Is Christianity True?

[upper pine]

I don't reject the sceintific parts, I reject the unscientific parts.

More subjective than our current taxonomy? Kinds is not subjective at all, by it's very virtue it is objective if you even listened to the explanation of what a kind is. A kind is simply just animals that can reproduce together. There is not wiggle room there for subjective opinions.

Nothing makes me think that, I've never once made that claim.

[upper pine]

Question, what do you mean "our species way is the most accurate"?

Like species way meaning the current taxonomical structure including Species, Genus, Families, Kingdoms, etc? Or you mean species is more accurate for describing animals than kinds?

Then 2nd part, most accurate to what?

[deft fossil]

Such as? Everytime i ask you what according to you cannot be true, you give some vague exaplanation. Just come up with someting concrete that i said that you think is unscientific, and explain to me WHY it is unscientific

[deft fossil]

Kind is not a word that is used in biology. It is only used in the bible and the definition of the word is different according to whom you ask

So yeah, it is more subjective than taxonomy

[deft fossil]

Well the word ''kind'' is a biblical name, not a biological name; hence if you believe that the word ''kind'' is a better desciption than words that are currently used in biology, you have to believe people back then knew more

or at the very least think the bible is a more reliable source for biological facts than modern science is

[deft fossil]

Hmm most taxonomy nowadays is based on DNA evidence so I wouldnt say it is subjective

But that doesnt mean there is no room for intersubjectivity

If i base my categorisation on for example DNA similarities, than it might be subjective, but it is MORE objective than say use only the way an animal looks compared to another animal

and if we use multiple methods together then that is obviously more objective than if we only use one

And to say that two methods that are subjective are similar, because they are subjective is just plain wrong

.

[small mica]

The Bible is imfalible and the way to get to heaven is only through Christ and His sacrifice for us if thats the question but asking "is Christianity true" can mean a lot of things

[upper pine]

I've already explained this, all the evidence is not observable, which is what science requires. The evidence that we claim is for evolution on a large scale is just assuming that it is the same on a small scale, and that since it can happen on a small scale, it must also be possible on a large scale. I mean think about this, DNA mutation works, if it is a small number of cells, but if there are a large number of cells that mutate at once, the creature is not viable and dies. Now if we didn't know that, we might assume that because some DNA can mutate and the animal can live, then it must mean if a lot of DNA mutates the animal can live.

My explanation has always been it is unobservable, which I don't believe is vague.

[upper pine]

So you think a classification can't be objective because a different source uses it? Objectivity has nothing to do with where it came from, but what it is describing. It is describing a classification with no room for interpretation: any animals that can successfully produce an offspring. The way taxonomy is taught from the smallest level, species, is that it is based on reproduction capabilities as well, even though it does not accurately portray that.

[upper pine]

If "kind" is used to classify animals biologically, how is it not a biological name? I could easily say species is not a biological name because someone else wrote about it. Like I don't even understand what that means. It also is a better system in my mind, because it is actually accurate. We don't see contradictions in it based on small differences. It is quick and easy to understand.

[upper pine]

Species is only a biological fact because that's what we decide to call it. The most common definition widely spread for it doesn't even accurately represent it fully. I think if the common use for the word doesn't actively represent the animal taxonomy, then yes, the one that does so is more reliable.

[upper pine]

But we still see things don't line up nicely in their system, they make arbitrary cut-off points. If you do it based on DNA, yea sure you can make set cut-off points like 95% same species, 85% same genus, or something like that, however it'd work, but those are just arbitrary numbers without any meaning behind them. Adding more things to it such as reproduction ability and deciding based on if it has more things in common isn't any less arbitrary. Kind sets an objective standard that is easy to see across any group and sticks to that.

You could even argue they are not meant to be compared as they're measuring two different things.

I'm just curious on what people think of this video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXtx7_Ej5J4

[terse belfry]

It's garbage and just shows how Frank Turek does not understand evolution. I'll focus on the fossil record as I personally understand that the best of his four arguments.

1. Based on evolutionary theory, multiple predictions have been made about specific creatures that would be found fossilized at certain layers that have been correct. That is the value of science after all, making observations that can then be used to predict what will occur in nature.

2. There are plenty of pre Cambrian fossils out there. Most are just so small they require a microscope to examine properly. The Cambrian explosion is just when creatures started getting large enough that we can see them with the naked eye.

[gilded pollen]

It's someone who doesn't understand evolution making nonsense arguments about evolution.

Such as:

Limited genetic change. Breeders can't breed non-dogs.
You can't evolve a different species in a few decades? What a shock.

If intelligent minds can't break genetic limits, why do we expect non-intelligent processes to do so?
....because natural processes are infinitely more powerful than humans. Can humans make asteroids hit the earth, or volcanoes erupt? No. But those things still happen.

Irreducible complexity. For cells to change all the parts would need to be modified at the same time to have any function.
No, that's complete bollocks. For starters some small changes are completely fine. The number of diseases and viruses that affect cells but still allow the organism to live is quite large. But also, with almost every interconnected system, if you change one thing then the rest of the system develops a different way to accommodate it. For a simplistic example, consider a river. You might say that you need to divert every part of the river if you divert one part of it. But actually, the river will take care of that itself if you divert even one part.
Successful life is adaptable.

The fossil record does not comport with gradualism
Of course it does. Some gaps between fossils are bigger than others, but that is only to be expected. Not all environments produce fossil records. Also, he can quote Richard Dawkins as much as he wants, but nothing Dawkins says implies that the fossil record fits a creationist explanation better than an evolutionary explanation unless you take his words very far out of context.

You can't mutate DNA and get a new body plan. You have to have the structure change as well.
There's no issue with the structure also changing. Epigenetics is just another level on which evolution takes place. Nobody's claiming DNA is the only environment evolution can take place in.

[upper pine]

I'd agree with y'all. As much as I respected some of his views on other videos I've seen, this one irked (I think that's how it is spelt?) me the wrong way.

[deft fossil]

Alright, you choose to not answer the question again, its fine, lets stop our discussion here then.

[deft fossil]

No im saying that ''kind'' is not a word that is used in biology

[deft fossil]

Yeah and we already had this discussion, a species is a very vaguely defined word, since in reality there is no cutoff where 1 species stops and the next species starts.

[deft fossil]

Thats not neccesarily how it works, but i do finally agree with you on one point, namely that cutoff pionts are rather arbitrary. My point however was that the method we use to define those cutoff points is not arbitrary

And yes i agree, if you change the definition and re-index all taxonomy, that makes the new definitions similarly arbitrary

However as long as the method to define the ''boxes'' is consistent, than that is what matters and not the actual result

Like, whether we consider homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis same species or not is irrelevant

what is relevant is how we came to that conclusion, like what method was just to determine that

Because it is required in science to have a reproducible method

so as long as you take some arbitrary measure, and consistently apply it to all situations, no exceptions, than it can be considered scientific

regardless of outcome

[west garden]

.

[open stirrup]

What even is true

[west garden]

What true is that you do not know anything

[open stirrup]

https://tenor.com/view/dur-derp-derp-face-duh-whatever-gif-7509475