Re: GENESIS IS 100% SCIENTIFIC AND NON-METAPHORIC: WHEN THERE IS NO PARANOIA.
Look at the stats as equations, akin to MC2.
That still doesn't make it science. Misusing or redefining terms doesn't improve your argument or show that you know what you are talking about, rather the opposite.
We refer to definition (1). It involves experimentation and testing.
Science is a recent study, appearing after maths and history. If there is a stat the city Ramesey is a one day journey from Goshen - mankind has to determine and evidence its veracity. Where it says the Nile never runs dry, it becomes evidenced by the terrain examination, namely all rivers flow down and never up from this point: there was never a famine in Egypt. If the text describes the ancient Egyptian diets [the fleshpots of egypt, the fish for naught, the garlic, melons, etc..] - we can verify of this is of contemporanous veracity. The surrounding colliliary gives the credibility factor.
Irrelevant waste of bandwidth.
It cannot be a dif in degree: else we would see degrees of equivalent prowess factors elsewhere. Its a one of a kind attribute which is inherent and not inculcated: a parent does not teach a child to talk - it merely clicks a switch on and the rest happens akin to breathing. This attribute decreases with time.
Saying this does not make it so. Please start a new thread. We can discuss both science and speech if you want ("Science and Speech in Determining Kinds" for example topic)
Re: GENESIS IS 100% SCIENTIFIC AND NON-METAPHORIC: WHEN THERE IS NO PARANOIA.
quote:
This whole paragraph is a perfect example. Nowhere in my post do I ask if the bible is perfectly written or contains 'superflous' words. From what you quoted of my post I simply made the observation that you have added unseen micro creatures kind and subteranean insects kind - if I am incorrect to add these two categories feel free to let me know. I still have not recieved an answer regarding fungi.
What I 'added' was relevent to the point of discussion. Being perfectly written is impressive to the factor of your deliberation of virus - the text incorporates this very adequately and eloquently - taking into consideration all of mankind's understanding, including this advanced scientific period. If the text has no superflous words, one must take more seriously the term 'every living creature that swarms and/or creapeth'. Any further elaboration here would make it an overkill and render superflous additions. If you were a scientist, and were to correctly write the texts 3,500 years ago, catering for virus' which would have no meaning till very recently: how would you go about it? Here, the text's veracity reaches total vindication for being comprehensive, and catering to this generation.
quote:
So you claim that Plant or Vegetation means anything that clings to the earth? All else is not a plant, correct? I would hate to misunderstand your position as its so easily covered in the single stroke of words. (as you suggest)
No, I did not venture there in such a fashion. What I do say is, there is the comprehensive listing of all kinds of vegetation, plants, herbs - which cater to all known categories of vegetation, including root growths like potatoes, lowly shurbs and tall tree growth. Fruits, nuts, grains, cactus, herbs, spices, and vegatables are catered to, and this is dispenced in a few [compacted] wordage.
quote:
Where are they catered to? Are you suggesting that I must read the entire bible to acertain what your categories for biology are? You suggested that mammals are Ground Based, I however cannot understand this based on the existance mammals in water. Does the fact that they "ascend periodically" mean that they better fit within the Ground Based kind? This is probably an important issue with the definition. You have asserted Darwins mistake in faulty assumptions, it would be unfair to make me assume the criterea for these categories without clarity.
mammals are included here, which is in the same verse as water-based life: 'and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind'. These are creatures which inhabit both water and land ['wherewith the waters'].
quote: Everything with a wing is one kind, correct? Take your time, this ones probably important also.
Everything with wings refers to more than air-borne, namely also those birds which are mostly ground based [chickens] but possess wings.
quote:
But if a parrot mimics a human in saying "I want food" and it does want food - is that then speech? I don't particularily disagree with you on your final kind (Speech Endowed). Frankly I just do not understand why you feel it to be neglected by science, all definitions of human I can find include this. As such I am lead to believe that your definition of speech is different than science. I am simply trying to figure out this difference.
