In The Zone

[Earthling]

@Subduction Zone very recently suggested I watch a discussion between Aron Ra and Kent Hovind. I'm going to invite Subduction, or The Zone as I like to call him, to discuss this video as I listen to it and bring up topics discussed therein. And of course Subduction Zone can introduce topics as well.

Spoiler: Kent Hovind And Aron Ra

First off we can skip their introduction, their position statements and their disagreement on religion. The former because I don't care who they are I'm more interested in what they have to say, and the later because this is a discussion on evolution rather than religion. If that is agreeable, lets move on.

The first thing I noted right of the bat is that there was a disagreement, not surprisingly, on the definition of Evolution as a religion, which I admit is not relevant to the discussion as such, but a pretty good indicator that this is going to be a bumpy ride. Setting that aside the first point.

How is an elephant and a pine tree related and do they teach that in school? It's the sort of thing that I was taught and dismissed evolution from the start. Let's discuss that, and I think that this is another problem with classification and definition.

How would the Bible classify them? Not as producing each the other. I'm thinking that if I asked an eighth grader which made more sense of the following statements:

1. Elephants and pine trees are not related as is evident from their not producing each the other, i.e. elephants don't produce pine trees and pine trees don't produce elephants.

Or . . .

2. Elephants and pine trees are related (perhaps you could say why, but I would assume that it's because they are classified by science as such. The question is with what basis?)

Which one would they laugh at and reject - that is had they not been indoctrinated into religious belief or scientific theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone very recently suggested I watch a discussion between Aron Ra and Kent Hovind. I'm going to invite Subduction, or The Zone as I like to call him, to discuss this video as I listen to it and bring up topics discussed therein. And of course Subduction Zone can introduce topics as well.

Spoiler: Kent Hovind And Aron Ra

First off we can skip their introduction, their position statements and their disagreement on religion. The former because I don't care who they are I'm more interested in what they have to say, and the later because this is a discussion on evolution rather than religion. If that is agreeable, lets move on.

The first thing I noted right of the bat is that there was a disagreement, not surprisingly, on the definition of Evolution as a religion, which I admit is not relevant to the discussion as such, but a pretty good indicator that this is going to be a bumpy ride. Setting that aside the first point.

How is an elephant and a pine tree related and do they teach that in school? It's the sort of thing that I was taught and dismissed evolution from the start. Let's discuss that, and I think that this is another problem with classification and definition.

How would the Bible classify them? Not as producing each the other. I'm thinking that if I asked an eighth grader which made more sense of the following statements:

1. Elephants and pine trees are not related as is evident from their not producing each the other, i.e. elephants don't produce pine trees and pine trees don't produce elephants.

Or . . .

2. Elephants and pine trees are related (perhaps you could say why, but I would assume that it's because they are classified by science as such. The question is with what basis?)

Which one would they laugh at and reject - that is had they not been indoctrinated into religious belief or scientific theory.

The classification is based upon the fact that they share a common ancestor. Kent unwittingly keeps admitting that they are the same "kind" by saying "yes they are both euchariotes".

The Bible never comes up with a clear definition of "kinds". If you watch the video you will realize that what Kent describes are "clades" not kinds. He can't even begin to come up with where his clades begin.

Do you need to know what a "clade" is?

 

[Duke_Leto]

In addition to what @Subduction Zone said, you suppose that because something seems obvious, it must be true. In the same way you could stand in a corn-field in Kansas, look at the sprawling fields of corn, and conclude that the Earth must be flat. What an eighth-grader thinks is irrelevant to either question: In both cases, you may study them and come to an educated conclusion.

 

[Earthling]

The classification is based upon the fact that they share a common ancestor. Kent unwittingly keeps admitting that they are the same "kind" by saying "yes they are both euchariotes".

The Bible never comes up with a clear definition of "kinds". If you watch the video you will realize that what Kent describes are "clades" not kinds. He can't even begin to come up with where his clades begin.

Do you need to know what a "clade" is?

It seemed to me that it was Ra who kept repeating euchariotes. I tried to look that up but had no idea how to spell it. As you can see from the spell checker, neither can it.

So yes, tell me what an euchariotes is and what a clade is.

"The Biblical “kinds” seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between “kinds” is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur.

In recent years, the term “species” has been applied in such a manner as to cause confusion when it is compared with the word “kind.” The basic meaning of “species” is “a sort; kind; variety.” In biologic terminology, however, it applies to any group of interfertile animals or plants mutually possessing one or more distinctive characteristics. Thus, there could be many such species or varieties within a single division of the Genesis “kinds.”

