Posted on 07/14/2007 10:33:34 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Madonna and Bon Jovi are no match for Hawaiian flies when it comes to karaoke hits at the University of Nebraska State Museum in Lincoln. In a popular exhibit activity, visitors attempt to mimic the unique courtship calls of different species of Hawaiian Drosophila, a group of 800 different flies that may have evolved from a single species.
Fly karaoke is part of "Explore Evolution," a permanent exhibit currently at Nebraska and five other museums in the Midwest and Southwest...that explores evolutionary concepts in new ways. Such an activity is a far cry from the traditional way science museums have presented evolution, which usually included charts called phylogenies depicting ancestral relationships or a static set of fossils arranged chronologically. "Explore Evolution'' has those, too—and then some, because museum curators came to realize that they needed better ways to counter growing attacks on their integrity.
...
Under pressure from these kinds of groups, the Kansas State Board of Education in 2005 approved a curriculum that allowed the public schools to include completely unfounded challenges to the theory of evolution.
In an effort to make their case to the public, creationists raised $26 million in private donations to build the 50,000-square-foot Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., which opened in late May. The institution presents the biblical history of the universe. Visitors learn that biblically, dinosaurs are best explained as creatures that roamed Earth with humans. In its first month of existence, the museum drew over 49,000 visitors, according to its Web site.
"Explore Evolution," funded by a $2.8 million grant from the National Science Foundation, is one of many recent efforts by science museums to counter such resistance to evolution...
(Excerpt) Read more at sciam.com ...
Get back to me when you can post in English.
I tend not to read your posts anyway, but when you post gibberish, especially long gibberish, I certainly don't read them.
The rules of spelling and grammar are there for a reason--to facilitate communication.
[[You have yet to specify what the discontinuity is]]
and you have yet to specify what it isn’t and why it shouldn’t be used and an objective scientific, opinion-free reason behind why it shouldn’t. When evo science can state that there is scientific evidence to prove that there are no disconnects between major classes, without having to resort to assumptions based, evidence-less beliefs about common descent, then we’ll ceede that there aren’t infact diconnects between major classes or KINDS if you like. In the meantime, You’ll give your opinion about Baraminology, which hopefully will be somewhat respectful, I’ll give mien about Phylogeny, which will include the same, and Coyoteman will will continue disparaging Baraminology based on nothign more than bias and evidnecel;ess opinion.
Brilliant comeback- learn that one i n gradeschool did ye?
btw you propbably won’t read this, but perhaps someone will whisper it in your ear if they happen to read it for ya- you’re link is dead- was looking forward to reading the bias and lack of evidence supporting hteir anti-God rants on DC
“Thats the/a difference between human and animal.. Animals can’t conceive of God.. Humans evolved to believe in God, IF they evolved at all.. They may have been MADE that way.. Which IS MY POINT.”
_________________
Humans are animals, by the way. But, OK, humans(unlike OTHER animals) are superstitious. Did “God” “make” humans that way? Or do humans invent “God” (and the Devil, and angels, and miracles etc.) as just another form of superstitious belief? I vote for the latter.
Groovey that whats you're supposed to do, vote or make a choice..
Let God decide whats Good or Evil -OR- Do it yourself and imitate/Ape a God.
Its all there, in Genesis Chapters 1-3..
The only comment I would make to this is that none of these religions created anything worth celebrating (although I think Viking long ships are cool). Christianity created the United States of America, which is, so far, the free-est, greatest country the universe has ever known.
I agree that a lot of what baraminology is saying is "preposterous".
You linked a series of someone’s personnel blogs that lack any coherent organization. They certainly contained no definitions of terms or scientific reasoning.
You didn’t even include the BSG’s site which concludes that there is no current, satisfactory definition of a baramin.
Do you have a working definition of a baramin or not?
If you can’t even define the term, how can you support any of your claims?
Indeed, Else, where did/does UNalienable rights come from?..
The whole purpose of government is to alienate rights..
and force them to become privileges..
