For Jimmy
I’ve gotten entangled in a discussion in the comments on another thread. It has drifted far off-topic, so I’m giving it its own thread.
jimmy wrote:
Well, to honestly think about it, If I was given legaly tested, historicaly alive today witnessed the American revolution, so how do you know it happened?accurate, evidence, and if thousands of eyewitnesses attested to it, and if I had experienced it myself, I would be a fool not to believe in the reality of it.
Okay, fair enough. But as discussed above, Greenleaf was assuming his conclusion, and seemed to think that nth-hand hearsay constituted acceptable witness testimony.
As for historical accuracy, while no doubt there are many real place names and historical figures and events (or some distorted version thereof), there are equally many events recounted there that never happened. Herod’s slaughter of the children of Bethlehem, for instance, the worldwide flood, the sun and moon standing still for Joshua, and the Hebrews’ enslavement in Egypt.
Thirdly, why do you say there were thousands of eyewitnesses to the events of the Bible? Because the Bible says so? That’s circular reasoning.
Personal experience is probably most convincing, but only to you. Do you have any evidence that whatever happened to you wasn’t just in your head? If you met someone who claimed to have met Harry Potter, Ron Weasley, and Hermione Granger, and that they regaled him with stories of life at Hogwarts, would you believe him, even if he seemed sincere?
You know, come to think of it, the bible had something to say about you. Yes, it was written specifically for you! it says, “the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God…”
First threats, now insults? Remember, “whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire” (Matt. 5:22).
I respectfully ask you to take a look at nature around you and describe to me how all of the universe could have just “happened”. If you can accurately explain this one fact to me, I will be satisfied.
And if I can’t? What then?
Let’s cut to the chase: I don’t know how life started, or how the universe started. No one does. But if you take a question like “how did X occur?” and answer, “I don’t know, so God must’ve done it”, you’re not explaining anything; you’re just giving your ignorance a name.
And if (or when, hopefully) scientists figure out the answers to these questions, then what will you do? Find another gap in our knowledge to squeeze your god into? A few centuries ago, you might’ve asked how it is that the planets move in their courses, or why lightning strikes, or where comets come from, or how an acorn can grow into an oak. You don’t ask these questions today because we have perfectly good naturalistic explanations. What will you do in twenty or thirty or fifty years, when many of the current gaps in our understanding have been plugged? Ask why, if there’s no god, gravitational mass is the same as inertial mass? Sorry, but god of the gaps is a losing strategy.
Maybe right now you have snowed yourself into believing that you enjoy atheism
Please stop telling me what I believe or how I feel. You don’t know, and you’re just being condescending.
but remember the words of karl marx, “How purposeless and empty life is, but how desired!”
Argumentum ad hominem. You’re saying, in effect, “Karl Marx said this, and Marx was a Bad Person, therefore he’s wrong in what he said.”
I would ask you to step back for a moment and show me one contradiction or atrocity in the bible.
Where to begin? I’ve always liked the multiple deaths of Judas: Matt. 27:5 (hanging) vs. falling down and bursting (Acts 1:18). The genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke are different (and have significantly different numbers of generations). And, of course, there’s Dan Barker’s Leave No Stone Unturned: An Easter Challenge for Christians, which simply asks for a consistent account of the events of the resurrection that includes all of the details in the Bible. There are many others.
Yes, I’ve seen attempts at reconciling these contradictions, but they generally involve pretzel logic, very careful parsing, and/or adding things to the text that just aren’t there (“If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book”, Rev. 22:18).
As for atrocities, how about when Lot offers to let the mob rape his daughters (Gen. 19:8)? In 2 Kings 19:35, an angel kills 145000 people. In Judges 11, Jephthah sacrifices his daughter (and Yahweh accepts the sacrifice). And let’s not forget the time when God himself is said to have committed the single worst act of mass murder in history, killing everyone on earth (Gen. 7:21-23). Before you object that that’s the Old Testament, remember that the New Testament introduced the idea of Hell and of infinite punishment for finite crimes, which is monstrous.
I have studied evolution from the perspective of the oppostion
As far as I can tell, your studies have been limited to young-earth creationists like Kent Hovind and Answers in Genesis. In the spirit of “know your enemy”, it would be a good idea to find out what the proponents of evolution have to say. The Berkeley site I mentioned earlier is a good introduction aimed at the lay reader.
Take, for instance, this exerpt from “the lie”
It looks as if that paragraph comes from The Lie: Evolution by Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis. In the future, could you please cite sources? I don’t mind looking stuff up, but can you please not make it harder than it needs to be?
[From AiG:] It is an easy task to understand that no scientist was present over the suggested millions of years to witness the supposed evolutionary progression of life form the simple to the complex.
[snip more in the same vein]
This is just the “Were you there?” argument, and it doesn’t hold water. Do you deny that the Tunguska event happened because no one was around to see it? Pluto is said by astronomers to orbit the sun every 248 years. Do you deny this because it was only discovered about 70 years ago, so no one has ever seen it complete a revolution?
Scientists learn about the past by trying to come up with an explanation for something, asking what we should see if the explanation is correct, and what we should see if it isn’t, and then checking to see which way things are. If you’ve ever seen a cop show where a detective says something like “The murderer must’ve returned to the quarry to bury the murder weapon. Let’s go look for footprints!”, it’s the same principle.
Well, first, you don’t believe in God, so I don’t know how you think Jesus is God, but anyway, they are both members of the trinity.
Right. As I understand it, the idea is that God sacrificed his only son Jesus so that all humans everywhere could be forgiven their sins and be spared from having to go to Hell.
But according to the doctrine of the Trinity, God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are three aspects of the same person. So the story of the crucifixion is that God (temporarily) sacrificed himself to himself in order to create a loophole by which he could get around his own rule and avoid sending people to the place of punishment that he created (or subcontracted).
This makes no sense. If he wants to forgive people, why not just forgive them? If this requires changing the rules, why not just change the rules? He’s done it before: it used to be against divine law to work on Saturday, eat pork, or wear gold jewelry, but now it’s okay. So why the contortions?
“So you’re saying that archeology, paleontology, and forensics aren’t science? DNA testing to see whether an accused person is guilty isn’t science, or isn’t a valid way of learning about the past?”
It is a way to learn about the past, but not prove things that cannot be proven. For example, if a person’s bones are dug up that show him next to wood-working tools, it is right to assume, unless there is reason to believe otherwise, that he was a woodworker. That’s not the kind of science you’re talking about. As I mentioned before, missing links have not been found. That is the kind of thing that a science is there to help with. It’s not here to help us guess about the past.
“JJ, I point you to definition 3b from Webster’s, “such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena”. That is the relevant definition for purposes of this discussion, yet it is also the very same definition you and jimmy have danced around for quite some time now. I’ll even grab one from Webster’s 1828:”
Evolution does not deal with the physical world. It deals with a hypothesized physical world of the past. Completely different things. And no, I have not danced around this. This is what I’ve been talking about the whole time.
“I note with some amusement that religion is not listed as one of the branches of knowledge.”
That therefore removes evolution from any branch of knowledge. Because, as I noted in a post quite a ways up the page, evolution requires more faith than does creation. And in fact, I am amazed at your guy’s extreme faith. I personally like to stick to faith that doesn’t contradict science. But if you like to do otherwise, it has obviously come to being more than just a faith, and possibly even more than a religion.
“Thus far we now have examples here from you of, “Cherry picking of information and purposeful attempts at supression of facts, ” [supplying only partial definitions in the knowledge that the full definition does not support your interpretations]”
No, we have given full definitions for things, definition that apply to this more than the others. If you like to draw in other definitions to give yourself some kind of advantage, it would see as if you would someday see how you are skirting the truth.
““willful misinterpretations “[repeatedly supplying interpretations that you attribute to others],”
see above
“and “increasingly faulty applications of logic” [circular reasoning]”
Don’t even get me started. As I stated before, circular reasoning is what evolution is made up of. Don’t even think about putting that on us. You’re the evolutionist here. What kind of circular reasoning have we done?
“Thus it is proven my prior comment was not “railing on personalities”, and the accusations were indeed truthful”
Skirt the issue as you like, but a personal attack is a personal attack. Yes, it might be truthful. But Yes, there is another way to get that truth across.
In case your mother didn’t ever tell you, snickering is pretty low. It’s reserved for those who don’t have an answer to what was presented, and so they try to turn it around, and put the burden of proof on the other person, while they themselves proved nothing.
“I call bullshit. If the first amendment (”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”) isn’t enough for you, consider the treaty of Tripoli, where Article 11 says, “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion” (Article 6 of the US constitution explicitly says that treaties are the law of the land).”
I call skirting the real issue, and changing the statement. He did not say that the foundations of America are Christian, but only that it was founded as a Christian nation. Have you heard of ‘leaving it’s roots’?
This is another issue with definition. Foundation has many definitions, and you are changing it to suit what you like, not how it was presented.
“Jimmy, if you’re through with your overly emotional irrational outburst that is obviously clouding your comprehension skills; once you and JJ are through responding to arensb’s multiple prior challenges that you have both left unanswered, could you then get around to answering, based on your statement:”
Same goes for you, Fez. Look at my post on December 28th, 2006 at 12:03 pm. arensb has mentioned a few of them, but left most of them alone, while you (unless I missed something) have not touched any of it. You’ve been so busy asking for our responses to your questions. Well, I’ve delivered. What about you?
jimmy:
Heya, sugar tits.
