Noah's Flood and Evolution (on steroids)

[one.opinion]

10 minutes ago, Tristen said:

“So it is reasonable to conclude that if experts in a given field predominantly agree on something, then that lends support to what they agree on.”

 

Absolutely not. It is generally “reasonable” to assume that experts have a supporting argument, but until they present that argument, it remains an assumption. And until I have the opportunity to scrutinize their argument, I am under no intellectual obligation to give any weight to their conclusions - none whatsoever.

 

 

 

“I think it's safe to say you are more rational than other posters that claim that they would trust nutritional advice from kindergartners over experts in the field.”

 

I think that somewhat misses the point. If kindergarteners were debating scientists, and all the scientists had to say is, “we are the experts and we are in agreement”, then I have no logical reason to agree with the scientists any more attention than the kindergarteners.

I guess it just might boil down to philosophy. Personally, if someone has studied a topic for 10+ years, I tend to think that they know something about that topic and I can trust their opinion a little bit. Of course, information or data backing up a point is desirable, but I tend to assume that when experts agree on something, it is for good reason. Maybe I'm just too trusting.

18 minutes ago, Tristen said:

For example, species commonly hybridize with other species to “produce fertile progeny” (which is not the original definition you provided btw). So how can that simple definition define species when many species don’t adhere to the definition? If anything, the over-simplicity of the definition “misrepresents the facts”.

What do you think is more common, animals that CAN hybridize or animals that CANNOT hybridize? Hybridizations are exceptions, not the rule. To imply otherwise is inaccurate. To use inaccurate arguments as support of a position is misrepresentation of facts.

20 minutes ago, Tristen said:

So there is a hierarchy between terms. Is that all that is required?

No, I'm just merely pointing out that there is a clear relationship between these artificial terms. And there is no indication of how "kind" would fit into taxonomic categorization.

27 minutes ago, Tristen said:

If Genesis is history, then God created many “kinds” of creatures during the creation week.

I am not disputing that God created many kinds of creatures. But I have read Genesis interpretations that suggest that instead of "kind" being any sort of taxon, that Genesis should be read to say "God made all kinds of animals". In the absence of evidence for "kind" barriers (the presence of gaps really isn't evidence), the latter may be a better interpretation.

P. S. Please don't disparage raisins, oatmeal-raisin cookies are my favorite!

[Tristen]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

I guess it just might boil down to philosophy. Personally, if someone has studied a topic for 10+ years, I tend to think that they know something about that topic and I can trust their opinion a little bit. Of course, information or data backing up a point is desirable, but I tend to assume that when experts agree on something, it is for good reason. Maybe I'm just too trusting.

What do you think is more common, animals that CAN hybridize or animals that CANNOT hybridize? Hybridizations are exceptions, not the rule. To imply otherwise is inaccurate. To use inaccurate arguments as support of a position is misrepresentation of facts.

No, I'm just merely pointing out that there is a clear relationship between these artificial terms. And there is no indication of how "kind" would fit into taxonomic categorization.

I am not disputing that God created many kinds of creatures. But I have read Genesis interpretations that suggest that instead of "kind" being any sort of taxon, that Genesis should be read to say "God made all kinds of animals". In the absence of evidence for "kind" barriers (the presence of gaps really isn't evidence), the latter may be a better interpretation.

P. S. Please don't disparage raisins, oatmeal-raisin cookies are my favorite!

“I guess it just might boil down to philosophy. Personally, if someone has studied a topic for 10+ years, I tend to think that they know something about that topic and I can trust their opinion a little bit.”

It’s not about “philosophy”, so much as it is about logic. You can “trust” whomever you choose, but whom you trust is a matter of personal faith. If someone disagrees with your position, it is fallacious to argue that your trust in some expert’s opinion should be a factor to be considered by the opposing position. That is, you choosing to trust a source has no meaning to those in disagreement with your position; it doesn’t contribute intellectual substance to the debate.

 

“Of course, information or data backing up a point is desirable, but I tend to assume that when experts agree on something, it is for good reason.”

How do you know how “good” a reason is unless you have a chance to assess it? How does the opposing position know how “good” their reason is until they have an opportunity to scrutinize it?

