Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 185 (8016 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-16-2014 11:57 PM
188 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Ed67
Post Volume:
Total: 723,433 Year: 9,274/28,606 Month: 964/2,455 Week: 274/428 Day: 75/92 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2223
24
2526
...
29Next
Author Topic:   Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others)
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3943
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 346 of 425 (541848)
01-06-2010 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by ICANT
01-06-2010 12:36 PM


Re: Kind
I would not agree that I am the kind of human you are talking about.

I was created in the image/likeness of God. I have a mind, a body and a spirit. I can think, reason, and make decisions and draw conclusions based on that thinking and reasoning. I can then sit in front of my monitor and type these things so you and others can read them.

That makes my kind of creature different from any other kind of creature on the face of the earth.

It makes you identical to any and all other humans on the planet, ICANT. How, precisely, are you not the kind of human I'm talking about?

I never said that humans do not possess features that distinguish them from other, even similar, organisms. We possess a greater ability to reason, use language, use abstract concepts, use tools, etc than any other species on the planet.

Human beings are apes. That doesn't mean we're identical to other apes - it just means we share certain morphological characteristics.

Let's look at known-created objects to put this into a context that may be more acceptable to you.

I can form various classifications for human-made objects. Let's say I can classify a "vehicle" as "any man-made tool characeterized by locomotion and a passenger compartment." This means that cars, airplanes, boats, bicycles, etc. would all qualify as "vehicles," but buildings, hammers, and cats would not.

I can then sub-divide the class "vehicles" into sub-classes. "Cars" can be classified as "any vehicle characterized by four or more wheels and an internal engine." "Boats" can be classified as "any vehicle capable of traveling in an aquatic environment and incapable of locomotion in air or on land."

I can then sub-divide the "Cars" class by additional characteristics - those with internal combustion engines vs. electrics, those with anti-lock brakes vs. those without, those with manual vs. automatic transmissions, etc.

Classification schemes based on morphology work regardless of origin. It's just the way we distinguish one thing from other things; science, of necessity, does this to a very specific degree, particularly with biological organisms because of their great variety. If I discover a new organism, I can easily use modern taxonomy to classify it.

Do you disagree? Again, I'm not talking at all about origins at this point. I;m not talking about anything religious or non-religious - I'm talking about very easily observed physical features, like the number of limbs you possess, whether you are warm-blooded, whether you display bilateral symmetry, whether you possess a backbone, etc. Simple stuff. Nobody, Creationist or otherwise, should disagree that you possess a backbone and thus qualify as a vertebrate, don't you think? I'm not talking about evolution or origins or anything else. I'm only talking about classification according to observable physical characteristics - the way we distinguish one "kind" from other "kinds."

After you ask the above question you go on to ask several which has nothing to do with the discussion of kinds. I refuse the bait.

Quite to the contrary - I'm simply showing that the concept of "kinds" is already well-defined in science - we simply needed more than one level of classification because there is so much variety found in living organisms. Since we couldn;t jsut use the word "Kind" and instantly understand what each other are talking about, we classified major features first, then classified each sub-population, etc until we have the basic Domain > Kingdom > Phylum > Class > Order > Family > Genus > Species system in use today.

This isn't a trick, ICANT. There's no bait. I'm just demonstrating that "kinds" are just a bit more complicated than "a horse is a horse, of course of course."

Now back to kinds.

A male and female human breeding will produce a human.
Do you agree or disagree?

A male and female ape breeding will produce an ape.
Do you agree or disagree?

A male and female dog breeding will produce dog pups.
Do you agree or disagree?

The list could go on until you had every creature on earth included that reproduces by mating.

And neither I nor modern taxonomy or the Theory of Evolution say different, ICANT.

But it goes further. Two apes will always produce an ape. But "apes" includes many species, including gorillas and humans.

It all relates to the simple fact that "all A are B, but not all B are A." All ducks are birds, but not all burds are ducks. All birds are vertebrates, but not all vertebrates are birds.

Existing "kinds" do not produce different "kinds." All of the offsprinf of a given "kind" will always be of the same "kind" as all of its ancestors...but the end result can be more diverse than the original ancestor population, and distinct enough to sub-divide them.

Very much like we do with dog breeds. All chihuahuas are dogs, but not all dogs are chihuahuas. Collies don't stop being dogs just because they are morphologically distinct from golden retrievers. If I breed a new "kind" of dog, it will still be a dog.

