|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Problems of a different "Kind" | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4631 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
In the thread How can Biologists believe in the ToE? IamJoseph has presented what appears to be a preliminary definition of kind in message 177.
IamJoseph writes: In the big picture, the correct differentials must first be made on the hovering, transcendent variations between life forms, namely as GROUND ROOT BASED [VEGETATION], WATER BASED [FISH], AIR BORNE [FOWL], LAND BASED [ANIMALS/MAMMALS] - AND SPEECH ENDOWED LIFE FORMS. Though this is far from complete. Just to hazard an off the cuff estimate, hes likely covered a mere 1% of the 'species' that are alive in the world today. Its hard to guess if he fits with the first definition supplied in message one of this thread, or if it better fits with the second. Perhaps IamJoseph is suggesting a third alternative definition for kind? I think it would be necessary to flesh out what exactly is meant by this proposal and how it would possibly change due to the readily apparent contradictory and absent life forms not specified by his definition. For example: Absent life forms:Virus, Bacteria, Fungus, and Insects. Contradictory life forms:
Though an interesting start for a differing classification system it still presents some problems. As one digs into the fossil record these issues become more and more apparent. Its possible that he is suggesting a form of the first definition, but as it stands his definition requires a bizarre form of hyper-evolution. It has been suggested above in this thread by Highestevolvedwhiteguy some form of 'barrier' is inferred by kind, IamJoseph appears to present the exact opposite.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4631 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
GENESIS IS 100% SCIENTIFIC AND NON-METAPHORIC: WHEN THERE IS NO PARANOIA. Can we cut out the assertions and just keep with the kinds? I suppose I could riddle my posts with the same such blather and we can both share a headache. GROUND ROOT BASED [VEGETATION], WATER BASED [FISH], AIR BORNE [FOWL], LAND BASED [ANIMALS/MAMMALS] - AND SPEECH ENDOWED LIFE FORMS So from the five original groups (kinds) we must add unseen micro creatures kind and subteranean insects kind. The virus and fungi still present a problem. Ground Based (Vegetation) -
No contradiction or omissions here, nor can it be said better - all manner of vegetation is catered to If there is no contradictions then it should be clear, but of course its not. Does this group include plants that are not ground based or have roots? Is photosynthesis a criterea, I am quite unclear about what exactly is a plant? Is a Sea Tulip, Pyura spinifera a plant? Water Bases (Fish)
Before being verterbtrates, they are water borne, the transcendent factor in their differentials. Ok, so simply being born in water is what makes this grouping important. Does this also include amphibians (land based), plants (ground based), animals (ground based), and mammals (ground based)? Air Born (Fowl)-
All are catered to and well ensconsed in the text when read with equal deliberation as a science or math treatise. Note how 'and every living creature that creepeth' and 'and every winged fowl' is as comprehensive as it can get Comprehensive?! To you perhaps. I would like to know if this includes flying mammals with wings, flying insects with wings, and reptiles with wings. If having wings is the only criterea, do you know that there are several water based kinds that have wings? This gets more confusing as it goes along. Speech Endowed
Consider you are sitting for one of those tests and have to tick off the uncommon factor from a list, which includes all life forms and humans Define speech. No I am not being obtuse. Other animals communicate.
I don't know of any document which is as much science, certainly none in Genesis spacetime, and none of its stats have been disproven: this makes genesis the world's most vindicated science account, by period of time, number of stats and by impact. Insist what you will, I prefer to have some evidence. Does your definition of kind hold up to the evidence? Thus far it simply begs more questions, surely you are aware of swimming mammals, flying insects, and such? Do you really think your system begins to explain the variety of life we find on this planet?
Bible writes: 20 And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.' Here we see the correct order of life forms, and their correct categorising, which will show the error of darwin. I see no such thing. That quote from the bible does not even use the word kind. I cannot see how this is a valid form of classification from the quote you have provided, nor from the divisions you have presented so far. To deny that there are contradictions appears, so far, to simply be denial.
The error of darwin is his method of categorising the species, using skelatal imprints - which are common to all life forms, and which subsequently contains man as one of the overall species, thereby ignoring human variations from all other life forms. Yet different between what scientists call species. If you saw a 400 year old dead chicken and a 400 year old dead whale - how would you know if they are from the air/water/ground kind? I am having trouble using your method even if the are alive.
The first recorded scientific equation: 'A SEED SHALL FOLLOW ITS OWN KIND' and more than two thousand years later, I am confused. Could you be more specific so I can understand how all these living creatures are to be classified? Edited by Vacate, : photosynthesis and sea squirts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4631 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
I rest my case with the term paranoia. I do not have anxiety nor fear, just to let you know. I would just prefer not to have both our posts containing bald assertions with little or no substance. The questions are simple really and inserting claims of '100% scientific' and 'non-metaphoric' and 'paranoid' opposition are simply assertions without evidence.
One need not add or subtract anything: the text is literally [grammatically] comprehensive... 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.
Yes. Read it again. All plants/vegetation is covered in a single stroke of words. those which cling to the earth 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)
Mammals are catered to, including creatures which habitat if the water shores and crevices [shellfish], and those which live in water but require to ascend periodically 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.
Its not confusing in the text's version. All land and sea creatures are addressed, including great monsters and beasts, all those that creapeth and all winged creatures. Got it. Everything with a wing is one kind, correct? Take your time, this ones probably important also.
Communication and speech are totally separate phenomenons. All life forms possess the former, only one the latter. What parrots do is not speech but mimmicry, more akin to a circus bear learning how to win food. 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.
You have not stated the contradictions you refer to. The term 'kind' is used in all instances of life form categories. 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.
One would use the means known and available to its generation, same way as now to confirm it correctly. So looking at bones is a valid method of identification of kinds. I was under the assumption this was not a valid method. Thanks for the correction.
Swarms identify virus and bacteria [life-form cells] 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? ------------------------------All day long I think of things but nothing seems to satisfy Think I'll lose my mind if I don't find something to pacify Can you help me, occupy my brain? Ozzy Ozbourne: Paranoid Edited by Vacate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4631 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Ok, it looks as if you have a pretty firm set of kinds.
Issues I have at this time include:
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4631 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4631 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
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".
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024