 

“Maybe I'm just too trusting”

You can trust whom you please, but you can’t expect others (especially those disagreeing with you) to simply trust in your trust. By the standards of critical reasoning, you are more “trusting” than scientific logic makes provision for. Scientific confidence is not sourced in expertise or agreement, but in observation and argument.

 

“What do you think is more common, animals that CAN hybridize or animals that CANNOT hybridize? Hybridizations are exceptions, not the rule. To imply otherwise is inaccurate. To use inaccurate arguments as support of a position is misrepresentation of facts.”

I honestly don’t know what the proportion of animals CAN or CANNOT hybridize. I have studied several species (mainly birds) that do hybridize between species, and I am aware of quite a few others – some naturally, and some artificially. So in my mind, the potential for hybridization is common, and not some rare exception to “the rule”. I am happy to look at data suggesting otherwise.

 

“I'm just merely pointing out that there is a clear relationship between these artificial terms. And there is no indication of how "kind" would fit into taxonomic categorization.”

It’s the same standard for both systems. High levels of similarity indicate closer relatedness. Low levels of similarity indicate low, or lack of, relatedness. There is no more clarity between the Linneaen terms, than the Biblical language. Between kingdom and species, the designations are dependent upon the standards selected by the characterizing taxonomist. The system containing the term "kind" is not meant to exhaustively categorize life on earth. It just describes the origin of the observed pattern of diversity on earth. It simply relates extant species to a created type of creature.

 

“I am not disputing that God created many kinds of creatures. But I have read Genesis interpretations that suggest that instead of "kind" being any sort of taxon, that Genesis should be read to say "God made all kinds of animals". In the absence of evidence for "kind" barriers (the presence of gaps really isn't evidence), the latter may be a better interpretation.”

Except that the Bible explicitly tells us that He created different kinds separately during the creation week (unless, of course, you permit yourself the right to ignore those pesky details).

 

“the presence of gaps really isn't evidence”

This is pernickety. There is an overt pattern where certain groups of creatures have a lot in common, dispersed among other groups with whom they have significantly less in common. This is certainty true of genetics, and is commonly reflected in morphology. So the “gaps” I mentioned are observed reductions in similarities between disparate groups of creatures, not a lack of observations.

[Guest shiloh357]

7 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I guess it just might boil down to philosophy. Personally, if someone has studied a topic for 10+ years, I tend to think that they know something about that topic and I can trust their opinion a little bit. Of course, information or data backing up a point is desirable, but I tend to assume that when experts agree on something, it is for good reason. Maybe I'm just too trusting.

 

If I offered that kind of argument up in defense of YEC, I would be castigated by OEC and Evolutionists.  I would never be allowed to get away with that as an argument.

I mean, depending how one defines what makes a person an expert, Ken Ham or Kent Hovind are "experts" and they have been studying these kinds of topics in excess of 10 years and they pretty much agree.  But I doubt you would trust them at all.

[one.opinion]

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

It’s not about “philosophy”, so much as it is about logic. You can “trust” whomever you choose, but whom you trust is a matter of personal faith. If someone disagrees with your position, it is fallacious to argue that your trust in some expert’s opinion should be a factor to be considered by the opposing position. That is, you choosing to trust a source has no meaning to those in disagreement with your position; it doesn’t contribute intellectual substance to the debate.

One quick note here: If the only thing I said was "You should agree with my viewpoint because most other scientists agree with my viewpoint", then I could completely understand an objections. But it isn't.

3 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

If I offered that kind of argument up in defense of YEC, I would be castigated by OEC and Evolutionists.  I would never be allowed to get away with that as an argument.

I mean, depending how one defines what makes a person an expert, Ken Ham or Kent Hovind are "experts" and they have been studying these kinds of topics in excess of 10 years and they pretty much agree.  But I doubt you would trust them at all.

Two quick reasons why Ham and Hovind don't apply: 1. They don't agree with the consensus expert opinion. 2. Although I respect their determination to stand for what they believe, they are not experts in the sense of having been trained at the highest level in the fields in which they argue. I trust their intentions, but I do not trust their scientific knowledge.

[Enoch2021]

15 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I guess it just might boil down to philosophy.

You're in the wrong forum.

 

Quote

Personally, if someone has studied a topic for 10+ years, I tend to think that they know something about that topic and I can trust their opinion a little bit.

Basing your 'beliefs' on others 'opinions' without personal scrutiny/due diligence is not a sound argument or position and a recipe for disaster. 

