Noah's Ark

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Noah's Ark

#141  Postby Atheistoclast » Aug 01, 2010 1:00 pm

MrFungus420 wrote:
Atheistoclast wrote:What I point out is that there are indeed kinds in systematics....genera.

Canids and equids are examples of basic kinds of mammal. They encompass many genera and species according to the taxonomist but are classed as "families" by the Darwinist.


Wow.

Blatantly contradicting yourself in back-to-back statements in the same post.

Kinds = genera

Kinds encompass many genera.



Would you agree that all species, genera and families of the Coelacanth order are part of the same kind of fish?
Nothing in biology makes sense when you include evolution.
User avatar
Atheistoclast
Banned User
 
Name: Joe
Posts: 1709

Country: UK
Iran (ir)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Noah's Ark

#142  Postby z8000783 » Aug 01, 2010 1:19 pm

Since you are the one who is proposing the concept of 'kinds' perhaps it would be more useful for you to provide the definition.

John
I don’t simply believe in miracles - I rely on them
z8000783
 
Name: WTF
Posts: 9309
Age: 64
Male

Greece (gr)
Print view this post

Re: Noah's Ark

#143  Postby MrGray » Aug 01, 2010 1:21 pm

z8000783 wrote:Since you are the one who is proposing the concept of 'kinds' perhaps it would be more useful for you to provide the definition.

John


Seconded. What do you mean by kind?
Hnau wrote:..we mournfully slice off their heads while loving them.

hackenslash wrote:Because the mind is a blank slate at birth. It is impossible to have a conception of a really fuckwitted idea until you've actually grown some stupidity.
User avatar
MrGray
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 753
Male

Print view this post

Re: Noah's Ark

#144  Postby Largenton » Aug 01, 2010 3:46 pm

I would like to add something here.

Atheistoclast has asserted to me three times his definitions of Kinds. In the first he asserted that it was synomous with the word type when referring to a type of enzyme. Next he referred to it being like the canid kind, referring to a biological family. Now he has connected it to a genus. Now I'm confused. If we look at the definitions these are all on different levels, meaning that it is impossible to have clarity on this. If we examine the Pig "kind" we have several problems. If we refer to the genus that means we only cover the Sus scrofa, domestica and others of the Sus genus, but we miss out other members of the Suidae family including Phacochoerus (the Warthog), which are fairly similiar in many aspects. Furthermore, does this mean that gazelle are a seperate kind from antelope? What about other ungulants such as deer, etc, which trust me, look fairly similiar as I've been rooting through boxes of their bones for the last few weeks!

The current scientific standards are used for clarity. They also help when a species has more than one name such as the Common Seal which also goes by the name of Harbour Seal, or their name has changed, such as the Crested Seal becoming the Hooded Seal (which confused me the other day until I used its scientific name). Replacing it with the creationist word "Kinds" is pointless and confusing. I suggest Atheistoclast drops his line of argument as he has no ability to define "kinds" into something that could be considered useful.

I can also tell that Atheistoclast does not appreciate the uses of Evolutionary theory. That same theory which allows mitochondrial Eve to be traced as well as a last common ancestor with chimps has also been used to trace murder victims such as the Romanov family (using the mitochondrial DNA from the Duke of Edinburgh). It has also identified Joseph Mengele when he died. It also allows scientists to experiment with genes. As atheistoclast referenced a paper in another topic to me, one rice crop was found to have improved its resistance to Blast disease by inserting another older gene from its wild ancestor. Ecology is another area which resulted from Evolution and I can go on and on.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/s ... 5/5943/998

I suspect Atheistoclast when using that paper was unable to realise that domestication is a form of artificial selection where traits are often lost because they are no longer needed. Cattle do not need to defend themselves from predators any more, so have lost some of the traits of the auroch, especially with some of those animals, their murderous horns. Indeed I will refer to my last reply to which I've received nothing back.

In this we see Atheistoclast having problems with inbreeding and Muller's Rachet, yet he fails to identify how beneficial mutations may cause loss of function in Lenski's E-coli. When he complains that Lenski hasn't published enough data for him to ascertain any problems, I wonder why he hasn't asked him for the raw data itself :naughty2: As he's seen off Schlafly on these same grounds...