Human beings don't stop being apes just because we're distinct from gorillas. We share the morphological features that classify us as the ape "kind." Just as we share the morphological features that classify us as the "primate" kind, and as the "mammal" kind, and the "vertebrate" kind, etc.

The word "kind" just isn't descriptive enough, that's all. It can simultaneously mean (and has variously been used to mean) species, genus, families, even entire orders or higher on the taxonomic tree. That's why science doesn't use it, and why these "kind" discussions get so tangled.

If you limit the definition of "kind" to "any population of organisms that can breed to create viable offspring," then you're defining "kinds" as "species." At that point you still get to run into the gray area of rong species, where A + B can interbreed, and B + C can interbreed, but A + C cannot.

The same Kind of male and female will produce the same kind that they are and will never produce any other kind of a creature.
Do you agree or disagree?

I agree. Canines will always produce canines.

But new types of canines can arise from their ancestors that are distinct from other canines. As you've obviously seen in your experience on a farm with breeding.

It has never been documented otherwise. It has been postulated that millions of little changes over a long period of time will produce all the different kinds we have today.
Do you have such documentation?

Let's try to agree on classifications of kinds before we get into evolution and drive this thread off topic, shall we?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by ICANT, posted 01-06-2010 12:36 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by ICANT, posted 01-06-2010 3:56 PM Rahvin has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5182
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 347 of 425 (541857)
01-06-2010 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by Coyote
01-06-2010 1:38 PM


Re: One more time for the record.
Hi Coyote,

Coyote writes:

The evidence clearly shows that change of species, genera, and more can occur over time. And have occurred.

And that evidence is...What?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Coyote, posted 01-06-2010 1:38 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by greyseal, posted 01-06-2010 3:10 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 349 by Coyote, posted 01-06-2010 3:44 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 138 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 348 of 425 (541862)
01-06-2010 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by ICANT
01-06-2010 2:56 PM


Re: One more time for the record.
I'd point you here for starters, but the big words would scare you.

I wouldn't bother reading what pleases you, for example from allaboutcreation.org as it is, bluntly put, a pack of lies, distortions, half-truths and omissions.

I'd simply pop down to a good science museum and gawk at all the hominids; if you're lucky they'll have a lucy type skeleton to look at in addition to the dinosaurs, archaeopteryx specimens, teeth and jawbones, hides and, you know, real evidence.

And no, the creation museum isn't a "good" museum - they think all the animals from out of the ark could have crossed across the world on floating bridges made from trees in, what, days or something, that all the fossilized half-apes and half-men that chart our ancestry are also devolved from noah the same way that those poor unfortunate blacks and hispanics are devolved from us pure-bred whites.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by ICANT, posted 01-06-2010 2:56 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by ICANT, posted 01-06-2010 6:09 PM greyseal has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4518
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 349 of 425 (541871)
01-06-2010 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by ICANT
01-06-2010 2:56 PM


Re: One more time for the record.
And that evidence is...What?

Nice try, but I'll not bother to try to spoon feed you the evidence yet again. It's a fool's errand.

Your ability to ignore evidence that doesn't confirm, or conform to, your religious belief is amazing.

Suffice it to say that the experts who actually study evidence have no problems with the theory of evolution. (I studied it for six years in graduate school, primarily on the fossil man and human osteology side. And no, I'll not bother to try to spoon feed you that information either.)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by ICANT, posted 01-06-2010 2:56 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by Iblis, posted 01-06-2010 6:15 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5182
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 350 of 425 (541872)
01-06-2010 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by Rahvin
01-06-2010 2:37 PM


Re: Kind
Hi Rahvin,

Rahvin writes:

It makes you identical to any and all other humans on the planet, ICANT. How, precisely, are you not the kind of human I'm talking about?

The kind of human you are talking about does not have a spirit.

Rahvin writes:

I can form various classifications for human-made objects. Let's say I can classify a "vehicle" as "any man-made tool characeterized by locomotion and a passenger compartment." This means that cars, airplanes, boats, bicycles, etc. would all qualify as "vehicles," but buildings, hammers, and cats would not.

You can classifiy anything, anyway you desire. But if you tell me that bicycle grew up over a billion years to be a 747 jet aircraft I won't pay much attention to what you say.