BIG difference beteen rights and privileges..
Example: If something you OWN is taxed then the gov't is RENTING it to you.. and you are in denial about OWNING it..
Excellent point. Please note we do not use science to determine the truth of such cases. Rather a jury hears the evidence before trying to reach a conclusion. No tests for verification or falsification are performed afterwords. If we really could reliably perform such tests about past events we would.
Neither "intelligent design" nor "common descent" are scientific theories. They are conclusions about the past that can not be reliably tested for verification or falsification. I am dismayed at the constant bickering on both sides of this debate about which is "science" and which is not -- which seems to be continually blurred with the concept of what is actually true.
A conclusion that is grounded in science can be true, and it can be false. A conclusion that is not scientific can be true and it can be false. Even a mere legend can be true and it can be false. Which is obvious--but you wouldn't know it from reading these seemingly endless quarrels.
Science is the most effective way of finding truth in controlled circumstances. The really big questions of our existence and the ancient past are not so controlled. In this case it is better to look at all the evidence, our experiences, and best use our reason, intellect, wisdom and or insight to reach an untestable conclusion. Dressing such efforts up as science to give them more credibility is sophmoric and counter productive!
This is not to say that there isn't often some new evidence found by science that helps us shed some light on such matters, just as new evidence can shed light on a court case -- and might even result in a new verdict. But lets not kid ourselves concerning what is actually be tested in such experiments. A specific test might be more consistent with one world-view over another, but such world-views are "moving targets", and resist falsification by experiment. Rather the particulars within them will merely be adjusted to new evidence without changing the overall view.
[[You linked a series of someone’s personnel blogs that lack any coherent organization. They certainly contained no definitions of terms or scientific reasoning.]]
Not sure what wasn’t coherent about the explanations of how the different Baramins are determined through scientific evidences- but I guess if you can’t see the explanations that are plainly outlined, oh well- I both listed a site that explained the different baramins, as well as posting htem here.
[[Do you have a working definition of a baramin or not?]]
Absolutely- I’ve listed the defining scientific Criteria for determining Classifications- the only thing you can produce to claim that KINDS isn’t a valid terminology is a biased opinion based on the unproven, unsupported idea that everythign is related by common anscestry.
If you can prove that Baraminology can’t use a scientific classification of Major kinds using several different scientific criteria which support the term KINDS, then you have got an argument- if you can’t- then all you’ve got is a biased antagonistic opinion on the matter- and as such, this conversation is at a standstill. Almost every major KIND has been determined using many scientific criteria- so, again, if you have some proof that it isn’t valid (and I don’t want ot hear the tired out generalized “You can’t even decide on Kinds” which is a lie- as there are sonly some obscure species deep within the system which are problematic to BOTH sides classification systems) then present it- otherwise- as I mentioned- this ocnversation can’t proceed further.
You misrepresent what the BSG site is saying and are attemtping to make out htat the whoile system is flawed when it absultely is not. And I’m sorry, but quite frankly, I’m getting a little tired of having to repeatedly point those biased generalized statements out
[[If you can’t even define the term, how can you support any of your claims?]]
Shall we go to the Phylogentic system and point out hte problems and point to the claims and then make the false claim that the whole system is flawed because soem scientists can’t even agree on some obscure points deep within the myriad of species which presents major problems with the system on a specific minor point?
You claim we ‘can’t even define the terms of Baramins’- that is a flat out misleading falsehood. you said ‘term’ but there are TERMS within Baraminology that use strict scientific critieria to determine KINDS- Many different Criteria which are widely accepted as being factual- so please- enough with the accusation that the whole system is flawed because some dissagree about some entirely obscure points deep within the system which are problems for Phylogony classification placvements as well. Disingeniously putting the onus of perfection on one system that you dissagree with while fully excusing the imperfectiosn of your own system is a dishonest argument for your points.
