Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bible and "kind"
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 61 of 148 (105534)
05-05-2004 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by almeyda
05-05-2004 12:05 PM


Re: ...
The truth is us humans are different from the rest because we all have Body,Soul & Spirit.
And your evidence that we have "soul and spirit" that your average capuchin monkey lacks is where, exactly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by almeyda, posted 05-05-2004 12:05 PM almeyda has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 62 of 148 (105535)
05-05-2004 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by almeyda
05-05-2004 12:05 PM


Re: ...
Please show evidence that chimps or even snails do not have soul or spirit?
Or conversely, please show evidence that humans have soul or spirit and that is different from what chimps have.
I happen to believe that humans have soul and spirit, and that all other animals do as well. But that is simply a belief, and certainly not Science. Since neither a soul or spirit can be observed, tested or demonstrated, they can not be used as a way to define difference.
Whether body can arise from lifeless chemicals is still a very open question, but one that will likely be demonstrated within the very near future. When that happens, and it will, will that finally put an end to the Creation Myths?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by almeyda, posted 05-05-2004 12:05 PM almeyda has not replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 63 of 148 (105603)
05-05-2004 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by crashfrog
05-04-2004 9:23 PM


I think that's a mistake. For instance, nature is the very definition of the uncontrolled environment, yet studies frequently are done in the wild.
Nature is an uncontrolled environment; that is why scientists collect as much data as possible over as long a period as possible. With so much data it is possible to quite accurately calculate what "normal" is.
Also, even though nature is uncontrolled, scientists know exactly what is happening that affects their study, and are able to take those factors into account.
Yes, and the assement of that evidence (in controlled environments) proceeds according to the scientific method.
I agree that the processing of the evidence uses pure, controlled, lab science.
Science can tell us about the past, because the tests you perform on evidence from the past are controlled and repeatable.
But the past is not controlled and repeatable. When there are alternate explanations for the evidence, there is no sure way to tell which actually happened.
If we discovered that living chemistry followed entirely different laws of physics and chemistry than nonliving chemistry, that would falsify abiogenesis, as far as I'm aware.
But if a wormhole opened up on earth, and was spitting out amino acids, and there was a temporary breakdown of the space-time fabric, and...
Try proving that wrong!
The problem for you is that it appears that all organisms share a common ancestor
I disagree that all organisms could have come from a common ancestor, but this is a topic for another debate.
It doesn't work. You still can't answer any questions with it.
"Kind" is a word we use to describe the creation model. It has limited ability to describe organisms today, but I don't think I have ever claimed an ability that it doesn't have (and after this debate, I won't for sure ).
When two animals can breed, I maintain that they are a kind. If two animals cannot breed, I will not claim anything about them, but if they are similar enough, I will allow the possibility that they are the same "kind."
How many kinds? What were the kinds? How would you answer this question? If the scientific evidence shows that all organisms are from the same kind, because they all share a common ancestor, is this a finding you're prepared to accept?
I do not know how many kinds there are, nor what they are (aside of birds, fish, and land animals). I wish I did, but I don't.
If the Bible didn't say anything about the creation of life - if Genesis had been torn right out and lost to humanity - would you have an objection to the theory of evolution?
If Genesis wasn't in the bible, I doubt I would even think about creation/evolution. If I did, though, I would have a problem with evolution. The mechanisms are not sufficient to let a group of single celled organisms evolve into the diverse forms of life we have today. Again, that is a seperate debate I am willing to have.
Ned says:
So these differences are enough to make a pair of organisms different kinds?
So a great dane and a corgi are different kinds by this standard?
Here is a picture of a domestic dog skull vs. three wolf skulls( I couldn't for the life of me find a picture of a corgi skull)
There are only noticable differences in size, not structure. Dogs are extremely similar.
We are expecting one standard to be applied you understand.
I am applying the "interbeedability" part of the definition. Apes and humans, to the best of my knowledge, cannot interbreed. Thus, they are not necessarily the same kind (and I do not think they are) Corgis and great danes, on the other hand, can breed, so they are the same kind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 05-04-2004 9:23 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by NosyNed, posted 05-05-2004 4:32 PM jt has replied
 Message 75 by crashfrog, posted 05-05-2004 5:50 PM jt has not replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 64 of 148 (105604)
05-05-2004 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by jar
05-05-2004 10:35 AM


