August 28, 2008

Science (continued)

(Part 4) The continuing survival of Darwinist orthodoxy illustrates Thomas Kuhn's famous point that the accumulation of anomalies never in itself falsifies a paradigm, because "To reject one paradigm without substituting another is to reject science itself." This practice may be appropriate as a way of carrying on the professional enterprise called science, but it can be grossly misleading when it is imposed upon persons who are asking questions other than the ones scientific naturalists want to ask. Suppose, for example, that I want to know whether God really had something to do with creating living organisms. A typical Darwinian response is that there is no reason to invoke supernatural action because Darwinian selection was capable of performing the job. To evaluate that response, I need to know whether natural selection really has the fantastic creative power attributed to it. It is not a sufficient answer to say that scientists have nothing better to offer. The fact that scientists don't like to say "we don't know" tells me nothing about what they really do know.

I am not suggesting that scientists have to change their rules about retaining and discarding paradigms. All I want them to do is to be candid about the disconfirming evidence and admit, if it is the case, that they are hanging on to Darwinism only because they prefer a shaky theory to having no theory at all. What they insist upon doing, however, is to present Darwinian evolution to the public as a fact that every rational person is expected to accept. If there are reasonable grounds to doubt the theory such dogmatism is ridiculous, whether or not the doubters have a better theory to propose.

To believers in creation, the Darwinists seem thoroughly intolerant and dogmatic when they insist that their own philosophy must have a monopoly in the schools and the media. The Darwinists do not see themselves that way, of course. On the contrary, they often feel aggrieved when creationists (in either the broad or narrow sense) ask to have their own arguments heard in public and fairly considered. To insist that schoolchildren be taught that Darwinian evolution is a fact is in their minds merely to protect the integrity of science education; to present the other side of the case would be to allow fanatics to force their opinions on others. Even college professors have been forbidden to express their doubts about Darwinian evolution in the classroom, and it seems to be widely believed that the Constitution not only permits but actually requires such restrictions on academic freedom. To explain this bizarre situation, we must define our fourth term: religion.

Suppose that a skeptic argues that evidence for biological creation by natural selection is obviously lacking, and that in the circumstances we ought to give serious consideration to the possibility that the development of life required some input from a pre-existing, purposeful creator. To scientific naturalists this suggestion is "creationist" and therefore unacceptable in principle, because it invokes an entity unknown to science. What is worse, it suggests the possibility that this creator may have communicated in some way with humans. In that case there could be real prophets-persons with a genuine knowledge of God who are neither frauds nor dreamers. Such persons could conceivably be dangerous rivals for the scientists as cultural authorities.

Naturalistic philosophy has worked out a strategy to prevent this problem from arising: it labels naturalism as science and theism as religion. The former is then classified as knowledge, and the latter as mere belief. The distinction is of critical importance, because only knowledge can be objectively valid for everyone; belief is valid only for the believer, and should never be passed off as knowledge. The student who thinks that 2 and 2 make 5, or that water is not made up of hydrogen and oxygen, or that the theory of evolution is not true, is not expressing a minority viewpoint. He or she is ignorant, and the job of education is to cure that ignorance and to replace it with knowledge. Students in the public schools are thus to be taught at an early age that "evolution is a fact," and as time goes by they will gradually learn that evolution means naturalism.

In short, the proposition that God was in any way involved in our creation is effectively outlawed, and implicitly negated. This is because naturalistic evolution is by definition in the category of scientific knowledge. What contradicts knowledge is implicitly false, or imaginary. That is why it is possible for scientific naturalists in good faith to claim on the one hand that their science says nothing about God, and on the other to claim that they have said everything that can be said about God. In naturalistic philosophy both propositions are at bottom the same. All that needs to be said about God is that there is nothing to be said of God, because on that subject we can have no knowledge.

(*Copied Source)

39 comments:

  1. Just one brief comment, because my daughter got her first job today, and we're going to celebrate. Way to go, Rosi!

    To believers in creation, the Darwinists seem thoroughly intolerant and dogmatic when they insist that their own philosophy must have a monopoly in the schools and the media.

    As far as the media goes, there's no monopoly: you can pay to get your word out, and creationists can and do this. As far as schools go: Darwinism (if that means "evolutionary science") is not a philosophy, but a science, and it's what should be taught in public schools. If we let creationists in, then we must also let astrologers, flat earthers, moon-landing deniers, and Raelians in too. After all, where can you draw the line? You don't want to be intolerant and dogmatic, do you?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Zilch,

    "After all, where can you draw the line?"

    Certainly not at evolution because it has yet to show conclusive evidence. Why not say nothing is conclusive whether it be evolution or a Creator or even a spaghetti monster (pause for laughter from the kids) all we are saying is we are trying to find out, as of yet we just don't know which one is true. This also is addressed in this article later on.

    How about a fair shake here? Why so dogmatic and intolerant about anything other then that hypothesis?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dan said:

    "The fact that scientists don't like to say "we don't know" tells me nothing about what they really do know."

    This statement suggests that you've already written all of the posts in this series ahead of time because Zilch addressed this very point in the first part of the "Science" post.

    Again, it might be helpful you just go ahead and post the entire series so that an actual discussion may begin.

    "A typical Darwinian response is that there is no reason to invoke supernatural action because Darwinian selection was capable of performing the job."

    I'm unaware of such a thing as "Darwinian selection" having any effect on the development of organisms. I assume you're speaking of natural selection. Again, if you're not going to address earlier responses in your posts, it must be assumed these have already been written. Perhaps it would further your point more to just call it Satanic selection".

    "To believers in creation, the Darwinists seem thoroughly intolerant and dogmatic when they insist that their own philosophy must have a monopoly in the schools and the media. The Darwinists do not see themselves that way, of course. On the contrary, they often feel aggrieved when creationists (in either the broad or narrow sense) ask to have their own arguments heard in public and fairly considered."

    This is, quite frankly a lie. In order for creationists ideas to be heard FAIRLY, they would first have to go through the rigorous scientific process.

    What creationists are asking for is to be excused from this process so that their opinions may be injected into science classrooms and textbooks and held up as a valid and equal opposing view.

    If you want creationism taught as science, form a hypothesis, run some tests and collect the data. Once you've interpreted said data, publish the results. Once everyone else has had a chance to validate/invalidate your findings, then we can talk about whether or not it gets taught in science class.

    "To believers in creation, the Darwinists seem thoroughly intolerant and dogmatic when they insist that their own philosophy must have a monopoly in the schools and the media."

    I only have expanded basic cable, so I must not get the all "Darwinist" channels. I'm stuck with all the crappy Christian broadcasting.

    "Suppose that a skeptic argues that evidence for biological creation by natural selection is obviously lacking, and that in the circumstances we ought to give serious consideration to the possibility that the development of life required some input from a pre-existing, purposeful creator. To scientific naturalists this suggestion is "creationist" and therefore unacceptable in principle, because it invokes an entity unknown to science. What is worse, it suggests the possibility that this creator may have communicated in some way with humans. In that case there could be real prophets-persons with a genuine knowledge of God who are neither frauds nor dreamers. Such persons could conceivably be dangerous rivals for the scientists as cultural authorities."

