|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What "kind" are penguins? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ikabod Member (Idle past 4492 days) Posts: 365 From: UK Joined: |
on the question of "kind" , i assume this is translated from the hebrew text.. is the translation open to review on the meaning of the orginal word in its own time .. was the hebrew word a naming , a grouping losse or defined , ... is the orginal text open to a more specific translation in terms of how we define things today ..?? can experts help ??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2892 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
Arachnophilia writes: so, like i previously suggested, (Kinds are)colloquially equivalent to family, in linnean taxonomy?
Faith writes:
Maybe some, maybe a few, maybe not all, WHO KNOWS?? You really have thought this out, haven't you? And you want to be taken seriously when you talk about "kinds" but you can't even say what they are? How many "kinds" were on the ark? Were all the terrestial animals we see today on the ark or did some have to "swim for it?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminFaith Inactive Member |
As I have said before, all the terrestrial animals we see today were no doubt NOT on the ark, but an ancestor was.
This is not all that hard to grasp. I am not being "cagey." I WISH, oh how I wish I could say what a Kind is. I don't understand why this posted as "admin" -- and for some reason I can't get out of admin mode. Edited by AdminFaith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4958 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
The Hebrew word used is miyn (meen), and it just means to portion out, or to sort.
Ancient Hebrews would have no idea what a species was. Remember the Bible teaches that the bat is a bird. Leviticus 11:13-19 These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. Brian. Edited by Brian, : formatting error.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4958 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
I don't understand why this posted as "admin" -- and for some reason I can't get out of admin mode. Member Faith is banned that's why. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The problem is that the idea of Kinds just can't be supported at any level of specificity.
The closest thing to a reasonable approach is the idea of Bariminology. Like so many other approaches this suffers from the assumption that the term Kind actually had some specific meaning to the authors of the Bible other than a simplistic grouping or ordering of critters as seen at the time.
In accomplishing the goal of separating parts of polybaramins, partitioning apobaramins, building monobaramins and characterizing holobaramins, a taxonomist needs guidelines for deciding what belongs to a particular monobaraminic branch. These standards will vary depending upon the groups being considered, but general guidelines which have been utilized include: 1. Scripture claims (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations. For example humans are a separate holobaramin because they separately were created (Genesis 1 and 2). However, even as explained by Wise in his 1990 oral presentation, there is not much relevant taxonomic information in the Bible. Also, ReMine’s discontinuity systematics, because it is a neutral scientific enterprise, does not include the Bible as a source of taxonomic information. from Creation Research Guidelines for Baraminology Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2892 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
Brian writes: Remember the Bible (Leviticus cited) teaches that the bat is a bird. Well taxonomy was not exactly a strong point for the writer of Leviticus, was it? Does this mean that a penguin and a bat are the same Kind?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
docpotato Member (Idle past 5047 days) Posts: 334 From: Portland, OR Joined: |
What a Kind is just doesn't have enough certainty to hang anything on. Including the standard argument that animals cannot evolve from one Kind to the next? We can't know what Kind a penguin is or what Kind it has descended from. Can't know for sure whether the current "Kinds" (dog kind, cat kind) aren't, in fact, descendents of the same Kind (for instance: the four-legged kind or the multicelluar kind or the DNA bearing kind or whatever).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4958 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Well taxonomy was not exactly a strong point for the writer of Leviticus, was it? Indeed, that's why I said "Ancient Hebrews would have no idea what a species was".
Does this mean that a penguin and a bat are the same Kind? I doubt that the author of Leviticus would have known what a penguin was. But, I think this is just another example of why the Noah tale is a myth, and why the Bible cannot be the direct word of God that the inerrantists think it is. The author, IMO, would sort the animals into their "kinds", which I believe would just be done by eyesight, a bat flies therefore it is a bird. A big problem for me with this literalist stance is that the poor fundies miss out on so much of the uniqueness of the Bible. The poor souls cannot appreciate the skill of the authors as they spliced together possible historical events with local legends, or the skill of symbollism, and a whole range of other textual arts. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Maybe some, maybe a few, maybe not all, WHO KNOWS?? i'm just talking about how a word is used in the bible. so for instance, ravens are a kind, and doves are a kind, hawks are a kind, and nighthawks are a kind. but birds are not a kind -- it's a group of kinds. though really, what i think it means is *drumroll* "kind" as in "sort" or "variety" or "that particular group" and there is no specific definition that you can equate to linnean taxonomy, other than another general term, like "taxon" or "clade." in other words, it's not meant to be specific -- the NAME of the kind is specific, the word "kind" is not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
arachnophilia writes: ... it's not meant to be specific -- the NAME of the kind is specific, the word "kind" is not. Exactly. The "kinds" of cattle mentioned in Gen. 6:20, etc. could mean different species of livestock - e.g. sheep, goats, camels, etc. - or it could mean different breeds of cattle - e.g. Holstein, Jersey, Angus, etc. The "kind" concept - and its companion hyper-evolution - were made up by YECs when it became obvious that all animal species would not fit on the ark. It is no more Biblical than it is scientific. Penguins could be a "kind" of bird, based on Faith's criteria. But since bats are birds, it is equally possible that penguins are fish. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
The "kind" concept - and its companion hyper-evolution - were made up by YECs when it became obvious that all animal species would not fit on the ark. It is no more Biblical than it is scientific. exactly.
But since bats are birds, it is equally possible that penguins are fish.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
The "kind" concept - and its companion hyper-evolution - were made up by YECs when it became obvious that all animal species would not fit on the ark. It is no more Biblical than it is scientific. Maybe but there is another explanation: At one time, I think, a "kind" was exactly a species. You see this in many newbie, hit-and-run posters here. It is obvious this is what the Bible thinks a "kind" is. However, aside from the ark problem, speciation and new genera have been demonstrated to occur. Thus the YEC'ers were forced to move the line up. It seems they learned a lesson and WILL NOT define kind. They've had to move the line and now it is "high" enough that humans and their relatives are one kind if they have a single consistent and clear definition. The "big guns" know this and are not about to be caught with anything clear enough to be actually discussed along those lines.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NosyNed writes: ... aside from the ark problem, speciation and new genera have been demonstrated to occur. Thus the YEC'ers were forced to move the line up. That's true, though I think the speciation is easier to handwave away. How many of us have actually "seen" speciation? And how many of us have seen a three-ring circus jammed into a space the size of a football field? Propaganda-wise, it's more important to sell the ark story.
They've had to move the line and now it is "high" enough that humans and their relatives are one kind if they have a single consistent and clear definition. In one breath, a "kind" has to be broad enough to fit all of them on the ark - and to explain away any observed speciation. In the next breath, it has to be narrow enough to differentiate us from the apes. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4110 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
In one breath, a "kind" has to be broad enough to fit all of them on the ark - and to explain away any observed speciation. In the next breath, it has to be narrow enough to differentiate us from the apes.
you gotta love the twisting fundis go through to give a mostly meaningless term a meaning, yet can't even define it, unless it works positivly for them. i mean its so generalized as to mean a large group but can also be used to seperate one group from another that is so like it..insanity i tell you! thats why i say no one should be allowed to use kinds in an arguement since it can be twisted to fit anything, thus making it useless Edited by ReverendDG, : typo Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024