You mean, English common law, and the Magna Carta, which argued that hey, maybe kings shouldn’t have absolute rule, but should be subject to laws just like everyone else? I’ll be curious to see how you get that out of the Bible.
For that matter, this country really got started when the colonists told king George to take a flying leap. Doesn’t that go squarely against Paul’s injunctions to obey rightful authorities?
But the fact is that we have a purely secular constitution, and the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the first amendment as erecting a wall of separation between church and state. So even assuming that the United States was founded as “a Christian nation”, should we go back to that foundation? I, for one, have no desire to live in a theocracy. And neither would you, I suspect.
That’s it? You’re saying, “I know God exists because… I just do, okay!”?
So by implication, you’re saying that there’s no difference that you can point to between a universe with a god, and one without. That points, at best, to a deist god, one who doesn’t interact with the universe in any way.
I think I replied to that adequately, no?
JJ:
You misunderstand: “allele frequency change in a population over generations” is the definition of the phenomenon of evolution. It is not a theory.
A scientific theory is an explanation. There are certain phenomena that we collectively call “gravity”, and then there are theories of gravity that try to explain those phenomena. In the same way, there is the fact of evolution (if you observe a population of living beings, the respective frequencies of alleles in that population change over time), and there are the theories of evolution which explain why and how this happens.
There’s electricity, and there’s a theory that explains electricity in terms of electrons and charges moving around. There are diseases, and there’s a theory that explains diseases as bacterial or viral infection. And there’s evolution, and there’s a theory that explains why it occurs in terms of natural selection, genetic drift, etc.
Clearer now?
See above: anyone well-versed in science in the middle of the 19th century would have been familiar with the phenomenon of evolution (and things like Lamarck’s theory of evolution by acquired characteristics, and Cuvier’s theory of catastrophism), but would not be familiar with the theory of evolution by natural selection until Origin of Species was published. Just as someone living in the early 20th century would be familiar with the phenomenon of gravity, but wouldn’t know about the relativistic theory of gravity until Einstein presented it in 1915.
Saying that evolution is wrong and not knowing what “allele frequency” means is like telling an auto mechanic, “I’m not quite sure what a steering wheel is, but I’m quite certain that you’re wrong about the problem with my car”. It’s painfully obvious that all of your “information” about evolution comes from people like Kent Hovind and Ken Ham, and that you have no idea what scientists actually say, what they know, or how they know it.
Fortunately, this is easy to remedy: go read http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ and http://www.talkorigins.org/ for a bit and at least find out what evolution and evolutionary theory are. I’m not asking you to agree, just to find out what scientists are saying, and not argue from a position of ignorance.
But just to help you out: a gene is basically a trait inherited from one’s parents, which we now know are more or less stretches of DNA. Many of them come in several varieties: if we were to look at the gene for hemoglobin in one of my cells and one of yours, we’d probably find that they’re exactly the same. But if we looked at a different gene (such as EYCL3, which is involved in eye color), we might find that they’re somewhat different. These different varieties of a given gene are called alleles.
If you look at a whole population of living beings, you can count and see how many of them have a given allele of a given gene. For instance, you might look at 100,000 mice in a given area and find that 50,000 of them have blue eyes, 49,000 have brown eyes, and 1,000 have red eyes. If you take each of these numbers and divide by the population, you get an allele frequency: the “blue eye” allele has a frequency of 50,000/100,000 = 0.5 = 50%, the “brown eye” allele has a frequency of 49,000/100,000 = 0.49 = 49%, and the “red eye” allele has a frequency of 0.01 = 1%.
Now, what if you came back 200 mouse generations later and did the same survey on the descendants of these mice? You might find that now, out of 100,000 mice, 40,000 have blue eyes, 58,000 have brown eyes, and 2,000 have red eyes. The allele frequencies have changed from 50% blue/49% brown/1% red to 40% blue/58% brown/2% red. In other words, you’ve noticed allele frequency change in a population over generations, also called evolution for short. At this point, you can start asking yourself why this change occurred.
Okay, can you please identify one of these processes, and explain how it moves heat from a cold body to a hot one without doing the reverse somewhere else, thus violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
First of all, although your sentence begins with “For example”, it does not list an example of an evolutionary process that biologists claim occurs, nor how that process violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Secondly, you’re making an argument from ignorance: you’re saying that you don’t know how eyes evolved, and therefore they didn’t.
Thirdly, see this article by Nilsson and Pelger, A Pessimistic Estimate of the Time Required for an Eye to Evolve.
Once again, you’re saying that although you don’t know what evolutionary biologists say, they’re wrong nonetheless.
It evolved, through a succession of stages, each of which was better (more useful to survival of the animals possessing it) than the previous. What’s so hard about that?
Look, I’ll help you learn if you’re interested, but I’m not going to spoon-feed you, or do your homework for you. All of your questions have been addressed in the research literature, in textbooks, web sites, and popular science books and articles.
Here’s a free tip: in many cities and towns, there are buildings where they let people come in and borrow books for free. They’re called “libraries”. If your local public library doesn’t have the books you’re looking for, try a university library. My local university does, in fact, allow just anyone to walk in off of the street and read books and journals (just not borrow them).
I have not observed evolution myself, any more than you’ve gone up into space to see for yourself that the Earth is spherical. Nor were you, I’ll wager, at either of George Bush’s inaugurations, so you didn’t witness for yourself that he is in fact president of the US.
I have, however, seen enough bits of evidence (they hide it in places called museums and libraries), criticism of the evidence, rebuttals of criticism, etc. to know that both the fact and theory of evolution are as well established as anything ever gets, in science. In addition to which, I’ve checked for myself (through computer simulation) that natural selection works in principle.
Yup. Just as in humans, the blastopore (an opening in the early-stage embryo) becomes the anus, while in insects, the blastopore becomes the mouth.
No, because every time I check on them (and I have), they turn out to be lying or mistaken.
So how does “He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in” fit in with your interpretation? What about the “cornerstone” of the Earth (Job 38:6) or “doors and bars” for the sea (Job 38:8-11)?
Because of limitations on our equipment, sure. But by that same argument, no one can tell us exactly how many people live in France.
This is what’s technically known as a lie. Isn’t there something in the Ten Commandments about lying? Or is there an exemption for lying when it’s convenient (many people seem to think that it’s okay to lie for Jesus, so I’m just asking).
If you’re really an amateur astronomer (unless that was another lie), then you should have recognized that 1011 is a good enough estimate of the number of galaxies for a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the number of stars. And while Wikipedia is far from perfect, it’s usually close enough for this sort of thing. So please, stop being an asshole.
Yes.
If the Bible is such a good source of information about the world we live in, information not available to the people who wrote it (in the sense of actually setting pen to paper, I mean) and therefore only available to God, then why doesn’t it say anything about germs?
In Joshua 10:12-13, the sun stops above Gibeon, and the moon above the valley of Aijalon. How is this possible? The distance from Gibeon to Aijalon is so small compared to the distance from the Earth to the moon (to say nothing of the distance from the Earth to the sun) that if the moon were above Aijalon, it would also be above Gibeon, to anyone without a precise instrument. So how is it that the authors of the Bible knew about the water cycle and Earth’s rotation, but not about the size or location of the sun and moon?
You’re avoiding the question. Why does the Bible prescribe magic rituals to get rid of mildew, instead of something that actually works? Mark 9:3 mentions bleaching. Does this mean that the author of Mark knew about bleach, but the author of Leviticus didn’t? Why not?
You didn’t, and it doesn’t. I’m curious as to why the Bible omits this fact.
No, it’s becoming increasingly obvious that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Before you post your next reply, I suggest that you check the Index to Creationist Claims. I think you’ll find that most of your arguments are already adequately addressed there. I may start just using links to that in lieu of detailed rebuttals.
Isn’t that tautologically true? Are there any good ways to prove something that cannot be proven?
It isn’t? If a paleontologist finds a fossil of an animal sandwiched above a 110-million-year-old layer and below a 105-million-year-old layer, why is it not reasonable to believe that that animal lived and died 105-110 million years ago?
For one thing, that’s trivially true: if a missing link were found, it wouldn’t be missing, would it?
But what missing link are you talking about? How would you recognize it if you saw it? More to the point, what would someone familiar with evolutionary theory expect to find?
No. I don’t even understand what “leaving it is roots” means. And no, I don’t see a difference between “the foundations of America are Christian” and “America was founded as a Christian nation”.
jimmy,
You mean the accusations of December 20th in this thread that were answered here? I backed up my claims, now let’s see some responses from you.
So the jimmy making this entry wasn’t the same jimmy?
What you gave was a cherry-picked definition that was not germane to the discussion, while leaving out alternative definitions of the term ‘science’, including the most appropriate definition for the purposes of this discussion that was taken from your very same source, thus compounding the problems here by commiting a sin of omission.
The English language was not formed by Noah Webster, nor are the numerous dictionaries published by Webster and Merriam-Webster considered formative. That distinction lies with the Oxford English Dictionary, a source you claim to have access to yet declined to use for purposes of our debate for the reasons stated above.
Interesting you want to bring up Patrick Henry in defense of your claim of the foundations of this country, considering he was one of the most vociferous critics of the US Constitution as it was ratified. Sounds like he didn’t agree with his more learned colleagues either, but if you disagree with the US Constitution, please, feel free to move on.
Once again you make accusations based on facts not in evidence. I never claimed the english language was insufficient. I claimed you picked one definition out of several that were readily available to you and chose the one least applicable to the discussion at hand, ignoring other more apropriate definitions.