Rahvin writes:

I'm not talking at all about origins at this point. I;m not talking about anything religious or non-religious - I'm talking about very easily observed physical features, like the number of limbs you possess, whether you are warm-blooded, whether you display bilateral symmetry, whether you possess a backbone, etc. Simple stuff. Nobody, Creationist or otherwise, should disagree that you possess a backbone and thus qualify as a vertebrate, don't you think? I'm not talking about evolution or origins or anything else.

If all creatures was created by one designer wouldn't He use the same designs where possible in different creatures.

That is what man does.

That is what science teaches. As per your above comparisons.

But because two things look alike does not mean they are the same thing or had the same origin.

Cocaine looks like a White crystalline powder but they are two competely different substances.

Rahvin writes:

I'm only talking about classification according to observable physical characteristics - the way we distinguish one "kind" from other "kinds."

So you agree there are different kinds. You just want to classify them different than the Bible. So as to support your belief.

Rahvin writes:

This isn't a trick, ICANT. There's no bait. I'm just demonstrating that "kinds" are just a bit more complicated than "a horse is a horse, of course of course."

A line from Mr Ed the talking horse. I didn't know you was that old.

But why can't a horse just be a horse?
He is nothing else. Even if he does have four legs, two eyes, a backbone, a long tail, a head, ears, or mouth like an elephant, cow, dog, wolf or etc. None of those make a horse a elephant, cow, dog, wolf or whatever might have all those features.

Rahvin writes:

But new types of canines can arise from their ancestors that are distinct from other canines. As you've obviously seen in your experience on a farm with breeding.

At present we have over 500 hybrid dog breeds that we have created by cross breeding. We have even got to the point we claim many of those hybrids are purebreds. They are all mixed breeds.

Rahvin writes:

Let's try to agree on classifications of kinds before we get into evolution and drive this thread off topic, shall we?

We can never agree on the classifications of kinds.

I believe in Biblical kinds.
They were created fully grown and functional and those creatures produce creatures like themselves.

You believe in one kind which has produced all living creatures and plants on planet earth. Everything being classified under that kind according to what is believed happened in the theory of evolution of the species.

How is there any way we could ever agree?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Rahvin, posted 01-06-2010 2:37 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by DrJones*, posted 01-06-2010 5:59 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 354 by Straggler, posted 01-06-2010 6:26 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 355 by Rahvin, posted 01-06-2010 6:36 PM ICANT has responded

    
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1540
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 351 of 425 (541896)
01-06-2010 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by ICANT
01-06-2010 3:56 PM


Re: Kind
If all creatures was created by one designer wouldn't He use the same designs where possible in different creatures.

Why would he? after all this mythical designer of yours allegedly has unlimited knowledge and power, why would he repeat himself except out of laziness?


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by ICANT, posted 01-06-2010 3:56 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5182
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 352 of 425 (541898)
01-06-2010 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by greyseal
01-06-2010 3:10 PM


Re: One more time for the record.
Hi greyseal,

greyseal writes:

I'd simply pop down to a good science museum and gawk at all the hominids;

Do you think that would be more enlightning than all the hundreds of specimans I built cabinet storage for in a University? I had to build the cabinets for specific specimans therefore I had to measure the specimans. That means I got a pretty good look at them. Those specimans are being used to teach our scientist and doctors of tomorrow.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by greyseal, posted 01-06-2010 3:10 PM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by greyseal, posted 01-07-2010 8:11 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Iblis
Member (Idle past 172 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 353 of 425 (541900)
01-06-2010 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by Coyote
01-06-2010 3:44 PM


Re: One more time for the record.
Do note that ICANT isn't actually doing science. I don't mean that as an accusation, so much as to point out that it's all Bible Study for him. A wolf is a different kind than a dog because both are mentioned separately in the bible. On the other hand, a whale is a kind of fish, because the terms are used interchangeably.

His text defines his terminology, it's nothing to do with cladistics. (I wish it were, those you can educate.) It's all just hermeneutics -- I won't specify which branch, as then we get people shouting that they aren't sorry at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by Coyote, posted 01-06-2010 3:44 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 9817
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 9.6


Message 354 of 425 (541904)
01-06-2010 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by ICANT
01-06-2010 3:56 PM


Re: Kind
Is a whale a "kind" of fish?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by ICANT, posted 01-06-2010 3:56 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by ICANT, posted 01-07-2010 1:16 PM Straggler has responded

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3943
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 355 of 425 (541906)
01-06-2010 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by ICANT
01-06-2010 3:56 PM


Re: Kind
quote:
Rahvin writes:

It makes you identical to any and all other humans on the planet, ICANT. How, precisely, are you not the kind of human I'm talking about?