I could go on and on about the basic flaws and premises of Atheistoclasts arguments. A person who rails against the injustices he faces here, yet keeps coming back, failing to admit his flaws and continuing to entrench himself within his misguided ways. And with that I'm bowing out as I can't be bothered to recycle the arguments again and again against him. Unless he gets a paper published, in that case someone PM me so I can congratulate him. However, I might see a blyue moon first...
User avatar
Largenton
 
Posts: 84

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Noah's Ark

#145  Postby MrFungus420 » Aug 01, 2010 9:36 pm

Atheistoclast wrote:
MrFungus420 wrote:
Atheistoclast wrote:What I point out is that there are indeed kinds in systematics....genera.

Canids and equids are examples of basic kinds of mammal. They encompass many genera and species according to the taxonomist but are classed as "families" by the Darwinist.


Wow.

Blatantly contradicting yourself in back-to-back statements in the same post.

Kinds = genera

Kinds encompass many genera.


Would you agree that all species, genera and families of the Coelacanth order are part of the same kind of fish?


Not until YOU define what YOU mean by "kind" when you use it in your "arguments" against evolution.

Otherwise, you are just setting up a fallacy of equivocation.
Atheism alone is no more a religion than health is a disease. One may as well argue over which brand of car pedestrians drive.
- AronRa
MrFungus420
 
Posts: 3914

Print view this post

Re: Noah's Ark

#146  Postby Atheistoclast » Aug 01, 2010 9:45 pm

z8000783 wrote:Since you are the one who is proposing the concept of 'kinds' perhaps it would be more useful for you to provide the definition.

John


Taxonomically, a kind is a group of organisms that share a basic set of exclusive synapomorphies. Members of the same kind, usually, should be able to interbreed although the resulting offspring may prove to be infertile.


This is why we can lump horses, donkeys and zebras together as an equid kind.
Nothing in biology makes sense when you include evolution.
User avatar
Atheistoclast
Banned User
 
Name: Joe
Posts: 1709

Country: UK
Iran (ir)
Print view this post

Re: Noah's Ark

#147  Postby hackenslash » Aug 01, 2010 9:56 pm

Interesting that you should employ the word 'synapomorphy', which has a very specific definition, and one that can only apply where evolution occurs, given that it is a trait shared among multiple taxa and their most recent common ancestor. This word makes no sense whatsoever outside of evolution. Indeed, usage of this word is tantamount to an admission that evolution occurs.

Would you like to try again?
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21180
Age: 48
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Noah's Ark

#148  Postby The_Metatron » Aug 01, 2010 10:00 pm

Star Trek speak! That's the 'clast's game. Make shit up, steal a few buzzwords and phrases to make it sound a little educated.

Pulling this shit straight out of his Jeffries tube.
My new website is up. Who wants to be a contributor?

I AM Skepdickus!

https://www.skepdick.us/blog/
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 19561
Age: 54
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Noah's Ark

#149  Postby Calilasseia » Aug 01, 2010 10:09 pm

Winding the thread back a little ...

Varangian wrote:
Atheistoclast wrote:According to you interstellar spaceflight can only come about through evolutionary processes entailing trial and error. If we go down that path we will still never make any progress.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13qeX98tAS8[/youtube]


Thank you for providing that neat little demonstration of the concept I was expounding upon. :thumbup:

Indeed, what we see above illustrates this even more graphically than the comical aircraft failures I posted earlier. Because the failures in that video clip above weren't comical, they were catastrophic. Just as well the rockets seen failing in that video clip were unmanned, wasn't it?

The simple fact of the matter is, that even though the people responsible for those rockets thought that they has put together a working rocket, and thought that they'd applied their knowledge of physics correctly, REALITY turned round and bit them on the ass. REALITY turned round and said "er, sorry guys, back to the drawing board, you didn't know as much as you thought you did". When pushing the envelope in this manner, and trying to apply knowledge acquired earlier in an entirely new realm, the above video clip teaches us that sometimes, assumptions that our past knowledge of a given set of scientific phenomena will apply in this new realm, in the same manner as they do in other, more familiar realms, need to be tempered with a lot of caution. Sometimes, REALITY turns round and demonstrates to us in spectacular fashion that such assumptions are made at our peril.