Re: Brad
They
have communities
hunt and gather food
show cooperation in planning and executing tasks
use tools
communicate within the group
have members that specialize in different parts of a communal task
can plan ahead
Ants are impressivve little insects, aren't they? Oh, wait, you were talking about bees. THOSE are really impressive.
Wait, bees don't use tools, you must have been still been talking about apes. My bad.
This message has been edited by JT, 05-05-2004 02:05 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by jar, posted 05-05-2004 10:35 AM jar has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 65 of 148 (105608)
05-05-2004 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by almeyda
05-05-2004 12:05 PM


Re: ...
almeyda
If we are different from the rest then could you explain this verse from the bible?
Ecc 3:21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
It plainly states that spirits are common to both so exactly what is the difference between us and them?
This message has been edited by sidelined, 05-05-2004 02:17 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by almeyda, posted 05-05-2004 12:05 PM almeyda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by jt, posted 05-05-2004 3:36 PM sidelined has replied
 Message 70 by mike the wiz, posted 05-05-2004 4:20 PM sidelined has not replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 66 of 148 (105614)
05-05-2004 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by sidelined
05-05-2004 3:14 PM


Re: ...
I'm not almeyda, but I can answer this one.
Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible has a feature where you can find the greek word actually used in the bible, and the translation. Here is the definition of the greek word translated as "spirit." As you can see, it can mean way more than the english meaning of the word "spirit."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by sidelined, posted 05-05-2004 3:14 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by jar, posted 05-05-2004 3:39 PM jt has not replied
 Message 68 by sidelined, posted 05-05-2004 3:56 PM jt has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 67 of 148 (105615)
05-05-2004 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by jt
05-05-2004 3:36 PM


Re: ...
But none of that shows that it is not also a characteristic of any living thing.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by jt, posted 05-05-2004 3:36 PM jt has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 68 of 148 (105619)
05-05-2004 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by jt
05-05-2004 3:36 PM


Re: ...
JT
Ecc 3:21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
From Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible we have the following definitions of the word ruwach as follows.
1) wind, breath, mind, spirit
a) breath
b) wind
1) of heaven
2) quarter (of wind), side
3) breath of air
4) air, gas
5) vain, empty thing
c) spirit (as that which breathes quickly in animation or agitation)
1) spirit, animation, vivacity, vigour
2) courage
3) temper, anger
4) impatience, patience
5) spirit, disposition (as troubled, bitter, discontented)
6) disposition (of various kinds), unaccountable or uncontrollable impulse
7) prophetic spirit
d) spirit (of the living, breathing being in man and animals)
1) as gift, preserved by God, God's spirit, departing at death, disembodied being
e) spirit (as seat of emotion)
1) desire
2) sorrow, trouble
f) spirit
1) as seat or organ of mental acts
2) rarely of the will
3) as seat especially of moral character
g) Spirit of God, the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son
1) as inspiring ecstatic state of prophecy
2) as impelling prophet to utter instruction or warning
3) imparting warlike energy and executive and administrative power
4) as endowing men with various gifts
5) as energy of life
6) as manifest in the Shekinah glory
7) never referred to as a depersonalised force
Which of these definitions would be appropriate in the context of the sentence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by jt, posted 05-05-2004 3:36 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by jt, posted 05-05-2004 4:17 PM sidelined has replied
 Message 73 by mike the wiz, posted 05-05-2004 4:49 PM sidelined has replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 69 of 148 (105623)
05-05-2004 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by sidelined
05-05-2004 3:56 PM