The kind of human you are talking about does not have a spirit.

It does? Why?

ICANT, I'm only talking about classification by morphology here. I'm not debating whether "spirits" exist, or whether humans have them. Can't I talk about the physical distinctions between organisms alone without talking about supernatural classifications we know we can;t agree on and aren't really relevant anyway?

I can talk about the human body, in that we have brains, hearts, lungs, kidneys, a skeleton, etc without mentioning a spirit; whether such a thing exists or not, you still have four limbs, two eyes, and no tail.

Again ICANT, this isn;t a trick. I'm not laying bait. I have no intention of trying to convince you that you are the result of evolution; I'm well aware that that is a hopeless battle, and I think it would remain so even if I could magically show you a video of the evolution of life straight from whatever the beginning was and you still wouldn;t change your mind, so I'm not bothering.

I'm only talking about the classification of "kinds" here. I don't care about the Ark. I don't care how many "kinds" there are. If you tell me that a "kind" is just "any population of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing viable offspring," I'll say "Oh, you mean a species! Now I know what you're talking about!" At that point maybe we can start discussing the "gray areas" of such a classification, like ring species...but for now, I'm just trying to bridge the gap between your "kinds" and modern taxonomy. They're really the same thing, after all - taxonomy is just more detailed.

quote:
Rahvin writes:

I can form various classifications for human-made objects. Let's say I can classify a "vehicle" as "any man-made tool characeterized by locomotion and a passenger compartment." This means that cars, airplanes, boats, bicycles, etc. would all qualify as "vehicles," but buildings, hammers, and cats would not.


You can classifiy anything, anyway you desire. But if you tell me that bicycle grew up over a billion years to be a 747 jet aircraft I won't pay much attention to what you say.

Well, that would be a pretty silly claim for me to make. It's fortunate that I;m making no such claim.

And in this thread, I'm not talking about evolution. If you want to say that multiple organisms are vertebrates because a designer liked the utility of a backbone and so used it often like the way we use anti-lock brakes on cars, that's fine. I don't care. We can't even begin to discuss how taxonomy does or doesn't support evolution or design until we agree that classification by morphology is useful and consistent. Let's stick, then, to just talking about what "kinds" are.

quote:
Rahvin writes:

I'm not talking at all about origins at this point. I;m not talking about anything religious or non-religious - I'm talking about very easily observed physical features, like the number of limbs you possess, whether you are warm-blooded, whether you display bilateral symmetry, whether you possess a backbone, etc. Simple stuff. Nobody, Creationist or otherwise, should disagree that you possess a backbone and thus qualify as a vertebrate, don't you think? I'm not talking about evolution or origins or anything else.


If all creatures was created by one designer wouldn't He use the same designs where possible in different creatures.

Very possibly, even probably, if the design feature can function well in another creation.

That is what man does.

That is what science teaches. As per your above comparisons.

But because two things look alike does not mean they are the same thing or had the same origin.

Agreed. A Toyota and a Honda might look similar, but they came from different factories and were designed by different people, even though they can have many of the same design features.

Common classification alone does not prove common origins. That's actually why I'm somewhat confused at your reluctance to agree that you are, in fact, a human, and an ape, and a primate, and a mammal, and a vertebrate, and an animal. You can be all those things and still have a "spirit," can still have been created fully-formed through magic, or whatever. Your taxonomic classification has to do with your body's morphology, and nothing else.

Cocaine looks like a White crystalline powder but they are two competely different substances.

Well, cocaine is a white crystalline powder. As is powdered sugar. And yet cocaine is not powdered sugar; they don't come from the same plants, and they do different things to us when we consume them.

Once again, classification by common features alone does very little. It doesn't say anything about evolution, or origins, or souls, or gods, or the price of tea in China.

quote:
Rahvin writes:

I'm only talking about classification according to observable physical characteristics - the way we distinguish one "kind" from other "kinds."


So you agree there are different kinds. You just want to classify them different than the Bible. So as to support your belief.