The veracity of your source has already been discussed and found sorely wanting. Noah Webster constrained himself to Biblical descriptive interpretations. This point was made multiple times and left unchallanged, therefore it is safe to assume you accept this claim. In doing so you are simply exposing your disposition to engage in circular reasoning, which has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions and left unchallenged, therefore it is safe to assume you accept this claim.
Your claim that evolutionary studies are not science was answered here, with the only response from you being flippant dismissal of all presented evidence that can be summarized as “Your arguments are void because I don’t agree it’s possible for any other conclusion to be drawn.” Live in denial if you like, but don’t get upset just because others can easily tell shit from shinola.
Repeatedly your challenges have been answered, and repeatedly you have failed to dispute said answers in any meaningful fashion. Your retreat to a position of argument based upon religious faith is itself meaningless in the context of someone who stated early on that religion, is nothing more than a scam based upon proven lies..
With you stating your opinon as such, what other conclusion can one draw except that you desire nothing more than a forum in which to act contrarian?
JJ,
I’m not going to bother responding to this since arensb has done a much better job of explaining what evolution is and why your arguments do not hold water. I fully agree with his explanation.
Until you can provide independently verified evidence of the Creator, or even a Creator, your evidence is nothing more than wishful thinking. I’m amazed at the tenacity of your belief in the face of overwhelming evolutionary evidence that you cannot successfully dismiss except by denial, a denial that, when stripped of vague wording, boils down to, “I do not accept that evidence because what it shows conflicts with my uneducated belief.”
See above.
Bullshit. A quick scan of this thread proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that you two never provided full definitions of the term ‘science’. You. Cherry. Picked. It can’t be made any clearer.
Please, start. The incessant reptition is boring me.
How is providing specific examples of each accusation “skirting the issue”? What school of logic leads you to that conclusion?
You’ve been answered. Multiple times. That you are unwilling to accept said answers because it conflicts with your dogma is your problem, not mine. You repeatedly claim issue skirting, yet you yourself are most guily of engaging in that activity.
What of it? I see nothing in your “list of scientific truths” precluding evolution science, I see nothing that provides any justification for your erronous claim that evolutionary studies are not science, but I see a lot of later response from arensb detailing where and how your interpretations/assumptions are incorrect that have remained unchallenged by you.
You would have been better served to at least cite chapter and verse supporting your claims, because at the moment they have all the validity as do claims regarding specific locations of tramlines between stars and the maximum variance allowable in stellar thermonuclear output between the two bodies. Context son, context.
I just ran across this article over at Pharyngula, and thought I’d share it here. It’s about how ten years ago, scientists thought they’d found some 580 million-year-old animal embryos. But a new discovery casts doubt on that. Go read it, everyone.
It’s interesting because a) he explains why people thought that the fossils were embryos (with photos!), b) he describes the new discovery and why it casts doubt on the earlier analysis, c) he admits that even though it would be extremely cool to have half-a-billion-year-old embyos, you have to go where the evidence leads.
I bring this up because it illustrates how scientists think, and why when they’re sure of something, it’s very likely to be true: by training, they question everything, and try to fit everything into a larger picture of how the world works. Evolution is universally-accepted in biology not because of dogma, but because for 150 years, scientists have been asking, “Oh yeah? Show me” and getting it shown.
Alright fez, does this definition from the Oxford English satisfy you?
science
(“saI@ns) Forms: 4 sienz, cience, ciens, 4–5 siens, syence, syense, 4–6 scyence, sciens(e, 4, 6–7 sience, 5 scians, 5–6 syens, 6 sienc, scyens, 6–7 scyense, 4– science. [a. F. science = Pr. sciensa, Sp. ciencia, Pg. sciencia, It. scienza, ad. L. scientia knowledge, f. scient-em, pr. pple. of scWre to know.]
a. The state or fact of knowing; knowledge or cognizance of something specified or implied; also, with wider reference, knowledge (more or less extensive) as a personal attribute. Now only Theol. in the rendering of scholastic terms (see quot. 1728), and occas. Philos. in the sense of ‘knowledge’ as opposed to ‘belief’ or ‘opinion’.
a1340 Hampole Psalter Cant. 500 Ald thyngis deport fra Šowre mouth: for God of sciens is lord, and till him ere redyd the thoghtis. c1374 Chaucer Boeth. ii. pr. vii. (1868) 59 Þe soule whiche þat haþ in it self science of goode werkes [L. sibi mens bene conscia]. 1426 Lydg. De Guil. Pilgr. 2697 Therfor ye trewly ber the name Cherubin, fful of scyence And of dyvyne sapyence. 1532 More Confut. Tindale Wks. 361/2 Whereof saynt Paule cryeth hymself, O altitudo diuitiarum sapientie & scientie dei. O the heyght and depenes of the ryches of the wysedome and scyence of god. 1601 Shakes. All’s Well v. iii. 103 Plutus himselfe,+Hath not in natures mysterie more science, Then I haue in this Ring. 1667 Milton P.L. ix. 680 O Sacred, Wise, and Wisdom-giving Plant, Mother of Science. 1678 Gale Crt. Gentiles iv. iii. 36 Some of our Opponents resolve Gods certain prescience of sin into the infinitude of his science. 1697 tr. Burgersaicius’ Logic ii. xx. 99 The word science is either taken largely to signifie any cognition or true assent; or, strictly, a firm and infallible one; or, lastly, an assent of propositions made known by the cause and effect. 1700 Rowe Amb. Step-Mother ii. ii. 852 What makes Gods divine But Power and Science infinite. 1725 Pope Odyss. ii. 198 For lo! my words no fancy’d woes relate: I speak from science, and the voice is Fate. 1728 Chambers Cycl. s.v. Science, Divines suppose three kinds of Science in God: The first, Science of mere Knowledge.+ The second, a Science of Vision.+ The third, an intermediate Science. 1753 Johnson Adventurer No. 107 318 Life is not the object of Science: we see a little, very little; and what is beyond we can only conjecture. 1882 Seeley Nat. Relig. 260 Though we have not science of it [supernaturalism] yet we have probabilities or powerful presentiments.
You will note that is specifies that Science is knowledge, different from BELIEF.
jimmy,
[I corrected ‘is’ to ‘it’ since I think that’s what you meant, and ‘is’ was just a typo]
Oh, oh, ok, I think I understand your point now. Let me restate to see if I’m understanding – science and knowledge are an equality, ie. all science is KNOWLEDGE [emphasis mine because I think that’s the point you’ve been trying to stress that I’ve not reflected in my responses]; you cannot have one without the other. Is that correct?
fez,
Thanks for correcting me. Yes, my point is that science is knowledge, but only knowledge as it is defined by the dictionary cited above.
Something I might as well state, (though I am certain that you and arensb already understand this) is that I do not contend the process of micro evolution. That is scientific, because it is certain knowledge.
jimmy:
Okay, so what do you mean by microevolution (as opposed to macroevolution, presumably)? In particular, what would happen if you had microevolution going on for a very long time (thousands, tens or hundreds of thousands, or millions of generations)?
jimmy,
No, I was not understanding of that particular qualification, that was the first mention of it. arensb beat me to the question but I’ll ask as well for completeness – what do you mean by micro evolution? It would be helpful if in your explanation you could work in a counter example from macroevolution, applying the definition of science from OED def #1 for clarification purposes to indicate where macroevolution falls short.
arensb and fez,
I’ve taken a few explanations from decently reputable sources to explain what I mean when I say “microevolution”
From Wikipedia,
“Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level.”
These changes may be due to several processes: mutation, natural selection, gene flow, and genetic drift.
Also, I have been reading a lot on evolution.berkeley.edu, So I’ve taken their definition as well.
“Defining Microevolution
Microevolution is evolution on a small scale—within a single population. That means narrowing our focus to one branch of the tree of life.”
So that’s what I mean. Sure, changes within a species take place over time, evidenced by the fact that I don’t look exactly like my father, and you probably don’t either. A horse with blue eyes may have been sired by one with green. This is certain knowledge, thus making it scientific.
jimmy:
Okay, so isn’t macroevolution just microevolution writ large? Doesn’t lots of microevolution add up to macroevolution?
Furthermore, if microevolution is evolution at or below the species level (and I have no quarrel with this definition), then speciation (one species splitting into two) is an example of macroevolution, and speciation has been observed, both in the lab and in the field. Basically, if microevolution is like taking a step, then macroevolution is like hiking. In short, given microevolution and enough time, what is there to prevent macroevolution?
Also, I’m going to take issue with your definition of science as being certain knowledge. I don’t think you’ll find a single practicing scientist who agrees with that. Science isn’t about certainty; it’s about finding the best available explanations for why the world is the way it is. For instance, it’s well-known that quantum physics or general relativity (or both) is wrong, because they contradict each other in some cases. At the same time, quantum physics is good enough to allow your computer to work, and relativity is good enough for the GPS system to work.
No, Microevolution is, in fact, much different from macroevolution, in that while the former has been observed, and is fact, while the latter has not. Yes, I read Joseph Boxhorn on the subject, and found something that us southern boys discovered a long time ago. If you cross a donkey and a horse, you get a mule, which rarely is able to mate whith another mule. That is not Macroevolution. It is not one species becoming another, by any means. And, I know, you have many different definitions for species, but I notice that Boxhorn only used the ones that suited his theory. You were complaining at me about circular reasoning?
No dog has ever produced a non-dog. No horse has ever produced a non-horse. And no human has ever produced a non-human. If this is debatable in the minds of others, then let them produce evidence supporting this belief.