Speech is only recently being scientifically considered as a mysterious phenomenon. It is the only unique attribute of humans, and correctly declared in the texts. Communication and the brain are common to all life. We speak, but we have no idea how - it is not because we have voice boxes or any organ which is condusive to it. Its an involuntary feature, and connected to the brain in an intergrated form. It is not a phenomenon of evolution, and not explained by it. Unfortunately, ToE has no input here. The situation becomes compounded when we consider that animals and birds have a greater degree of natural understandings when they can anticipate earthquakes, smell a fire coming, adapt to sonar, see without eyes and had the benefit of greater time to adapt - yet have not 'evolved' to the most powerful adaptation tool: speech. Here we see why the statute to GO FORTH AND HAVE DOMINION OF ALL THE WORLDS is linked to a speech endowed life form, but one which is not the most powerful in any other area: imagine if dogs, tigers and gorrilas had speech - they would transcend us and prevail in the dominion stakes.
quote:
Perhaps you misunderstand my position. A flying mammal is not generally considered a 'fowl', a non-flying 'fowl' is not generally considered air borne. Animals arent often called plants, plants arent often called fish. Surely you must understand that while tearing down the method used by biologists to categorize life some questions will arrise. I am asking simple questions regarding your method and have been quite clear about what I see as contradictions. If they are not contradictions I should not be expected to understand your position ahead of time.
As I said, I'm not a biologist to answer the minutae details correctly, but I have read on it, and agree there are no contradictions here. The term 'EVERY' is placed strategically in many places, and are conducive to your questions.
quote:
Can you explain why a virus is like a bacteria? I am particularily interested to know why you think a virus has a cell, and why you feel it is even alive. I am not trying to trap you by claiming a virus is not 'alive', I dont think of them as rock but surely they do not fit with bacteria?
I don't think your trying to trap, but rather there are big swathes of mis reps of the OT the last 2000 years, by religions which took in on board, but without the correct understanding of it and without the explainatory laws. Christianity and islam, which spread the OT to the world at large, understandably had their focus on their own new scriptures. The variance of a virus and bacteria is addressed in infectcious and contagious deseases respectively [as with the multi-page descriptions in the various forms of leprosy and other deseases]. The reference to cell was to anticipate you bringing up single celled amoeba.
Allow me to extend, how the biology of life forms is fully known here. Take the example of the given reason for the dietary laws, which forbids the consumption of pig meat. This is not for health or hygiene reasons, and this law made life much more difficult for a farming community where meats were luxury items. The relevent factor here is the depiction of the pig as having an attribute not shared by any other life form on the planet - and this attribute is a hidden, camouflaged one. It is the only animal with split hooves, but which does not chew its cud - which all domestic animals do. How can such a factor be known by the ancients or indeed even today? How was it known there was no such animal in the Amazon or in Tasmania? To dispell that it was a good guess, three other animals are nominated which have the oppositte attributes of the pig: they chew their cud but have no split hooves: there is not a 4th one.
The reason the pig is forbidden is because slaughtering a pig via its throat would cause it great pain, applicable even for slaughter or killing an animal. Unlike all other nominated animals with the said two attributes, the pig does not posses a loop in its throat vein which connects to the brain - slitting this vein would thus cause it pain, while in the other nominated animals, it would render them unconscious within a few seconds by virtue of this hidden loop which acts as a filter stoppage of blood flow to the brain. A case was won on this grounds recently, when a canadian animal rights group embarked on legal action to ban kosher slaughtering. Scietists and prominent biologists were called in and detailed mid-section filmography was shown in the court. The animal rights group lost, and all costs were awarded against them, with the court order that if such a case was brought again - the evidences tended must be shown. The OT understands biology and medicine, which are prime factors of science.
Ok, it looks as if you have a pretty firm set of kinds.