This isn't a conspiracy, ICANT. Noting that "hey, lizards, snakes, mammals, and birds all have backbones, but snails, slugs, worms, insects, arachnids, and bacteria do not" has nothing to do with supporting a belief. It's simply the recognition of a common characteristic. Taxonomy seeks to group organisms by theur equivalent of the lowest common denominator - the feature they have in common. Thus all creatures with backbones are vertebrates, even if vertebrates have widely diverse sub-populations of their own.

There are different kinds. We agree. Science agrees. We should be jumping with joy, ICANT, because you and I agree on something.

All I'm saying is that the word "kind" itself isn't very descriptive, and the way it's been used (not necessarily by you, mind) could equally make all animals a single "kind," or all vertebrates a single "kind," or all dogs a single "kind," or all labrador retrievers a single "kind." That's wht taxonomy uses different words to describe the level of classification. That's all. And because of the way the classification works, you are simultaneously a human, an ape, a primate, a mammal, a vertebrate, and an animal, in much the same way an Accord is simultaneously a Honda, a Japanese car, a car, a vehicle, and a man-made tool.

Whether you or the car are designed and built or have evolved gradually from your descendants has no relevance to those facts, because the physical features that define those classifications still apply one way or the other.

Isn;t that somethign we can agree on?

quote:
Rahvin writes:

This isn't a trick, ICANT. There's no bait. I'm just demonstrating that "kinds" are just a bit more complicated than "a horse is a horse, of course of course."


A line from Mr Ed the talking horse. I didn't know you was that old.

I'm not, but I did watch Nick at Night when I was a kid

But why can't a horse just be a horse?
He is nothing else. Even if he does have four legs, two eyes, a backbone, a long tail, a head, ears, or mouth like an elephant, cow, dog, wolf or etc. None of those make a horse a elephant, cow, dog, wolf or whatever might have all those features.

And nobody is saying that a horse is any of those things.

Horses and elephants are both mammals, but horses are not elephants. Hondas and Toyotas are both cars, but Hondas are not Toyotas. Humans and Gorillas are both apes, but humans are not gorillas.

You and a bacterium are both living things, but you are not a bacterium.

How do we tell the difference between two "kinds," ICANT? Do you "just know?"

I think you distinguish between "kinds" in exactly the same way I do - by common characteristics. You can tell that a dog is not a horse because they each have distinct physical characteristics that set them apart. Their foot structure is different, their teeth are different, their skulls are different, etc. They also share some characteristics in common - they tend to congregate in groups rather than being solitary; they are both warm-blooded; they are both quadropeds; they both give birth to live young. Couldn't we say that the horse and the dog belong to the same "super-kind," a larger group that shares those common characteristics, while at the same time being distinctly different from each other because of the features they do not share?

That's all taxonomy does. It organises the classification of life according to common characteristics; some characteristics, like having a backbone, are shared by many, widely varied organisms. Others, like bipedal locomotion, are not so common. We identify "kinds" according to their physical features, and classify their common and different features.

Didn't God tell Adam to name all of the things He had created? Taxonomy is just continuing that effort. Nothing more.

quote:
Rahvin writes:

But new types of canines can arise from their ancestors that are distinct from other canines. As you've obviously seen in your experience on a farm with breeding.


At present we have over 500 hybrid dog breeds that we have created by cross breeding. We have even got to the point we claim many of those hybrids are purebreds. They are all mixed breeds.

And you know from your experience breding that "purebred" doesn't mean you can't still select for a given feature. If you take a bunch of purebred black labradors and breed only the shortest pair, gradually you'll tend to get shorter and shorter black labs. They won't stop being dogs, and nobody is suggesting otherwise.

quote:
Rahvin writes:

Let's try to agree on classifications of kinds before we get into evolution and drive this thread off topic, shall we?


We can never agree on the classifications of kinds.

I believe in Biblical kinds.
They were created fully grown and functional and those creatures produce creatures like themselves.

You believe in one kind which has produced all living creatures and plants on planet earth. Everything being classified under that kind according to what is believed happened in the theory of evolution of the species.

How is there any way we could ever agree?