“I don’t think you’ll find a single practicing scientist who agrees with that. Science isn’t about certainty; it’s about finding the best available explanations for why the world is the way it is.”
Sorry, I didn’t ask scientists. It doesn’t matter what a scientist thinks science is, it doesn’t matter what you think science is, I gave a definition from the ultimate authority on the English language, and your explanation doesn’t match up. If I’m running, but I say that I’m not running, but rather walking, I’m going have to change what I call what I’m doing.
If you don’t like the definition of science, call it something else, but it’s NOT science.
jimmy,
Still formulating responses to other things, but I can’t let this one go uncommented on:
The several reasons for the disimilarities are hopefully very obvious, the primary one of which being that unless there are some rather odd traditions in your family, the sources of genetic material that make up you are different than those that make up your father. ;). I know they were in mine :D.
Good observation, my bad on the analogy.
jimmy:
I suspect you phrased this poorly: it sounds as if you’re saying that macroevolution is any kind of evolution that hasn’t been observed. There’s a long-standing joke in talk.origins that microevolution is evolution that has been demonstrated to such a degree that not even Answers In Genesis can deny it, but I didn’t think creationists actually agreed with that.
If not, then how do you define macroevolution, anyway? (See also CB902.)
I think this is CB901.
Just above this, you wrote:
If “no horse has ever produced a non-horse”, yet horses have been known to produce mules, then that means that mules are horses. And even if you meant to say “no horse has ever produced a non-horse that isn’t sterile”, you still said that mules are “rarely” able to mate with other mules, which means that sometimes they can. So either mules are horses, or you were wrong when you said that horses never produced non-horses. Which is it?
At any rate, why can’t a lot of microevolution add up to macroevolution? What is there to prevent it? No one claims that a dog ever gave birth to a cat, or anything like that. In fact, such an observation would shake biology to its core and probably destroy the theory of evolution.
This is pretty funny. By this logic, if your dictionary defines “history” one way, and a historian disagrees, you’ll ignore the historian? If the dictionary defines “automobile” one way, but auto mechanics disagree, you’ll ignore the people who work on cars day in and day out?
If the definition of science doesn’t match what scientists do, wouldn’t it be better to change the definition?
arensb,
I don’t feel there is anything wrong with the definitions available in these source for use, I believe the problem is one of improper application.
jimmy,
I’m not sure if arensb did; I know I complained at you about circular reasoning, but your example isn’t one of circular reasoning so much as it would be an alleged cherry picking of facts (pruportedly focusing on a single definition of ‘species’ that you disagree with) while allegedly purposely ignoring other possibly more suitable definitions of ‘species’ without providing argument as to why said definitions are not germane.
I would suggest for clarification that if you disagree with Boxhorn’s studies because you believe he is applying an incorrect definition of ‘species’ in the context of his discussion you challenge him on that. I would also suggest exercising care in doing so and rereading part 2 of his submittal several times, as he appears to have gone to a great deal of effort not only to provide multiple definitions of ‘species’ but to also provide justifications as to why certain definitions are incorrect or not germane in the context he provides.
Sigh. Looks like I screwed up ‘blockquote’ tags again. In reading my response above,the block addressed to arensb, the paragraph starting “Both referenced dictionaries…” is my verbage, not arensb’s.
arensb,
I did phrase that poorly. Reading it now, even I laughed.(guess I should have previewed it)
Anyway, let me restate. I consider macroevolution to be the alleged fact that one species can and will become another species. This has never been seen in real life. Microevolution is small scale changes within a species. Obviously, this has been observed, hence, the horse-to-mule example.
As you will note, horses and mules share the same “family” if you want to say, they are the same animal (only a variation) as my whole point was.
“This is pretty funny. By this logic, if your dictionary defines “history” one way, and a historian disagrees, you’ll ignore the historian? If the dictionary defines “automobile” one way, but auto mechanics disagree, you’ll ignore the people who work on cars day in and day out?”
Alright, you stated that evolution is scientific. I looked up “scientific” and according to that definition (taken from the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY on the English language)evolution is NOT scientific. So, don’t call it scientific if it’s not. Call it “generally accepted” or whatever you like, but it’s not science. If your scientists do not practice science, then, well… do the math.
Sorry fez, I missed your post.
All I’m saying is that as stated by Boxely, there are many definitions of species. My point about circular reasoning is this: an evolutionist gives definitions of species to back up an evolutionary claim. Ya catch my drift?
Why 1828, specifically? Have all dictionaries subsequent to it somehow gotten worse? I’ll point out that the 1828 version of Webster defines “electron” as “Amber; also, a mixture of gold with a fifth part of silver.” Likewise, it defines “engineer” as “In the military art, a person skilled in mathematics and mechanics, who forms plans of works for offense or defense, and marks out the ground for fortifications. Engineers are also employed in delineating plans and superintending the construction of other public works, as aqueducts and canals. The latter are called civil engineers.”
Some of these words have changed in their general usage since then, and many words have a specific meaning to a profession that isn’t the same as the colloquial meaning you might find in a dictionary. I have a degree in engineering. People call me an engineer. But according to Webster’s 1828, I’m doing something else.
I’m also getting the general sense that you think that inference has no place in science. What’s your take on the existence of the electron? Scientific or unscientific knowledge? What about the conclusions of the drug test of an athlete?
Troublesom frog, My latest definitions (the ones refered to) are from the Oxford English Dictionary. In case you don’t know what that is, it is the dictionary that is accepted as being the Ulitmate Authority on the English language.
In the event that you question my claim, here’s a short explanation from wikipedia.
Oxford English Dictionary
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
“OED” redirects here. For other uses, see OED (disambiguation).
The Oxford English Dictionary print setThe Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is a dictionary published by the Oxford University Press (OUP), and is generally regarded as the most comprehensive and scholarly dictionary of the English language. As of November 30, 2005 it included about 301,100 main entries, comprising over 350 million printed characters. In addition to the headwords of main entries, it contains 157,000 combinations and derivatives in bold type, and 169,000 phrases and combinations in bold italic type, making a total of 616,500 word-forms. There are 137,000 pronunciations, 249,300 etymologies, 577,000 cross-references, and 2,412,400 illustrative quotations. The latest complete printed version of the dictionary (Second Edition, 1989) contained 21,730 pages, with 291,500 entries.
The policy of the OED is to attempt to record most known uses and variants of a word in all varieties of English, worldwide, past and present. To quote the 1933 Preface:
The aim of this Dictionary is to present in alphabetical series the words that have formed the English vocabulary from the time of the earliest records [ca. A.D. 740] down to the present day, with all the relevant facts concerning their form, sense-history, pronunciation, and etymology. It embraces not only the standard language of literature and conversation, whether current at the moment, or obsolete, or archaic, but also the main technical vocabulary, and a large measure of dialectal usage and slang.
It went on to clarify,
Hence we exclude all words that had become obsolete by 1150 [the end of the Old English era] . . . Dialectal words and forms which occur since 1500 are not admitted, except when they continue the history of the word or sense once in general use, illustrate the history of a word, or have themselves a certain literary currency.
The OED is the starting point for much scholarly work regarding words in English. Its choice of the order in which to list variant spellings of headwords is influential on written English in many countries.
Jimmy,
Sorry, I missed the latest definition update. I see you have moved to a more modern source–a sensible thing to do given the modern subject matter. Not having an OED handy (a $900 dictionary is overkill for my line of work), I’ll have to rely on what you posted. I have to wonder, though, could the OED really only have one definition listed for the word “science”? Even dictionary.com provides 12 entries. I would be surprised if the definition you posted is the only one, or even the one most relevant to the topic at hand. Can you confirm?
I’m also still really interested in your take on interpreting the results of drug tests on athletes. Scientific, or no?
troublesome frog,
The definitions posted have been accepted by arensb and fez, but since they obviously do not satisfy you, I will post the whole in its entirety.
science
(“saI@ns) Forms: 4 sienz, cience, ciens, 4–5 siens, syence, syense, 4–6 scyence, sciens(e, 4, 6–7 sience, 5 scians, 5–6 syens, 6 sienc, scyens, 6–7 scyense, 4– science. [a. F. science = Pr. sciensa, Sp. ciencia, Pg. sciencia, It. scienza, ad. L. scientia knowledge, f. scient-em, pr. pple. of scWre to know.]
a. The state or fact of knowing; knowledge or cognizance of something specified or implied; also, with wider reference, knowledge (more or less extensive) as a personal attribute. Now only Theol. in the rendering of scholastic terms (see quot. 1728), and occas. Philos. in the sense of ‘knowledge’ as opposed to ‘belief’ or ‘opinion’.
a1340 Hampole Psalter Cant. 500 Ald thyngis deport fra Šowre mouth: for God of sciens is lord, and till him ere redyd the thoghtis. c1374 Chaucer Boeth. ii. pr. vii. (1868) 59 Þe soule whiche þat haþ in it self science of goode werkes [L. sibi mens bene conscia]. 1426 Lydg. De Guil. Pilgr. 2697 Therfor ye trewly ber the name Cherubin, fful of scyence And of dyvyne sapyence. 1532 More Confut. Tindale Wks. 361/2 Whereof saynt Paule cryeth hymself, O altitudo diuitiarum sapientie & scientie dei. O the heyght and depenes of the ryches of the wysedome and scyence of god. 1601 Shakes. All’s Well v. iii. 103 Plutus himselfe,+Hath not in natures mysterie more science, Then I haue in this Ring. 1667 Milton P.L. ix. 680 O Sacred, Wise, and Wisdom-giving Plant, Mother of Science. 1678 Gale Crt. Gentiles iv. iii. 36 Some of our Opponents resolve Gods certain prescience of sin into the infinitude of his science. 1697 tr. Burgersaicius’ Logic ii. xx. 99 The word science is either taken largely to signifie any cognition or true assent; or, strictly, a firm and infallible one; or, lastly, an assent of propositions made known by the cause and effect. 1700 Rowe Amb. Step-Mother ii. ii. 852 What makes Gods divine But Power and Science infinite. 1725 Pope Odyss. ii. 198 For lo! my words no fancy’d woes relate: I speak from science, and the voice is Fate. 1728 Chambers Cycl. s.v. Science, Divines suppose three kinds of Science in God: The first, Science of mere Knowledge.+ The second, a Science of Vision.+ The third, an intermediate Science. 1753 Johnson Adventurer No. 107 318 Life is not the object of Science: we see a little, very little; and what is beyond we can only conjecture. 1882 Seeley Nat. Relig. 260 Though we have not science of it [supernaturalism] yet we have probabilities or powerful presentiments.