Ground Root Based (Vegetation/Plant): "Those which cling in the earth", this does not include those that dont cling in the earth.
Water Based (Fish): Anything thats born in the water that does not occationally rise to the surface for air (ie: "ascend periodically")
Air Borne (fowl): Anything that has wings, the ability to fly is not a strict requirement.
Land Based (animals/mammals): Anything that lives on the earth or rises from water to breathe. This does not include plants in the earth, things with wings, unseen creatures or land based insects.
Unseen Micro Creatures: Bacteria and virus.
Subteranean Insects: Any insect that does not have wings or is born in the water and continues its life there.
Speech Endowed (humans): Humans
Issues I have at this time include:
Male ants have wings, female ants do not (generally speaking), ants then appear to be both of the Subteranean Insects Kind and the Air Borne Kind
A moth is born of the Subteranean Insect Kind but later becomes of the Air Borne Kind. I won't attempt to list all the things that do this, clarity on the moth issue would likely clear up all the others.
Atlantic flyingfish, Cheilopogon melanurus can cross the line between air and water kind at will.
Water Based plants are just begging for clarification, I have trouble understanding them to be fish.
Single celled organisms, should they be lumped into the Unseen Micro Creatures based on size? Or should they be split into the water based and land based groups?
Amphibians: many species are land based but some are water based. Are you suggesting some sort of evolution that lead to a remarkably similar convergance?
Biblical issues:
Leviticus 11:29,30 writes:
These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind,
30And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail, and the mole.
In message 59 you stated:
The once unseen micro creatures and subteranean insects are 'swarms of living creatures' and 'and every living creature that creepeth', respectively.
This lead me to believe that insects are the only creatures that fit into the Subteranean Insects category. Its now quite obvious that a visual identification is difficult. Are these also insects or is the category broader than expected? How do we identify the animals listed here, from the bible, as compared to other Land Based kinds?
I have a lot more questions, but I want to make sure the list is accurate.
Re: GENESIS IS 100% SCIENTIFIC AND NON-METAPHORIC: WHEN THERE IS NO PARANOIA.
Hi IamJoseph,
This thread is seeking a clear and relatively unambiguous definition of kind. This definition doesn't have to be perfect. Like the biological definitions of species, there will be corner cases that are difficult to classify.
When lay evolutionists want to present the biological definition of species at a detailed level, at a level beyond just saying that it's a population of interbreeding organisms, they can go to any number of books and websites to find such definitions stated in a clear and relatively unambiguous way.
When lay creationists want to present the creationist definition of kind, even just a simple one, they're on their own. No concerted creationist effort has ever been expended on this basic prerequisite of research, defining fundamental concepts like "kind". Because of this, there is no definition of kind that lay creationists can look up by reading creationist books and pamphlets, or by watching creationist videos, or by visiting creationist websites.
So this thread is actually making several points. The obvious one is that lay creationists are ill prepared for creating a definition of kind. Another is that the Biblical concept of kind is fraught with problems.
But the most significant point this thread makes is that even premier creation scientists like Morris and Gish and Austin and Wells and so forth haven't bothered to define kind. This is because creationism isn't a research effort, but a character assassination effort directed against evolution. With no research arrows in the quill yet nonetheless spurred on by creationist books, videos and websites, lay creationists march into battle unarmed. Threads like this are the result.
IamJoseph,I have just finished reading the thread and see some areas which appear to be problematic as to Forum Guidelines and clarity.
You've just returned from suspension and it appears that we need a tune up relative to your posting MO so as to help you keep logged in actively and keep EvC humming along nicely.
1. You need to learn how to do your quotes in order that whoever you're dialoging with can assertain more readily to who or what your quote pertains. Please hit the peak button on this message so as to learn how to do your quotes. It's not a requirement that you do the name when hitting the reply button but do use "qs" rather than "quote." It is usually best to do the name also, imo.