Re: ...
6) disposition (of various kinds)
Men have a mind towards higher things, beasts have a mind for lower things. That is how I interpret the verse, but I am not a greek scholar. This is the subject of debate for the Faith/Belief forum.
By the way, Almeyda, a spirit is a supernatural thing, which we cannot observe by science. If we could prove that men have spirits and animals don't, that would show they are different kinds, but we can't, so it doesn't.
I think we got OT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by sidelined, posted 05-05-2004 3:56 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by sidelined, posted 05-05-2004 4:33 PM jt has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 70 of 148 (105627)
05-05-2004 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by sidelined
05-05-2004 3:14 PM


Re: ...
Ecc 3:21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
Can you provide a more full quote?
A spirit OF man or OF beast could also mean a designated spirit. Forget the full quote, I will find the chapter shortly.
You see, it says "Who knoweth", so I must investigate what that means specifically. I myself know that we have a spirit - so then, what can it mean?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by sidelined, posted 05-05-2004 3:14 PM sidelined has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 71 of 148 (105630)
05-05-2004 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by jt
05-05-2004 3:01 PM


Pardon?
I do not know how many kinds there are, nor what they are (aside of birds, fish, and land animals). I wish I did, but I don't.
I know you don't. No one seems to.
If two animals cannot breed, I will not claim anything about them, but if they are similar enough, I will allow the possibility that they are the same "kind."
Could you give some examples of "similar enough"? You seem to be in the same mode as anyone else supporting the idea of a "kind". You want it to be a hard and fast wall between groups of organisms but you won't define it in a hard and fast way.
JT writes:
The arms on the ape are nearly twice as long as the legs, the ape has a drastically different skull, different type of ribcage, etc. Humans and apes are very different.
I couldn't for the life of me find a picture of a corgi skull)
The corgi has a drastically different skull, the dog skull you show is also drastically different from the wolf skulls. The ribcages of a whippet, bulldog and wolf are more different than an ape and human. Are you saying that a lengthening or shortening of arm bones is not possible through evolution?
While we are on the topic of differences, perhaps you could tell us how much evolution you think occured after the flood and how fast it occured. (Note that the hyper evolution postulated by some creationists could not have continued through to even 1,000 years ago. When did it stop? )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by jt, posted 05-05-2004 3:01 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by jt, posted 05-05-2004 9:00 PM NosyNed has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 72 of 148 (105631)
05-05-2004 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by jt
05-05-2004 4:17 PM


Re: ...
JT
let us include a few more passages here.
Ecc 3:17 I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for [there is] a time there for every purpose and for every work.
Ecc 3:18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
Ecc 3:19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all [is] vanity.
Ecc 3:20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
Ecc 3:21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
It appears IMO that the author is conveying that there is no difference between the fate of men and that of beasts.Death claims both and in this context I do not think that disposition is the proper definition but,rather,spirit here is in reference to that which survives death,a soul if you will.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by jt, posted 05-05-2004 4:17 PM jt has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 73 of 148 (105638)
05-05-2004 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by sidelined
05-05-2004 3:56 PM


Re: ...
One thing it does talk about, after your quote, is that a man such be glad of his works, yet who shall bring him back to see what became of them?? - So, this could mean his spirit goes upward and so he doesn't see. Yet, what then will the spirit of the beast going downward mean?
d) spirit (of the living, breathing being in man and animals)
I guess the spirit of beast is on the ground meaning what it discusses before your quote - the sons of men being equal to beasts, for all return to the dust.
Yet the spirit of man goes upward. So, our spirit, or a spirit OF(designated for)man goes upward. So - either way we go upward, which indicates the rest of the bible as in agreement with this. Yet the spirit of beast, whether a designated spirit or an individual spirit, --> Goes downward.
There are many possibilities. If they both become dust, then they are equal as in --> both animals, yet the human spirit (afterward) - still goes upward, if we consider the quote somehow significant to us being or having a soul, which might be another topic. So, I can only deduce that the sons of men are the same as beasts, --> animals, yet when we add spirituality it seems to be a completely different matter.
When the new heavens and earth are complete, Revelation says the lamb will lie with the lion. Is there a particular spirit attached to how they are? As in, if the spirit of beast goeth down upon them, they will become beastly, yet if that spirit is not going down, then they will not. I suppose God could impart this spirit upon the sons of men, who are alive to sin (their bodies) and this would agree with the NT, which says men without God will serve the flesh, this obviously renders them similar to beasts, in that they only serve their flesh like the beasts do. If the spirit of man then goes upward, that could mean they no longer serve the spirit that they have and have been imparted beastly spirit.
Lol, there sure are a lot of possibilities, sorry about this rant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by sidelined, posted 05-05-2004 3:56 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by sidelined, posted 05-05-2004 4:57 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 74 of 148 (105642)
05-05-2004 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by mike the wiz
05-05-2004 4:49 PM