    First, said skeptic would need to provide the ways in which natural selection (which is only one mechanism of evolution) is "obviously" lacking evidence. Even if the theory of evolution were to somehow be invalidated, how would that automatically lead to the idea of a creator? Surely you wouldn't "prefer a shaky theory to having no theory at all", would you? In this paragraph you have accepted the false dichotomy of "evolution or God" and then, once asserting that evolution is "obviously" wrong, followed this flawed thinking to even larger leaps of faith.

    "Naturalistic philosophy has worked out a strategy to prevent this problem from arising: it labels naturalism as science and theism as religion."

    What if they just labeled theism "not science"? Would that be better?

    "In short, the proposition that God was in any way involved in our creation is effectively outlawed, and implicitly negated. This is because naturalistic evolution is by definition in the category of scientific knowledge. What contradicts knowledge is implicitly false, or imaginary. That is why it is possible for scientific naturalists in good faith to claim on the one hand that their science says nothing about God, and on the other to claim that they have said everything that can be said about God. In naturalistic philosophy both propositions are at bottom the same. All that needs to be said about God is that there is nothing to be said of God, because on that subject we can have no knowledge."

    The reason scientists generally don't like to speak about God is that the only "irrefutable" evidence for the existence of God seems to come in the for of hard convictions, fuzzy feelings and the odd piece of mythology.

    This means that even those scientists that DO believe in God can't show empirical evidence of said God's existence. First God would have to be defined, and then measured. Everyone seems to agree this is impossible.

    Once you assert the existence of God...what then? Where does the scientific study lead? That's why we have religion.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dan said to Zilch:

    [Zilch]"After all, where can you draw the line?"

    [Dan]"Certainly not at evolution because it has yet to show conclusive evidence."

    I'm curious what you would consider "conclusive" evidence, Dan. Surely, you too are not expecting a Crocoduck, are you?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mike,

    "This statement suggests that you've already written all of the posts in this series ahead of time because Zilch addressed this very point in the first part of the "Science" post."

    The article was already written I cannot help that. Unless you are suggesting that I am to blame for people reading ahead? That seems unfair, agree?

    "If you want creationism taught as science, form a hypothesis, run some tests and collect the data."

    Can you possibly be claiming this isn't happening? There are thousands of peer reviews out there pointing "away" from evolution. The all are rejected because they do not follow the rule of supporting the paradigm. Now that is the truth.

    What if they just labeled theism "not science"? Would that be better?

    <sarcasm>I am sure the elitists would love that to happen</sarcasm>

    Fact is they already have.

    "Once you assert the existence of God...what then? Where does the scientific study lead?"

    Here is a real stretch of the imagination, make God the paradigm and push all effort and funding and teaching towards that goal. Oh what a great place this would be. Maybe it is time for me to wake up from that dream.

    "I'm curious what you would consider "conclusive" evidence, Dan."

    If the data out there you claim to exist is zero to a handful of questionable specimens, then we agree.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So Dan, in your infinite knowledge and wisdom, which clearly surpasses all of the rest of us...

    Exactly how do you identify which "god" is to blame for creation?

    More to the point -- can you explicitly state the unbiased methodology by which you identify the attributes and doctrines espoused by this hypothesized "god"?

    As we are all well aware, you are a YEC, who follows Ken [the] Ham's "plain reading of the text", which, in the case of Genesis 1-3, is effectively biblical literalism. With this view in mind, how do you deny, rationally, without a presupposition, the apparent age of the universe, tectonic plate activity, radiometric dating, the apparent truth of Evolution, the evidence for the Big Bang, etc.?

    Sure, sure. You look at the bible and you accept what it says.

    But that's bullshit and you know it. It's bullshit because you uncritically accept the bible, and as you have said many times, you don't care what the evidence says -- you will believe the bible until god himself tells you otherwise (although you'd likely believe you were being attacked by demons in such an event).

    How you can possibly expect anyone to take you seriously when you so brazenly promote such uncritical thinking is beyond me. You are a fraud, just like your apparent heroes, Ken Ham, Philip Johnson, Ray Comfort, et al.

    Am I resorting to ad hominem? Not at all. Why? Because you have said that you don't care what the evidence says to the contrary. You may as well be a mid-19th century Snake Oil salesman peddling your magic elixir.

    Nevermind the evidence? Really?

    Pshaw.

    Despite the willful ignorance to which you and your kind so happily subject yourselves, acceptance of your holy text as somehow historically/scientifically accurate necessarily requires equal treatment for equally dubious texts.

    The Book of Mormon? Include it in school curricula.

    The Qu'ran? Include it in school curricula.

    The Principia Discordia? Include it in school curricula.

    The Avesta Collection? Include it in school curricula.

    Science, quite unlike your preposterous rantings, presupposes nothing, except for the existence of the observer, and the existence of his observations. Everything else is fleshed out of this by repetition, hypothesis, and theory.

    You continuously ignore the question your position begs ("How do we explain god, then?"), and you equally well ignore the complementary question ("How do we identify which god, then?"), because there are no logical answers to these questions.

    Well, that may be presumptuous on my part... You may just as well ignore those questions due to inability or the fact that you yet remain oblivious to them.

    By avoiding "goddidit" as an explanation, Science doesn't stop its relentless pursuit of knowledge and truth. The "god" hypothesis, while neat and tidy, answers nothing. It slams the door to knowledge and understanding, relying instead on "wisdom" and "intuition" -- both of which have been shown to be flat wrong on many, many occasions throughout history.

    No. We teach science. We teach the theories which best approximate reality, from our limited perspectives. We do not embrace non-explanations, and we outright reject ones which question-beg yet more questions. In order to even merit consideration, a hypothesis must at least be internally consistent -- which test your religion squarely fails.

    You're partially right regarding Evolution -- we cannot know for certain that it is correct (without a million years of continuous study, give or take an order of magnitude or two), but it is by far the best approximation of reality, and it fits with everything else we've uncovered to that end.

    Your competing "theory"?

    Epic Fail

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  7. Stan,

    First speak to me like a man and stop the cussing with anger "Be kind" and calm down.

    Accusing me to be a follower of some dude is just false. I do however follow God's Word where ever that may lead. The Bible describes the beginning and the existence and the completion of life in it's entirety, it fulfilled prophecies that said would happen and even prophecies are happening today, no other book of antiquity in use today can clam the same. It is supernatural.

    "Nevermind the evidence? Really?" and "Because you have said that you don't care what the evidence says to the contrary."

    When did I ever say never mind the evidence? In fact, the "evidence" points to a Creator but your presuppositions will just not allow that.

    "because you uncritically accept the Bible"

    I will concede to this, it's called faith.

    BTW do you have concrete proof that the Bible is false or is that just your belief?

    As you have said many times, you don't care what the Bible says -- you will not believe the bible until science itself tells you otherwise.

    A bit of a conundrum that you are in because bias of science would never try to prove the Bible because again that isn't the current paradigm. One could only hope though.

    "How you can possibly expect anyone to take you seriously when you so brazenly promote such uncritical thinking is beyond me."

    Exactly! you want me to drink the kool-aid of evolution just because?

    "How do we explain god, then?"

    Science...searching...seek. Make Him the paradigm to start.