†b. Contrasted or coupled with conscience, emphasizing the distinction to be drawn between theoretical perception of a truth and moral conviction. Obs.
1620 T. Scott God & King (1623) 84 This my Sermon+is perhaps tost by censure and science for a while, but scarce touched by conscience, or drawne into practise. 1637 Abp. Laud Sp. Star-Chamber 14 June 62 The Author is clearely conceived+to have written this Book wholly+against both his science and his conscience. 1654 Owen Doctr. Saints’ Persev. xi. 249 A wilfull perverting of it, contrary to his own science & conscience.
a. Knowledge acquired by study; acquaintance with or mastery of any department of learning. Also †pl. (a person’s) various kinds of knowledge.
13+ E.E. Allit. P. B. 1289 Wyth alle þe coyntyse þat he cowþe+De-uised he [salomon] þe vesselment,+Wyth slyŠt of his ciences, his souerayn to loue. 1390 Gower Conf. II. 82 And Heredot in his science Of metre, of rime and of cadence The ferste was of which men note. c1400 Destr. Troy 5524 Epistaphus+a discrete man of dedis, dryuen into age, And a sad mon of sciens in the seuyn artis. c1440 Gesta Rom. xxxiv. 132 (Harl. MS.) No man myght be likenid to him in no kynne sciens. 1456 Sir G. Haye Law Arms (S.T.S.) 16 Clerkis of hye science, the quhilkis had the grete dignities in haly kirk. c1475 Partenay 107 As rose is aboue al floures most fine So is science most digne of worthynesse. 1538 Bale John Baptist in Harl. Misc. (1744) I. 105 You boast your selues moch, of ryghteousness and scyence. 1557 North Gueuara’s Diall Pr. ii. xxx. (1568) 138b, The auncient women were more esteamed for their sciences, then for their beauties. 1562 WinŠet Cert. Tractates I. 16 Giue Johne Knox and ze affirmis zour selfis lauchful be ressoun of zour science [etc.]. 1738 Gray Propertius ii. 52 Be love my youth’s pursuit, and science crown my Age. 1781 Cowper Conversation 14 As alphabets in ivory employ, Hour after hour, the yet unletter’d boy, Sorting and puzzling with a deal of glee Those seeds of science call’d his A B C.
b. Trained skill. Now esp. (somewhat jocularly) with reference to pugilism (cf. 3c); also to horsemanship and other bodily exercises.
1785 G. A. Bellamy Apol. (ed. 3) IV. 156 She could by no means be said to surpass Mrs. Yates, who joined hard~earned science to her other great qualifications. 1793 W. Roberts Looker-on No. 33 (1797) II. 111 Mr. Powell, the fire-eater, is a singular genius; and Mendoza has more science than Johnson. 1812 Sporting Mag. XXXIX. 22 Molineux sparred neatly early in the fight, but he lost his science after he had been a good deal punished. 1889 Field 12 Jan. 41/2 It was most disappointing to their huntsman to have the cup thus dashed from his lips when it only required a kill to render complete as fine an exhibition of science as could possibly be seen.
c. fig. to blind with science (slang): to confuse by the use of polysyllabic words or involved explanations (see also quot. 1937).
1937 Partridge Dict. Slang 64/2 Blinded with science. A catch-phrase applied by brawn defeated by brains: Australian and New Zealand: C. 20. 1948 I Dict. Forces’ Slang 1938–45 18 Blind with science, to explain away an offence, a mistake, by talking at great length and very technically, thus dazzling one’s interlocutor into non-pursuance of the matter. (Mostly Army.) 1973 Daily Tel. 17 Oct. 14/6 We are also more familiar+with the tendency for people to be blinded by science and to succumb to ‘expert’ medical opinion, however quackish. 1977 Time Out 17–23 June 11/3 It’s very easy to coast and blind the office with science.
a. A particular branch of knowledge or study; a recognized department of learning.
In the Middle Ages, ‘the seven (liberal) sciences’ was often used synonymously with ‘the seven liberal arts’, for the group of studies comprised by the Trivium (Grammar, Logic, Rhetoric) and the Quadrivium (Arithmetic, Music, Geometry, Astronomy).
13+ Seuyn Sag. (W.) 48, I wil that ye teche him euyn The sutelte of science seuyn. c1386 Chaucer Frankl. T. 1122 As yonge clerkes+Seken in euery halke and euery herne Particuler sciences for to lerne. c1400 Lanfranc’s Cirurg. 7 Therfore he þat wole knowe what siurgie is, he most vndirstonde, þat it is a medicinal science. 1421 Rolls of Parlt. IV. 158 Thre Sciences that ben Divinite, Fisyk, and Lawe. 1486 Bk. St. Albans, Her. eivb, Bott in thes borduris ther is a grete differens emong men pretendyng theym experte and wyse in thys sciens. 1509 Watson Ship of Fools ii. (1517) Aiij, It is they the whiche ben ye leest experte in scyences, as in lawe. 1542 Udall Erasm. Apoph. 61 A philosophier of Athenes excellyng in all the mathematical sciencies. 1553 Eden Treat. Newe Ind. (Arb.) 5 The good affeccion whyche I haue euer borne to the science of Cosmographie. 1596 Shakes. Tam. Shr. ii. i. 57, I do present you with a man of mine Cunning in Musicke, and the Mathematickes, To instruct her fully in those sciences. 1613 Purchas Pilgrimage (1614) 795 Mexico is now an Vniuersitie, and therein are taught those Sciences which are read in our Vniuersities of Europe. 1662 Stillingfl. Orig. Sacræ ii, vi. §3 The right understanding of the principles of a science, is the ground why all things belonging to that science are understood. 1683 Col. Rec. Pennsylv. I. 93 To Witt: a scool of Arts and Siences. 1727 De Foe Syst. Magic i. ii. (1840) 59 And thus you have an honest system of the science called Magic. 1794 Godwin Caleb Williams 1, I was taught the rudiments of no science, except reading, writing, and arithmetic. 1864 Tennyson Aylmer’s F. 435 So Leolin went; and+toil’d Mastering the lawless science of our law. 1892 Westcott Gospel of Life 89 Theology is the crown of all the sciences, and Religion the synthesis of all. 1752 Adventurer No. 9 310 Give us+that master of the science the celebrated Hoyle, who has composed an elaborate treatise on every fashionable game. 1770 Burke Pres. Discont. 66 Underhand and oblique ways would be studied. The science of evasion, already tolerably under~stood, would then be brought to the greatest perfection. 1794 Godwin Caleb Williams 20 Unpardonably deficient in the sciences of anecdote and match-making. 1810 Syd. Smith Public Schools Wks. 1859 I. 188 His sister, who has remained at home at the apron-strings of her mother, is very much his superior in the science of manners. 1826 Lamb Elia ii. Pop. Fallacies xvi, But facts and sane inferences are trifles to a true adept in the science of dissatisfaction. 1837 Lockhart Scott I. iv. 128 Scott did not pursue the science of chess after his boyhood.
b. Contradistinguished from art: see art n. 8.
The distinction as commonly apprehended is that a science (= ÂŽpirs–lg) is concerned with theoretic truth, and an art (= sÂŒvmg) with methods for effecting certain results. Sometimes, however, the term science is extended to denote a department of practical work which depends on the knowledge and conscious application of principles; an art, on the other hand, being understood to require merely knowledge of traditional rules and skill acquired by habit.
1678 Moxon Mech. Dyalling 4 Though we may justly account Dyalling originally a Science, yet+it is now become to many of the Ingenious no more difficult than an Art. 1712 Budgell Spect. No. 307 35 Without a proper temperament for the particular Art or Science which he studies, his utmost Pains and Application+will be to no purpose. 1796 Kirwan Elem. Min. (ed. 2) I. Pref. 11 Previous to the year 1780, mineralogy, though tolerably understood by many as an art, could scarce be deemed a Science. 1834 Southey Doctor cxx. (1862) 294 The medical profession+was an art, in the worst sense of the word, before it became a science, and long after it pretended to be a science was little better than a craft. 1907 Hodges Elem. Photogr. 58 The development of the photographic image is both an art and a science.
c. the noble science (of defence): the art of boxing or that of fencing. Now jocular. Also, in mod. slang, the science. (Cf. sense 2b).
c1588–1839 [see noble A. 9]. 1837 Dickens Pickw. xlix, Up to that time he had never been aware that he had the least notion of the science [sc. fencing].