Again- If you can show Baraminology isn’t valid, that Kinds aren’t a valid terminology, that discontinuity doesn’t happen- fine- otherwise- as I said, I’m not intrerested in anyone’s biased antagonistic, unrealistic comments and requirements used as some hypocritical measuring stick with which to excuse their own problems while expeciting absulte perfection from another system they dissagree with. you make false accusations that carry insinuations that are blatantly miusleadingly untrue- You complain about the actual term Baramin whiuch as you correctly point out isn’t entirely agreed upon as to where it comes from or what the precise meanings are- (knowing full well that the general understanding fits just fine) but you absolutely neglect to point out that the many different classifications that I repeatedly listed are based on solid scientific criteria and show- very nicely that that each species KIND fits within the subcategories. The niggling argument about the differences in the Term is nothign but a hand waving dissmissal of the fact that it isn’t even relevent to the systems whole. The major point of Baraminology is scientifically sound as are manyt of the subpoints of the Phylogentic system. Arguing that it isn’t valid because there are soem minor dissagreements is I’m sorry to say lame.
[[which concludes that there is no current, satisfactory definition of a baramin.]]
Thati s falsely misleading- there are many satisfactory and accepted classifications within Baraminolgy- many of which are used by your own system.
Present hte science showing it isn’t valid or I’ll simply keep reposting htis post when you make the same falsely misleading accusations time and time again, and point out that you are disingeniously putting an unrealistic onus on soemthign you dissagree with while ignoring hte problems of the system you accept where many ALSO dissagree about MOOT points not relevent ot the system as a whole!!!
[[I agree that a lot of what baraminology is saying is “preposterous”.]]
Preposterous in light of what scientific reasoning? That you beleive everythign has common anscestry? If this is the only unsupported scientific basis for your assertion of it being preposterous, then it’s simply an opinion. you and others have noth said it and insinuated it many times now without backing uip, scientifically, why it is- we got the point- we know where you stand- on opinion. Let’s move on with some scientific reasons why instead of conjecturing without scientific facts.
[[Dressing such efforts up as science to give them more credibility is sophmoric and counter productive!]]
Agree with most of what you say- just one point about hte above quote- That I think is not true- There is science behind both Hypothesis, actually a lot of science- noone is dressing up either side- juts stating the facts about hte science involved which strengthen the valid systems used- The science within the systems stand on their own, and as such, we aren’t, as I said, dressing anythign up- there’s no need to in many cases.
[[but such world-views are “moving targets”, and resist falsification by experiment.]]
I have to dissagree- the system of Baraminology rests on major classes that can be either falsified or affirmed through scientific studies such as genetics. While it’s true that we can’t go back to creation and do experiential testing on past for htem ost part, we can observe the genetic and biological evidences and determine that the evidence and facts fit the different categories of Baramins- there is nothing sophmoric about investigating the science that determines the outcomes, nor is there anythign sophmoric abotu discussing the actual science regardless of the world view one holds. I’ve repeatedly asked for the counter arguments to contain scientific evidences showing that species can’t be classified as major kinds- or groups, and that, I think, is where htis discussion needs to move on to if anything productive is going to come from it. We’ve hit the speedbumps of opinion, now it’s time to move on.
The following are the basic facts, please correct me if I'm wrong:
1) "Barminology" claims to be a study of taxa which does not presume that all life has common descent, and tries to determine which life has common descent and which does not. It is a recently coined term and has yet to be in wide use.
2) For the most part critics condemn it for rejecting that all life must have a common descent, which they assert is obvious from existing evidence, and ascribe the rejection to a case of irrational projection from a religious belief.
Now, if I understand this correctly, I will grant that the typical critics are being purely irrational, and their arguments can easily be ripped apart.
However I would not call "Barminology" a scientific theory. Rather it is a frame work for looking at evidence that does not open itself up to a sufficiently direct verification or falsification by experiment. If new evidence finds that some species that it thought were separate ancestry actually have common ancestry, the only thing that would be falsified is the particular classifications.