    "How do we identify which god, then?"

    Anyone can make anything their god, money can be your god, but that isn't God. Are you sugesting we test to see if money created the universe? I have uncritical thinking? Um OK.

    There is one Creator, start there.

    "You're partially right regarding Evolution -- we cannot know for certain that it is correct"

    Thanks for admitting evolution is a faith.

    "but it is by far the best approximation of reality, and it fits with everything else we've uncovered to that end."

    Aw, you had me at partially right. No it isn't the best approximation of reality at all. Man came from microbial life isn't the best approximation. This is.

    Thanks for that ad hominem rant but God still exists.

    "Your competing "theory"?"

    We just have opposing views.

    And what's up with the pic? Are you calling me those things or is that some vernacular I am unaware of? Is that "being kind"

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dan. Please please please please please don't post images from Ray Comforts blog. After the man posted this, I lost the ability to give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume he was simply ignorant.

    [calm]

    The man is dishonest. Nobody could possibly be corrected so many times on simple biology and continue to speak it as fact, unless the have a severe mental disorder, and I haven't seen evidence for that.

    [/calm]
    [mood swing]

    DOGS ARE NOT A SINGLE SPECIES RAY! EVOLUTION DOESN'T SAY BIRDS EVOLVED INTO FISH! STOP LYING!

    [/mood swing]

    Where was I... oh yes. That 'kind prisons' image is simply wrong: as pointed out here.

    And I'll admit: the Spot-the-Difference one isn't too bad: The only thing's I'd change are:
    "The one true God" to "Our God and No-one elses"
    "Heaven or Hell" to "Burn the Unbelievers!!!!!",
    "Just Death for Ever" to "Just Life",
    and the colour scheme.

    Oh, and I'd make both arrows go down. You know: to be fair.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Quasar,

    I knew someone would lose a gasket over those pictures.

    and assume he was simply ignorant

    As we all are about many things. How many hairs on my head? See you are ignorant to that fact.

    That 'kind prisons' image is simply wrong

    Come on do you think that picture's goal was accuracy or generalization to show a point. I believe it is far more accurate then evolution claims. Canine is a single species, show me evidence to the contrary.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dan...

    First, the picture was just funny -- an example of an Epic Fail. Tell me it's not funny.

    Second, just because I use the term "bullshit" does not mean I am angry or attacking you -- that term is merely a superlative form of "bunk", "farce", etc. If you can't handle it, grow up. I only barely tolerate your whining about so-called "blasphemy", even, apparently, if I were to say "godsdammit", or "Baaldammit". Even "goddammit" is not blasphemy, even from within your dogmatic perspective.

    We've had that discussion before, and we disagree, evidently. I will occasionally insert words and/or phrases to which you object, just as you routinely do the same. Deal with it.

    Now then...

    The Bible describes the beginning and the existence and the completion of life in it's entirety

    Wrong.

    As anyone with an ounce of integrity will readily admit, the bible is hopelessly ambiguous on the specific mechanisms and details regarding "the beginning and the existence and the completion of life in [its] entirety".

    it fulfilled prophecies that said would happen and even prophecies are happening today

    This is a highly dubious statement. It can be argued both that prophecies were made and later fulfilled, and that events occurred and were later described as having been predicted via prophecy. In any event, there are various "prophecies" which did not occur within the timeline(s) explicitly stated -- prophecies by Jesus himself.

    As to "prophecies are happening today", I presume you are referring to John's acid trip, and the perennial claim that [your generation] is in the "end times". A single decade hasn't gone by since the alleged resurrection that one or another group of Christians hasn't made exactly that claim.

    Oops -- I suppose that also shows ambiguity... My bad.

    no other book of antiquity in use today can clam (sic) the same

    Well, this is only partially true. Fortunately for you, no books of antiquity exist in the numbers we find for your bible. Not only that, but few even of these make such preposterous and ostentatious claims regarding the history of the tribe(s) they represent.

    What you seem to admit, and in which you seem even to revel, is that you will find a way to update your interpretation(s) of the bible to match the current understanding and/or evidence of the subject in question.

    When did I ever say never mind the evidence?

    Well, starting with the most recent statement, in every one of the following:

    I agree [with arguments and interpretations which support my paradigm] no matter where [they] comes from. (Entire post for context)

    No matter what evidence we are presented with, we must filter it through the "colored glasses" of [our presuppositions] in order for it to make sense. (from this comment)

    When we look deep inside ourselves we see the truth.

    ...and...

    We all know deep in our soul logically, the Bible is the Word of God.

    (at the end of this article)

    The two statements above illustrate your contempt for countervailing evidence.

    But wait, there's more:

    Coincidence? Sure possibly but If you look at life through the lens of God then one can connect the two simply. Of course the sliced carrot looks like an eye, they do help your eyes. God sure loves us enough to reveal Himself to us subtly for us believers. (link to comment)

    News flash: asserting as "evidence" of special creation the superficial similarity between a carrot's cross-section and the human eye is a blatant disregard for critical evidence.

    If it wasn't in the Bible there is no way that I would believe [in a six literal day creation]. (context)

    *cough* Does that mean you've rejected evidence in favor of an uncritical acceptance of Genesis 1? *cough*

    Show evidence of large scale evolution (Macro) and it will be considered. (full comment)

    Evidence as requested has been provided. Evidence of an old universe is plentiful. Evidence of an old earth is also plentiful. Time for you to reconsider your position.

    The Bible is not meant to be a scientific description of modern biological categories. Instead, it is often written from the perspective of what we see. (You were quoting CARM to support your claims in this thread)

    Of course, despite this reasonable statement with which you evidently agree, you nonetheless use the bible in the manner this statement explicitly rejects. How ironic. If the bible isn't a scientific description of things, then quit using it as such. Accept the literal mountains of contrarian evidence.

    If scientific conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong. (emphasis yours; you were requoting a Bob Jones textbook, with which you agree, in this post)

    And the crown jewel...

    I reject your reality and replace it with my own.

    I will just have to take God's Word for it and trust that He is speaking truth. Until He can tell me otherwise. Assertions by man is something I cannot take as truth because they weren't there to take in account ALL the evidence. I trust God.
    (from this comment)

    This is about as explicit as you can put it -- you don't care a whit about the evidence, unless you can find a way to make it fit into your paradigm.

    Ironically, rather than biologists, geologists, cosmologists, archaeologists, paleontologists, et al, it is instead you, your compadre Pvblivs, and the creationist crowd in general, who is guilty of the false dichotomy of "confirmation or inconclusive". You stated it directly with that most unfortunate sentence:

    I reject your reality and replace it with my own.

    You are a fool.


    I will concede to [uncritically accepting the bible as truth], it's called faith.

    No, it's called foolishness. Muslims uncritically accept the Qu'ran. Mormons uncritically accept the Book of Mormon. The religious in general uncritically accept the dogma put forth by their religion's elders and/or "holy" books.

    Uncritical acceptance of anything is why the Holocaust occurred. It's why no one in Moses' time thought that things like slavery, rape, and genocide were wrong. It's why Abraham took his son into the mountains with the intention of killing him.

    It's the primary culprit for failure to update the status quo.

