|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Problems of a different "Kind" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6055 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
Razd, I have given much thought to the biblical kinds. Here is what I got:
A kind infers barriers. common descent infers no barriers. Since it can only be observed that some genetics (which apply) and homologous traits are similar and can be suggested to evolve from one another, this does not rule out an equal theory for creation kinds. Also, it is not fully accepted that macro-evolution (for lack of a better term) has taken place. So it can still be theorized that there are barriers and one shouldn't toss this suggestion aside even if they subscribe to ToE. It is possible that there were original kinds which have evolved into what we see now. Also, what I would like to bring up is the possibility that macro evolution doesn't contradict a creation view. One could look at a chihuahua and a wolf and pretty much conclude macro evolution. The age of the earth or the age of existence would be the only barrier to the allowance of evolution. Variation within a kind suggests rigidity of life. The bible, as far as I know, doesn't state or suggest that there are limits to life through variation. In fact, I believe that change would be a fundamental in True Christianity. Edited by Highestevolvedwhiteguy, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It is possible that there were original kinds which have evolved into what we see now. Also, what I would like to bring up is the possibility that macro evolution doesn't contradict a creation view. One could look at a chihuahua and a wolf and pretty much conclude macro evolution. The age of the earth or the age of existence would be the only barrier to the allowance of evolution. I'd agree with that statement. The question then becomes, what is the age of the earth (and IF it IS 4.5 billion years old, then what does that say), but that should be discussed on another thread (like Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)).
A kind infers barriers. common descent infers no barriers. Then one needs to look at the evidence and see if it shows any barriers. The evidence is two-fold: 1) the fossil record - relationship by geological time and space and by anatomical homologies and morphology 2) the genetic record - relationship by similarities in non-functional DNA and functional DNA and their degree of change from DNA of other species If both of these show a tree of life extending back in time, with common ancestors at branching points, and both of them show the same structure and the same common ancestors, and neither of them suddenly stop at some point ... what would your conclusions be? Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6055 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
If both of these show a tree of life extending back in time, with common ancestors at branching points, and both of them show the same structure and the same common ancestors, and neither of them suddenly stop at some point ... what would your conclusions be? I could conclude that things could have evolved from one another, if the evidence could show that. A wolf and a chihuahua still have the same amount of chromosomes and basic internal physical structures. If time were an unlimited constant I wouldn't expect the variations to merge into something different entirely. However, if I find the evidence for the nested hierarchial phylogeny tree to be damning I will re-evaluate my views on the physical world. I think the mystery of limited nature would be found in the evidence categories you prescribed. No further semantical dueling will suffice. If there are limits, perhaps we have not found them but I wouldn't close the door yet. Thanks for your time, I have found the EvC a blessing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Highestevolvedwhiteguy writes: A kind infers barriers. I don't think the word "kind", as used in the Bible, implies barriers at all. Poodles reproduce after their kind and German Shepherds reproduce after their kind and Great Danes reproduce after their kind - but there's no barrier to interbreeding of those "kinds". The Bible authors knew about livestock. They wrote about animals reproducing after their kind knowing full well that some breeds are good for milk and some breeds are good for meat and some breeds are good for wool - but there are no barriers to cross-breeding between the kinds. The idea of barriers between "kinds" is neither scientific nor Biblical. “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels ------------- Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4626 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
My impression is that this is a very uninformed view of the diversity of life, and that exposure to more types and varieties will cause sever modification.
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2503 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Vacate writes: Speech Endowed - Though obviously a human classification this also presents problems. What divides the communication of the various methods used in nature from humans? One chimpanzee has been taught 250 words in American sign language. Has it crossed the barrier into our kind, do you think?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
What impresses me is the communication of humpback whales when they make bubble nets.
http://www.whalecenter.org/respaper.htm Particularly if we define speech as communication that transmits cultural learning, as opposed to warning call etc.
This would be applying 1b, which is the only definition that would make sense in IamJosephs posts. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : removed redundancy in definition (see link for original) compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2503 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Yeah, the cultural change and communication of it is interesting.
How would you rate their communication skills as compared, for example, to IamJoseph's?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
or Alex the African Grey parrot (sorry to hear he died at the young age of 31)
Alex The Grey Parrot, Colleague of Irene Pepperberg, Dead at 31 quote: Check out the video Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JavaMan Member (Idle past 2345 days) Posts: 475 From: York, England Joined: |
I'll paraphrase from Hovind's class. Imagine a candle in a room. Your a scientist, so you want to know how long the candle has been burning and also how tall or large the candle was. So the empirical evidence suggests that the candle is x number of inches and the rate of burning has been x number of centimeters per one hour of observation. How many assumptions would you have to make to come up with a hypothesis of how tall the candle was and when it was lit? There's one other piece of evidence that you don't mention, but that would be pretty obvious if you were looking at the candle. Can you work out what it is? With that evidence you have all the information you need to make a pretty good estimate of how tall the candle originally was. 'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Now you're just being wicked making everyone wait until HEWG gets back from suspension.