Now to the extent that an experiment can actually show that particular divergent seeming species have common ancestry. I could consider it a frame work within which science could take place. But macro-evolution meets this same criteria. And frankly I have growing doubts about such experiments being sufficiently deterministic anyway, paticularly since recently looking into the supposed 98% similiarity between chimp and human DNA.
[[1) and tries to determine which life has common descent and which does not. It is a recently coined term and has yet to be in wide use.]]
I’m not sure they look for common descent but the rest is correct
[[2) For the most part critics condemn it for rejecting that all life must have a common descent, which they assert is obvious from existing evidence,]]
That is certainly what they assert- however, the statement ‘common descent is ‘obvious’ from existing evidence is both an unscientific falsehood, and an opinion based on A Priori belief which has no scientific evidence to difinitively back it up-
[[2) and ascribe the rejection to a case of irrational projection from a religious belief.]]
Thati s certainly what they ascribe thir rejection to due to a blatant bias- the science of Baraminology is just as valid precisely because it uses the exact same valid science as the phylogentic classification system, however, the conclusions of some of hte sub-classes within Baraminology lead to a different conclusion that those who study phylogeny come to- Apparently differing opinions about a scientific endeavor that differs from another that can’t be proven isn’t allowed- only the unprovable ‘science’ is allowed I guess- One side’s Opinion rules apparently
[[However I would not call “Barminology” a scientific theory.]]
Coorect-It is a scientific Hypothesis
[[If new evidence finds that some species that it thought were separate ancestry actually have common ancestry, the only thing that would be falsified is the particular classifications.]]
How does that differ from the ever changing classes in Phylogentics?
[[Rather it is a frame work for looking at evidence that does not open itself up to a sufficiently direct verification or falsification by experiment.]]
If science ever comes across irrefutable evidence that everythign has common anscestry- then Baraminology will be falsified. That hasn’t happened, nor is it likely to due ot the very nature of common anscestry being impossible biologically- but meh- ya never know.
[[I have growing doubts about such experiments being sufficiently deterministic anyway, paticularly since recently looking into the supposed 98% similiarity between chimp and human DNA.]]
As do many folks, and rightfully so- skepticism is quite good for the soul. I’m not clear to your last paragraph what you’re getting at- Are you saying that because of the supposed 98% ‘similarities’ between man and ape that you think phylogeny is more correct? If so, I’d encourage you to look into the supposed ‘98%’ similarities, and discover that the ‘similarities’ are actually lower than that, perhaps as low as 85%, and also look into the massive differences the remaining differences actually are- it’s no small numer of differences- numbering in the billions. As well, if you check it out, you’ll note that many of the ‘similarities’ that were listed were ‘just so’ semi-similarities and not actually close enough to count as simlarities. (I just read it a couple of days ago, and it really cleared up some confusion- but I’ll be danged if I can remember where now- I don’t even think I can remember the term I googled for either. oh well)
At any rate- both classifications rely VERY heavily on factual scientific endeavors and studies/findings, and both, quite frankly, rely on a hypothesis that can’t be falsified. BOTH systems rely on indications- and to state that one isn’t valid because it does rely on indication and different interpretations of somethign niehter side can test, just isn’t a valid argument.
Susceptibility to schoolyard level taunts is a lamentable weakness of mine. OK, I'll lay waste to the paper, but first, do you have any points of disagreement with the authors?
Hello Coyoteman. You didn’t think I’d forgotten you did you?
1) If you doubt that there was a global flood, please Google “fossil graveyard”. Animals don’t get buried alive in mud unless a flood is happening.
2) I’ve never seen a lizard sprout wings, I’ve never seen a cow grow a fin, etc. Those are some of the observable events that would make evolution an observable scientific fact measurable by the “scientific method” thus making evolution “science”. But it has not happened in recorded history, so I relegate evolution to the category of fable.
3) I’m not an expert in history. So I stand by the Bible as reliable history when I say your sources are wrong when they predate the Egyptians before the flood. Why? How could I dare make such a stand? Is it the blind faith of a religious zealot? Am I deluded completely because I am completely crazy with faith?
Not at all.