2. This thread is not about Biblical communication perse. Occasional topically relative reference to it is one thing but your extensive digression into it is leading off topic. There are other areas where you have exercised topic drift.
3. One of your obvious problems is the claims you are making as to the Bible relative to science. The Bible is not a science book perse. Therefore in EvC science threads where advanced technical science matters are discussed and where novice non-professionals apply Biblical information, caution should be exercised in making claims that cannot be supported in a reasonable amount of debth.
I'm trying to help your PR here as well as the PR of the creationist minority constituency here at EvC. We need not compromise our position but we do need to earn the respect of the majority counterparts and especially administrators who need to insure that competent folks participate in the threads, especially the science ones.
Please understand that this is constructive criticism as a friend to help you function and keep out of hot water.
Edited by AdminBuzsaw, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminBuzsaw, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminBuzsaw, : edit to update signature modification
Edited by AdminBuzsaw, : spelling correction
For ideological balance on the EvC admin team as a Biblical creationist.
Re: GENESIS IS 100% SCIENTIFIC AND NON-METAPHORIC: WHEN THERE IS NO PARANOIA.
quote:So let's take a look at the creation of man:
Gen 1:27 " 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
This says the duality of man ['him'] has Godlike qualities [a unique attribute not said of others].
quote:
Gen 2:22 " 22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."
This says how and when the 'woman' [the counterpart of the aforesaid duality] was formed.
quote:
Gen 5:2 " 2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created."
This says humans [woman too/the duality] were blessed jointly [together/designated equal status] when they were created.
quote:
There's 3 passages give the same information - they are, by definition superfluous.
Therefore we must NOT take these passages seriously.
Thank you, you are finished.
I don't think so. Each verse is separate, pivotal and indispensable to one deliberating, asking and seeking the correct process. There is no good science when comprehension is not transcendent, and here is a transcendent writing. The rules of comprehending and grammar comes from this source: eg: if the term GOD is used twice consecutively, it is not superflous [obviously] and denotes an expression of approval - often used in normal speech as an expression of affection [a mother calling a child, etc]; if the expression 'I AM THE LRD' appears at the end of a sentence, it is a disapproval or warning and the matter will be dealt with - often used in normal expression by mankind as a warning also [a father warning a naught son not to speak badly to his father]. My response here is not a religious but scientific one, concerning the deciphering of a text only.
I believe I was using the wrong 'reply' buttons, but what do you mean with 'qs' instead of 'quote':
It's not a requirement that you do the name when hitting the reply button but do use "qs" rather than "quote." It is usually best to do the name also, imo.
quote:This lead me to believe that insects are the only creatures that fit into the Subteranean Insects category.
The creaping things upon the earth are designated one category from those that are sub-terreanean, and those which perform both such as the snail and moles:
These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind,30And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail, and the mole.
quote:
Its now quite obvious that a visual identification is difficult. Are these also insects or is the category broader than expected? How do we identify the animals listed here, from the bible, as compared to other Land Based kinds?
The correct ID is subject to our knowledge at a given time. There may be hidden conditions which we may not be privy to at any time, or our understandings may alter, and must allow for this.
My pain point in this discussion was to focus one factor only: the designation of Genesis as a document varied from the normal, generic allocation given to all religious texts, and from this pov it is also scientific - which does not mean it must allign with every premise deemed scientific by anyone's particular understanding. Better, that it is a view which has differences but remains a logical and independent view wherever it differs.
What we call science today, are not all factual or mutally agreed upon by all scientists, and this also contains scientific beliefs which are unproven, inconsistant, deflective and unknown. Here, there are things which can impact and render some answers for science - eg, the premise of a 'duality' at the source of life origins; that life's design is precedent to external evolutionary impacts and is reliant on the parent host seed; that humans constitute a separate classification and this is not based on skelatal separations; and speech is varied from communications seen in all other life forms and thus outside of any evolutionary process. That such premises differ from one's understanding does not render it unscientific by any means.