†d. A craft, trade, or occupation requiring trained skill. Obs.
c1480 Childe of Bristowe 78 in Hazl. E.P.P. I. 114 He gaf hym gold gret plenté, the child hys prentys shuld be, his science for to conne. 1526 Pilgr. Perf. (W. de W. 1531) 67 Whan a virgyn begynneth fyrst to lerne to sewe in the samplar, that scyence to her as than semeth very harde. 1530–1 Act 22 Hen. VIII, c. 13 That no+persones+shalbe enterpret or expounded hande craftesmen, in, for, or by reason of usyng any of the sayde mysteryes, or scyens, of bakyng, bruyng, surgery or wrytyng. 1551 Robinson tr. More’s Utopia iii. iv. (1895) 139 Husbandrye is a scyence common to them all ingenerall, both men and women, wherin they be all experte and cunnynge. 1576 Lichfield Guilds (E.E.T.S.) 26 The Master, Wardens and Combretheren of the mystery, crafte, and Scyence of the Taylers of the Citie of Lichffelde. 1600 Dekker Gentle Craft (1610) B1b, My iolly coze+Became a Shoomaker in Wittenberg, A goody science for a gentleman. 1660 Boston Rec. (1877) II. 156 No person shall henceforth open a shop in this Towne, nor occupy any manufacture or Science, till hee hath compleated 21 years of age.
a. In a more restricted sense: A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain.
1725 Watts Logic ii. ii. §9 The word science, is usually applied to a whole body of regular or methodical observations or propositions,+concerning any subject of speculation. 1794 Hutton Philos. Light, etc. 117 Philosophy must proceed in generalising those truths which are the object of particular sciences. 1860 Abp. Thomson Laws Th. §131 (ed. 5) 281 Classification of the Sciences. Mathematics.+ Astronomy.+ Physics [etc.]. 1882 Adamson in Encycl. Brit. XIV. 781/2 It may be said that in all sciences there are implied clearly defined notions, general statements or judgments, and methodical proofs.
b. with defining word.
The many conflicting systems proposed in recent times for the classification of the sciences, and the need frequently arising (apart from any formal classification) for a common designation applicable to a group of sciences that are related by similarity of subject or method, have given currency to a large number of expressions in which the word science is qualified by an adj. The application of these collocations, so far as it is not obvious, is explained under the adjs. Among the most prominent of the adjs. designating particular classes of sciences are: abstract, concrete, biological, descriptive, exact, experimental, historical, mathematical, mechanical, moral, mixed, pure, natural, physical. Also with preceding n., as life science, and combined with a prefix, as bio-, geo-, neuroscience. (See under the first element.)
1795 Burke Let. to Earl Fitzwilliam Wks. IX. 1, I am not sure, that the best way of discussing any subject, except those, that concern the abstracted sciences, is not somewhat in the way of dialogue.
c. In phrases: science of art, of expression, of mind, of religion(s), denoting esp. the application of scientific methods in fields of study previously considered open only to theories based on subjective, historical, or undemonstrable abstract criteria.
1828 J. S. Mill in Westm. Rev. IX. 140 The impugners of the school logic, as they term it, may be divided into two classes. The first class consists of men not untinctured with philosophy, including even some writers of considerable eminence in the science of mind. 1869 W. James Let. 21 Jan. in R. B. Perry Tht. & Char. W. James (1935) I. 291 Some weeks ago I read the three last articles on ‘Science of Religions’ by Emile Burnouf in the Revue des deux mondes. 1886 T. Paterson Mental Sci. 4 This confusion of opinion has led many to deny the possibility of any science of mind, beyond the physical or material facts of life. 1902 W. James Var. Relig. Exper. xviii. 433 Of late, impartial classifications and comparisons have become possible.+ We have the beginnings of a ‘Science of Religions’, so-called. 1909 D. Ainslie tr. Croce’s Aesthetic (subtitle), As science of expression and general linguistic. 1933 Burlington Mag. May 248/2 The great problem as to whether the science of art really is a science in the sense that the word is used in relation to natural science remains, however, unsolved. 1937 H. Read Art & Soc. vii. 233 Though based on the science of art and a deduction from the whole range of relevant material, the facts in question are relative to the aesthetic sensibility. 1944 J. S. Huxley On Living in Revol. iv. 45 The science of mind developed later than biological science. 1973 N. Smart (title) The science of religion and the sociology of knowledge. 1976 F. McDonagh tr. Pannenberg’s Theol. & Philos. of Sci. iv. 256 Theology then comes under the general heading of a science of religion.
a. The kind of knowledge or of intellectual activity of which the various ‘sciences’ are examples. In early use, with reference to sense 3: What is taught in the schools or may be learned by study. In mod. use chiefly: The sciences (in sense 4) as distinguished from other departments of learning; scientific doctrine or investigation. Often with defining adj. as in 4b.
In the 17th and 18th c. the notion now usually expressed by science was commonly expressed by philosophy.
1387 Trevisa Higden (Rolls) I. 3 After solempne and wise writeres of arte and of science. c1400 Mandeville (1839) xiv. 159 And Šif Šou lyke to knowe the Vertues of the Dyamand+I schalle telle Šou: as thei beŠonde the See seyn and afferme of whom alle Science and alle Philosophie comethe from. c1440 Gesta Rom. xxxiv. 112 He also hade a sone passyngly wyse ande witty,+ande no man myght be likenide to him in no kynne sciens. 1651 Hobbes Leviath. ii. xxxi. 191 The Principles of naturall Science. 1668 Dryden Ess. Dram. Poesy 9 Nothing spreads more fast than Science, when rightly and generally cultivated. 1744 Akenside Pleas. Imag. ii. 127 Speak ye the pure delight, whose favoured steps The lamp of Science through the jealous maze Of Nature guides. 1759 Goldsm. Bee No. 3 32 Nature was never more lavish of its gifts than it had been to her [Hypatia], endued as she was with the most exalted understanding and the happiest turn to science. 1857 Henfrey Bot. §1 Botany is that department of Natural Science which deals with Plants. 1859 Ruskin Arrows of Chace (1880) I. 194 How strange it seems that physical science should ever have been thought adverse to religion! 1864 Cobbold Entozoa 298 This species is new to science. a1628 F. Grevil Treat. Hum. Learn. xxvii, Strong instances to put all Arts to schoole, And proue the science~monger but a foole. 1857 Reade Course of True Love 151 Casenower, the science bitten, had read all the books.
b. In modern use, often treated as synonymous with ‘Natural and Physical Science’, and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. This is now the dominant sense in ordinary use. Also attrib., as in science-class, -master, -teacher, -teaching.
1867 W. G. Ward in Dubl. Rev. Apr. 255 note, We shall+use the word ‘science’ in the sense which Englishmen so commonly give to it; as expressing physical and experimental science, to the exclusion of theological and metaphysical. 1870 Yeats Nat. Hist. Comm. Introd. 14 An acquaintance with science or with the systematised knowledge of matter and its properties. 1895 Educat. Rev. Sept. 25 Science-teaching is nothing, unless, it brings the pupil in contact with nature. 1913 C. Mackenzie Sinister St. I. ii. vii. 253 Science is all the go nowadays.+ And Science is what we want. Science and Religion. 1946 R. J. C. Atkinson Field Archaeol. 12 One more problem+remains to be mentioned, the problem of co-operation between archaeologists and workers in other sciences. 1955 Bull. Atomic Sci. Apr. 141/1 Science has become a major source of the power of civilized man. 1976 Norwich Mercury 17 Dec. 3/8 Second year prizes—English,+mathematics,+ science,+history,+geography,+music. 1978 Nature 10 Aug. 522/1 Funds for lunar sample analysis have remained roughly constant over the past few years and the programme has received praise for the high quality of the science conducted.
†c. Oxford Univ. Formerly applied to the portions of ancient and modern philosophy, logic, and cognate subjects, included in the course of study for a degree in the school of Literæ Humaniores. Obs.
1831 Gladstone Diary in Morley Life (1903) I. 78 Examined by+Hampden in science. 1848 J. H. Newman Loss & Gain iii. iv, Our men know their books well, but I should not say that science is their line. 1855 M. Pattison Oxf. Studies in Oxf. Ess. 290 A new element of uncertainty came in, in the difference between taste and scholarship on the one hand, and attainment in Aristotle (science, it was called) on the other. 1884 E. A. Freeman Let. (MS.) 10 Feb., I remember him years ago as a logic and science coach. I don’t mean for cutting up cats, but what science meant then, Ethics, Butler, and such like. 1903 Athenæum 7 Feb. 176/3 He had none of his brother’s love for the Greek philosophy, then known as ‘science’.
d. Personified.
1742 Gray Eton 3 Where grateful Science still adores Her Henry’s holy Shade. 1862 G. H. Lewes Let. 30 Aug. in George Eliot Lett. (1955) IV. 52 If the passions and impertinences of public speakers, and newspaper writers on both sides of the Atlantic are madly widening the wounds which each ought to strive to heal, it is some comfort to reflect that Science keeps aloof from such misplaced and unjustifiable criticisms. 1894 A. Lang Cock Lane & Common-Sense 328 It is in this way that Science makes herself disliked. 1975 J. Plamenatz K. Marx’s Philos. Man viii. 218 Science recognizes that its hypothesis and theories are provisional and has criteria for deciding whether or not they should be discarded for better ones.
e. (Usually with capital initial.) U.S. = Christian Science.