Of course the real reason this is a straw man argument is that this is not the way science determines dates, but one of the methods that it uses to set boundaries on dates. IE the result is that the candle could not have been burning longer that X hours -- which of course does not tell you much. Just another example of creationists misrepresenting science. By similar processes we know that the age of the earth is at least 4.55 billion years old, but we don't know how much older it is. We know that life is at least 3.5 billion years old, but we don't know how much older it is (except that it it likely to be less than 4.55 billion years old). There is a difference between boundaries and dates. But the real question of this thread is what kind of kind can a kind kind of be? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : 2nd p Edited by RAZD, : 3rd p Edited by RAZD, : topic compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JavaMan Member (Idle past 2345 days) Posts: 475 From: York, England Joined: |
But the real question of this thread is what kind of kind can a kind kind of be? Yes, I know. But I couldn't resist trying to be a smart arse . 'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3694 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: These are catered to, while not disregarding the generations of mankind and their knowledge quotient at any given time. The once unseen micro creatures and subteranean insects are 'swarms of living creatures' and 'and every living creature that creepeth', respectively.
quote: quote: No contradiction or omissions here, nor can it be said better - all manner of vegetation is catered to, and note the deliberated categories listed. The term, 'root' was my own, to indicate all plants and vegetation as a differential from other kinds of life forms:
quote: quote: Before being verterbtrates, they are water borne, the transcendent factor in their differentials. All types are catered too, in what is the first recording of such a breakdown.
quote: 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 - for ALL generations of mankind:
quote: quote: 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. If you answer in variance to genesis - you will fail this test. Darwin failed here.
quote: Genesis is science, even introducing this faculty. Creationism and Monotheism are absolutely scientific premises. 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. To put this issue to some examination, which stat of genesis 1/1, which deals with Creation, is not scientific? The following, I believe are scientifically redeemed stats of Genesis 1/1, and this is an example how it's reading is allignable with the best of science: Gen 1:1. IN THE BEGINNING. This is the first recording of the universe being finite: there was a beginning. Science reflects this as the BBT. The first 4 words also gives a source for creation, IN THE BEGINNING GOD. The factor of effect is not left bereft of a cause, or takes refuge in the most unscientific premise of all: it just happened, or it was always so. We know for a fact it was not always so, and a finite universe is far more scientific than an infinite one. 1. HEAVEN AND EARTH.This has dual positions, the word heaven having two meanings - the physical galaxies, and a spiritual realm, and it is correct to cater to both premises. One stat says the universe includes two facets, namely corporeal [physical] and incorporeal [non-physical/spiritual] facets, namely heaven and earth. This is not provable but is held by most humans as the lingering issue, that more is occuring than what can be physically verified; it is justified by occurences which have no percievable cause. The other position of this stat is that the two focal points for humanity, which it is addressed to, are the universe at large and the earth: the former is described from the latter human POV. 2. Now the earth was unformed and void.This is not in question: the products we have now were not existent in their current form immediately after the emergence of matter. Unions occured and molecules and atoms formed; there was no water till H2 combined with O, for example, and there were no trees, stars or planets. 2. And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light.Obviously, light had to become existent, when it was not before. While genesis at no time says how it was made, it is for science or mankind to learn these things, same as Genesis does not say how trees were made. We have been given the ability to think - so this is not an escapist stat, but it is scientifically ratifiable that Light would be one of the primal products of the universe. 2. and God divided the light from the darkness.One of the most important words comes into play here, namely 'SEPARATED' - and the reason why we cannot break certain tresholds, such as a pre-universe scenario or an after-death one or the source of the Creator: there is a cnnectivity and a separation - we percieve but cannot grasp it. Of course, light and darkness had to be clearly separated, else this would contradict or make superflous the earlier term of 'void' [chaos/without order]. The term GOOD refers to the infusion of order in the previous order-less. It should be noted that this separation factor is not sufficiently acknowledged in most scientific appraisals, while it should be a prominent factor in all advents of the early emergence of the universe products. 