    BTW do you have concrete proof that the Bible is false or is that just your belief?

    Ever see Proverbs 26:4-5? It's a simple paradox, among the easiest illustrations of biblical inconsistency.

    What I do have is concrete proof that the universe is older than 6,000 years, from virtually every field of science. Don't believe me? Look up some night and imagine how long the light from whatever star took to get here. Imagine that, and recognize that we can see, with the aid of instruments as simple as Galileo's telescope, stars which are orders of magnitude further away than your quaint bible's 6,000-year prediction.

    I said:

    How you can possibly expect anyone to take you seriously when you so brazenly promote such uncritical thinking is beyond me.

    To which you responded (as though you said something brilliant):

    Exactly! you want me to drink the kool-aid of evolution just because?

    No, genius, I want you to think critically. You admitted earlier that you blindly accept the bible as truth, yet this statement implies that you promote critical thinking -- but only when it suits you.

    Stop being a tool. If your own precious paradigm is so beyond critical analysis, then it is bankrupt.

    I said:

    How do we explain god, then?

    To which you ironically replied:

    Science...searching...seek. Make Him the paradigm to start.

    Dear Dan,

    Your notion of god was the focus of the prevailing paradigm for a couple thousand years. It was only when that notion and its accompanying paradigm were challenged that humankind was able to climb out of the Dark Ages into the Industrial Age and beyond. I'm sorry you are so blind to reality.

    Love,
    Stan

    There is one Creator, start there.

    I see. And upon what critical assessment is this hypothesis formed? How exactly have you critically determined that this approach will lead one toward your version of god, forsaking the thousands of competing theologies? How does this approach explain the competing theologies known to exist?

    Seriously, Dan, figure it out. Honestly, critically, review your stance and your assembled beliefs, and see if they in any way square with reality. No, do not blindly accept as literal fact the Genesis 1 account. Assess it critically, considering the evidence. As Zilch pointed out a while back, no one alive today would come up with a creation story remotely resembling the biblical account.

    Why do you think that is? Is it because of the evidence?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dan +†+ said...

    "The article was already written I cannot help that. Unless you are suggesting that I am to blame for people reading ahead? That seems unfair, agree?"

    I apologize. I missed the notation at the very end of the post.

    Me: "If you want creationism taught as science, form a hypothesis, run some tests and collect the data."

    You: "Can you possibly be claiming this isn't happening? There are thousands of peer reviews out there pointing "away" from evolution. The all are rejected because they do not follow the rule of supporting the paradigm. Now that is the truth."

    Actually, I can say that isn't happening. What I suggested was that creationists form a hypothesis to address the diversity of life (I'm assuming it'd be the "Magic Man Done It" hypothesis), test that hypothesis and then put that up for peer review. THEN you might be able to cry foul. But that's not what has happened. All you've got are demands for yet another missing link. Someone's paper "pointing away" from evolution does not point toward creationism. Again, not science.

    Please, lay out your evidence of a creator. Perhaps there's a certain tree or flower that I've not yet been directed to.

    "[sarcasm]I am sure the elitists would love that to happen[sarcasm]

    Fact is they already have."

    Please define who you are referring to a "elitist". What traits define such a person.

    As for such people name religion "not science", I guess I'm not getting it. Is creationism a religious field or scientific? If it's scientific, you should be able to demonstrate that it adheres to the scientific method. If it doesn't, then no one named it "not science". That's just the end of the spectrum creationism happens to fall on.

    Me: "Once you assert the existence of God...what then? Where does the scientific study lead?"

    You: "Here is a real stretch of the imagination, make God the paradigm and push all effort and funding and teaching towards that goal. Oh what a great place this would be. Maybe it is time for me to wake up from that dream."

    This has already happened. Most people would know it as the dark ages. (Just so you know, I'm not being sarcastic) Enjoy you're slumber.

    Oh and...

    "Canine is a single species, show me evidence to the contrary."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canidae

    ReplyDelete
  12. Stan said:

    "Dear Dan... It was only when that notion and its accompanying paradigm were challenged that humankind was able to climb out of the Dark Ages into the Industrial Age and beyond."

    Shucks! You beat me to it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dan,

    These long posts of yours are filled with problems almost sentence to sentence. How can these guys help you out? I can only admire them. I would have to give you a paragraph almost per sentence.

    Then canine is a single species? Are you serious? And you ask us to demnstrate they are not? Well, how far do you go? Coyotes and dogs are the same species? Then do you think that humans, chimps and bonobos are a single species? The genetic differences between coyotes and dogs allow for humans, chimps and bonobos to be the same species by your definition Dan.

    So sad. I thought Ray was the nutcase alone. I never thought many creationists would share this ignorant concept.

    Now for an example of the fallacious ways of those you quote here:

    Suppose, for example, that I want to know whether God really had something to do with creating living organisms. A typical Darwinian response is that there is no reason to invoke supernatural action because Darwinian selection was capable of performing the job.

    Not really, you would have to prove first that there is anything such as a god before you can possibly answer such a question. The question needs so many answers before even being a proper scientific question that this is fallacious at the very start. Yet, it is designed to get the creationists convinced that there is something wrong with science.

    To evaluate that response, I need to know whether natural selection really has the fantastic creative power attributed to it.

    Nope, you need to first answers the questions that would allow you to ask whether any god had anything to do with anything.

    It is not a sufficient answer to say that scientists have nothing better to offer.

    This assumes that evolution is not a good answer, but it is an excellent answer, explain lots, makes sense, and contrary to your other unfounded statements is very strong and well supported by the facts.

    The fact that scientists don't like to say "we don't know" tells me nothing about what they really do know.

    Pure lies (truly bullshit), if we did not like to say "we don't know" there would be no scientific endeavors whatsoever. If we had all the answers there would be no reason to continue. Science relies on questions, without questions there is no more science to do.

    I insist that you need to examine carefully what you cite, but after reading what you think of Ray's definition of species I doubt there is any point ...

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dan wrote:
    "As we all are about many things. How many hairs on my head? See you are ignorant to that fact."

    OK, let me be a bit more specific than I was: "After the man posted this, I lost the ability to give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume he was simply ignorant about the scientific subjects on which he makes insanely stupid comments (which spans biology, paleantology, cosmology and more)."

    Dan wrote:
    "Come on do you think that picture's goal was accuracy or generalization to show a point. I believe it is far more accurate then evolution claims. Canine is a single species, show me evidence to the contrary."

    [Insert wikipedia here]

    But even worse, he puts "Birds" in a single "prison". All birds are a single species?

    And the "Bacteria" species? I'm sorry, what universe is this now? Riiigghht...

    Nobody, not even Answers in Genesis, uses a definition of "Species" so rediculously broad.

    Whether you accept it or not, Dan, Mr Comfort has either gone off the deep end or thinks that getting more and more rediculous with his claims will somehow make him more money.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hi Quasar,

    Please check this one out:

    Two of every kind

    or this one:

    "Species" and "Kind"

    Yep, answers in genesis is just as illogical (not that I am surprised).

    In the first one they include as many Canidae into the same "kind," and accept their evolution without flinching, but ask them about the "ape" kind, or the "Primates" kind, and see if they will accept that we humans come from the same "kind" as the chimps, or the gorillas, or the new world monkeys (all Primates). This would and should be compatible with their definition. So, what is your take Dan?