1902 ‘Mark Twain’ in N. Amer. Rev. 768 Does the Science kill a patient here and there? 1915 E. B. Holt Freudian Wish 21 The ‘Science’ healer was immediately consulted. 1916 H. Crane Let. 26 Jan. (1965) 3 Carry the science as far as you can. 1919 I Let. 2 Apr. (1965) 15 Concerning me and my attitude toward Science. 1946 Christian Sci. Jrnl. Dec. 616 We called on a practitioner to learn what this Science was. 1980 A. Wilson Setting World on Fire ii. i. 51 Servants+live in a world of doctors and illnesses and death.+ Of course I wasn’t in Science then. I believed all their nonsense.
man of science. †a. A man who possesses knowledge in any department of learning, or trained skill in any art or craft. Obs. b. In modern use, a man who has expert knowledge of some branch of science (usually, of physical or natural science), and devotes himself to its investigation.
1552 in Vicary’s Anat. (1888) App. ii. 119 Here after is declared the names of all suche officers, men of Scyence, Artyficers, Craftismen, and other mynistres. 1562 WinŠet Cert. Tractates I. 16 Sen the saidis lordis and gentilmen being men of science [etc.]. 1759 Johnson 2nd Let. to Gazetteer 8 Dec., No man of science will deny that architecture has+degenerated at Rome to the lowest state. 1819 Shelley Peter Bell 3rd iv. xix, It was his fancy to invite Men of science, wit, and learning, Who come to lend each other light. 1855 Tennyson Maud i. iv. vii, The man of science himself is fonder of glory, and vain, An eye well-practised in nature, a spirit bounded and poor. 1890 Le Gallienne G. Meredith 71 The man of science is nothing if not a poet gone wrong.
attrib. and Comb., as (sense 5b) science-based adj.; science park orig. U.S., an area of land devoted to scientific research or to industrial enterprises connected with the physical sciences.
1962 Economist 14 Apr. 187/1 An industry can be science-based, said Lord Hailsham, and yet do little or no actual research. 1965 A. Farrer in J. Gibb Light on C. S. Lewis 28 Scientific formulae may be empirically verified, but no science-based picture of the sum of things is better than a symbol. 1970 Daily Tel. 27 Apr. 3/8 Trinity College, Cambridge, is proposing to create a ‘science park’ on the north-east outskirts of the city. 1973 Nature 22 June 430/2 In the United States, there are over 80 science parks,+but 27 of them are wholly limited to science-based industry. 1981 Daily Tel. 31 July 8/3 A 116-acre science park to attract high technology-based firms, and provide hundreds of jobs, is to be established in Peterborough. Lynch Wood Science Park will also include conference and sports centres and a hotel.
I hope that the above is what you were looking for. About my take concerning drug tests on athletes, I’ll repeat. If it doesn’t match the definition of science given, it’s NOT SCIENCE. If an individual practices something that he calls science, but what he practices does not fit the definition for science, he may call it “the study of…fill in the blank… or whatever he wants, but DON’T call it science.
jimmy,
Mmmmm…not so much so for me. My specific statement was that I believed to understand the whys and hows of your application, and provided a restatement of same to verify that I wasn’t misunderstanding where you were coming from, but I never claimed to agree with said application.
Jimmy,
Up to this point, you’ve been kind of absolutist in your definitions. It’s interesting to me that you chose definition #1 from the set of seven when that definition is simply the state of knowing. I would guess that the vast majority of people who use the word “science” in a given day (including professional scientists) aren’t thinking of that definition. It seems a less logical choice for this discussion than definition #4. I suppose we could quibble and you could decide to stick with #1, but the statement “X is not a scientific pursuit” is much not a particularly powerful one when you use that definition. I would argue that by that narrow definition, few if any of the activities we commonly call “doing science” would qualify, so that doesn’t really make evolution anything particularly special.
My point in bringing this up is that maybe defining reality based on dictionary definitions isn’t the best way to approach the topic, especially when the definition of the word you’re discussing has been the subject of intense philosophical debate for quite a long time. To take the simplistic view that science is certain knowledge really ignores a lot of the finer details of the debate.
But which definition? The first one? The sixth? I’m assuming that your response means that if a baseball player tests positive for chemicals in his system that indicate that he’s taking steroids, it is unscientific to draw the conclusion that he has probably been using steroids. Likewise, none of our theoretical frameworks for how the physical world behaves (relativity, quantum mechanics, or Newtonian mechanics) are scientific theories as none are known for certain to be correct (in fact, as arensb points out, we know of some serious flaws). None of atomic theory or chemistry apply. Astronomers are probably right out. Geologists are veritable crackpots for calling themselves scientists. If we adopt your recommended definition, I’ll readily acknowledge that evolution is not scientific–along with just about everything else that we now call science. Call it a victory if you like.
When we apply a definition and get results like this, I suggest that it’s time to try applying a different definition or start wondering whether the dictionary has captured the definition of the word as it is generally used. Remember, dictionaries reflect common usage. They don’t prescribe definitions. New words and new definitions for old words are in circulation for quite a long time before they end up in being officially accepted into the world’s dictionaries. I think that the definitions the OED provides include some applicable ones (4 and 5), but they are still overly broad for this discussion. In the case of evolution, we generally use the word “science” to be synonymous with “natural science” as noted in 5b. Maybe the problem here is not that our feet are the wrong size, but rather that we’re not opening the correct box of shoes?
I understand that many concepts and definitions exist for any given word at any given time. However, the only point I want to see conceded by all parties is that, as stated many times before, evolution is NOT scientific, because no evidence exists for macroevolution. If there is any, I would be glad if someone would direct me to it.
jimmy,
Yes, but it would be fair to say that regardless of authorship since ‘there are many definitions of species’ is a fact, akin to saying, “there are many different colors of cars”.
Where Boxely’s approach differs from others, said others I’m sorry to say being overwhelmingly represented by self-described detractors of evolution and evolutionary studies, is that he is inclusive of all available relevant definitions and meticulous in both his discussions of the relevant applications of these definitions and in providing of multiple, independent sources for both supporting and dissenting opinions. Another way to say it – while Boxely may have a personal bias or an agenda, he is as transparent as possible in documenting his methodology so that others may evaluate his work, pointing out to him areas where a personal bias of his may have expressed itself in an illogical conclusion and hopefully providing an unbiased correction. These efforts on his part are the indicators of someone practicing “good science” as I believe science to be defined in this context.
As I alluded to previously, if you have a disagreement with his conclusions, and your disagreement is based on perceived fault in his methodology, you can and should challenge that. That he published his work creates an open forum where reasoned dissent will lead to improvement.
Yes, I think I do, but I do not agree that that alone is sufficient for a claim of circular reasoning since Boxely’s submission provided multiple independent reference sources. As an example – if Boxely’s personal contributions and all of his provided references were shown to use only Darwin’s definition of ‘species’ in defining the context of the study, and the context of the study was to prove Darwin’s conclusions of speciation, then I would agree that a charge of ‘circular reasoning’ would be acceptable, although more accurately this example might be better described as presupposing one’s conclusion. This however is not the case.
jimmy:
Here you go: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.
I’ve already asked you or JJ above how you explain the the multiple nested hierarchies seen in living beings without a process of descent with modification. I don’t just mean similarities and differences caused by “engineering” requirements (e.g., the way sharks and dolphins have many similarities because they live in similar environments). I also mean pointless similarities, like the fact that human and chimp genomes show nearly-identical patterns of retroviral infection.
jimmy,
I think you are seeking in vain since, as has been my contention from the outset and was the genesis of my participation here, I do not agree with you. In your above statement, I will point out that no definition of ‘science’ or ‘scientific’ offered has included “evidence for macroevolution” as one of it’s characteristics.
arensb,
Previously I said,
Which I must now somewhat retract based on what was provided here. Not definitive in an absolute context, but convincing enough for me.
If you modify the sentence to “there is no single piece of evidence which, by itself, is conclusive” I will agree with you. The idea that nothing we’ve observed supports the idea, though, simply isn’t true. For example, we know that at one time there was life on earth, but there were no rabbits. We now have rabbits. This is consistent with evolutionary theory. It’s not conclusive, but it’s a start. The link arensb provided is definitely a good place for you to start working through the piles of evidence that convinced most scientists.
I’m always surprised when I hear the “no evidence” claim. It’s clearly false on its face, and I have to wonder, why do you think that the vast majority of biologists believe something to be true when there’s no evidence at all for it? Isn’t that a bit irrational? I can work with, “I don’t think there’s enough evidence to support the conclusion” but no evidence at all?
hey, don’t have time to answer all right now, but what’s the rabbit deal? What do you mean at one time there were no rabbits? What evidence do you have for this?
There are some fundamental things that really need to be agreed upon before a good discussion of common descent can really start. In my opinion, the first is an acknowledgment of the geological column. The earth is a pile of layers of rocks and dirt of different types. The lower layers contain things like dinosaurs, but none of those layers has ever been found to contain a rabbit. Or an ostrich. Or any number of modern organisms. If we assume that in most cases, lower layers were deposited before higher layers (should be common sense, and it agrees with observation), the things at the bottom generally existed before the things at the top (barring circumstances like somebody digging a really deep hole and burying a rabbit).
So why no rabbits down at the lower layers? The simplest interpretation is that there simply weren’t any rabbits around to be buried when those layers were deposited. If that’s the case, where did rabbits come from? Of course, if one assumes some other model for deposition (one that mysteriously sorts rabbits out and puts them on top of the pile), it’s hard to buy into common descent no matter how much genetic evidence and other interesting data is put in front of you. That’s why I bring it up. A good look at the geological column, should leave one wondering, Why is it that some animals are on top and some are on the bottom? Where did the ones on top come from if they weren’t around to be buried along with the animals at the bottom? Evolutionary theory explains the coincidence when no other model does.