Because I'm not talkign about how the various "kinds" came to be. For the moment, I'm not talking about whether all vertebrates share a common ancestor. I'm not talking about abiogenesis, or pansperima, or special creation, or intelligent design, or a cosmic sneeze. I'm just talking about recognizing that what you call a "kind," the science of taxonomy further separates into Domains, Kingdoms, Phylum, Classes, Orders, Families, Genus, and Species. The higher up in that hierarchy you go, the more you'll see common features like cell walls or membranes, bony or cartilagenous skeletons. The farther down the hierarchy you go, the more specific each "kind" becomes, finally resolving to specific species that, despite sharing common features with some other organisms, are each individually distinct from other species.

I don't see how we could not agree on that, honestly. It's the same concept of a "kind" used in the Bible, but expanded to classify in detail all of the numerous species we have found, extant or extinct, on Earth. The Bible, after all, wasn't meant to be a biology textbook. It doesn't list all of the varied organisms on Earth and define what "kind" they each belong to. It just says "God created lots of things, each according to their kind." Modern taxonomic classification, by itself, is not incompatible with that statement.

Do you agree?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by ICANT, posted 01-06-2010 3:56 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by ICANT, posted 01-07-2010 3:51 PM Rahvin has responded

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 138 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 356 of 425 (541999)
01-07-2010 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 352 by ICANT
01-06-2010 6:09 PM


Re: One more time for the record.
Do you think that would be more enlightning than all the hundreds of specimans I built cabinet storage for in a University?

If you current knowledge of evolution and natural selection is anything to go by, one can only hope.

Just because you built cases for them doesn't mean you were at all open to the information on their origins and history nor paid that the slightest bit of attention.

Plenty of diehard creationists own bookstores and can't see the irony in putting books about dionysus (the guy who was born on the 25th of december, called the "king of kings" and the "god of gods", who turned water into wine, was placed in a manger, died and rose back to life) in the "fiction" setting but putting the bible (about the guy who was born on the 25th of december, called the "king of kings" and the "god of gods", who turned water into wine, was placed in a manger, died and rose back to life) in the historical section...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by ICANT, posted 01-06-2010 6:09 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5182
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 357 of 425 (542066)
01-07-2010 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 354 by Straggler
01-06-2010 6:26 PM


Re: Kind
Hi Straggler,

Straggler writes:

Is a whale a "kind" of fish?

According to the Hebrew word and Greek word translated whale they are a sea monster kind.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Straggler, posted 01-06-2010 6:26 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by Straggler, posted 01-07-2010 2:18 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 359 by hooah212002, posted 01-07-2010 2:43 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 361 by Iblis, posted 01-07-2010 4:13 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 371 by Chippo, posted 01-10-2010 6:10 AM ICANT has responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 9817
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 9.6


Message 358 of 425 (542076)
01-07-2010 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 357 by ICANT
01-07-2010 1:16 PM


Re: Kind
ICANT writes:

According to the Hebrew word and Greek word translated whale they are a sea monster kind.

A "sea monster kind"?

Are there any other species covered by this "sea monster kind" and does it include all different types of whale?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by ICANT, posted 01-07-2010 1:16 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3077
Joined: 08-12-2009
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 359 of 425 (542084)
01-07-2010 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 357 by ICANT
01-07-2010 1:16 PM


Re: Kind
Hi ICANT. in Message 309, I posted a link to a fairly comprehensive list of animals, listed via taxonomy. Feel free to respond to that.

359 posts and still we do not have any further idea what you guys mean by kind.


Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan


This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by ICANT, posted 01-07-2010 1:16 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5182
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 360 of 425 (542095)
01-07-2010 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 355 by Rahvin
01-06-2010 6:36 PM


Re: Kind
Hi Ranvin,

Rahvin writes:

ICANT, I'm only talking about classification by morphology here.

Actually you are talking about the evolutionary classification by morphology.

Rahvin writes:

I'm not debating whether "spirits" exist, or whether humans have them.

I know you are not. Because you believe man evolved from that single cell first life form. Which if he did does not have a spirit.

Rahvin writes:

Can't I talk about the physical distinctions between organisms alone without talking about supernatural classifications we know we can;t agree on and aren't really relevant anyway?

Last I checked we still live in a country where you can talk about anything you want too.

Rahvin writes:

Again ICANT, this isn;t a trick. I'm not laying bait. I have no intention of trying to convince you that you are the result of evolution;

I don't mind you trying. In fact I would like to see the evidence that convinced you that you did.