I believe the Bible because:
1) Like millions of Christians throughout history, I have experienced the love of God, personally. He has made it clear he knows my thougts and fears and prayers.
2) Like many Christians, I have seen angels with my own eyes while wide awake.
3) Unlike other alleged holy books, the Bible says what happens thousands of years before it happens.
Please see http://www.direct.ca/trinity/y3nf.html for the details. This telling what happens thousands of years before it happens, is the signature of God, that you may know that the Bible is not just any book.
It’s not circular. If you dig into the links, you will notice for instance that the reason he says 606BC was the year that the Babylonians conquered Israel is:
1) The Babylonians kept a history of events
2) They also recorded lunar and solar eclipses
3) By taking the present position/velocity of the moon, we can calculate the date of these eclipses precisely
4) We interpolate from the dates of these eclipses to other dates, like say the conquest of Israel, which we thus know with certainty happened in 606BC
See you downthread, FRiend.
ROTB
Or a volcano. As I recall the Mount St. Helens eruption created a major mud flow which buried a whole valley. And I believe volcanic ash (pyroclastic flow) has created not a few fossils as well.
But let's say that all the fossils you mention were created by floods. It would only support your contention if the floods all dated to the exact same time period. The global flood only happened once, so you have to choose when it happened. Most biblical scholars center on about 4350 years ago. But some folks link the flood to the "Cambrian explosion" some 500+ million years ago. You folks really have to get your stories straight! You can't have every convenient flood or fossil find be the one and only global flood!
In a similar vein I am amused by those who point out the flood stories of many world cultures as support for a global flood. Most cultures live in close proximity to bodies of water and floods are not a rare event. Just in recent days we have had flooding in Oklahoma. Remember New Orleans? Johnstown? And if these stories originated with the global flood, who was left to tell the stories?
2) I’ve never seen a lizard sprout wings, I’ve never seen a cow grow a fin, etc. Those are some of the observable events that would make evolution an observable scientific fact measurable by the “scientific method” thus making evolution “science”. But it has not happened in recorded history, so I relegate evolution to the category of fable.
The types of changes you are looking for are strawmen -- lies made up to be easily refuted in hope of fooling the gullible and ignorant. If such a change could be documented, it would run counter to the theory of evolution, which states that evolution is change in the genome of a population over time. Each generation is very slightly different from the previous. You are different from your parents, but you have not sprouted wings or fins.
If you were to place each of your male ancestors going back a million, or five million, years all in a row, you would see no significant differences between any adjacent ancestors, and probably no significant differences if you just looked at every tenth ancestor. But over that vast span of time, there would be significant differences between beginning and end. This is a truer picture of evolution than the wings/fins scenario.
There are living examples of this phenomenon. Google ring species:
Ring species provide unusual and valuable situations in which we can observe two species and the intermediate forms connecting them. In a ring species:
- A ring of populations encircles an area of unsuitable habitat.
- At one location in the ring of populations, two distinct forms coexist without interbreeding, and hence are different species.
- Around the rest of the ring, the traits of one of these species change gradually, through intermediate populations, into the traits of the second species.
A ring species, therefore, is a ring of populations in which there is only one place where two distinct species meet. Ernst Mayr called ring species "the perfect demonstration of speciation" because they show a range of intermediate forms between two species. They allow us to use variation in space to infer how changes occurred over time. This approach is especially powerful when we can reconstruct the biogeographical history of a ring species, as has been done in two cases. Source
3) I’m not an expert in history. So I stand by the Bible as reliable history when I say your sources are wrong when they predate the Egyptians before the flood. Why? How could I dare make such a stand? Is it the blind faith of a religious zealot? Am I deluded completely because I am completely crazy with faith?
If you choose to believe the bible rather than other sources, no matter what the evidence, there is nothing left to discuss. I could point out the best archaeological data and it would make no difference because your mind has already been made up. As Heinlein noted:
Belief gets in the way of learning.Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
With that, good night!
You completely sidestepped the substance of why I believe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.