Hmm…
“Evolutionary theory explains the coincidence when no other model does.”
What about the worldwide flood recorded in many different civilizations down through history?
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that there was such a flood. There’s no point in my contradicting the idea and opening up that can of worms just yet. A flood would certainly explain that a lot of stuff was buried, but does it really explain the order? Can a rabbit tread water longer than an ichthyosaur? Do dinosaurs sink faster than rabbits? Do ichthyosaurs sink faster than dolphins and whales? Why only certain types of snails in the lower layers? Why are the last buried trilobites buried in the same layer as the deepest of their potential predators? These are all very interesting coincidences that can be explained by evolution. I can’t figure out why a flood would produce anomalous (and tidy!) results like that–the actual probability of a flood notwithstanding. Any thoughts?
I don’t want to hijack any discussion and fill arensb’s blog comments with my posts, but I’ve spent a good chunk of the past few days waiting for big C++ projects to compile, so I’ve had a lot of down time. Sorry all.
Troublesome Frog:
Silly Frog! Don’t you know that grass can run to higher ground faster than a velociraptor, just as predicted by the flood model? 🙂
(I just got back from a trip, and am catching up on a lot of the stuff that I missed or only skimmed over in the past few days.)
First of all, a sort of manual trackback:http://freedomfreak.page.tl/Evolution.htm
Secondly, Jimmy, in the discussion of how the OED defines “science”, I’m curious why you ignored definition 5b,
(emphasis mine).
Thirdly, you mention Joseph Boxhorn, with whom I’m not familiar. But you didn’t provide any links or reference I can chase down, so I can’t be arsed to Google him.
You do mention that there are many definitions of “species” in biology. Have you wondered why that is? I mean, if the stories in Genesis were literally true, it should be simple enough to define “species” as “a group of living beings descended from the original being created by YHWH”.
The reason there are so many definitions of “species” in biology is that, well, scientists are in the business of describing nature, and nature can be messy. For instance, we can define “species” as “interbreeding population”, but that obviously doesn’t apply to purely asexual beings (many types of bacteria), viruses, prions, etc. It would also mean that horses and donkeys are the same species. So clearly for those cases, we need either a different word, or a different definition.
It’s also clear from the fossil record that there used to be many types of living beings that are now extinct. Clearly we can’t get two diplodocus fossils to try to mate, so we can’t use interbreeding as a criterion; we need a different definition based on what we can observe.
Then there are cases like cuckoos: Dawkins or Gould wrote a delightful essay about them, describing how different varieties of cuckoo parasitize different species of bird. But the genes for making a cuckoo egg look like, say, a warbler egg are carried along the maternal line. It is the females who evolve to imitate the different host species; males can mate with any female. So there is a paradoxical situation in which, if you looked at males, you’d conclude that there’s only one species, but if you looked at females, you’d think there were several. But nature doesn’t care about fitting neatly into our definitions.
Humans need water. Hence, humans have always tended to congregate near water. But rivers flood, tidal waves and hurricanes strike coastlines. When this happens, it’s a big deal, and stories get told about it. Good stories get told over and over, and grow in the telling. This by itself is a good enough explanation for why there are many flood stories. Many civilizations have stories about the sun being a god circling the earth every day. There are also many stories about how McDonald’s hamburgers are made from worms, or that a woman found out about her husband’s affair when he told her he was at his office… in the World Trade Center on Sep. 11, 2001. These are good stories, so no wonder they get repeated. The fact that many people know a story doesn’t mean that it’s true.
Is there any solid evidence to support the notion that there really was a worldwide flood?
jimmy:
I noticed that this entire discussion started when you threatened me with Jesus’ extortion scheme. Since then, you haven’t provided any good evidence that any gods exist, let alone yours. Do you have any?
You may want to start by defining what you mean by a god, and how to tell whether any exist. Then we can work on figuring out how many gods exist, and whether the one(s?) you worship is/are among them.
“A flood would certainly explain that a lot of stuff was buried, but does it really explain the order?”
Well, yes, it does explain the order, because, according to the most detailed account, the bible, (which is backed up by many other historical records http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html)
By the way, once I find out how to hyperlink on this blog, I’ll do it.
“In modern use, often treated as synonymous with “Natural and Physical Science”, and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. This is now the dominant sense in ordinary use.”
As stated before, this still deals with fact. If need be, I’ll get the OED for Natural Science.
“Thirdly, you mention Joseph Boxhorn, with whom I’m not familiar.”
Hmm… In your January 3rd, 2007 at 7:13 am post, you refered me to an article written by this very man. Are you not familiar with the evidence that you give, do you even proofread it? Doesn’t seem to be so.
Anyway, as I’ve stated before, “species” has become a very broad term. (it has to for the evolution theory to look even slightly plausible). So, I’ll not argue this point, since an evolutionist can come up with his definition of species based upon evolutionary studies. This is not something that we’re going to get anywhere with.
jimmy,
Things have been a bit busy on this thread, did you perhaps overlook what I wrote here? If you have a problem with my analysis and conclusion, I’d like to hear the details of it. Not a generalized dismissal, please, but specific points where if my reasoning is faulty I can hopefully gain from other’s critique (this of course applies to all readers/participants)
I can’t answer right now fez, but can one of ya’ll give me some direction on how to hyperlink?
jimmy:
I look forward to reading the end of this sentence.
Just use plain old HTML.
Okay, and…?
Ah, okay. Sorry about that. I think of that as “the observed instances of speciation FAQ at talkorigins.org”. I’d never paid attention to the name of the author, which is why his name didn’t ring any bells. Besides, all of the FAQs at talkorigins.org are the product of many people’s work.
No. “Species” roughly means “gene pool”. The reason it has so many definitions is that reality isn’t simple enough to admit a simple definition.
Indeed. Where would we be if we started listening to the people who study a particular field? I think “trade deficit” should be defined as “everyone gets a pony”, regardless of what those silly economists think. Why should I listen to them, just because they’ve studied internatlonal trade and I haven’t? And “disease” should mean “sunshine and rainbows” because hey, what do doctors know, just because they’ve gone to med school?
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the reason biologists come up with the definitions they do is that they’ve studied the subject and think that’s the best way to describe the way the world is? Or do you really think biologists are engaged in a massive conspiracy to just make stuff up?
I think this part of your post was truncated when you pasted the link. You were about to explain why rabbits float while ichthyosaurs sink.
You might try this page as an intro. Most blog software allows a limited set of HTML tags to be added to plain text posts.
Sorry about the incomplete sentance guys (what can I say?).
What I intended to say was:
Well, yes, it does explain the order, because, according to the most detailed account, the bible, (which is backed up by many other historical records ) not only was the water coming down, but also up. Gen. 8:2 “The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped…”
THis would obviously cause great upheaval and dissarray, thus accounting for the order of objects found.
“Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the reason biologists come up with the definitions they do is that they’ve studied the subject and think that’s the best way to describe the way the world is? Or do you really think biologists are engaged in a massive conspiracy to just make stuff up?”
Has it ever occured to you that maybe at one time the word “species” could simply be defined as “kind”, but then man came up with a theory and needed evidence to back up this theory, so complex definitions were developed to allow for so called “species to species” evolution, namely, macroevolution?
ok, I forgot a space on the link
I’m still not clear. How do turbulent water, upheaval, and disarray cause ichthyosaurs and the like to sink to the bottom and rabbits to float on top? I’ve seen the results of a number of minor floods, and they seem to mix a lot of things all around, largely at random. I’ve never seen one sort organisms in quite the way you’re describing. Is it something about the fountains of the deep that kept every rabbit in the world from sinking while allowing ichthyosaurs to drop straight to the bottom? I’ve never tried to drown a rabbit or an ichthyosaur before, but I would expect that it would be easier to drown and sink a rabbit than a giant swimming reptile. Even more interesting is that dolphins ended up on top as well. I can’t figure out the pattern except that every mammal that ever lived seems to have done a better job floating than every dinosaur that ever lived. Why would that be?
jimmy:
Please explain this to me, because I don’t get it. As I understand it, this is saying that YHWH opened doors in the dome of the sky and underneath the sea, allowing the water outside the “bubble” enclosing the earth to rush in (where are these “fountains of the deep” and “windows of heaven”, anyway?), and you’re saying that the water rushing in was strong enough to move whole strata of rock and jumble them about. Am I right so far?
So how exactly does this explain the order of fossils in the geologic column? If you look at photos of the aftermath of Katrina or the Indian Ocean tsunami, you’ll see bodies of people, animals, plants, and a thousand kinds of debris all mixed together. And yet, in the geologic column, somehow not a single human wound up in the same stratum as a dinosaur; not a single rabbit next to a trilobite; not a single cockroach next to a Hallucigenia. Not only did all of the fossils of flowering plants wind up in higher strata than all of the trilobite fossils, but all of the fossil pollen wound up in strata above trilobite fossils. For that matter, why are mastodon coprolites (fossilized poop) never found intermingled with dinosaur coprolites? How exactly was a flood supposed to achieve that?
What exactly is a “kind”? How exactly can one tell whether two organisms are or aren’t of the same “kind”? How does your definition apply to asexual and extinct organisms?
Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? Is there any reason to believe that that’s what happened? Is there a single definition of “species” or “kind” that is applicable throughout the huge variety of living forms found in nature?