Churches rejecting science altogether

[buffalo]

Generally, I think you quote stuff that you don’t quite understand because you think it supports your position, but you’re not really sure, so you don’t say anything in order to avoid raising the issue. Does that sum it up?

Wrong - you have been here too short a time to know. I will let other posters who have exchanged with me over the years be the judge.

I refer to many papers to give others first hand information. And yes they do support my IDvolution position.

 

[davidv]

Yes.

Please explain.

In the mean time, I will take your response to mean that you were just throwing out a red herring by insisting that humans are categorized by biology in the “Animal Kingdom”. Doing so does not in any way, shape, or form show that humans differ only in kind from the rest of the members of the kingdom.

 

[kbachler]

Wrong - you have been here too short a time to know. I will let other posters who have exchanged with me over the years be the judge.

I refer to many papers to give others first hand information. And yes they do support my IDvolution position.

I haven’t seen a single piece of evidence of that. You’ll have to state your argument better. For example, do you really think the Venter-Dawkins discussion does that? If so, why?

 

[buffalo]

I haven’t seen a single piece of evidence of that. You’ll have to state your argument better. For example, do you really think the Venter-Dawkins discussion does that? If so, why?

Replay the nine minute mark.

“The tree of life is an artifact of some early scientific studies that aren’t really holding up…So there is not a tree of life.”

Fast forward to 11:23, when moderator Roger Bingham turns the microphone over to Dawkins:

“I’m intrigued,” replies Dawkins, “at Craig saying that the tree of life is a fiction. I mean…the DNA code of all creatures that have ever been looked at is all but identical.”
WHOPPER . Venter just told the forum that Mycoplasma read their DNA using a different coding convention than other organisms (for “stop” and tryptophan). But Dawkins is undaunted:

“Surely that means,” he asks Venter, “that they’re all related? Doesn’t it?”

 

[kbachler]

Please explain.

Simple. Depending on the attribute being considered, sometimes they differ by degree, sometimes by type.

In the mean time, I will take your response to mean that you were just throwing out a red herring by insisting that humans are categorized by biology in the “Animal Kingdom”. Doing so does not in any way, shape, or form show that humans differ only in kind from the rest of the members of the kingdom.

No red herring at all, I even quoted the definition for you in this thread, so your taking that way would be completely mistaken.

I NEVER ARGUED that humans don’t differ from other animals. Bears differ from lions differ from apes differ from humans. But they are still all animals.

Ranches differ from colonials differ from Georgians differ from Victorians. They are still all houses. Just because a ranch differs from a Georgian doesn’t mean its NOT a house.

Houses differ from schools differ from stadiums differ from skyscrapers. They are still all buildings.

Humans are animals, they meet the definition of animals reprinted elsewhere in this thread. They are not plants, they are not fungi, they are animals.

And btw - in some way humans differ in kind, and in some ways degree from the rest of the animal kingdom. They do not differ in kind only.

 

[buffalo]

I haven’t seen a single piece of evidence of that. You’ll have to state your argument better. For example, do you really think the Venter-Dawkins discussion does that? If so, why?

First understand what IDvolution posits here.

Then go to the supporting resources.

If true it IDvolution will stand the test of time, if not knock it down. It should be tested, bang away.

 

[kbachler]

Replay the nine minute mark.

“The tree of life is an artifact of some early scientific studies that aren’t really holding up…So there is not a tree of life.”

Fast forward to 11:23, when moderator Roger Bingham turns the microphone over to Dawkins:

“I’m intrigued,” replies Dawkins, “at Craig saying that the tree of life is a fiction. I mean…the DNA code of all creatures that have ever been looked at is all but identical.”
WHOPPER . Venter just told the forum that Mycoplasma read their DNA using a different coding convention than other organisms (for “stop” and tryptophan). But Dawkins is undaunted:

“Surely that means,” he asks Venter, “that they’re all related? Doesn’t it?”

Again, you say something, but what do you think it means. Do you just quote to quote?

 

[kbachler]

First understand what IDvolution posits here.

Then go to the supporting resources.

If true it IDvolution will stand the test of time, if not knock it down. It should be tested, bang away.

Yeah, this makes the quote of Venter - Dawkins funnier yet.