    I find it ridiculous especially because the image to the right in the second link is the model of evolution, and its extension to the far past is what makes the relatedness of all life possible. But of course, they have to misrepresent evolution, pretend that creation means that thingie that contains some true understanding of evolution (though limited to their "in kind"), but exclude humans, despite they would obviously belong to the Primates "kind."

    What an awesome mix of double/triple/multiple standards.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  16. So, ok, AiG uses a ridiculously broad definition of species, but not as broad as the "birds," or the "bacteria" in Ray's crappy post.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Quasar,

    "Nobody, not even Answers in Genesis, uses a definition of "Species" so [ridiculously] broad."

    GE did address it but I wanted to point out that it isn't Ray or Ken or even I that are making this up. The authority of the Bible is what we all follow. 'Species', in the Bible is described as 'kinds' or 'families' so if you have a beef with the classifications take it up with God.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dan, Dan, Dan...

    'Species', in the Bible is described as 'kinds' or 'families'

    That is a lie.

    The term species is not mentioned in the bible in any of the KJV, YLT, NIV, or NLT translations. Not once.

    To make a statement such as you have is to add to the bible to suit your own material ends -- namely, to make Cinderella's shoe fit ugly Drizella.

    Your statement is a lie because no one will believe you didn't already know this. No one will believe that you weren't cavalierly redefining terms in and out of the bible to fit your paradigm.

    Plainly put, and I welcome the input of actual biologists such as Zilch, the classifications listed in the bible are both ambiguous and incorrect. They are ambiguous because "kinds" is not defined -- most likely because there was nothing remotely approaching zoology, unless you count animal husbandry. It is incorrect because it categorizes bats, as you have noted, with birds, despite the fact that a cursory inspection by even the most zoologically illiterate peasant will discover that the only similarity between bats and birds is the fact they each fly.

    I suppose, then, that you'd also argue that the bible's magically reorganizing taxonomy would classify a flying squirrel as a bird... What about a Pteranadon (which I assume you believe co-existed with humans)?

    Are you (gasp!) suggesting that the writers of the bible are simultaneously hopelessly ignorant (especially with regard to biology/zoology) and incredible geniuses (with respect to geology/cosmology)?

    ...or, maybe they're just completely ignorant to the mechanisms of natural phenomena, and maybe they wrote down their beliefs anyway, and maybe you came along a few thousand years later and claimed it was all absolutely true no matter what...

    [insert image of Dan covering his ears and screaming, "I'm right, you're wrong, and I can't hear you"]

    The bible mentions "species" about as often as it mentions "flux capacitors".

    Oh, it does?

    Ahem. Apparently, the bible does indeed mention a flux capacitor, in Ezekiel. It seems that the good Marty McFly, after he accidentally sent himself to Hill Valley on November 5, 1955, found his way to ancient Mesopotamia.

    I guess you've proven your point. The bible says whatever you want it to say in light of the currently available evidence. You are guilty of reinterpreting the bible to suit your own paradigm, regardless of what the bible actually says, and irrespective of whatever it may actually mean.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dan,

    Please show me a passage of the Bible stating that foxes and wolves are the same kind ... and of course all the other kinds "defined" not by Ray of Ham, or whomever, but by the Bible ...

    Hopefully you can also explain me why you would accept the evolution of wolves and foxes from a common ancestor, but not for humans and chimps given that science very clearly shows that they are even less related to each other than humans and chimps.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Stanx3

    "The term species is not mentioned in the bible in any of the KJV, YLT, NIV, or NLT translations. Not once."

    Neither is computer, sauerkraut and internet so what, what's your point?

    Dinosaurs aren't either but there they are in Job 40.

    Read Genesis 1:21-25

    "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind:..."

    The Bible makes generic categorizations.

    "It is incorrect because it categorizes bats, as you have noted, with birds, despite the fact that a cursory inspection by even the most zoologically illiterate peasant will discover that the only similarity between bats and birds is the fact they each fly."

    Come on now you must be aware that it is modern science that has a different classification system than ancient times.

    I have addressed this in the past but let me repeat it:

    The Bible is not meant to be a scientific description of modern biological categories. Instead, it is often written from the perspective of what we see. In other words, it makes generic categorizations. In this case, the bat is categorized as a bird because like birds, it flies and is similar in size to most birds. If we did not know that it was a mammal, it would be natural to call it a bird. To the Hebrew of ancient times, calling it a bird was perfectly logical. But, in modern times with our science of being able to categorize animal species, we know that the bat is actually a mammal and not a bird.

    Also, we must be aware that it is modern science that has a different classification system than ancient times. To the ancients, creatures such as a bat were considered birds since they categorized all flying animals as birds. If that is the category that they used, then they were correct. It is not an error. It is a difference of categorization procedures. You have imposed upon the ancient text a modern system of categorization and then say that the Bible is wrong?

    Stan, man to man, you are close to never being allowed a voice here again. Maybe that is your goal but you calling me a lair coupled with the blasphemy is unacceptable behavior. You will apologize or go away, your choice.

    GE

    "Hopefully you can also explain me why you would accept the evolution of wolves and foxes from a common ancestor"

    Actually I don't know but if a Great Dane and a chiwawa can then I would believe that wolves and foxes can. One sure fire test would be that if Wolves and Foxes can interbreed. If they can then they are of the same "kind" otherwise then they are not. Anyone know the answer if they can?

    And please GE don't call anyone names we are all adults we can discuss ting civilly.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Stan- I must hasten to point out that I am not a biologist. In my third year at UC Berkeley I decided to major in music, not biology or paleontology. I did get a pretty good upper-division science education there, and I have tried to keep up with current developments as much as possible. But I am merely a wannabe, and an amateur biologist, not a real one.

    Dan- you say that the Bible classified bats as birds because both fly. Fair enough. But you also claim that the "kinds" mentioned in Genesis are, by definition, all those animals that can successfully breed together. So can bats breed with birds? Or does the Bible make a distinction between different categorical schemes for animals? Not that I know of.

    More to the point: people all over the world classify animals and plants, and the classifications of even Stone Age tribes are usually amazingly accurate: they correspond almost one-to-one with the species classifications of modern science. This is not really surprising, if you think about it: people depend critically on their knowledge of the world and its living things, and they are very good observers.

    Thus, I would not be surprised if the "kinds" mentioned in Genesis were pretty close to "species". But so what? The point is, it is now known that species can evolve to the point that they become new species, incapable of breeding with the old species, and this was not known to the authors of Genesis. Simply playing around with the definition of "kind" so that it corresponds to the modern idea of "species", or genera, or families, or whatever, has zero information content.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dan,

    You did not answer the question whatsoever: Why foxes and wolves yes, humans and chimps no, despite all science shows that humans and chimps are closer than foxes and wolves (there seems to be several species of wolves and foxes, but let us keep it that way for now).

    I was not calling names to those who twist the bible to look scientific. Just a proper description.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  23. So now quoting Leave it to Beaver counts as blasphemy in your Kangaroo Court?

    Pshaw.

