Problems of a different "Kind"

quote:

---

But the Bible also tells us that offspring are not identical to their parents.

---

I don't see any reference to being identical or not in the verse. What I see is the traits of a holistic species is pointed to, which is contained in the seed, and passed on. Speech endowed life forms beget the same trai, and water based life forms will do the same. This does not infringe on the individualities of each offspring.

Well, we now have salmon giving birth to trout.
404Well, actually, if kind is defined above species level than it's still somewhat true. Of course, because we now have salmon birthing trout, they will define it no lower than genus--both the fish, near as I can tell, are in the genus Oncorhynchus--Masu (Cherry) Salmon and rainbow trout.

quote:

---

Well, we now have salmon giving birth to trout.

---

Treat the text as you would a physics theory. Both types of those fish come under the same nominated water based 'kind'.

Hi IamJoseph,Are you aware you're replying to yourself? Again and again? While quoting from messages from other people, like me and Kuresu? Yes, precisely. Offspring are the same kind as their parents, just as the Bible says. But they are also individuals in their own right and not identical to their parents, just as you say. And the Biblical stricture is that offspring be the same kind as the parents, but it places no requirement that they be the same kind as ancient ancestors.In other words, since offspring are different from their parents, and since the offspring's offspring are even more different from the original parents, and so forth through time, considerable differences from the original parents will accumulate over the generations. And the Bible places no restriction on this process.--Percy

The link describes a genetic engineering experiment, not a saltationist event.--Percy

But ... that doesn't mean anything.It's just a mish-mash of words.

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 FORMSSo 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) - 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) 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)- 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 Define speech. No I am not being obtuse. Other animals communicate. 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? 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. 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. 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

quote:

---

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.

---

I rest my case with the term paranoia.

quote:

---

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.

---

One need not add or subtract anything: the text is literally [grammatically] comprehensive, and includes both micro and subteranean and all living creatures. There are no superflous words or alphabets in the OT, and grammar comes from here: the pristine, shortest distance of words are employed, requiring no input. For sure, as with all other aspects, the majesty of literature is seldom acknowledged here. This is not mere writings, but marks the epitomy of language, utilised by the greatest writers after these writings reached Europe via Greek and Roman translations, which also imported Democracy from here. Such a calibre of writings has never been equalled, and it appears to have arrived suddenly and in already advanced state, being not only alphabetical, but inherent of numerals and able to function with and without vowels; many later languages did not possess all phonetic sounds till well after the latin [eg: 'V']. Well before numerlas became advanced, we have in the same source the first scientific cencus, in the millions, with subototals and corresponding accounting totals, and gender and age breakdowns. Such indicators say the text is a very serious business. It is the literature, and its contruction and clear transcending wisdom inherent here, which first captured me. I now see a high evidence of good writing as the pre-requisite and transcendent factor to wisdom. If we do not know a word - we cannot think that word; how a word is utilised marks the wisdom of the writer. No two words in any language mean the same thing, and we have in the OT the bold advocation not to add or subtract anything - this is an indication of a runaway confidence which appears not perturbed of the future advancements of mankind, and is not seeking refuge of any potential errors in its declarations.

quote:

---

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?

---

Yes. Read it again. All plants/vegetation is covered in a single stroke of words.

quote:

---

Is photosynthesis a criterea, I am quite unclear about what exactly is a plant? Is a Sea Tulip, Pyura spinifera a plant?

---

I'm not a biologist, but it seems likely that the solar derived photosenthesis acts more as a fuel or catalyst for life - after it is existant. IOW: it is not connected with life's formation. The text caters to this, and more, with the follow-up chapter, illustrating how static life became dynamic, with all fors of vegetation, in the earth, above the earth and those which cling to the earth:

quote:

---

5 No shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground; 6 but there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the earth.

​

quote:

---

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)?

---

​

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:

​

quote:

---

21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind

---

​

quote:

---

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.

---

​

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. I have read scientific/biological explanations of the texts, though this is not at hand:

​

quote:

---

21 every winged fowl after its kind;

---

​

quote:

---

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.

---

​

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. This faulty view leads to another faulty conclusion, that speech evolved from coos and hisses. If the latter was even partially credible, almost all life forms would possess it - given they had the advantage of time, and that they are better equipped with sound pitches and audio dexterity than humans. It is credible to point this out as a glitch in ToE, and its blind acceptance today with no adequate responsa.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

You have not stated the contradictions you refer to. The term 'kind' is used in all instances of life form categories.

quote:

---

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.