5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. The factor which separates day from night is not the movements of the sun and moon, but darkness and light per se - and their separation: had the separation not be implemented, humans would not be able to differentiate light from darkness. Genesis also says the first day began at evening, from where the term eve is derived - and there had to be a first day: but no - it cannot be the first day, because that would signify a precedence - so genesis uses the more correct term as 'ONE DAY' instead of first, but correctly lists the following days as second, third, etc. This is no typo but profound exacting text. 6 And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. This is scientific geography of the universe's early period in two levels. The term heaven is used, namely the galaxies, which were now separated from the non-physical realm. Why the term 'water'? I'm not sure, but one explanation is that water and darkness were prevalent in the unformed period, when the spiritual and physical was as yet not separated. Water and darkness remained on the side of the physical realm after this separation. The other level is the water separation on earth, vital for any life and any order. When it is correctly seen from a creational view, the waters would have covered the planet, with the earth being submerged. The issue that this took a period of time, does not impact or contradict, except that this clearly signifies Genesis is NOT talking about a 24-hour day here or the length of a day, but an epoch of time. We can establish this by a later verse down the track. Obviously, no calendar has been designated, and no life appears yet: the table is not yet ready for the guests. 8. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.Note it says 'second' not day two. This is an Epoch two, it's unspecified period being that of the earth's early formation, namely: 9 And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas.The same occured on earth, enabling seas and land, with the separation factor. 11 And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.' While the order of the first life emerges after light, water and land, and their critical separations, we have our first toss with science here, namely that there is life before the sun: so what about photosenthesis? Not so fast - this one is easily answered, namely the life was static and not animated [which is clarified later on]. The other issue with science here is, that vegetation is mentioned before the sun - which predates the planet earth. So one has to concentrate better with the exacting mathematical texts: the sun was already created in the opening verse, along with the galaxies - but the sun's luminosity had not yet occured. This may sound controversial, but when seen by this view, some other mysteries or unknowns become more clearer. Regardless of the potential dispute - Genesis still talks science here, and not myth. We know that a star only attains luminosity after a certain period following its formation as a fully developed star, and not in its earliest stages.The other factor here which is scientifically correct is the structure of vegetation, and how they are able to reproduce from, and emulate, their derivitive host. The poignant factor here is, Genesis is saying the so-called process of evolution is not mentioned or required here, which is justified by the actions of the repro by virtue of the seed. Also what is said, the repro program is embedded in the seed - not the external environment. From this view, Darwin's evolution becomes superflous. This is a legitimate counter account, and is not a stray from science, which is not above logic. It can occur this way, is the point here, and there is no disproof of it. If anything, it is better manifest, all repro being from the seed, as opposed invisable, inexplained, unevidenced factors of a mythical evolution. 14 And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. Clearly in the above only luminosity is spoken of, the sun's creation being never mentioned. Also, both astrology [omens] and astronomy [signs] is mentioned, and vindicated today. The word 'formed' is used when mentioning the stars, clarifying it was 'created' before in the opening verse. 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. This is the first recording of the order of life forms, which Darwin copied from, and called it the evolution chain. 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. Darwin says humans and speech is a result of accumulated graduations - but this is not provable, and all evidences contradict it [eg. the time factor and that no other life has attained speech]. Darwin's breakdowns are more directed to sub-divisions within species, than fulcrum differences between primal life forms. Genesis' categorising is far more accurate and contextual, separating species by root [vegetation], water based [fish], air borne [fowl], land based [animals and mammals] and humans - the only one possessing a stand out unique difference. One must consider how they would categorise the life forms on a planet they can witness being formed! This is about the peripheral overview of the creation chapter, and I cannot see anything but a scientific, logical, believable portrayal. The OT calendar, which is the only one using the sun, moon and earth movements, begins at evening of the 6th day's termination, as day one - also the start of history per se, and an affirming the creation days are not 24-hour days. Further, if one disagrees with a certain stat, it does not mean Genesis is not scientific, but is akin to two scientists with two different views only. There is no reason to view this chapter as metaphoric! The first recorded scientific equation: 'A SEED SHALL FOLLOW ITS OWN KIND' The first recorded pointer to the origin of all things in their primal emergence: 'MAN & WOMAN CREATED HE THEM' - Namely, All life and other universal intities emerged as a duality; there is no actual ONE or ZERO in the universe. The first facet of active and applied science is Medicine, and the first separation of medicine from the occult came from this source.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
The Bible tells us that creatures reproduce after their own kind, and even without a firm definition of kind I think this is something we can all agree with. True, there are saltationist exceptions such as polyploidy in the plant kingdom, but these could still be interpreted as reproducing after their own kind.
But the Bible also tells us that offspring are not identical to their parents. Offspring differ from their parents, and the offspring's offspring differ further still. While we all agree that creatures do reproduce after their own kind, there's no Biblical requirement that they reproduce after their own kind from a thousand generations ago, and they don't. They reproduce after the kind of the parents, just as the Bible says, but not after the kind of the ancient ancestors, concerning which the Bible is silent and offers no prohibition. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024