 

[buffalo]

Again, you say something, but what do you think it means. Do you just quote to quote?

You cannot be that childish.

Venter denies the tree of life.

Now do you agree or not?

 

[kbachler]

You cannot be that childish.

Venter denies the tree of life.

Now do you agree or not?

And your point is? Why are you quoting it? What is the reason you are quoting it?

 

[davidv]

Simple. Depending on the attribute being considered, sometimes they differ by degree, sometimes by type.

No red herring at all, I even quoted the definition for you in this thread, so your taking that way would be completely mistaken.

I NEVER ARGUED that humans don’t differ from other animals. Bears differ from lions differ from apes differ from humans. But they are still all animals.

Ranches differ from colonials differ from Georgians differ from Victorians. They are still all houses. Just because a ranch differs from a Georgian doesn’t mean its NOT a house.

Houses differ from schools differ from stadiums differ from skyscrapers. They are still all buildings.

Humans are animals, they meet the definition of animals reprinted elsewhere in this thread. They are not plants, they are not fungi, they are animals.

And btw - in some way humans differ in kind, and in some ways degree from the rest of the animal kingdom. They do not differ in kind only.

It appears we have ventured quite far from the OP. If you somehow think the this line of reasoning leads one to conclude that faith is opposed to science, I don’t believe you.

 

[buffalo]

And your point is? Why are you quoting it? What is the reason you are quoting it?

First - do you agree that is what he said?

 

[kbachler]

It appears we have ventured quite far from the OP. If you somehow think the this line of reasoning leads one to conclude that faith is opposed to science, I don’t believe you.

I don’t think that faith is opposed to science. I think many posters here don’t understand science, and take a negative view of science without realizing what it means or what it means to their faith.

 

[kbachler]

First - do you agree that is what he said?

Buffalo, you keep quoting what he said - I can watch the video and see your quotes - I KNOW what he said. My question to you is what you think it MEANS, why are you quoting it?

 

[grannymh]

I’m not saying that human’s don’t have distinguishing features. I AM saying that their class of features puts them inside the animal kingdom, not outside of it.

This is just a thought. A class of distinguishing features which eliminates human nature --since you put yourself and myself and some others inside the brute animal kingdom. I do realize that “brute” referring to animals is a no no. And I apologize for using it. However, the original designation of brute is correct because one of its definitions is “lacking or showing a lack of reason or intelligence.” American Heritage College Dictionary

 

[grannymh]

This comment from kbachler references post 228

Rico, however, a border collie that brought this ability to light, was not trained to choose, and demonstrated the ability anyway.

Markman, E.M., Abelev,M., 2004. Word learning in dog? Trends Cogn. Sci. 8,479-480. were unable to accept Rico’s data as compelling evidence for exclusion learning because they identified two potential difficulties with the study: (see page 185 & 195 in post 219 link) Bloom, P., 2004. Can a dog learn a word? Science 304, 1605-1606. also considered the Rico data to be less than compelling. (see page 185 & 195 in post 219 link)

John W.Pilley and Allison K. Reid, authors of the Chaser research, refer to the above articles on Rico and the questions they raised as intriguing. Their four studies (experiments) were designed to address concerns posed by Bloom and Markman and Abelev

Seen together, comments such as “demonstrated the ability anyway” and peer evaluation is one of the reasons why children should learn basic science protocol.

Churches are free to reject conclusions found in science. Nonetheless, in my personal opinion, children should become aware of what conclusions are based on. For example, what constitutes proper evidence? Children need to realize that in order for science research to succeed, it needs to be questioned until all the questions are fairly answered. Children need hands-on simple scientific demonstrations.

By playing around with the link in post 219, I found a section containing “Related Articles”. This is one of the titles: “Border collie takes record for biggest vocabulary”
Unfortunately I couldn’t access it. However, the title is an excellent example of how to examine media hype in science.

Is “Border collie takes record for biggest vocabulary” a true statement? It is not necessary to read the actual research in order to ask – “What does the noun vocabulary actually refer to?” In this particular research “biggest vocabulary” refers to the proper-noun names of 1022 objects used in the research; thus, it is a true statement.