---

One would use the means known and available to its generation, same way as now to confirm it correctly.

quote:

---

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?

---

There is nothing missing. Swarms identify virus and bacteria [life-form cells]. The first recording of a contagious and infectious desease is in the follow-up books, namely Leviticus, and relating to malignant leprosy, its ID, treatment and quarantine. This is the first notion of medicine and its separation from occultism. The washing of hands, which negates 90% of germs, is also a mandated law here, and enshrined in medical process some 3oo years ago. Its a question of correct comprehension and deciphering of a deceptively simple biblespeak: a cursory acknowledgement of its writings time, should quickly dispell any notion of naivity here. The issue extends itself in all areas, even maths, biology and history: the most daring stat is the specifically nominated dating for speech endowed modern man, namely 5678 years - and this cannot be disproven, while it is evidenced today as being without negation factors. There is not only no name of a human, no king, no country before this date, there is no history per se. The notion speech could not be proven because of the absence of writings is simply not credible: the latter is an effect, not the cause, of speech!

I think we need to start with a definition of science first. It's not just observation and having statistics that haven't been falsified. I would like to see IamJoseph propose a topic on just this issue so it can be discussed in depth. I expect this will either show(1) begging the question (defining speech to only apply to humans then concluding it only applies to humans) or(2) that it is only a difference in degree and not in kind, and that to restrict it to humans requires additional parameters specifically chosen to omit other animals (see (1) above).Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
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.

quote:

---

I think we need to start with a definition of science first. It's not just observation and having statistics that haven't been falsified.

---

Look at the stats as equations, akin to MC2. The observations and evidencing is upto each generation's status. Science is a recent study, appearing after maths and history. If there is a stat the city Ramesey is a one day journey from Goshen - mankind has to determine and evidence its veracity. Where it says the Nile never runs dry, it becomes evidenced by the terrain examination, namely all rivers flow down and never up from this point: there was never a famine in Egypt. If the text describes the ancient Egyptian diets [the fleshpots of egypt, the fish for naught, the garlic, melons, etc..] - we can verify of this is of contemporanous veracity. The surrounding colliliary gives the credibility factor.

quote:

---

I would like to see IamJoseph propose a topic on just this issue so it can be discussed in depth. I expect this will either show

​

(1) begging the question (defining speech to only apply to humans then concluding it only applies to humans) or

​

(2) that it is only a difference in degree and not in kind, and that to restrict it to humans requires additional parameters specifically chosen to omit other animals (see (1) above).

​

Enjoy.

---

It cannot be a dif in degree: else we would see degrees of equivalent prowess factors elsewhere. Its a one of a kind attribute which is inherent and not inculcated: a parent does not teach a child to talk - it merely clicks a switch on and the rest happens akin to breathing. This attribute decreases with time.

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. 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. 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) 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. Got it. Everything with a wing is one kind, correct? Take your time, this ones probably important also. 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. 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. 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. 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 pacifyCan you help me, occupy my brain?Ozzy Ozbourne: ParanoidEdited by Vacate, : No reason given.

You replied to my post, but I don't see where you answered my point at all.The Biblical "equation" talks about greyhounds to greyhounds and schnausers to schnausers but it doesn't say that greyhounds and schnausers can't crossbreed. The Biblical use of the word "kind" does not imply any kind of barrier.

---

“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

quote:

---

The Biblical use of the word "kind" does not imply any kind of barrier.

---

Sure it does. The word 'kind' is qualified and extended in all its placements - water/ocean life, and referred to 'after its kind' - after water based life forms. There is no other reading than this is about divisions, and is the first recording of life form grads, which was later adapted by Darwin.

I just wanted to point out that your nonsense is no more Bible-based than it is science-based.(And after 400+ posts, can you please learn how to use the buttons?)

---

“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

Fantastic! So all "water based life forms" are one kind. So, trout, whales, jellyfish, penguins, sea snakes, shimp, tube worms, walruses and sponges all decended from the one pair of "water kind" animals Noah took on his Ark.And then all "air kind" animals - dragon flies, bats, eagles, mosquitos, decended from the "air kind" pair.And all the worms, badgers, elephants, kangaroos, lemurs, cheetahs and squirels deceneded from the "land kind" pair.Now, if you would be so kind, can you describe to me what this 6,000 year old ancestor of both kangroos and earthworms looked like? How about the sponge/walrus? The mosquito/bat?