news:3fdfd0d7_4@corp.newsgroups.com...
> John Harshman wrote:
>
> >
> > Lenny Flank wrote:
> >
> >
> >>John Harshman wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Lenny Flank wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Piorokrat wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
w
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Piorokrat wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Uncle Davey wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>[snip]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>So, for me, the best definition of a kind, true to both what I
have
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>been
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>priviledged to observe of nature as well as in the Word of God,
would
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>be
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>"the whole population of descendents of a group of animals or
plants
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>which,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>at the time of their creation, were able to breed and have
offspring
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>that
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>were fertile."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Sounds fine to me. Now how do you go about telling, in the present
> >>>>>>>>world, whether two organisms belong to the same or different
kinds?
> >>>>>>>>Because all the evidence leads *me* to believe that there's only
one
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>kind.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>In particular, how do you tell that humans belong to a different
kind
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>from the African apes?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Well I've given you a philosophical answer. I didn't say it would
be
> >>>>>>>possible to check and know for sure exactly what is in the same
kind.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Surely you have some idea of the limits, and some idea of criteria
for
> >>>>>>basing your decisions. I'm suspecting you think that humans and apes
> >>>>>>belong to different kinds. I'm suspecting you disagree with my
position,
> >>>>>>which is that there is a single kind containing all life. I'm just
> >>>>>>asking what basis you have for these opinions, if indeed you hold
them.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Yes, I do believe that humans are a separate kind from apes, and the
reason
> >>>>>is that I cannot see with the length of the human generational cycle,
even
> >>>>>if we made it as short as twenty years, would be enough to enable us
to go
> >>>>>back a maximum of ten thousand years and therefore five hundred
generations
> >>>>>and get something that could have interbred with apes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Behe disagrees with you and thinks you're full of shit. And he, unlike
> >>>>you, is a working scientist. <shrug>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Why is he wrong and you're right.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>This seems to be an argument from authority and nothing more. If he
> >>>doesn't know or care who Michael Behe is (and why should he), it loses
> >>>all potential force. Why keep bringing it up?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>Because Davey's entire argument consists solely of his OWN arguemnt from
> >>authority ---- "My interpretation of Christianity says humans aren't
> >>evolved from apes, therefore they aren't".
> >>
> >>Behe is also a Christian (and a creationist). He thinks humans evolved
> >>from apes.
> >>
> >>Ergo Davey's argument from authority is a crock of shit. Unless Davey
> >>can tell me why HIS religious or scientific authority is better than
> >>Behe's. Or anybody else's for that matter.
> >>
> >>That's why I keep bringing it up.
> >
> >
> >
> > Then you have to explain to him who Behe is.
>
>
>
>
> He is capable of doing a Google search, I presume.
>
> It's not MY fault that Davey wants to yammer stupidly about topics he
> doesn't know anything about. <shrug>
>
That's nice.
Why should your view about how to argue with creationists be any more valid
than John Harshman's view about how to argue with creationists? Why should I
listen to you more, pray, than him, than to trebor at sirius, than to
Charles C, to Behe and Ross, or for that matter, to the kid who was arguing
with another kid this afternoon about whether creationists or evolutionists
can eat more Big Macs?
It's not MY fault you people can't agree amongst yourselves. <shrug>
Uncle Davey
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 |
| 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 |
| 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 |
| 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 |
| 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 |
| 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | 216 | 217 | 218 | 219 | 220 | 221 | 222 | 223 | 224 |
|