    Tell you what -- provide me a list of every word and/or phrase that is offensive to you in some way so that I can reference them when I consider typing something. If even typing these phrases is an offensive notion for you, feel free to omit a character with a symbol -- I'm sure I can figure it out.

    Calling you a liar may have hurt, but sometimes the truth does, yes?

    You said:

    'Species', in the Bible is described as 'kinds' or 'families'

    ...which is a distortion of the truth.

    If you would like to be described as something other than a liar, you had the opportunity to explain your statement in your "response" to my post. Rather, you chose to threaten me with banishment for stating the truth and for quoting a wholesome '50s TV show. Perhaps your next "response" will be more effective in this aim. Anyway, doesn't Ray Comfort call people liars, adulterers, and thieves on each of his shows?

    You have imposed upon the ancient text a modern system of categorization and then say that the Bible is wrong?

    No, Dan, learn to read. You imposed the modern system on the ancient text, which I have already requoted in this reply, in case you had forgotten what you had written.

    As with most wannabe apologists, you, Ray Comfort, Ken Ham, et al have implemented a sliding scale for use with your convenient interpretations -- when you need a tight interpretation, "kinds" mean "species", but when you need a loose interpretation, "kinds" mean "baramins". When even these fail, you bust out "but the bible is not scientific..."

    Zilch, clear as always, had this to say:

    I would not be surprised if the "kinds" mentioned in Genesis were pretty close to "species". But so what? ... Simply playing around with the definition of "kind" so that it corresponds to the modern idea of "species", or genera, or families, or whatever, has zero information content.

    (Note: the omitted portion of this quote is also relevant, but my point in this case leads us elsewhere)

    In point of fact, Dan's concept of "kind" (or "kinds", depending on the translation), is based on the sliding scale of convenient definition/interpretation YECs use. The actual word used in the Hebrew (Strong's 04327) is the same in Genesis 1 and in Genesis 6, as well as various other areas. What this means to Dan is that he cannot argue both positions: that "kinds" was focused as in species, and that elsewhere it was broad as in "baramins".

    [You have ignored my statement regarding the fact that bats and birds are obviously different to even a blind Hebrew could tell the difference, but as Zilch says, "so what?" You cannot have it both ways.]

    If "kinds" is the strict definition implied in the Noah account, then your hypothesis fails regarding the "dog" kind, or the "bird" kind, etc. -- there could not have been room on his ark for all of those "kinds" of animals. If it is loose, which is a possible interpretation of the creation account, then you must first explain the difference in use, and second explain the use of Strong's 04940, which is also used in the Noah account (Genesis 8:19, to describe groups of animals), as well as to describe humans, as in Genesis 10, and everywhere else that Hebrew term is used.

    Curiously, this seems to imply that independent species (read: not able to inter-breed) entered the ark, while a broader taxonomic category of organism (read: able to inter-breed) exited -- just what sort of genetic manipulations was Noah performing on that ark, anyway?

    So, your sliding scale of convenient interpretation shows us that the bible is anything but clear regarding the lines drawn between taxonomic organizations. In some senses, it seems to match well with our current notion of species, whereas in others, it matches more closely with our notion of race, or breed.

    It's almost as if the authors didn't know, which almost suggests that we shouldn't draw such rigid conclusions from their writings...

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  24. Stan,

    "Anyway, doesn't Ray Comfort call people liars, adulterers, and thieves on each of his shows?"

    NO, Ray asks people if they ever lied. If they admit they have then "by their own admission" they are a lair. You may owe Ray an apology also.

    'Species', in the Bible is described as 'kinds' or 'families'

    ...which is a distortion of the truth.


    Why? Just because you say so? You have given no evidence to back up your claim just ad hominems.

    Prove me wrong. I claim "after their kind" as the modern description of "species" prove that to be a lie or apologize.

    Calling me a liar isn't quoting some '50s TV show no matter how you spin it, stay on subject.

    "No, Dan, learn to read."

    You just love to push that envelope, it's not your points it's your tone that I am getting fed up with. Treat others how you would treat your own mother or even better, treat me like a stranger because people are more likely to be curious and polite to strangers. You are being obnoxious, please please with sugar, stop and be kind when talking to people.

    "As with most wannabe apologists, you,"

    Again? it's your tone, dude. I am being as patient as I can be but I suspect you insist on being martyred for some reason. Stop being mean and be lighthearted and fun.

    I would not be surprised if the "kinds" mentioned in Genesis were pretty close to "species". But so what?

    So then we agree that I didn't lie?

    "there could not have been room on his ark for all of those "kinds" of animals."

    Please back up this claim.

    Instead of having lions, tigers, cougars, mountain lions, cheetahs, Bobcats and Mountain lions and house cats all on the ark you would only have to have just two m/f of one kind so the number would be drastically reduced. Plus another very important possibility you may have overlooked is that these animals didn't have to be full grown adults. Two cub lions is all that was needed to accomplish the task. They are smaller and eat less. That would be my most logical approach to the situation.

    I look forward though to your data to prove your "no room" hypothesis otherwise you owe even Noah an apology also.

    I am giving you all the room to right the wrongs Stan. I am being as patiently as possible, I like you, but if you refuse to do the right thing then you will give me no choice to lovingly rebuke you. That is the best thing I can do for you. Please, please be friendly or go away.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Stan proved you wrong nicely. You interpret the whole thing as "ad hominem" but he did prove you wrong and biased. You did say "families" before Dan.

    You agreed with Ray's broad definition, and that is not "species", but varies in grade and scope from species to genera, to families, to very very broad. Canidae are not a sigle species, and I have insisted that if they are then logically we and the chimps are the same species too. You just ignore us. I doubt the bible uses such a broad definition of "kind." To me it makes more sense that when the bible says "each bird to its kind" it means each particular kind of bird, not that all birds are a single kind. But you guys change and reinterpret to fit your particular goal of the day.

    Sure you read anything Dan? Or are there more than one Dan here? If you pretend to debunk atheists you should listen to them.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  26. And remember, all started with our criticism of Ray's definition of species, which you then claimed was not his, but the Bible's!

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Zilch,

    "But you also claim that the "kinds" mentioned in Genesis are, by definition, all those animals that can successfully breed together. So can bats breed with birds?"

    A valid point. The "One sure fire test" was my own concoction though, not the Bibles.

    GE,

    "To me it makes more sense that when the bible says "each bird to its kind" it means each particular kind of bird, not that all birds are a single kind."

    I disagree these animals are made after their own kind.

    "They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort."

    You will never find a flying cow.

    Why would His Word specifically mention cattle if it were general classification?

    "But you guys change and reinterpret to fit your particular goal of the day. Sure you read anything Dan? Or are there more than one Dan here? If you pretend to debunk atheists you should listen to them."

    Totally unnecessary accusatory tone. These type of personal attacks need to be stopped even if I have to be the one to stop it. You are in threat level charlie please don't raise it to delta.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dan,

    "They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort."

    Please observe that this does not mean that all creeping things are a "single kind." That would not be logical. I can't believe I am defending the Bible. It starts with semi-generic (cattle), and goes into very generic (creeping thing), but not to mean that every creeping thing is a single "species," but so as to try and cover everything in a single paragraph.