Genesis should be better viewed as an independent document from other religious texts - and if one cannot do so, it requires deliberation and debate, if the paranoia of casting all religious sounding texts can be abated. Genesis, it should be remembered, is 2000 years older than today's prominent religions, and the aspect of creation is not discussed in other theological texts, certainly not with a set of bold specifics and a detailed process as with Genesis. Also, I am not presenting Genesis as a theology, but as a scientific treatise - I do not share the view of some here, that it does not belong in a science thread, nor have I responded unscientifically to any science issues.
Creationism and Monotheism are not unscientific premises, when seen in the document which introduced these premises: Genesis is not talking about a personalised diety, but declares the Creator as unseen and unprovable, but existent - this alligns with all sciences and knowledge today, and thus wholly vindicated - with no opposing scenario. Monotheism is proposed by science in another form [the quest for an indivisable/irreducable entity/GUF]; Creationism/Creator being a logical 'cause and effect' premise, though not provable, but without any opposing scenario at hand. IOW, there is no option than attending what is said in genesis as a legitimate counter to atheistic science - on a scientific basis, and this is only viable with one document.
My pain point in this discussion was to focus one factor only: the designation of Genesis as a document varied from the normal, generic allocation given to all religious texts, and from this pov it is also scientific
Do you agree that anything scientific should have the ability to stand up to scrutiny? If it cannot stand up to questioning should we {A:} Change the definition of science so that it no longer has to stand up to scrutiny or {B:} Leave science as it is and make alternate theories stand up to questioning?
Also, I am not presenting Genesis as a theology, but as a scientific treatise - I do not share the view of some here, that it does not belong in a science thread, nor have I responded unscientifically to any science issues.
You don't have to share the view of others here, but to consider something to be scientific I think it should make basic sense. It should also stand up to questioning. If you have not responded unscientifically then further questioning is obviously in order as I, in my limited comprehension abilities, find many of your concepts to be completely foreign to my understanding of biology.
Perhaps you feel that your method of kinds is scientific then you should be confident in your groupings and be able to explain them. As it stands currently I am sure you are able to understand my confusion. I have come to understand biology in terms that are totally at odds with your methods.
Do you or do you not understand the problems from my point of view with many of the organisms you place within certain groups? Are you confident that these groups best explain the biblical interpretation of biology? Have you considered Noah's ark and the complications that are inevitably going to arrise while trying to explain the flood while denying evolution? (I hate to give away the game, but it should be blindingly obvious)
Based on this last post insects are now related (in kind) to moles, snails, weasels, mice, tortoises, ferrets, chamelions, and lizards. If you don't have an issue with this - please explain why. Subteranian is the only criterea for this group?
What about snakes, worms, bears, bats, bacteria, and fungi? (still unresolved)
The Bible is true because it's so perfectly written, and you know that it's perfectly written because the Bible is true.
I'm reminded of Colbert's saying - The Bible is infailable because it says so in the Bible, which if you remember from the beginning of this sentence is infailable.
You are free to believe whatever you want, so long as your beliefs don't enter into our schools in either the fields of science or logic
What I said/meant was that excellent writing is a mark of wisdom, and what is true must be independently determined. There is no contradiction here. Wisdom and proof are separate but alligned, and both have to be respected; one should not conclude irespectively.
quote:
Do you agree that anything scientific should have the ability to stand up to scrutiny? If it cannot stand up to questioning should we {A:} Change the definition of science so that it no longer has to stand up to scrutiny or {B:} Leave science as it is and make alternate theories stand up to questioning?
Obviously yes, because science is making a declaration as a constant, specially a new view against the grain of what was previously held - this must be vindicated, else it is not science. By the same token, some factors require more than science as the determining factor, while still under the hammer of requiring proof and vindication. One is never obligated to follow anything which they sinserely do not hold as true or correct - the operative factor being 'sincerely' [honestly, and to the best of one's ability].
quote:
You don't have to share the view of others here, but to consider something to be scientific I think it should make basic sense. It should also stand up to questioning. If you have not responded unscientifically then further questioning is obviously in order as I, in my limited comprehension abilities, find many of your concepts to be completely foreign to my understanding of biology.
