Talk:Creation biology/Archive 5

message: I looked for a reference to "biological kinds" in AiG, ICR, etc. They don't generally use it. Rather they refer to "Genesis kinds" or "original kinds". I changed it tenatively to "Genesis kinds", but would be happy for the alternative too, if that is more to the liking of others.
These aren't "biological kinds" as described in most literature which describe this phrase as being opposed to "non-biological kinds". In other words, life and non-life. Joshuaschroeder 21:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Biological kinds

message: <<several of the kinds hypothesised earlier correspond to a far greater degree of genetic variation.>>
:i don't object to this being on the page ... i welcome mainstream critiques ... but can we be a little more specific?  which kinds?  why?  who says?  Ungtss 01:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Any of them;  though I was thinking especially of the examples you cite at the order and family levels.  Clearly those are (a lot) more than one gene's worth of mutation/variation.  I'd go into more detail, but the 'heterozygosity' argument needs to be drawn out in more detail in the first instance to be properly responded to.  (See a couple of 'open questions' on this, on this very page.)  More specifically, are you (CBs in general) suggesting that kinds are characterised by gene-for-gene variation/mutation, as your example is highly suggestive of?  And that changes in the gross structure of the genome (number of chr., approximate total of genes, etc) are highly unlikely/impossible?    Alai 03:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  open question 

message: Is there a "dogma" or "religious dogma" tag that can be added to articles like this indicating that they are matters of belief, not fact, and will be contentious until the day the sun expands and swallows the earth?  I doubt any two people would even agree on the line between presenting facts about the dogma vs presenting the dogma as fact.
:and what makes you think you have the right to determine which beliefs are fact and which are fiction?  Ungtss 04:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes you think I would want to?  But my understanding of the definition of dogma would certainly include "creation biology" Krisjohn 08:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: yes.  that would be your definition of dogma.  and there are a solid contingent of people (including myself) who would place evolution squarely within the same category.  Ungtss 14:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Dogma"?

message: Ungtss, will you agree to Wikipedia: Requests for Mediation to help resolve the disputes? Joshuaschroeder 05:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: well sure, if you want to waste some poor mediator's time ... but honestly, i don't think it is necessary.  we're big boys here.  let's follow basic policy.  the purpose of this page is to summarize and explain the concepts held by those claiming to be "creation biologists," and provide mainstream critiques of those ideas.  i've taken a stab at the first part based on an article and a book, and i'm planning to move forward with further clarification, citation, and development of the idea.  you're welcome to read through creation biology articles to further clarify the topic, or provide summaries of cited mainstream critiques of the ideas.  this is not complicated.  this is not a power struggle.  this is not a case of "we can't say anybody says it unless everybody agrees it's true."  this is a very simple case of "let's write an encyclopedia article about what a certain group of people think."  why do we need a mediator to do that?  Ungtss 14:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This cannot continue