I'm minded at this point to consider the Space Shuttle. This vehicle, in the 1980s, flew 24 successful missions, starting with STS-1, with the 24th successful mission being STS-61-C, carrying aboard it a US Congressman and putting a Comsat satellite in orbit, launched on January 12th, 1986. Then on January 28th, 1986, the 25th mission was rolled out, namely STS-51-L. The launch proceeded initially as all the previous launches had proceeded, and the 'stack', as the assembly of orbiter, external fuel tank and solid rocket boosters is known collectively, lifted off the pad, and climbed into the sky before an assembled crowd of hundreds of thousands of observers. At about 50 seconds into the flight, the crew eased back the throttle in order to reduce stress on the airframe as it reached the point known as Max Q, the point where the dynamic balance of aerodynamic forces is at its maximum, and the point at which the stresses on the airframe are at their greatest as it climbs through the atmosphere. Once the point of Max Q was passed, the crew requested authorisation from Ground Control to re-apply maximum thrust to provide the impetus to reach orbit. They duly received the instruction, "Go for throttle up", and moved the throttle to 104% of rated thrust (this is standard procedure for Shuttle missions - the engines have a specific rated thrust, but are designed to exceed that rated thrust for limited periods during the initial phase of the flight to orbit). The engine thrust duly increased, and the Shuttle passed through Mach 1, as it began the ascent to orbit and acceleration to a speed of around 18,000 miles per hour ...

... whereupon, the Orbiter and external fuel tank disintegrated, and the mission came to a catastrophic halt.

That was the Challenger disaster, about which a lot is now known, and indeed, physicist Richard Feynman was instrumental in blowing apart a number of misconceptions, including the vast disparity between the engineers' understanding of the risks, and the manifest lack of understanding on the part of management (the Dilbert phenomenon was apparently alive and well in the management hierarchy). Indeed, the engineers themselves, when questioned by Feynman, told him that their estimates of likely catastrophic mission failures lay between 1 in 50 and 1 in 100. In other words, the engineers themselves regarded the Shuttle as sufficiently risky a vehicle to warrant planning for between one and two percent of all Shuttle missions to end with the destruction of the vehicle and the loss of the crew.

The idea that this in any way supports fantasies about magical design involving perfect foreknowledge and zero error is fatuous to put it mildly. Indeed, Feynman said as much in the Rogers Commission report:

Richard Feynman wrote:For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.


:)
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
Moderator
 
Posts: 21144
Age: 55
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Noah's Ark

#150  Postby Varangian » Aug 01, 2010 10:18 pm

The_Metatron wrote:Star Trek speak! That's the 'clast's game. Make shit up, steal a few buzzwords and phrases to make it sound a little educated.

Pulling this shit straight out of his Jeffries tube.


What shall we call it? Creobabble?
Image

"Bunch together a group of people deliberately chosen for strong religious feelings,
and you have a practical guarantee of dark morbidities." - H.P. Lovecraft
User avatar
Varangian
RS Donator
 
Name: Björn
Posts: 7293
Age: 52
Male

Country: Sweden
Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: Noah's Ark

#151  Postby Atheistoclast » Aug 01, 2010 10:34 pm

I find Calilasseia's attempts to suggest that design is a trial & error process most amusing.

Bad designs fail because not enough thought and intelligence went into them.

In software engineering, we have a term called "design for test".
Nothing in biology makes sense when you include evolution.
User avatar
Atheistoclast
Banned User
 
Name: Joe
Posts: 1709

Country: UK
Iran (ir)
Print view this post

Re: Noah's Ark

#152  Postby Calilasseia » Aug 01, 2010 10:38 pm

Atheistoclast wrote:I find Calilasseia's attempts to suggest that design is a trial & error process most amusing.


I find it amusing that you're once again trying to deny the reality that is staring you in the face. What part of "those failed rockets demonstrate that trial and error is present in human design" do you not understand?

Atheistoclast wrote:Bad designs fail because not enough thought and intelligence went into them.


The Shuttle wasn't a "bad design" for the first 24 of its missions. Plus, given the amount of thought and intelligence that went into the Shuttle, I think the NASA engineers would like a word with you about your above assertion.

FAIL.

Atheistoclast wrote:In software engineering, we have a term called "design for test".


And how much of this have you done again?
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
Moderator
 
Posts: 21144
Age: 55
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Noah's Ark

#153  Postby MrFungus420 » Aug 01, 2010 10:49 pm

Atheistoclast wrote:I find Calilasseia's attempts to suggest that design is a trial & error process most amusing.

Bad designs fail because not enough thought and intelligence went into them.

In software engineering, we have a term called "design for test".


Hmmm...

Care to design a super-conductor? They are found by trial and error.

Why are there prototypes made then? Why don't things just go from design to full production. Creating a prototype is part of a trial and error process.

Tell me, in software engineering, are programs tested before being used? In other words, are programs used without submitting them to a trial and error process?