Science is a sacred institution, being non-biased and the closest thing to truth. Yet it is subject to error and corruption, equally as any other faculty, including its application of verification. Thus a sound premise can overide science, specially where proof is not available or possible. IMHO, science is about the B to Z, namely post-creation, and does not apply outside this factor [Genesis, incidently, begins with the second alphabet]. What does relate to the first alphabet or a pre-creation, is also not answerable, but in some instances scientific verification does not apply. When we cannot prove either way, for or against, other tools and faculties come into play, such as a sound premise. eg:
We cannot prove the universe was created, or brought about by a supreme mind - but its antithesis is an unsound, unscientific premise. We have a choice here of not believing in a Creator - which becomes legitimate when one has sinserely considered the issue. However, if we decide there is no Creator and propose other, equally unsound premises - such as a complexity resulted by itself or from a random foundation - we have to prove this premise also. When proof is not available either side - only the sound premise will help. There are distortions of equal magnitude on both these paths: all of science and all religious beliefs cannot be right - because they are contradictory and mutually exclusive. Currently, the distortions of science are at the forefront, while those of religions are seen as understood but which cannot be helped.
quote:
Perhaps you feel that your method of kinds is scientific then you should be confident in your groupings and be able to explain them. As it stands currently I am sure you are able to understand my confusion. I have come to understand biology in terms that are totally at odds with your methods.
I see a problem in using darwinian speciation as applicable in primal, original overviews, and that it pertains only to sub-groupings which can entail many further layers. A rough analogy would be casting human ethnic groups [chinese, mexicans,etc] as fulcrum divisions of life forms, as opposed sub-groups. the difference between canine animals and feline animals are sub-groups, while the land based grouping is the transcendent grouping factor here. This means genesis is correct, and darwin is not wrong - 'when seen as a sub-group' division.
quote:
Do you or do you not understand the problems from my point of view with many of the organisms you place within certain groups? Are you confident that these groups best explain the biblical interpretation of biology?
The issue of primal, creation-viewed divisions has nothing to do with biology, because biology is not a primal factor but a subset view; its not about which life form has protruding lobes and upright structures, but which has a transcendent factor above these divisions. View the planet and its life forms as though you are witnessing its original formation and take notes: biology would not figure here.
quote:
Have you considered Noah's ark and the complications that are inevitably going to arrise while trying to explain the flood while denying evolution? (I hate to give away the game, but it should be blindingly obvious)
I say, prove something by the provables; what are listed as miracles should not be the criteria - specially not when these are presented as miracles [above nature] and not natural phenomena subject to science verification. Having said that, the Noah story is blazenly misrepresented, and subsequent to a less than adequate comprehension of the text. This was a regional flood with domestic animals only: the intro verse to the story preambles it applies to Noah and his household [family and possessions]. When one considers it properly, it cannot ever apply to the world, but rather only the then known world: this is grammatically vindicated, with further inferences in the text. Had the text been discussing the whole world as we know it now - it would correctly incur a grammatical blemish: it does not suffer this error, and its expressionism of the whole earth is well vindicated and acceptable. The writings must be read as subjective to its designated subject, in the subject's spacetime - not one which is 5,500 years apart. Equally, our conclusions today would not apply 5,500 years in the future: perhaps six new planets may be incorporated as humanity's spheare of relevence 5500 years from now - the ratio between us and Noah. What's next - the splitting of the sea?
quote:
Based on this last post insects are now related (in kind) to moles, snails, weasels, mice, tortoises, ferrets, chamelions, and lizards. If you don't have an issue with this - please explain why. Subteranian is the only criterea for this group?
