Glenn
On Mon, 15 Jun 1998 20:22:21 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
>>GM>If the created unit is the order then we were evolved from the
>>first monkey!!!! After all, they and we humans are all in the order
>>"Primate".
>SJ>Also false is your implication that under PC "the created unit is
>>the order". Erickson specifically says "That grouping may have
>>been as broad as the order OR AS NARROW AS THE GENUS"
>>and in fact "may have extended to the creation of individual
>>species. (my emphasis). Thus, under PC, in the case of man, the
>>"created kind" may have been first primate (order), the first Homo
>>(genus) or the first Homo sapiens (species).
GM>The utter fluidity of such a definition means that it is useless for
>discussion. It can mean whatever the debator wants it to mean that
>this second.
Now you are shifting ground. First you said: "Progressive creation
and special creation should predict no transitional forms between
erectus and us because there is nogenetic relationship."
Then when I pointed out that: "Erickson says that in PC the original
created unit could be "as broad as the order or as narrow as the
genus", you first tried to erect a straw man by claiming that PC says
that "the created unit is the order."
Then when I again pointed out that PC claims that "the original
created unit could be `as broad as the order or as narrow as the
genus", you shift ground to claim that such a definition is too fluid.
First, you seem to forget that PC is trying to relate God's creative
activity to the living world. That a Creator could create at various
taxonomic levels is perfectly coherent within a theistic framework. If
you deny that, you are at best a deist and at worst a non-theist. I
presume you don't deny it, so what then is your point?
Secondly PC is not "utterly fluid." PC could be pinned down on a
case-by-case basis as to what level it holds each "created
kind" was created at. Your own arguments about the "monkey" is an
example of this, and shows that PC is testable. For example, I would
expect that few (if any) PCs would claim that in the case of man, he
was created at lower than the genus (Homo) level, and most would
claim that man was created at the species (ie. Homo sapiens) level.
Finally, even if you are right about PC being too fluid, (remember I
am not a PC but a MC), that does not alter the fact that you were
wrong in your original claim that "Progressive creation...should
predict no transitional forms between erectus and us because there is
nogenetic relationship." It would restore some credibility to your
"My Utmost for His Highest" standards that you routinely apply to
others, if you at least acknowledged that you were wrong, rather
than just try to change the subject.
BTW the same "utter fluidity" argument applies even more to
evolution. The Talk.Origins FAQ defines "evolution" as: "Biological
evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population
over time." and "the common descent of living organisms from shared
ancestors" ("The Talk.Origins Archive: Frequently Asked Questions
about creationism and evolution,"
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html).
All that would be required to prove those two definitions is to:
a) find *any* "change in the genetic characteristics of a population
over time."
and
b) *any* "common descent of living organisms from shared
ancestors"
On that "utterly fluid" definition, the birth of my two children would
have been an example of "evolution"!
Steve
"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."
--- Dr. William Provine, Professor of History and Biology, Cornell University.
http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/1998/slides_view/Slide_7.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--_=_=_=IMA.BOUNDARY.HTML_4820800=_=_=_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Glenn --_=_=_=IMA.BOUNDARY.HTML_4820800=_=_=_--
On Mon, 15 Jun 1998 20:22:21 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
>>GM>If the created unit is the order then we were evolved from the
>>first monkey!!!! After all, they and we humans are all in the order
>>"Primate".
>SJ>Also false is your implication that under PC "the created unit is
>>the order". Erickson specifically says "That grouping may have
>>been as broad as the order OR AS NARROW AS THE GENUS"
>>and in fact "may have extended to the creation of individual
>>species. (my emphasis). Thus, under PC, in the case of man, the
>>"created kind" may have been first primate (order), the first Homo
>>(genus) or the first Homo sapiens (species).
GM>The utter fluidity of such a definition means that it is useless for
>discussion. It can mean whatever the debator wants it to mean that
>this second.
Now you are shifting ground. First you said: "Progressive creation
and special creation should predict no transitional forms between
erectus and us because there is nogenetic relationship."
Then when I pointed out that: "Erickson says that in PC the original
created unit could be "as broad as the order or as narrow as the
genus", you first tried to erect a straw man by claiming that PC says
that "the created unit is the order."
Then when I again pointed out that PC claims that "the original
created unit could be `as broad as the order or as narrow as the
genus", you shift ground to claim that such a definition is too fluid.
First, you seem to forget that PC is trying to relate God's creative
activity to the living world. That a Creator could create at various
taxonomic levels is perfectly coherent within a theistic framework. If
you deny that, you are at best a deist and at worst a non-theist. I
presume you don't deny it, so what then is your point?
Secondly PC is not "utterly fluid." PC could be pinned down on a
case-by-case basis as to what level it holds each "created
kind" was created at. Your own arguments about the "monkey" is an
example of this, and shows that PC is testable. For example, I would
expect that few (if any) PCs would claim that in the case of man, he
was created at lower than the genus (Homo) level, and most would
claim that man was created at the species (ie. Homo sapiens) level.
Finally, even if you are right about PC being too fluid, (remember I
am not a PC but a MC), that does not alter the fact that you were
wrong in your original claim that "Progressive creation...should
predict no transitional forms between erectus and us because there is
nogenetic relationship." It would restore some credibility to your
"My Utmost for His Highest" standards that you routinely apply to
others, if you at least acknowledged that you were wrong, rather
than just try to change the subject.
BTW the same "utter fluidity" argument applies even more to
evolution. The Talk.Origins FAQ defines "evolution" as: "Biological
evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population
over time." and "the common descent of living organisms from shared
ancestors" ("The Talk.Origins Archive: Frequently Asked Questions
about creationism and evolution,"
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html).
All that would be required to prove those two definitions is to:
a) find *any* "change in the genetic characteristics of a population
over time."
and
b) *any* "common descent of living organisms from shared
ancestors"
On that "utterly fluid" definition, the birth of my two children would
have been an example of "evolution"!
Steve
--- Dr. William Provine, Professor of History and Biology, Cornell University.
http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/1998/slides_view/Slide_7.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------