Rahvin writes:

I'm only talking about the classification of "kinds" here.

Actually you are talking about the evolutionary classification of life forms.

Rahvin writes:

I don't care how many "kinds" there are.

But you pretend to care as you keep asking what I think a kind is.

Rahvin writes:

I'm just trying to bridge the gap between your "kinds" and modern taxonomy. They're really the same thing, after all - taxonomy is just more detailed.

But I don't have any "kinds". God has "kinds" that produce like kind.

Modern taxonomy has one life form "kind" that has produced all life forms present today and those that are extinct.

Taxonomy is a detail of what man thinks evolution produced.

Rahvin writes:

quote:
Rahvin writes:

I can form various classifications for human-made objects. Let's say I can classify a "vehicle" as "any man-made tool characeterized by locomotion and a passenger compartment." This means that cars, airplanes, boats, bicycles, etc. would all qualify as "vehicles," but buildings, hammers, and cats would not.


You can classify anything, anyway you desire. But if you tell me that bicycle grew up over a billion years to be a 747 jet aircraft I won't pay much attention to what you say.

Well, that would be a pretty silly claim for me to make. It's fortunate that I;m making no such claim.

And in this thread, I'm not talking about evolution.

You are talking about all "kinds" which according to evolution came from one life form "kind".

I am talking about all present life forms coming from their own "kind" not a single life form "kind".

Rahvin writes:

We can't even begin to discuss how taxonomy does or doesn't support evolution or design until we agree that classification by morphology is useful and consistent.

Why do we need taxonomy?

Its only purpose is to prove evolution.

Rahvin writes:

Common classification alone does not prove common origins. That's actually why I'm somewhat confused at your reluctance to agree that you are, in fact, a human, and an ape, and a primate, and a mammal, and a vertebrate, and an animal.

I am glad you agree that mans classification does not prove origins.

But I don't see what your confusion is caused by.

The only way mankind could have a spirit is if it was put there by a creator.

If mankind evolved from a primate he/she has no spirit and is like all other animals. Nothing but an animal.

Although when I look at mankind today and the way they act and carry on business I am beginning to truly wonder if some of them are not just animals because that is what they act like. But that could be caused by them being taught that they are nothing but an animal.

Rahvin writes:

Your taxonomic classification has to do with your body's morphology, and nothing else.

Then my classification is "Mankind".

I belong to no other group as I was created in the image/likeness of God.

Rahvin writes:

There are different kinds. We agree. Science agrees. We should be jumping with joy, ICANT, because you and I agree on something.

We walk on different sides of the track. But it is good to see we agree and science agrees with us that there are different "kinds"

The problem arises when I say God created all those different "kinds" in the beginning. They were not created in Genesis 1:11-25.

And in your belief system they came from a single cell life form "kind".

Rahvin writes:

Whether you or the car are designed and built or have evolved gradually from your descendants has no relevance to those facts, because the physical features that define those classifications still apply one way or the other.

I am going to have a hard time evolving from my sons. So I think you should have said ancestor.

So I look very much like the man created in Genesis 1:27 some 6,000+ years ago who is my ancestor.

Rahvin writes:

Because I'm not talkign about how the various "kinds" came to be. For the moment, I'm not talking about whether all vertebrates share a common ancestor.

Which is evolution that you said earlier you was not talking about.

Rahvin writes:

The Bible, after all, wasn't meant to be a biology textbook. It doesn't list all of the varied organisms on Earth and define what "kind" they each belong to.

I agree.

It just says that they produce after their "kind". So however many kinds we got today and those extinct is the number of "kinds" God created in the beginning. Genesis 1:1 and the history thereof.

Rahvin writes:

Modern taxonomic classification, by itself, is not incompatible with that statement.

Modern taxonomic classification is incompatible with Bible "kinds" because it assumes all life forms evolved from a single cell life form "kind".

There is no way to bring the two into agreement.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by Rahvin, posted 01-06-2010 6:36 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by hooah212002, posted 01-07-2010 4:18 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 363 by Rahvin, posted 01-07-2010 4:20 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 364 by Codegate, posted 01-07-2010 4:38 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 366 by Malcolm, posted 01-07-2010 7:59 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 367 by bluescat48, posted 01-08-2010 12:04 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 378 by Vacate, posted 01-11-2010 1:49 AM ICANT has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
2223
24
2526
...
29Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014