What about snakes, worms, bears, bats, bacteria, and fungi? (still unresolved)
I see it as all life forms which are land based are one kind; those which fall into transitory groups are catered to, and do not pose a negation of the premise. Certainly, there may be forms of life as yet not discovered or imagined, or some life forms may be connected with points we never associated them with previously.
Science is a sacred institution, being non-biased and the closest thing to truth. Yet it is subject to error and corruption, equally as any other faculty, including its application of verification.
I completely agree, hence the need for science to be conducted in such a way that others can test it and come to the same conclusions. (or refute by coming up with differing conclusions)
Thus a sound premise can overide science, specially where proof is not available or possible.
If proof is available however, science should override an idea.
IMHO, science is about the B to Z, namely post-creation, and does not apply outside this factor
As I have said before, I agree. What else could science study?
We cannot prove the universe was created, or brought about by a supreme mind - but its antithesis is an unsound, unscientific premise
I disagree. Both ideas are unscientific. You are talking about 'before' and as you just said above - that is not science. Science deals with the 'after' as its the only thing that leaves evidence.
However, if we decide there is no Creator and propose other, equally unsound premises - such as a complexity resulted by itself or from a random foundation - we have to prove this premise also.
But the evidence does in fact suggest that complexity has resulted from a no-creator hypothesis. This does not suggest that there cannot be a creator, but it does suggest that the method of creation is not understood. You may feel that this is "unsound", but you have not presented evidence to the contrary. Insistance is not evidence.
Currently, the distortions of science are at the forefront
You have not presented evidence to show that there is any form of distortion.
I see a problem in using darwinian speciation as applicable in primal, original overviews, and that it pertains only to sub-groupings which can entail many further layers. A rough analogy would be casting human ethnic groups [chinese, mexicans,etc] as fulcrum divisions of life forms, as opposed sub-groups. the difference between canine animals and feline animals are sub-groups, while the land based grouping is the transcendent grouping factor here. This means genesis is correct, and darwin is not wrong - 'when seen as a sub-group' division.
All of this is true, to a degree. I will suggest an alternative example. I tell you I own a car, you however are interested in more that just generalized terms and ask me what type. At this point I inform you that car makers have been in error since the beginning of internal combustion, sub-group divisions are not important and Nissan Ultima is simply a faulty name applied to a misunderstanding of mining, plastic manufacture and metalurgy. Make and model are un-nessesary and a simple type description is more scientific (truck, car, motorcycle) are the correct means of organizing transportation via internal combustion engines.
Did you learn anything about my car? Is a debate about the mining industry important when in an attempt to learn about my vehicle you simply want to know if its a four cylinder or six? What if you are interested in the automotive history and want to track my car back to the model-T? Does metalurgy really matter?
Yes, Genesis is correct! Its a perfecty adequate means of generalizing nature. The problem is it is totally inadequate for a means to understand biology several thousand years after Genesis was written. You may feel that calling anything with a wing 'fowl' is sufficient, but for the purpose of understanding that a grasshopper is not the same as a penguin, Genesis falls short.
Your complaint is that evolution is based on faulty ideas about the creation of the universe. This is the same as getting into a debate about mining when asking about Nissan products. Its not the same topic! You are trying to bring down evolution but using Big Bang as an explanation. The Theory of Evolution will remain just as my Nissan Ultima regardless of the conclusions made by physicists about a topic billions of years before.
I see it as all life forms which are land based are one kind; those which fall into transitory groups are catered to, and do not pose a negation of the premise.
but does your premise explain that a snake, worm, bear, bacteria, cricket and mole are not the same thing? Remember that I am not the one who claims that everything stays within its kind. A logical question to ask yourself is what did the original kind look like if its ancestors are now snakes, worms, bears, bacteria, crickets and moles. How does this differ from ToE if you ignore your disagreements with Big Bang? I am not interested in generalizations - I want to learn about biology, a quick summary like "those things are ground kinds" conveys as much information as "I have a car".
™ Version 4.2