Talk:Horse

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Origin

The traditional biblical view is that all animals originated in the Middle East after being collected by Noah in his Ark. Unfortunaely baraminologists are unable to explain transitional fossils such as

  • Hyracotherium
  • Orohippus
  • Epihippus
  • Duchesnehippus
  • Mesohippus
  • Miohippus
  • Kalobatippus
  • Parahippus
  • Merychippus
  • Dinohippus
  • Plesippus
  • Hippotigris
  • Equus

— Cut from article by Ed Poor, April 2007. (Philip J. Rayment 10:34, 9 July 2007 (EDT))

"Evolutionist"

I realize it has become somewhat of a fad of late, especially in wiki, that this is a derogatory term. Wiki prefers the use the term "scientists" since they believe scientists = evolutionists. Thankfully, of course, we are not wiki and can use terms with their actual meaning. "Evolutionism" is the term that is viewed as derogatory, and I would agree we should limit that for that reason, but evolutionist is simply descriptive and not only shouldn't we shy away from the term, but we should embrace it as the appropriate choice. Learn together 09:58, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

I don't agree that "evolutionism" is derogatory, and evolutionists are quite happy to use "creationism", so why not the equally-descriptive "evolutionism"? Otherwise, I agree with you. Philip J. Rayment 10:33, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Probably because people who accept the theory of evolution and the many evidences for it don't refer to themselves as "evolutionist" or to that acceptance as "evolutionism". I, personally, have never met (in real life or on the Internet) a creationist who sees that as an insult - indeed they are usually proud to so label themselves. Also, "evolutionism" was coined by creationists and I feel that it is obvious to anybody that the word is almost always used in a derogatory fashion in online debates. --Bytor 10:07, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
Can you supply evidence that "evolutionism" was coined by creationists? You may be correct; I don't know, but I do know that I've heard the same claim for "evolutionist", "microevolution" and "macroevolution", all of which claims are wrong. So I have good reason to be sceptical of this claim also.
Only my own experience engaging in the debate on the Internet over the last 19 years and reading various books as a teenager (20+ years ago) on both side. In that time I have never seen a pro-science advocate use "evolutionism" to refer to the theory of evolution or to the acceptance of that theory. Now, granted, I have never gone looking for the origin of the word, so maybe I just missed seeing it - that is always a possibility. However, I stand on my belief of 20+ years of observation as a good pointer to who coined the term and how many creationists use it. As for why one should not use it, is that not just simple politeness to not use a term to refer to a group when you know they see it as derogatory? --Bytor 15:43, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
I'd suggest that evolutionists think that it's being used derogatorily simply because they don't like their idea being referred to as the belief that it is, but that's hardly reason to stop using it. As for the "many evidences"... what "many evidences"? Evolutionists who think that are usually affirming the consequent, which is a logically-fallacious argument, or quoting their hypothesis (or the underlying naturalism) as though it is evidence. If you don't agree, give me an example of evolutionary evidence and chances are it will probably be one of those two.
Philip J. Rayment 10:37, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
The evidences for evolution would be things liks the consistent nested hierarchy of anatomical and biochemical homologies, faunal succession in the fossil record, biogeography of living and fossil species, transitional fossils, vestigial and other parahomologous structures. I fail to see how they are affirming the consequent. It not like "If Bill Gates owns fort Knox, then Bill Gates is rich. Bill Gates is rich. Therefore he owns Fort Knox." --Bytor 15:43, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for the pocket history of your knowledge of the word "evolutionism". "Evolutionist" goes back to the time of Darwin, if I recall correctly, and I wouldn't be surprised if "evolutionism" goes back that far as well. Obviously your experience doesn't, so we are still left not knowing.
I will continue to use the word for the following reasons:
* It's an accurate and simple term. I don't know of another way of putting it that is not wordy or awkward.
* A reason for rejecting it—that it falsely implies a belief—is incorrect.
* Although I don't doubt that some creationists use it in a derogatory manner, many others do not use it that way.
* Many terms started off being used by people other than the people referred to by the term, and/or by opponents of an idea but came to be accepted. Examples include 'Christian' and 'Big Bang'. So I don't think they should be too worried about it.
As I said, affirming the consequent: "If evolution is true, there will be a nested hierarchy of creatures. There is a nested hierarchy of creatures, so evolution must be true". Which ignores that the nested hierarchy is expected by the creation model also, as evidenced by the fact that the nested hierarchy of the Linnean classification system was devised by a creationist! (Actually, the Linnean system presumes the ability to be able to classify into distinct groups, rather than there being no clear boundaries between different categories, something that is expected in creation, and observed, but does not follow from evolution.) Similarly, creationists would expect biochemical similarities, a fossil record with sea-bottom-dwelling creatures near the bottom of the fossil record, other sea creatures next, slow-moving land animals such as amphibians, then reptiles, then the more agile mammals and birds, and finally the most resourceful at escaping the Flood the longest, man. Also expected by creation are organs that have lost function (referred to as "vestigial", although all claimed human vestigial organs now have a known function, which kinda destroys that evolutionary argument), and so on. Transitional fossils (between different 'kinds' of creatures) are non-existent (which is a big problem for evolution) and if by "parahomologous structures" you are referring to convergent and parallel evolution, then sorry, but these are actually rationalisations of things that don't fit the evolutionary story.
So in summary, many of those thing were, as predicted, affirming the consequent.
Philip J. Rayment 02:22, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
Personal tools