"Lit., “according to its kind (genus).” Heb., lemi·noh′; Gr., ge′nos; Lat., ge′nus. The term “kind” here means a created or family kind, its older meaning or definition and not as present-day evolutionists use it.

 

[Earthling]

In addition to what @Subduction Zone said, you suppose that because something seems obvious, it must be true. In the same way you could stand in a corn-field in Kansas, look at the sprawling fields of corn, and conclude that the Earth must be flat. What an eighth-grader thinks is irrelevant to either question: In both cases, you may study them and come to an educated conclusion.

Yes, I understand that, but the point is, if evolution is the study, more or less, of how biology or, if you prefer, nature, the animal kingdom, works then how is it that a child not indoctrinated into either religion or science would laugh at one explanation and not the other? Because even a child can observe.

P.S. By the way, did you watch any of that Dune video?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It seemed to me that it was Ra who kept repeating eucharyotes. I tried to look that up but had no idea how to spell it. As you can see from the spell checker, neither can it.

You need to listen a bit more clearly. Kent continually admitted that both elephants and pine trees are eukariotes (I had to check the spelling too) Aron kept repeating that because Kent could not get the point.

So yes, tell me what an euchariotes is and what a clade is.

A eukaryote is any organism who's cells have a nucleus and cell walls. It is a pretty large group. Bacteria for example do not have a nucleus. The development of eukaryotes was one of the biggest events in the history of our evolution.

Eukaryote - Wikipedia

Clades are any group that share a common ancestor. The clade begins with that common ancestor. It may be as small of a group as you and your brothers and or sisters (assuming that you are not an only child) or as large as bacteria or eukayotes. This was a major failing of Hovind. He could only describe clades, he could not describe "kinds".

Clade - Wikipedia

Creationists try to claim that evolution is a "change of kind" but that is dead wrong. There is no "change in kind" in evolution. Men are still apes, just as they are still mammals, just as they are still tetrapods, still vertebrates, still chordata, and still eukaryotes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I understand that, but the point is, if evolution is the study, more or less, of how biology or, if you prefer, nature, the animal kingdom, works then how is it that a child not indoctrinated into either religion or science would laugh at one explanation and not the other? Because even a child can observe.

P.S. By the way, did you watch any of that Dune video?

Which "Dune" video? Loved the books, at least the first three.

 

[Earthling]

Which "Dune" video? Loved the books, at least the first three.

I posted the Scifi Channell's Dune miniseries for Duke Leto the other day. Far superior to the 1984? movie.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I posted the Scifi Channell's Dune miniseries for Duke Leto the other day. Far superior to the 1984? movie.

Cool! Thanks, I will have to watch that when I have some time.

 

[Earthling]

You need to listen a bit more clearly. Kent continually admitted that both elephants and pine trees are eukariotes (I had to check the spelling too) Aron kept repeating that because Kent could not get the point.

I stopped the video when Kent admitted that they were both eukariotes after insisting that it didn't matter. At this point I'm thinking that it really doesn't matter that they are relatives. These terms are all classifications and so to me it sounds like the two (Hovind and Ra) are trying to have a conversation while, in effect, speaking different languages. This annoys me.

A eukaryote is any organism who's cells have a nucleus and cell walls. It is a pretty large group. Bacteria for example do not have a nucleus. The development of eukaryotes was one of the biggest events in the history of our evolution.

Eukaryote - Wikipedia

Okay. Thank you, sir.

Clades are any group that share a common ancestor. The clade begins with that common ancestor. It may be as small of a group as you and your brothers and or sisters (assuming that you are not an only child) or as large as bacteria or eukayotes. This was a major failing of Hovind. He could only describe clades, he could not describe "kinds".

Clade - Wikipedia

Okay. Very good.

Creationists try to claim that evolution is a "change of kind" but that is dead wrong. There is no "change in kind" in evolution. Men are still apes, just as they are still mammals, just as they are still tetrapods, still vertebrates, still chordata, and still eukaryotes.

I can see why that would be problematic for the creationist. It seems to me a case of classification and it's a great deal more difficult to establish what a biblical kind is than a biological kind. I've posted the difference between the modern day biological term and the Biblical term in a previous post. I'm not sure that you've had the opportunity to respond. If so, disregard this portion of this post.

 

[Duke_Leto]

Yes, I understand that, but the point is, if evolution is the study, more or less, of how biology or, if you prefer, nature, the animal kingdom, works then how is it that a child not indoctrinated into either religion or science would laugh at one explanation and not the other? Because even a child can observe.

P.S. By the way, did you watch any of that Dune video?

A child can make an observation, but that doesn’t mean the conclusion they draw from that observation is valid. You disparage education by calling it indoctrination.

