nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 69:
Line 69: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Baraminology (view source)
Revision as of 14:09, September 14, 2008
, 14:09, September 14, 2008Straw-man argument, and other problems.
-Damien Rivers
-Damien Rivers
: The first part of your post seems to be saying that "species" are determined in a rigorous and unambiguous way. But this is not so. For one thing, there isn't even a universally-accepted definition. For another, it can be somewhat arbitrary. For example, two creatures that can interbreed are classified into separate species because they don't do so naturally, simply because of geographical isolation. You wouldn't determine that from DNA. And finally, creatures known only from the fossil record are given species classification, despite the utter impossibility of determining interfertility (or DNA similarity). So I don't believe that baraminology is any less able to determine relationships.
: I don't know why you suggest that plants aren't included in baraminology.
: Yes, that baramin were ''created'' is not an observation, any more than the claim that they evolved from an ancestor creature. Your subsequent comments about showing the ability to interbreed in the past has the same problem: evolution can't show that different kinds of creatures were related in the past either. Why do evolutionists try an impose standards on creationism that they don't observe themselves?
: It is total nonsense to claim that the supernatural must be assumed to not exist in order for the scientific method to work. Most early scientists—who used the scientific method—believed the supernatural exists.
: "''How could you know this god is not simply stopping the egg from being fertilized when two different baramin copulate.''": By observing that the genetic mechanisms are what stops interfertilisation.
: Your claims about supernatural interference are a straw-man argument. This is because what creationists propose is most definitely ''not'' a supernatural being who interferes on a whim. Although you don't spell it out, I would also point out that your only reason for rejecting the supernatural is because it makes it pointless to do science. Now, compare three different scenarios:
:# There is a capricious god who interferes with his creation on a whim. In this case, you are correct that it is pointless doing science. And this is one reason why the ancient Greeks and probably other societies didn't develop science.
:# There is no god, and everything occurred without any design or plan. In other words, it was simply an accident. In this case, doing science is pointless, as you can't be sure that the universe has any consistency. Further, your brains are the result of a long series of chance events (including mutations). What reason is there to think that your senses and your brain are actually capable of studying nature and coming to correct conclusions?
:# There is a creator God who is orderly and created an orderly universe, with laws that operate consistently. Although He occasionally does interact with nature, for the most part He does not interfere, and this allows us to use the brains and senses that He's designed for us to study His creation.
: There may be no way to scientifically determine which of these scenarios is correct. But you are trying to argue against No. 3 by claiming it as No. 1. This is why I call it a straw-man argument. Note also that No. 3 is the only one that makes sense of doing science. And also particularly note that historians have agreed that this is precisely why modern science arose. That is, modern science was started by people who believed in the biblical creator God ''because'' they had this belief that science was able (and allowed: some beliefs teach that nature itself is divine and it is blasphemy to study it) to be studied. See [[Natural science#Beginnings]] for more on this.
: Regarding alleles, you have already asked that on a different page, and I have already answered it there.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:09, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
==Genetic degradation ==
==Genetic degradation ==