Re: ...
mtw
Thanks for the rant LOL but the original intention of my bringing up this verse is to answer a statement by almeyda.
The truth is us humans are different from the rest because we all have Body,Soul & Spirit
I think that the verse makes this statement at the very least questionable.Almeyda,do you have anything to add?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by mike the wiz, posted 05-05-2004 4:49 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by mike the wiz, posted 05-05-2004 6:13 PM sidelined has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 75 of 148 (105657)
05-05-2004 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by jt
05-05-2004 3:01 PM


Nature is an uncontrolled environment; that is why scientists collect as much data as possible over as long a period as possible. With so much data it is possible to quite accurately calculate what "normal" is.
So what about that doesn't apply to the past? Why couldn't you collect enough data about the past to get an idea about what was normal in the past?
But the past is not controlled and repeatable.
It doesn't have to be. Firstly, the past is as controlled as any other natural situation. And the tests you perform on evidence from the past are repeatable, and that's sufficient to meet the criteria of science.
When there are alternate explanations for the evidence, there is no sure way to tell which actually happened.
There's alternative explanations for events in the present, too. The present isn't different from the past in that regard.
Given multiple explanations that explain the same evidence, past or present, there's no way to tell for sure which one is right. But being completely right isn't the point of science. The point of science is developing models that make accurate predictions. That's why all models in science are tentative.
Evolution makes better predictions than creationism. That's why evolution is the model accepted by the most scientists. That isn't to say that it's perfectly right, but it doesn't have to be. It just has to be good enough to make predictions that come true.
But if a wormhole opened up on earth, and was spitting out amino acids, and there was a temporary breakdown of the space-time fabric, and...
Of course I can't prove that model wrong, because it isn't falsifiable. But because it isn't falsifiable, it doesn't matter if it's right or not - there's no situation where the truth or falsity of your hypothesis could affect any prediction about the future.
So we eliminate it from consideration via Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor doesn't trim away things that are wrong, it trims away things that will never have an effect on your model.
When two animals can breed, I maintain that they are a kind. If two animals cannot breed, I will not claim anything about them, but if they are similar enough, I will allow the possibility that they are the same "kind."
How similar is similar enough?
Once again, creationism is on the losing end. For whatever reason, you're willing to take a classification that has never been observed, and can't be observed, over classifications based on real-world observation with real explanitory power.
That's not science, JT. That's Biblical dogmatism. Once again, I'm sure that if Genesis had been torn out of your Bible, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
If Genesis wasn't in the bible, I doubt I would even think about creation/evolution.
Exactly. Your dispute isn't that the evidence or reasoning is flawed; your dispute is that you don't like the conclusion.
The mechanisms are not sufficient to let a group of single celled organisms evolve into the diverse forms of life we have today.
To the contrary - numerous studies have confirmed the creative power of natural selection and random mutation. It's so powerful that now we use those processes to design jet planes and electronics - independantly of human design. We've generated electronics this way that are so efficient, we don't even understand how they work.
Think about that for a minute. Not only is NS + RM able to design circuits - it's able to do a better job than humans. And now you say that the mechanism is insufficient to do a measly thing like spur single-celled organisms to become multicellular? Ludicrous.
Apes and humans, to the best of my knowledge, cannot interbreed. Thus, they are not necessarily the same kind
But, according to your definition, they might be. Your definition is one-sided, you see - it'll tell you if two organisms are in the same kind, but it won't tell you if they're not. Pretty useless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by jt, posted 05-05-2004 3:01 PM jt has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024