    You will never find a flying cow.

    Where did this come from?

    Why would His Word specifically mention cattle if it were general classification?

    Because we do this in general speech! We can mention something very specific, then apply the same principle to big groups. If the meanign were as you suggest, then the passage would be saying that "every beast" is a single species. It is obvious that this is not "defining" kind. It is assuming we know what "kind" means, and just tells us that each "kind" (probably species) does whatever it is that this passage is talking about.

    I hope this is clear.

    And you keep forgetting that you accept foxes and wolves, but not humans and chimps despite we are closer to chimps than foxes to wolves.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The accusatory tone was not unnecessary. Changes in meaning do occur fit creationists agendas.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  30. NO, Ray asks people if they ever lied. If they admit they have then "by their own admission" they are a lair.

    I see. Then what exactly has so offended you, since you have admitted previously to being a liar?

    Why? Just because you say so? You have given no evidence to back up your claim just ad hominems.

    First, you have demonstrated multiple times now that you are completely incapable of accurately identifying an ad hominem fallacy, despite your willingness to accuse any of your opponents of using one.

    Second, I showed you the Hebrew words used, and the ways in which they were used, including providing Strong's reference numbers. Your unwillingness to review my supplied research into the subject is not my problem.

    The fact is that the term "kinds" -- the one used in the Genesis creation account(s), is also used to identify various "kinds" of cattle.

    Calling me a liar isn't quoting some '50s TV show no matter how you spin it, stay on subject.

    I am tempted to think otherwise, but I shall assume for the moment that this is merely a misunderstanding. I said "Golly, gee, Wally", and you accused me of blasphemy. If you were not accusing that phrase of being blasphemy, then we do indeed have a misunderstanding, but I should think it noteworthy that you find "geez" to be blasphemous, but not "golly, gee".

    As I have mentioned to you before, with which you agreed, base profanity and so-called "blasphemous" speech are in fact more appropriate than pseudo-euphemisms like "golly". Substituting an inoffensive word for an offensive one is condescending, and therefore more offensive than the word or phrase it is replacing. If you prefer, however, I shall from now on use "frack", "shizno", "Jesse", and "gob" for the words you find so offensive... but only if you give me leave.

    Treat others how you would treat your own mother or even better, treat me like a stranger because people are more likely to be curious and polite to strangers.

    The problem here, Dan, is that you are not a stranger, per se. We have a rapport through online dialogue, and as with anyone with whom I had such a dialogue, if you constantly misrepresent the facts and my statements, and if you likewise constantly change the rules when defending your apparent heroes, I will call you out. When I said, "learn to read", it was because of your blatant disregard for what I had said. You basically ignored my statement(s) and trucked on as though nothing had happened.

    So, I understand that you took it as insulting, but rather than merely cry that I'm being a big meanie, perhaps you should also reevaluate your own actions, which prompted my statement in the first place. For what it's worth, I shall refrain from such obviously offensive speech in the future, but I expect a reciprocal commitment on your part -- to stop pretending my points have no impact, or to at least address them in such a manner that you explain why you feel they are able to be ignored.

    I had said:

    As with most wannabe apologists, you...

    To which you replied:

    Again? it's your tone, dude.

    Now you're just taking offense to everything. Are you not a wannabe apologist, inasmuch as I am a wannabe anti-apologist? Or do you consider yourself more credentialed because you started a blog? This was not mocking, it was matter-of-fact.

    I later quoted Zilch, who had said:

    I would not be surprised if the "kinds" mentioned in Genesis were pretty close to "species". But so what?

    Which you misrepresented as having been my own statement, when you asked:

    So then we agree that I didn't lie?

    How many times must I assume that these misrepresentations are accidental or otherwise innocent?

    First, I said you had distorted the truth, in an effort to avoid calling you a liar, since you took such great offense -- even though calling you a liar would be no different than what Ray and friends have done every episode. You have, after all, admitted to being a liar.

    Second, as noted, this was not my quote. I quoted Zilch to show that a) I recognize that my position is not exclusive, and b) that it doesn't affect my argument. Please don't make me explicitly state every little thing to make sure you have no excuses for misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting my statements.

    Please back up this claim [that there was not enough room on the ark for all the "kinds" of creatures].

    Instead of having lions, tigers, cougars, mountain lions, cheetahs, Bobcats and Mountain lions and house cats all on the ark you would only have to have just two m/f of one kind so the number would be drastically reduced.


    Except, as I pointed out -- with links -- the term "kinds", that is, the Hebrew term, was used to identify various "kinds" of cattle, sheep, and other creatures. Besides that, you continue to try to have your cake and eat it, too, when you insist that one "kind" of large cat could rapidly mutate into the many species of large cats we find today, over only a few thousand years, yet you simultaneously insist that bats were part of the birds "kind".

    The bare truth is that the term "kind" as you choose to use it was not used until after the flood, and then only once, to describe groups of animals. Every other time the term is used, it refers to humans. Prior to the flood -- that is, during the story, but before the rain started -- the term was used to identify types of oxen, cattle, sheep, etc. -- such that my claim regarding the finite space on the ark is justified.

    The standard AiG response that "young" representative animals, and broad "kinds" of animals, might have been used, is just another example of tailoring the interpretation to fit with what we now know. Clearly, the author of the Noah account was unfamiliar with the veritable plethora of exotic species -- even various unknown local species -- else the fantastic story of Noah assembling all these creatures might have been more credible.

    I have shown you that the term "kinds" does not conform to your convenient interpretation. I here leave it to you to refute what I have said, to adjust your theory to compensate, or to abandon it altogether.

    You continuously deny that your interpretations of biblical accounts are dynamic in nature, but I, and many others, have shown you how this is untrue, at least in certain examples. This "kinds" argument is one such example.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  31. Just as a point of interest, here is a list of species in Canidae, the dog family (extinct species are marked with a "†"):