 

Quote

Of course, information or data backing up a point is desirable, but I tend to assume that when experts agree on something, it is for good reason. Maybe I'm just too trusting.

As mentioned, you're in the Wrong Forum...

 

The Final Arbiter of TRUTH in 'Science' is EXPERIMENT !!
Lewars, EG: Computational Chemistry -- Introduction to the theory and application of Molecular and Quantum Mechanics; Third Edition 2016, p. 5.

"The only way things change in Physics is EXPERIMENTS. ...Everything is based on EXPERIMENT, that's the only way we change our mind."
Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale.
Wave Theory of Light. ( .22 second mark)

"If it doesn't agree with EXPERIMENT, it's WRONG.  In that simple statement is the KEY to SCIENCE".
Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize, Physics); The Essence Of Science In 60 Seconds.

“EXPERIMENT is the only means of knowledge at our disposal. Everything else is POETRY, IMAGINATION.” 
Max Planck (Nobel Prize, Physics), Quoted in; Atkins P.W.,: Molecular Quantum Mechanics; Oxford University Press, 1983

"The scientific method REQUIRES that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS if we are to believe that it is a VALID description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "EXPERIMENT is SUPREME" and EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION of hypothetical predictions is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

 

Not data, Not opinion, Not favorite colors, Not agreements... ad nauseam; Experiments and EXPERIMENTS ALONE! 

Savvy?

 

Quote

And there is no indication of how "kind" would fit into taxonomic categorization.

As discussed previously, "KIND" is not a Biological Term it's a Biblical Term; Apples and Orangutans. 

 

Quote

But I have read Genesis interpretations that suggest that instead of "kind" being any sort of taxon,

As discussed previously, "KIND" is not a Biological Term it's a Biblical Term; Apples and Orangutans.

 

Quote

But I have read Genesis interpretations...that Genesis should be read to say "God made all kinds of animals".

  From who...Neil 'smokin de-Grass' Tyson, Larry Krauss, Richard Dawkins, Other??     

Belly Laugher of a Romper Room Equivocation Fallacy....

(Genesis 1:11-12) "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.  {12} And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

(Genesis 1:25) "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

 

regards

[one.opinion]

22 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

The Final Arbiter of TRUTH in 'Science' is EXPERIMENT !!
Lewars, EG: Computational Chemistry -- Introduction to the theory and application of Molecular and Quantum Mechanics; Third Edition 2016, p. 5.

"The only way things change in Physics is EXPERIMENTS. ...Everything is based on EXPERIMENT, that's the only way we change our mind."
Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale.
Wave Theory of Light. ( .22 second mark)

"If it doesn't agree with EXPERIMENT, it's WRONG.  In that simple statement is the KEY to SCIENCE".
Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize, Physics); The Essence Of Science In 60 Seconds.

“EXPERIMENT is the only means of knowledge at our disposal. Everything else is POETRY, IMAGINATION.” 
Max Planck (Nobel Prize, Physics), Quoted in; Atkins P.W.,: Molecular Quantum Mechanics; Oxford University Press, 1983

"The scientific method REQUIRES that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS if we are to believe that it is a VALID description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "EXPERIMENT is SUPREME" and EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION of hypothetical predictions is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY."

Show me the experiments indicating that the earth is flat. Or at least send me a "selfie" of you standing at the edge. At that point, I will begin to take your comments on science a little bit more seriously.

23 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

You're in the wrong forum.

 

23 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

As mentioned, you're in the Wrong Forum...

Sorry, that isn't your call.

24 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

(Genesis 1:11-12) "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.  {12} And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

(Genesis 1:25) "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

Here is an article written much better than anything I could produce: http://www.atsjats.org/publication/view/3

[Enoch2021]

On 10/2/2017 at 4:39 PM, Tristen said:

There is no such thing as “proof” in legitimate science, so you are correct that such a claim “would indeed be fallacious”, but not for the reasons you suppose.

Preposterous!  And you have been corrected on this many times in the past.

 

Quote

Proof is an absolutist concept that only legitimately applies to mathematics.

Proof is "Evidence".  Scientific Evidence comes directly from Experiments: "TESTING".

Mathematical "Proofs" are not EVIDENCE of anything in reality.  Watch...