But — what would ordinary folk consider as the “biggest vocabulary”? Would it be the regular vocabulary of multiple nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions which make up interesting sentences and paragraphs? Does this kind of media hype give the impression that here is an animal which has the same kind of vocabulary as you and me? From there, is the impression that with such biggest vocabulary, certainly this animal can reason creatively and analytically solve complex problems etc.–all expressed with its biggest vocabulary? Bingo!

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

 

[kbachler]

This is just a thought. A class of distinguishing features which eliminates human nature --since you put yourself and myself and some others inside the brute animal kingdom. I do realize that “brute” referring to animals is a no no. And I apologize for using it. However, the original designation of brute is correct because one of its definitions is “lacking or showing a lack of reason or intelligence.” American Heritage College Dictionary

We’re talking about evolution, biology and science here, and therefore are using a scientific meaning for animal, not a literary one.

By putting horses into the animal kingdom, have we somehow eliminated the features of horses that make horses unique?

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo, you keep quoting what he said - I can watch the video and see your quotes - I KNOW what he said. My question to you is what you think it MEANS, why are you quoting it?

Good - so we are in agreement he denies the tree of life.

The tree of life has been a staple teaching of evolution for a long time now. It has fallen.

Are we in agreement?

 

[kbachler]

This comment from kbachler references post 228

Markman, E.M., Abelev,M., 2004. Word learning in dog? Trends Cogn. Sci. 8,479-480. were unable to accept Rico’s data as compelling evidence for exclusion learning because they identified two potential difficulties with the study: (see page 185 & 195 in post 219 link) Bloom, P., 2004. Can a dog learn a word? Science 304, 1605-1606. also considered the Rico data to be less than compelling. (see page 185 & 195 in post 219 link)

John W.Pilley and Allison K. Reid, authors of the Chaser research, refer to the above articles on Rico and the questions they raised as intriguing. Their four studies (experiments) were designed to address concerns posed by Bloom and Markman and Abelev

Seen together, comments such as “demonstrated the ability anyway” and peer evaluation is one of the reasons why children should learn basic science protocol.

Churches are free to reject conclusions found in science. Nonetheless, in my personal opinion, children should become aware of what conclusions are based on. For example, what constitutes proper evidence? Children need to realize that in order for science research to succeed, it needs to be questioned until all the questions are fairly answered. Children need hands-on simple scientific demonstrations.

By playing around with the link in post 219, I found a section containing “Related Articles”. This is one of the titles: “Border collie takes record for biggest vocabulary”
Unfortunately I couldn’t access it. However, the title is an excellent example of how to examine media hype in science.

Is “Border collie takes record for biggest vocabulary” a true statement? It is not necessary to read the actual research in order to ask – “What does the noun vocabulary actually refer to?” In this particular research “biggest vocabulary” refers to the proper-noun names of 1022 objects used in the research; thus, it is a true statement.

But — what would ordinary folk consider as the “biggest vocabulary”? Would it be the regular vocabulary of multiple nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions which make up interesting sentences and paragraphs? Does this kind of media hype give the impression that here is an animal which has the same kind of vocabulary as you and me? From there, is the impression that with such biggest vocabulary, certainly this animal can reason creatively like a human and analytically solve problems etc.? Bingo!

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

The media tends to get details of all reporting wrong - I’ve learned that many times over the years. (I once had a friend and brother who got trapped in the mountains during a snow storm. They built a snow cave, stayed for 3 days, and hiked back. They met a ranger at the edge of the parking lot who was just going to look for them. The next day’s headline read “Ranger Finds Lost Hikers”.)

Koko the ape and any human have larger vocabularies than Chaser, so the headline as written is incorrect, but among dogs hers is the largest (maybe even among non-primates?) She (and Rico) have demonstrated some measurable ability to reason (as have some apes and chimps.) Exactly how much ability? We don’t know. But to say that ONLY humans reason is too strong of a statement today. Can we say “Humans in general appear to have much stronger reasoning abilities that other species in general?” Absolutely!

My point was just to show donsnow that the world is often a fuzzier place than people (and certainly the news media) want to believe. Embrace the gray.

 

[kbachler]

Good - so we are in agreement he denies the tree of life.

The tree of life has been a staple teaching of evolution for a long time now. It has fallen.

Are we in agreement?

No. Your statement shows that you don’t understand what he said. It also shows that you don’t seem to have a good grasp of your own IDvolution.