    Side-striped Jackal, Canis adustus
    Golden Jackal, Canis aureus
    Coyote, Canis latrans (also called Prairie Wolf)
    Gray Wolf, Canis lupus (2.723 Ma to present)
    Red Wolf, Canis lupus rufus (3 Ma to present)
    Domestic Dog, Canis lupus familiaris
    Dingo, most often classified as Canis lupus dingo
    New Guinea Singing Dog, Canis lupus hallstromi
    many other proposed subspecies
    Black-backed Jackal, Canis mesomelas
    Ethiopian Wolf, Canis simensis (also called Abyssinian Wolf, Simien Fox and Simien Jackal)
    Genus Cynotherium †
    Sardinian Dhole, Cynotherium sardous †
    Genus Cuon
    Dhole, Cuon alpinus or Canis alpinus (also called Asian Wild Dog)
    Genus Lycaon
    African Wild Dog, Lycaon pictus (also called African Hunting Dog)
    Genus Indocyon†
    Indian Mute Dog, Indocyon caribensis † (also called Caribbean Dog)
    Genus Cubacyon
    Cuban Dhole, Cubacyon transversidens †
    Genus Atelocynus
    Short-eared Dog, Atelocynus microtis
    Genus Cerdocyon
    Crab-eating Fox, Cerdocyon thous
    Genus Dasycyon † ?
    Hagenbeck Wolf, Dasycyon hagenbecki † ?
    Genus Dusicyon †
    Falkland Island Fox, Dusicyon australis †
    Genus Pseudalopex
    Culpeo, Pseudalopex culpaeus
    Darwin's Fox, Pseudalopex fulvipes
    Argentine Grey Fox, Pseudalopex griseus
    Pampas Fox, Pseudalopex gymnocercus
    Sechura Fox, Pseudalopex sechurae
    Hoary Fox, Pseudalopex vetulus
    Genus Chrysocyon
    Maned Wolf, Chrysocyon brachyurus
    Genus Speothos
    Bush Dog, Speothos venaticus
    unnamed bush dog species, Speothos pacivorus †
    True foxes - Tribe Vulpini
    Genus Vulpes
    Arctic Fox, Vulpes lagopus
    Red Fox, Vulpes vulpes (1 Ma to present)
    Swift Fox, Vulpes velox
    Kit Fox, Vulpes macrotis
    Corsac Fox, Vulpes corsac
    Cape Fox, Vulpes chama
    Pale Fox, Vulpes pallida
    Bengal Fox, Vulpes bengalensis
    Tibetan Sand Fox, Vulpes ferrilata
    Blanford's Fox, Vulpes cana
    Rüppell's Fox, Vulpes rueppelli
    Fennec Fox, Vulpes zerda
    Genus Urocyon (2 Ma to present)
    Gray Fox, U. cinereoargenteus
    Island Fox, U. littoralis
    Cozumel Fox, U. sp.
    Basal Caninae
    Genus Otocyon (probably a vulpine close to Urocyon)
    Bat-eared Fox, Otocyon megalotis
    Genus Nyctereutes
    Raccoon Dog, Nyctereutes procyonoides

    While a few of these are known to be cross-fertile, for instance wolves with coyotes, most are not. That means the Ark must have been bigger on the inside than the outside, if all of these "kinds" were aboard, along with the more than 5000 other mammal species, not to mention the teenage dinosaurs and the bugs, crocs, frogs, and birds, etc.

    And how did kangaroos get to Australia from Mt. Ararat? Did they swim, using their powerful tails as propellers, and did the mama kangaroo carry the koalas in her pouch, and the papa kangaroo carry the duck-billed platypuses on his back? How did the penguins get across the Sahara? Did they just run very quickly across the hot sand, saying "ow ow ow" in Penguinish? At some point, you have to simply say, "this is just too silly to be true".

    ReplyDelete
  32. At some point, you have to simply say, "this is just too silly to be true".

    Preach it, brother.

    I wanted to poke extra fun at the notion of infant and/or "young" representatives of the "kinds" of animals -- considering that most often a species' young require more nutrition then they do when they are older. Of course, the fanciful hypothesis ignores completely that the Genesis account of the flood indicates that the event lasted over a year. How many "adolescent" animals grow to full adulthood in the span of a year?

    No, I apologize -- I'm being too facetious. It's absolutely possible for eight iron-age ancients to survive over a year confined to a floating zoo, while managing the care and maintenance of the same zoo. It's too bad god didn't show Noah how to harness electricity, refrigeration, hydroponics, and any number of other helpful technologies to ease his efforts...

    Yeah, I guess a big wooden boat with anywhere from a few thousand [later rapidly evolving] species to a few hundred million -- two and/or seven of each -- with the most advanced available technology being fire or a rudimentary sea-rudder, is the best an omniscient, omnipotent being could do.

    Wait -- what was it Zilch said?

    At some point, you have to simply say, "this is just too silly to be true".

    Oh yeah. Now I remember.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  33. However, to be fair, it is possible to phrase something to make it sound more silly than it actually is while not actually lying about it. For example, I don't find modern christianity 'silly', but I recently found the following rather amusing definition which does a pretty good job of making it appear so.

    Dan: I apologise in advance for what may be considered blasphemy, but in my defence this isn't my definition or opinion, and I'm merely using it to illustrate a point.

    Christianity
    The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
    — Author unknown

    The same thing can be done to a certain extent about evolution or atheism, although you come dangerously close to lying when you do.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Stan- yes, there's no way to make a believable story out of Noah's Ark. I've heard lots of apologists try, but you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, as they say.

    Quasar: yes, after I wrote that last comment, I realized that I was guilty of what I accused Dan of doing: setting up a straw man with my hot-footed penguins. But there is a difference: while the explanations that science offers for, say, how penguins got to Antarctica, are not complete and are subject to revision, the Biblical explanation for the same thing is nonexistent. And given that the Biblical account is incomplete, contradictory to both facts and itself within the Bible (two or seven of each "kind"?), and not subject to revision (are more books of the Bible being discovered and accepted?), then there's no reason to claim that my hot-footed penguin account is any less likely (according to the Bible) than any other.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "To reject one paradigm without substituting another is to reject science itself."

    Patently false.

    Science NEVER desires an explanation enough to ignore the iterative process of hypothesis - experiment - theory - review. if one explanation doesn't work, the search for a valid explanation continues. There's no substitution (unless physical evidence suggests the likelihood of the substitute being valid).

    In any case, there's never been enough contrary evidence to disprove the theory of evolution. On the whole, the ToE actually changes over time, and absorbs new information to make more accurate predictions.

    Intelligent Design makes no predictions, is not testable, and is not science.

    Christians are the one trying to substitute their dogma for real science. It's the pot calling the kettle black.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Zilch,

    "Stan- yes, there's no way to make a believable story out of Noah's Ark. I've heard lots of apologists try, but you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, as they say."

    I cannot even begin to ask you to intellectually understand the concepts in the Bible. This reminds me of a past post though.

    "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear" This coming from a man that believes that we came from pond scum or amphibious fish? Um, OK.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Dan- if you cannot begin to ask me to intellectually understand the concepts in the Bible, how do you expect me to understand them? I can't smell them or taste them; any kind of understanding, including God speaking to me, would require the participation of my intellect. Now, perhaps you mean that I should simply try not to think too hard about the meaning, and just groove on the vibes. That works pretty well for some parts (the Song of Songs, for instance) and is not so much fun for others (1 Samuel 15, for instance).

    Sorry, Dan, I can't suspend reason that easily. And I think I pretty much do understand the Bible intellectually (not in depth: I'm no Bible scholar): it's a fascinating mixture of history and myth, timeless morals and others that civilized people gave up a long time ago, and great and not-so-great poetry. And since it was written so long ago, a lot of the descriptions of how the world works are, not surprisingly, outdated.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Hey look! I'm a prophet!

    I said:
    "It is possible to phrase something to make it sound more silly than it actually is while not actually lying about it.

    ...

    [The above] can be done to a certain extent about evolution or atheism, although you come dangerously close to lying when you do."


    And then Dan said:
    "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear".
    This coming from a man that believes that we came from pond scum or amphibious fish? Um, OK."

    ReplyDelete
  39. Dan- quasar the prophet said it. While I wouldn't characterize this as "lying", your implied equivalence of "making a sow's ear into silk purse" with "evolution" demonstrates a rather faulty knowledge of how evolution works. Do you imagine that believing in evolution gives one license to believe that anything can change into anything else? That's not quite how it works.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>