1 Apple - 6 Apples = -5 Apples.  This is ABSOLUTIST "Nonsense".

 

So essentially your position is:

"1 Apple - 6 Apples = -5 Apples" is an Absolute PROOF.

But...

Lack of Insulin causing DKA in Type 1 Diabetes Patients (or any of the 10,000+ Experiments I could post) is not Absolute or Proof of anything, eh?

 

Quote

but this term will rarely be found in any peer-reviewed research article (unless speaking to the math).

Mathematics isn't "Science" and Peer-Review is the Antithesis of it.

 

Quote

Scientific logic employs critical reasoning.  That is intensely skeptical.

What's the difference between Scientific Logic and just plain ole run-o-the-mill logic...?

Really... how "intense"??

 

Quote

The idea that something should be accepted as verified beyond question or scrutiny is contrary to critical reasoning.

Well when something has Experiment after Experiment showing the same result, then it's VERIFIED beyond question...because we VERIFIED it beyond question via Experiment.   Critical Reasoning has nothing to do with it.

 

Quote

The reliance of science upon observation is itself a faith axiom (i.e. that observation can be trusted)

What would you suggest as a replacement for Observation??  Imagination? 

And "Observation" is merely the First Step of The Scientific Method because The Scientific Method doesn't solely rely on Observation; Hence...the next six steps are invoked.

 

Quote

Until we have infinite knowledge, we don’t know what we don’t know.  Therefore, every idea remains subject to scrutiny.

Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy and Mind Numbing Bullocks; Non-Sequitur Fallacy. 

So you're saying that since we don't know how the sun works; THEREFORE, the Lack of Vit C causing Scurvy is Unverifiable??    

ps.  We don't TEST Ideas, in "Science"...that's Philosophy.

 

regards

[Enoch2021]

5 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Show me the experiments indicating that the earth is flat.

Malformed Question, Non Sequitur Fallacy.  Because you don't know what "Science" is, Watch ...

The sine qua non of "Science" is The Scientific Method. 
The sine qua non of The Scientific Method is "Experiments" (Hypothesis Tests).
The sine qua non of Experiments is "Hypothesis". 

A Scientific Hypothesis is your Experiment Statement; it expresses a TESTABLE proposed CAUSE and EFFECT Relationship - (The Phenomena that was Observed in Step 1) .  It's a classic:  "IF"this "THEN" that, motif.

"A Scientific Hypothesis is based on CAUSE-EFFECT reasoning.  A scientific hypothesis does not merely state X and Y may be related, but *EXPLAINS WHY* they are related.
Loehle, C: Becoming a Successful Scientist -- Strategic Thinking for Scientific Discovery; Cambridge University Press, p. 57, 2010

Because Experiments (Hypothesis Tests) ONLY adjudicate 'Cause and Effect'  --- How/Why questions.  Whatever SHAPE something is (Flat, Sphere, or Spinning/Not Spinning ect)...is a "WHAT/IS" question; it's tantamount to asking:

How/Why is a Breadbox Rectangular, True or False??

i.e., You can NEVER formulate a Viable Alternative Hypothesis;
Ergo...you can NEVER formulate a Viable Null Hypothesis; 
Ergo...None of this IS "Science" !!

 

Quote

Or at least send me a "selfie" of you standing at the edge. At that point, I will begin to take your comments on science a little bit more seriously.

You haven't the First Clue what ACTUAL "Science" is.  AS EVIDENCED BY, your comment just above. 

 

Quote

Sorry, that isn't your call.

It's a Prima Facie call based on your response.

 

Quote

Here is an article written much better than anything I could produce: http://www.atsjats.org/publication/view/3

Elephant Hurling Fallacy.

 

regards

 

[one.opinion]

Fantastic, you have addressed my comments as adequately as I expected of you. I can now resume overlooking your posts.

[Enoch2021]

3 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Fantastic, you have addressed my comments as adequately as I expected of you.

Well yes, your claims/questions compromised you.

 

Quote

I can now resume overlooking your posts.

What else is left?  It has been quite explicitly illustrated/demonstrated that you wouldn't know what ACTUAL "Science" was if it landed on your head, spun around, and whistled dixie.

But no problem, it's probably better that you don't comment on your Baseless Conjectures anyway... it'd just make it worse for ya (Self Incrimination).

 

regards