Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What "kind" are penguins?
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 61 of 83 (329237)
07-06-2006 7:38 AM


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 ??

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Brian, posted 07-06-2006 2:02 PM ikabod has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 62 of 83 (329393)
07-06-2006 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Faith
07-06-2006 3:27 AM


Re: Identifying the kinds is NOT possible! Sorry.
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?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Faith, posted 07-06-2006 3:27 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by AdminFaith, posted 07-06-2006 1:55 PM deerbreh has not replied
 Message 66 by jar, posted 07-06-2006 2:06 PM deerbreh has not replied

  
AdminFaith
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 83 (329395)
07-06-2006 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by deerbreh
07-06-2006 1:50 PM


Re: Identifying the kinds is NOT possible! Sorry.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by deerbreh, posted 07-06-2006 1:50 PM deerbreh has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Brian, posted 07-06-2006 2:05 PM AdminFaith has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 64 of 83 (329400)
07-06-2006 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by ikabod
07-06-2006 7:38 AM


I known what you meen!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by ikabod, posted 07-06-2006 7:38 AM ikabod has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by deerbreh, posted 07-06-2006 2:37 PM Brian has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 65 of 83 (329402)
07-06-2006 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by AdminFaith
07-06-2006 1:55 PM


Re: Identifying the kinds is NOT possible! Sorry.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by AdminFaith, posted 07-06-2006 1:55 PM AdminFaith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 66 of 83 (329403)
07-06-2006 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by deerbreh
07-06-2006 1:50 PM


Re: Identifying the kinds is NOT possible! Sorry.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by deerbreh, posted 07-06-2006 1:50 PM deerbreh has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 67 of 83 (329414)
07-06-2006 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Brian
07-06-2006 2:02 PM


Re: I known what you meen!
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Brian, posted 07-06-2006 2:02 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Brian, posted 07-06-2006 2:46 PM deerbreh has not replied

  
docpotato
Member (Idle past 5047 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 68 of 83 (329417)
07-06-2006 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Faith
07-06-2006 4:00 AM


Re: Identifying the kinds is NOT possible! Sorry.
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 07-06-2006 4:00 AM Faith has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 69 of 83 (329418)
07-06-2006 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by deerbreh
07-06-2006 2:37 PM


P P P Pick up a Penguin!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by deerbreh, posted 07-06-2006 2:37 PM deerbreh has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 70 of 83 (329440)
07-06-2006 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Faith
07-06-2006 3:27 AM


Re: Identifying the kinds is NOT possible! Sorry.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Faith, posted 07-06-2006 3:27 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by ringo, posted 07-06-2006 5:27 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 78 by Brad McFall, posted 07-07-2006 1:46 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 71 of 83 (329450)
07-06-2006 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by arachnophilia
07-06-2006 4:46 PM


Re: Identifying the kinds is NOT possible! Sorry.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by arachnophilia, posted 07-06-2006 4:46 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by arachnophilia, posted 07-06-2006 5:30 PM ringo has not replied
 Message 73 by NosyNed, posted 07-06-2006 7:28 PM ringo has replied
 Message 76 by deerbreh, posted 07-07-2006 10:05 AM ringo has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 72 of 83 (329453)
07-06-2006 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by ringo
07-06-2006 5:27 PM


Re: Identifying the kinds is NOT possible! Sorry.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by ringo, posted 07-06-2006 5:27 PM ringo has not replied

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


Message 73 of 83 (329481)
07-06-2006 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by ringo
07-06-2006 5:27 PM


Why kinds was introduced...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by ringo, posted 07-06-2006 5:27 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by ringo, posted 07-06-2006 8:18 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 74 of 83 (329489)
07-06-2006 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by NosyNed
07-06-2006 7:28 PM


Re: Why kinds was introduced...
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by NosyNed, posted 07-06-2006 7:28 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by ReverendDG, posted 07-06-2006 10:50 PM ringo has not replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 75 of 83 (329501)
07-06-2006 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by ringo
07-06-2006 8:18 PM


Re: Why kinds was introduced...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by ringo, posted 07-06-2006 8:18 PM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by PaulK, posted 07-07-2006 10:14 AM ReverendDG 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