I did watch some; thank you. I haven’t watched the whole thing — I don’t much like TV or movies, and so it’s difficult to watch something for four hours at a time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I stopped the video when Kent admitted that they were both eukariotes after insisting that it didn't matter. At this point I'm thinking that it really doesn't matter that they are relatives. These terms are all classifications and so to me it sounds like the two (Hovind and Ra) are trying to have a conversation while, in effect, speaking different languages. This annoys me.

It is a classification that demonstrates that they are related.

Okay. Thank you, sir.



Okay. Very good.



I can see why that would be problematic for the creationist. It seems to me a case of classification and it's a great deal more difficult to establish what a biblical kind is than a biological kind. I've posted the difference between the modern day biological term and the Biblical term in a previous post. I'm not sure that you've had the opportunity to respond. If so, disregard this portion of this post.

Classifications are very important since they can be used to show whether an idea is supported by evidence or not. The theory of evolution is supported by endless scientific evidence. Creationism is not. And scientific evidence is a very simple idea to understand. Scientific evidence is evidence that supports or opposes a scientific theory or hypothesis. That means in order to claim to have evidence one must first have a testable concept. That means it must be falsifiable. Every creationist that I have ever seen has been to afraid to state their beliefs in the form of a falsifiable concept. They appear to be afraid that it would be shown to be wrong. As a result creationists are unable to claim to have any scientific evidence at all for their ideas.

 

[Earthling]

A child can make an observation, but that doesn’t mean the conclusion they draw from that observation is valid. You disparage education by calling it indoctrination.

That has been my observation.

I did watch some; thank you. I haven’t watched the whole thing — I don’t much like TV or movies, and so it’s difficult to watch something for four hours at a time.

Sure. It's a long video and as good and faithful as that interpretation is, still, it's no match for the books, all of which, by the way, along with other Frank Herbert's work, can be read free online. (Link)

 

[Subduction Zone]

A child can make an observation, but that doesn’t mean the conclusion they draw from that observation is valid. You disparage education by calling it indoctrination.

I did watch some; thank you. I haven’t watched the whole thing — I don’t much like TV or movies, and so it’s difficult to watch something for four hours at a time.

I think that one would have to break it up over a period of days or binge watch it.

I did not read the books in one sitting. I do not see why I would have to do the same with that series.

 

[Earthling]

Cool! Thanks, I will have to watch that when I have some time.

Interestingly enough, when I was in the 9th grade my science teacher, Mr. Bartlet, sent a note home with my report card informing my parents that I was a good reader but that I read the wrong books. I sat in the corner and read Frank Herbert while he taught science.

Now, I have two tabs open. One playing the Dune video and one playing the discussion between a creationist and evolutionist. I promise, though, that I will devote the appropriate attention to the subject at hand.

 

[Earthling]

I think that one would have to break it up over a period of days or binge watch it.

I did not read the books in one sitting. I do not see why I would have to do the same with that series.

Sure. At your leisure. The publishers tend to have those removed if they see a copyright infringement that may cost them revenue, but if you haven't the time and it doesn't absorb your attention that's just the way it goes.

By the way, tomorrow I will go over the Wikipedia links you gave on clade and Eukaryote (three different spellings have been given now, by the way). I'm having heart surgery on the 2nd of January so I need to get more sleep than I've been getting, but the threads aren't going anywhere. Hopefully I'm not as well.

I don't think you answered my question of whether or not those two classifications were taught in school?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure. At your leisure. The publishers tend to have those removed if they see a copyright infringement that may cost them revenue, but if you haven't the time and it doesn't absorb your attention that's just the way it goes.

By the way, tomorrow I will go over the Wikipedia links you gave on clade and Eukaryote (three different spellings have been given now, by the way). I'm having heart surgery on the 2nd of January so I need to get more sleep than I've been getting, but the threads aren't going anywhere. Hopefully I'm not as well.

I don't think you answered my question of whether or not those two classifications were taught in school?

Those are not taught in public high schools. Unless I am behind the times in what is taught there. You will find them in college level biology classes.

And I hope the surgery goes well.

 

[Duke_Leto]

Those are not taught in public high schools. Unless I am behind the times in what is taught there. You will find them in college level biology classes.

And I hope the surgery goes well.

If I recall correctly, my high school biology course briefly touched on them, for what that’s worth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If I recall correctly, my high school biology course briefly touched on them, for what that’s worth.

Thanks, I am probably older than you and out of touch with what is currently taught. That would have been a little over forty years ago for me.

 

[Duke_Leto]

Thanks, I am probably older than you and out of touch with what is currently taught. That would have been a little over forty years ago for me.

Haha. High school was a few years ago for me. Do I get to call you a geezer yet?