well as the liter of cola I drank. Premise number 2 does not magically change those things into well masticated Italian cuisine.


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

06 Jun 2010, 4:21 am

Fuzzy wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
1) If I had just eaten a whole pizza, I would feel very full;
2) I feel very full;
∴ I have just eaten a whole pizza.'


Faulty.

Number 2 could be caused by any other number of conditions, such as the steak and baked potato that I just ate as well as the liter of cola I drank. Premise number 2 does not magically change those things into well masticated Italian cuisine.


Correct.

If the argument were to be valid, it would go,

1) If I had just eaten a whole pizza, I would feel very full;
2) I have just eaten a whole pizza;
∴ I feel very full.



Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

06 Jun 2010, 5:15 am

greenblue wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Creationism has nothing useful to offer. Not one thing.

ruveyn

Creationism offers hope and salvation.


Only to counter that which they have taken away. Without the concept of sin and afterlife(inventions of religion), those things need not be offered.

Its like me taking 1000 bucks from you and then claiming I might give you money to pay your rent. Hope and Salvation! All glory to my cause!


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.


Gromit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

06 Jun 2010, 6:03 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Gromit wrote:
You can also compare phylogenies based on independent traits. The prediction of evolutionary theory is that they should be highly correlated. They are.

'1) Theory T predicts observation O;
2) O is observed;
∴ T is true.

And that is affirming the consequent.

Correct, and totally irrelevant. If you want to know which of several competing hypotheses is favoured by the data, you need to apply a little probability theory. Propositional logic is not up to the job. Do you want to look it up yourself or do you want me to present an example calculation?

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
As for predictions, I don't know and I'm not looking it up for you, but there is a criterion of viable hybridization for creatures to be within the same monobaramin.

I found nothing relevant to my question in the article you linked to. If you can't find anything, or are unwilling to tell what the theory you defend has to say, shall we take that to mean it has no prediction?



Last edited by Gromit on 06 Jun 2010, 6:17 am, edited 1 time in total.