Once again, you are demonstrating your divorce from reality.
Atheism alone is no more a religion than health is a disease. One may as well argue over which brand of car pedestrians drive.
- AronRa
MrFungus420
 
Posts: 3914

Print view this post

Re: Noah's Ark

#154  Postby Atheistoclast » Aug 01, 2010 10:52 pm

Calilasseia wrote:

I find it amusing that you're once again trying to deny the reality that is staring you in the face. What part of "those failed rockets demonstrate that trial and error is present in human design" do you not understand?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You really think that engineers were experimenting with different designs of the Challenger when it blew up?!!!!People died on that day! Engineers try and eliminate failure to ensure that accidents like Challenger NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN. They don't just try out a number of designs and see which works best.

I really hope you stay out of industry with such a ridiculous and callous approach.


The Shuttle wasn't a "bad design" for the first 24 of its missions. Plus, given the amount of thought and intelligence that went into the Shuttle, I think the NASA engineers would like a word with you about your above assertion.


The engineers and technicians did put a lot of thought and intelligence int it...just not enough.


And how much of this have you done again?


More than you will ever do in a lifetime.
Nothing in biology makes sense when you include evolution.
User avatar
Atheistoclast
Banned User
 
Name: Joe
Posts: 1709

Country: UK
Iran (ir)
Print view this post

Re: Noah's Ark

#155  Postby Varangian » Aug 01, 2010 11:00 pm

Atheistoclast wrote:Engineers try and eliminate failure to ensure that accidents like Challenger NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN. They don't just try out a number of designs and see which works best.


An example of trial and error.

Sheesh, are you really that thick, or are you just testing us?
Image

"Bunch together a group of people deliberately chosen for strong religious feelings,
and you have a practical guarantee of dark morbidities." - H.P. Lovecraft
User avatar
Varangian
RS Donator
 
Name: Björn
Posts: 7293
Age: 52
Male

Country: Sweden
Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Noah's Ark

#156  Postby Atheistoclast » Aug 01, 2010 11:09 pm

Varangian wrote:
Atheistoclast wrote:Engineers try and eliminate failure to ensure that accidents like Challenger NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN. They don't just try out a number of designs and see which works best.


An example of trial and error.

Sheesh, are you really that thick, or are you just testing us?


Oh, please. Failed tests are not the equivalent of design by trial and error!

Will the real engineers, please stand up, please stand up.
Nothing in biology makes sense when you include evolution.
User avatar
Atheistoclast
Banned User
 
Name: Joe
Posts: 1709

Country: UK
Iran (ir)
Print view this post

Re: Noah's Ark

#157  Postby DaveD » Aug 01, 2010 11:16 pm

Atheistoclast wrote:
Varangian wrote:
Atheistoclast wrote:Engineers try and eliminate failure to ensure that accidents like Challenger NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN. They don't just try out a number of designs and see which works best.


An example of trial and error.

Sheesh, are you really that thick, or are you just testing us?


Oh, please. Failed tests are not the equivalent of design by trial and error!

Will the real engineers, please stand up, please stand up.

This post of yours is moronic, even by your standards. It's beyond Poe.
What part of trial and error don't you understand?
Image
User avatar
DaveD
 
Name: Dave Davis
Posts: 3002
Age: 60
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Noah's Ark

#158  Postby hackenslash » Aug 01, 2010 11:19 pm

Atheistoclast wrote:Oh, please. Failed tests are not the equivalent of design by trial and error!


Note the differently coloured highlights. Will the people who actually understand plain English please stand up?
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21180
Age: 48
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Noah's Ark

#159  Postby Blitzkrebs » Aug 01, 2010 11:23 pm

Morton's demon must be working overtime tonight.
ikster7579 wrote:Being rational is just an excuse for not wanting to have faith.
User avatar
Blitzkrebs
 
Name: Roy
Posts: 392
Age: 28
Male

Country: Amerika
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Noah's Ark

#160  Postby Atheistoclast » Aug 01, 2010 11:24 pm

DaveD wrote:
This post of yours is moronic, even by your standards. It's beyond Poe.
What part of trial and error don't you understand?


What part of a failed test do you not understand?

Trial and error is the worst possible engineering method in the design of something like a rocket or any other craft.

It is a completely dumbass approach that is costly and time-consuming.

Evidently, none of you people are experienced in even basic engineering...which is probably why you accept Darwinian evolutionism so readily.
Nothing in biology makes sense when you include evolution.
User avatar
Atheistoclast
Banned User
 
Name: Joe
Posts: 1709

Country: UK
Iran (ir)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest