Creationist Inconsistency

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Creationist Inconsistency

Postby Atheoscanadensis » Thu Oct 17, 2013 5:31 pm

Hey guys, here's a question for you. Well, it's really a question for creationists but it's hard to get a straight answer out of them and I was wondering if any of you had encountered a creationist actually addressing the inconsistency outlined below.

So Creationists, while they repudiate universal common ancestry, do accept common ancestry within their "Kinds". They determine which taxa belong to a kind by comparing morphology (a practice that was established long before the theory of evolution was proposed) and genetics. But they balk at applying these same techniques to assess relatedness on across the entire biome. It seems awfully inconsistent to view genetics and morphology as reliable ways of determining relatedness when they're looking at kinds but to then say they are not reliable when applied more broadly.

I know logical inconsistency is the standard M.O. of creationists, but have any of you encountered some who actually give reasons for why genetics and morphology are reliabble indicators of relatedness in one case but not the other?
Atheoscanadensis
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 10:00 pm

Re: Creationist Inconsistency

Postby Roger Stanyard » Thu Oct 17, 2013 6:39 pm

Atheoscanadensis wrote:Hey guys, here's a question for you. Well, it's really a question for creationists but it's hard to get a straight answer out of them and I was wondering if any of you had encountered a creationist actually addressing the inconsistency outlined below.

So Creationists, while they repudiate universal common ancestry, do accept common ancestry within their "Kinds". They determine which taxa belong to a kind....

Do they? Given that they have never come up with a deinition of what a kind is, that seems somewhat improbable. They invented the idea of "kind" because Noah's Ark wasn't big enough to hold two of each species.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Creationist Inconsistency

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Oct 17, 2013 6:54 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:
Atheoscanadensis wrote:Hey guys, here's a question for you. Well, it's really a question for creationists but it's hard to get a straight answer out of them and I was wondering if any of you had encountered a creationist actually addressing the inconsistency outlined below.

So Creationists, while they repudiate universal common ancestry, do accept common ancestry within their "Kinds". They determine which taxa belong to a kind....

Do they? Given that they have never come up with a deinition of what a kind is, that seems somewhat improbable. They invented the idea of "kind" because Noah's Ark wasn't big enough to hold two of each species.


I've seen YECs say eg that dinosaurs and birds are different 'kinds' (created on different days too) and that there is no evolutionary relationship between them (they also make arguments about 'incompatible' breathing systems and the like).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8834
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Creationist Inconsistency

Postby Roger Stanyard » Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:18 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:
Roger Stanyard wrote:
Atheoscanadensis wrote:Hey guys, here's a question for you. Well, it's really a question for creationists but it's hard to get a straight answer out of them and I was wondering if any of you had encountered a creationist actually addressing the inconsistency outlined below.

So Creationists, while they repudiate universal common ancestry, do accept common ancestry within their "Kinds". They determine which taxa belong to a kind....

Do they? Given that they have never come up with a deinition of what a kind is, that seems somewhat improbable. They invented the idea of "kind" because Noah's Ark wasn't big enough to hold two of each species.


I've seen YECs say eg that dinosaurs and birds are different 'kinds' (created on different days too) and that there is no evolutionary relationship between them (they also make arguments about 'incompatible' breathing systems and the like).


So precisely what is their definition of "kind"?
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Creationist Inconsistency

Postby Brian Jordan » Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:03 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:So precisely what is their definition of "kind"?
Semantic nonsense. They've plucked a word from one edition of one translation and made it. Humpty-like. mean what they want it to mean.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4215
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Creationist Inconsistency

Postby Michael » Thu Oct 17, 2013 9:29 pm

It's kinda ...................
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Creationist Inconsistency

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:16 pm

Brian Jordan wrote:
Roger Stanyard wrote:So precisely what is their definition of "kind"?
Semantic nonsense. They've plucked a word from one edition of one translation and made it. Humpty-like. mean what they want it to mean.


Sarfati in 'The Greatest Hoax on Earth' said you would need to conduct unethical hybridisation experiments in order to find out. Other YECs speculate that it probably equates to genus or family. Not individual species.

Except that - to me at least, and reading English translations, 'kind' does sound a bit like species or 'variety' in some instances but genus/family/subfamily in others - eg chimpanzee or gorilla species but sparrow family or finch subfamily.

The point I think is that the term is not anything scientifically precise because Genesis is pre-scientific and sometimes unscientific.

YECs want it to be scientific.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8834
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Creationist Inconsistency

Postby Brian Jordan » Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:00 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:Sarfati in 'The Greatest Hoax on Earth' said you would need to conduct unethical hybridisation experiments in order to find out. Other YECs speculate that it probably equates to genus or family. Not individual species.

Except that - to me at least, and reading English translations, 'kind' does sound a bit like species or 'variety' in some instances but genus/family/subfamily in others - eg chimpanzee or gorilla species but sparrow family or finch subfamily.

The point I think is that the term is not anything scientifically precise because Genesis is pre-scientific and sometimes unscientific.

YECs want it to be scientific.
So Sarfati admits that the YECs don't know what they are talking about. Refreshing candour!
Actually, I don't think the usage involves any kind of classification, it's just fancy old-fashioned talk. They might equally well have spoken of collecting the remains of loaves and fishes, putting them into baskets each according to their kind. It simply means the lions didn't go in alongside the lambs, the snakes alongside the women. :twisted:
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4215
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Creationist Inconsistency

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:38 pm

Another type of creationist (or fundamentalist/literalist) inconsistency...
http://bcseweb.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/t ... -text.html
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8834
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Creationist Inconsistency

Postby Christine Janis » Sun Oct 20, 2013 2:15 am

So precisely what is their definition of "kind"?


As far as I can see, the definition of "kind" depends on how far removed the organism is from humans.

If we're talking within the family Hominidae, then each genus (chimp, gorilla, human) is a kind

If we're talking within Mammalia, then each family (Felidae, Canidae, Equidae) is kind. Orders are dismissed -- the fact that rhinos are more closely related to horses than to hippos is simply ignored.

If we're talking within Tetrapoda, then each general level of class or order is a kind. (Birds, dinosaurs, lizards, crocodiles, turtles, amphibians, etc). The fact that birds (just one example) can be broken down into multiple orders and families is simply an inconvenient truth.

If we're talking within the subphylum Vertebrata, then several recognised Linnean-style classes can be a kind, such as "fish".

if we're talking within the Kingdom Metazoa, then different phyla are a "kind": Molluscs, echinoderms, annelids, arthropods, etc.

See, there's a very simple, objective criterion. The further you get from Homo sapiens, the larger the notion that is encompassed by the criterion of "kind".
Christine Janis
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:25 am

Re: Creationist Inconsistency

Postby Roger Stanyard » Sun Oct 20, 2013 8:20 am

Atheoscanadensis wrote:Hey guys, here's a question for you. Well, it's really a question for creationists but it's hard to get a straight answer out of them and I was wondering if any of you had encountered a creationist actually addressing the inconsistency outlined below.

So Creationists, while they repudiate universal common ancestry, do accept common ancestry within their "Kinds". They determine which taxa belong to a kind by comparing morphology (a practice that was established long before the theory of evolution was proposed) and genetics. But they balk at applying these same techniques to assess relatedness on across the entire biome. It seems awfully inconsistent to view genetics and morphology as reliable ways of determining relatedness when they're looking at kinds but to then say they are not reliable when applied more broadly.

I know logical inconsistency is the standard M.O. of creationists, but have any of you encountered some who actually give reasons for why genetics and morphology are reliabble indicators of relatedness in one case but not the other?


The creationists "viewpoint" is risible. If, as they say, the species we see today arose after Noah's Ark, we would find the evidence not in the fossil records but in the archeological records and contemprary historical accounts. No such records exists; nor can we see the process in operation anywhere today.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm


Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests