Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Clades and Kinds
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 121 of 143 (531962)
10-20-2009 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by ICANT
10-20-2009 5:04 PM


Re: Nested clades
I don't know what religion you know anything about but Christ followers will not tell you that all snakes can talk or even the one in Genesis can talk.
That's exactly my point. It's a misunderstanding and is completely wrong from what Christians actually believe...as is your idea of what evolution is.
Definition of evolution as I understand it.
Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation through changes in allele or variation of a gene. These changes are sufficient to explain all the diversity of life forms on earth today as well as those that are extinct.
If you don't like my version I will look up RAZD'S definition.
That's a good definition, but you seem to go from there to incorrect conclusions based on that. I don't know why you would be surprised that all animals are "fully formed" even if they're different from their parents, as you stated earlier as a reason to doubt evolution. Evolution would demand that any animal that survived gestation would be fully formed, so the fact that we find that does not, in any way, pose a problem for evolution.
Do you actually believe there is a possibility that life on earth began to exist because of a supernatural means?
Do I believe it's possible? Yes. DO I believe it actually happened? No, and I won't until we're shown some evidence, any evidence, of something that is supernatural. Does the truth care what I think? Not a whit. DOes evolution care where the life came from? Not a whit.
Science proves the non life source both of us presented has so far been proven impossible with loads of money and time spent trying to prove it can.
Science has done nothing of the sort, and in fact, has given us a number of avenues to investigate that seem to show exactly how it could happen. The biggest path to follow: chemistry, since we are, in fact, merely chemistry ourselves.
Knowing what evolution claims and knowing what is necessary for life to form are two different things.
Quite correct. Which is why evolution doesn't care where the first life came from, nor how many life forms were first, nor how long it has been since the first life forms. Evolution would work just as well if all extant creatures had been created as they are in the past week. Now that they're here and procreate imperfectly, they will evolve. It's a necessary outcome of imperfect procreation and differential survival.
Without life there is nothing to evolve.
Tautologically true.
When it comes to macroevolution you have to accept it on faith.
It all depends on your definition of macroevolution, I guess. Macroevolution, to me, is merely a lot of microevolution. Arguing that microevolution has a limit somewhere is a faith statement. Saying that I have no evidence for a limit, and until I am shown such evidence I will discount it is logic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2009 5:04 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2009 7:17 PM Perdition has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 122 of 143 (531968)
10-20-2009 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Modulous
10-20-2009 4:09 PM


Re: evidence that isn't evidence
Hi Mod,
Modulous writes:
No he didn't, he said he did it by creating the first life as a single celled being. Now we have established a theistic origin - how does that impact evolution exactly?
Book, chapter, and verse where God said that.
Modulous writes:
Why can a life form not produce the first life on earth, having designed it to change?
He could but if He said how he created all the different kinds of life there was nothing left to evolve. But yes things were designed to change, wear out.
Modulous writes:
It sounds like your argument is not
"If you don't know where life originated you can't say it evolved"
but rather
"Yahweh said they didn't evolve"
That is not my argument.
My argument is if you don't know how life began to exist you do not know whether it evolved or not.
If life began to exist from non life then it could do anything as it already had.
If a life form created life then it was created as He says it was. Not the way we want Him to have created it. We don't have a choice in the matter.
Do you have a third option of how life began to exist?
Modulous writes:
It seems to me that you are just saying that if evidence of "cross-kind" evolution was presented it to you that would not be sufficient evidence that life has evolved. That doesn't make any sense to me, could you clarify?
I plowed and rode a mule which is the ofspring of a horse kind and a
and an ass kind. Why should I have a problem with that? Or anything similar.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Modulous, posted 10-20-2009 4:09 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Modulous, posted 10-20-2009 6:18 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 123 of 143 (531979)
10-20-2009 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by ICANT
10-20-2009 5:32 PM


kinds can form through biological descent
I plowed and rode a mule which is the ofspring of a horse kind and a and an ass kind. Why should I have a problem with that? Or anything similar. Why should I have a problem with that?
You shouldn't. But this thread is about those that argue that example 'x' of evolution is only 'evolution within a kind' and is not 'one kind evolving into another kind'. Since you seem to accept that new kinds can form through descent - then there is nothing else to debate. No need to continue the amusing side topic about what god said and how showing how chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor would not be evidence that life evolves
Your argument with evolution is different than the one this topic is about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2009 5:32 PM ICANT has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 124 of 143 (531985)
10-20-2009 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by ICANT
10-20-2009 2:57 PM


Re: Nested clades
So then explain why the bible writers got it all wrong.
Flat, fixed earth, an impossible flood which has an indeterminate number of "kinds"+ 8 humans, and later listing bats as birds, and insects with 4 legs? As for Moses, he wrote nothing, if he compiled anything it was hieroglyphics since the Israelites had no alphabet until they adopted the Phoenician alphabet in the 10th century BCE, at least 300 years after Moses.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2009 2:57 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2009 9:33 PM bluescat48 has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 125 of 143 (531990)
10-20-2009 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Perdition
10-20-2009 5:16 PM


Re: Nested clades
Hi Perdition,
Perdition writes:
Do you actually believe there is a possibility that life on earth began to exist because of a supernatural means?
Do I believe it's possible? Yes. DO I believe it actually happened? No, and I won't until we're shown some evidence, any evidence, of something that is supernatural. Does the truth care what I think? Not a whit. DOes evolution care where the life came from? Not a whit.
Then you shouldn't mind one whit if I do not jump on the evolution bandwagon until somebody produces scientific verifiable reproducible evidence of how life began to exist on earth.
Perdition writes:
Science proves the non life source both of us presented has so far been proven impossible with loads of money and time spent trying to prove it can.
Science has done nothing of the sort,
So far science has not been able to produce one spark of life with all the equiptment and manpower devoted to that end.
Perdition writes:
It all depends on your definition of macroevolution,
It doesn't depend on my definition of macroevolution. I read on the link RAZD posted that there was no evidence macroevolution had taken place.
Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.
It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read.
Source
You have to figure out from the available evidence you have that it took place.
Since you don't know it took place, and you have no evidence it took place then you only have faith that you are correct in your conclusion that it did take place.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Perdition, posted 10-20-2009 5:16 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Coyote, posted 10-20-2009 9:51 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 138 by Perdition, posted 10-21-2009 10:56 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 126 of 143 (531995)
10-20-2009 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by ICANT
10-20-2009 1:06 PM


Re: Nested clades
Hi, ICANT.
ICANT writes:
Bluejay writes:
ICANT writes:
I realize that no evolutionist here believes that one critter had to become another critter.
Having recognized this, do you now agree that a lead bar turning into a gold bar is not an appropriate analogy for biological evolution?
It is a perfect example of one thing becoming a different thing.
...which, as you just acknowledged, has nothing to do with the concept of evolution that is being promoted in biology.
So, can you acknowledge that this is a perfect example of something completely irrelevant to biological evolution?
-----
ICANT writes:
It is a perfect example of one thing becoming a different thing. The problem is there is no scientific way to accomplish such a feat. It was tried many times.
Just as there is no way to show macroevolution ever occurred.
So, when you said that you realize evolutionists do not think organisms transform into other types of organisms... you were lying?

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2009 1:06 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2009 8:11 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 127 of 143 (532005)
10-20-2009 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Blue Jay
10-20-2009 7:30 PM


Re: Nested clades
Hi jay,
Bluejay writes:
So, when you said that you realize evolutionists do not think organisms transform into other types of organisms... you were lying?
Heaven forbid.
I just don't think evolutionist here believe that macroevolution has to take place to have all the different kinds of creatures.
If you think so go back and read all the posts.
Everybody says all the little micro evolution that takes place is sufficient to produce all the life forms on earth.
Problem is the fossil record does not agree.
I'll not comment on the other.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Blue Jay, posted 10-20-2009 7:30 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Blue Jay, posted 10-20-2009 9:20 PM ICANT has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 128 of 143 (532018)
10-20-2009 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by ICANT
10-20-2009 8:11 PM


Re: Nested clades
Hi, ICANT.
ICANT writes:
Everybody says all the little micro evolution that takes place is sufficient to produce all the life forms on earth.
Problem is the fossil record does not agree.
Okay, so you're not arguing that we need transmutation of kinds for our theory to work: you're arguing that the physical evidence doesn't support our argument. I would argue that you are wrong, but, like Modulous said, that's not what's being debated here.
What's being debated here is whether or not the Theory of Evolution stipulates that lineages of organisms evolve to a point where they can no longer be considered the same kind of organism as what their ancestors used to be. As Meldinoor has explained, "kinds" in evolutionary biology are defined in terms of their lineage, and such lineage-based definitions have been shown to be biologically meaningful (i.e. it has been shown that aspects of biology, physiology and ecology can be predicted based on ancestry; just like your likelihood of having diabetes can be predicted based on your genealogy).

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2009 8:11 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2009 9:54 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 129 of 143 (532022)
10-20-2009 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by bluescat48
10-20-2009 6:43 PM


Re: Nested clades
Hi cat,
bluescat48 writes:
So then explain why the bible writers got it all wrong.
I didn't know they did. I know a lot of atheist think so.
bluescat48 writes:
Flat,
Well according to my avatar which is what the earth in Genesis looked like the land mass was pretty flat. If it was smaller then it would have been closer to flat. So I can see how someone could think that. But the Bible does not teach that the earth is flat.
The land mass would have also had four corners.
bluescat48 writes:
fixed earth,
I don't get a fixed earth out of the Bible. I get a round one that is hung in space with nothing to hold it up.
bluescat48 writes:
an impossible flood which has an indeterminate number of "kinds"+ 8 humans,
With God nothing is impossible.
I tell you what, you catalog all the different kinds of creatures that is present on the earth today and those that have gone extinct in the past 6k years. Then start a thread and I will see if I can figure how to get them all on the ark. The last time I designed one I had 18 acres of storage space in it. I believe I could get a lot more when I know the number of all the creatures and can determine their size.
bluescat48 writes:
listing bats as birds,
The Hebrew word transliterated `atalleph appears in the Bible 2 times and there is no mention of bird in either one of them.
So do you have something I don't have?
bluescat48 writes:
insects with 4 legs
There is no Hebrew word that translates as insect(s).
Unless you know something I don't.
bluescat48 writes:
As for Moses, he wrote nothing, if he compiled anything it was hieroglyphics since the Israelites had no alphabet until they adopted the Phoenician alphabet in the 10th century BCE, at least 300 years after Moses.
Moses lived around 1300 BC.
He was adopted into the Royal family in Egypt.
Therefore he was raised as an Egyptian and would have had access to and been taught all Egyptian knowledge for 40 years of his life. Since Egypt had a language that had existed for some 2100 years prior to Moses birth and education in Egypt.
Why do you think Moses could not write the things he was supposed to have written? He would have been educated in the Late Egyptian language that was used for religious literature and for communication.
What makes you think Moses did not teach Aaron and all the people as they wandered around for 40 years?
The decendants of Jacob had been making bricks for 400 years in Egypt and could communicate with the Egyptians. They would not have any problem making clay tablets for Moses to write on. They probably had made them for the Egyptian's to write on as they were the slave labor.
So you just keep on believing whatever you desire to believe.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by bluescat48, posted 10-20-2009 6:43 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by bluescat48, posted 10-20-2009 10:02 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 135 by bluescat48, posted 10-20-2009 10:28 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 130 of 143 (532023)
10-20-2009 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by ICANT
10-20-2009 7:17 PM


Distinction between origins and evolution
Then you shouldn't mind one whit if I do not jump on the evolution bandwagon until somebody produces scientific verifiable reproducible evidence of how life began to exist on earth.
Here are five hypothesis regarding the origin of the first life forms.
a) Natural processes occurring entirely upon earth resulted in chains of self-replicating molecular strands that eventually became the first life forms.
b) Aliens from another planet and/or dimension traveled to this planet and -- deliberately or accidentally -- seeded the planet with the first life forms.
c) In the future, humans will develop a means to travel back in time. They will use this technology to plant the first life forms in Earth's past, making the existence of life a causality loop.
d) A divine agent of unspecified nature zap-poofed the first life forms into existence.
e) Any method other than the four described above led to the existence of the first life forms.
Please describe which of these five could not have subsequently progressed through evolution, and defend your answer.
(But please leave the scripture and catechism out; this is a Science Forum thread and your answer should rely on empirical evidence, not religious belief).

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2009 7:17 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2009 10:13 PM Coyote has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 131 of 143 (532024)
10-20-2009 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Blue Jay
10-20-2009 9:20 PM


Re: Nested clades
Hi jay,
Bluejay writes:
just like your likelihood of having diabetes can be predicted based on your genealogy).
So tell me why I am borderline diabetic when none of my ancestors has ever had any diabetes?
I had a aunt that died of cancer at age 33 and my dad died at 67 with Alzheimer's
The baby of the family is 82 and everyone else lived to at least 86. Most died in their 90's and 3 lived to be over a 100. As this is way off topic could you respond by e-mail.
Bluejay writes:
Okay, so you're not arguing that we need transmutation of kinds for our theory to work:
I am arguing that you don't believe you need transmutation of kinds for your theory to work.
Macroevolution would be required for Darwin's theory to work even if God created the first single cell life form on earth and then let it evolve.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Blue Jay, posted 10-20-2009 9:20 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Blue Jay, posted 10-21-2009 11:01 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 140 by Theodoric, posted 10-21-2009 12:25 PM ICANT has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 132 of 143 (532025)
10-20-2009 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by ICANT
10-20-2009 9:33 PM


Re: Nested clades
Why do you think Moses could not write the things he was supposed to have written? He would have been educated in the Late Egyptian language that was used for religious literature and for communication.
Like I said Hieroglyhics which could easily be misread several hundred years later when transcribed into the Phoenician alphabet.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2009 9:33 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 133 of 143 (532027)
10-20-2009 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Coyote
10-20-2009 9:51 PM


Re: Distinction between origins and evolution
Hi Coyote,
Coyote writes:
Here are five hypothesis regarding the origin of the first life forms.
Do you have any scientific verifiable reproducible evidence for any of the hypothesis you presented?
You want to get technical.
If you don't have such evidence they should be discussed in a philosophy thread as that is what it is.
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language
Source
The one I believe in is not listed.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Coyote, posted 10-20-2009 9:51 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Coyote, posted 10-20-2009 11:13 PM ICANT has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 134 of 143 (532028)
10-20-2009 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by ICANT
10-20-2009 12:54 PM


Re: Nested clades
Hi ICANT,
Sorry about the complications.
Thanks.
I well know my definition of macro evolution is not, can not, will never be accepted in the field of evolution.
Which just proves that it is useless to keep trying to use it, as all you will cause will be confusion.
There is no scientific verifiable reproducible evidence for macroevolution.
And this is an example of that confusion. Macroevolution - as used in biology in general and in evolution in specific - has been observed and thus is an observed fact. Every case of speciation is an example of macroevolution: it results in additional species, and it results in the formation of a branched tree of descent.
It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read.
Color me surprised that you would seize on that statement. Let's start with this one instead:
quote:
Macroevolution is evolution on a grand scalewhat we see when we look at the over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and extinction.
Lineages arising = speciation
Change is ongoing in all known species
Extinction is also an ongoing process, just look at all the "endangered" species.
Thus we do see macroevolution occurring, the different evolution of different species within their ecologies as they react to the changing conditions around them and to each other: the larger picture.
quote:
Definition: What is Macroevolution?
Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.
In other words macroevolution is the patterns of diversity and change that occur as individual populations evolve within their part of the matrix of life.
Macroevolution is NOT about the formation of new or novel features or traits: that occurs within populations by microevolution.
Let's try an analogy:
... microevolution is the writing of books, new books are constantly arising, and new editions of books are constantly being made, some with new covers or new artwork that are not in the originals, and meanwhile some old books are lost and ignored, ...
... while macroevolution is the librarian documenting of all the different books and the way they are organized by content and author. The library does not cause any new books to be written or new editions to be published.
There is a problem with that as the fossil record has things appearing all of a sudden fully developed.
Surprisingly individual organisms are born fully formed, fully developed for their age, complete and ready for the world. Any such organism, if fossilized, would also appear "all of a sudden fully developed"
Curiously, there are many lineages that are known, transitions that occur from one form to another through direct lineages of related species, and more evidence is uncovered every day.
That some species seem to appear suddenly does not mean that this is so for all species.
To believe it happened, macroevolution has to be accepted by faith as there is no evidence, only belief.
Amusingly I have just listed some of this evidence that you claim does not exist. Claims are easy.
(Message 105}: KIND, n.
Race; generic class; as in mankind or humankind.
A type, a sort, a variety, a breed, a set, a tribe, a group, a class, a family, etc etc etc.
A dog will mate with a dog and produce more dogs, and thus reproduce after their kind, but there is no necessary restriction that dogs cannot evolve or that they have not evolved from some earlier animal, such as wolves.
We can look at the fossil record and fine animals analogous to dogs (convergent evolution does that -- it's how come sugar gliders and flying squirrels are so similar), and then see what has evolved from those animals, and from this we can see how dogs are not limited to remaining similar to modern dogs by evolution.
HOWEVER: all of this is not really on the topic of nested clades, rather about the validity of "large" changes in the natural history of life on earth. Perhaps another thread might be more appropriate.
Dogs will be Dogs will be ???:
quote:
Back to the original quote:
"The fossil record shows variations of all sorts of things but will time turn a dog kind into something that we would say is clearly not a dog? "
Beretta, Message 7
So what would you like this to become?
Would a horse be enough? Would you dispute that a horse is clearly not a dog?
So the questions that creationists must answer are:
(1) If your definition of macroevolution is different from evolutionary biology what is it?
(2) Why do you think it is a valid definition?
(3) How much change is necessary?
(4) Why isn't the difference between cat and fox a valid criteria?
We'll start with those - and see what turns up.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : s
Edited by RAZD, : kinds of kinds

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2009 12:54 PM ICANT has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 135 of 143 (532031)
10-20-2009 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by ICANT
10-20-2009 9:33 PM


Re: Nested clades
So do you have something I don't have?
The fact that most of us here at EvC don't read or understand Hebrew or Aramaic, we are stuck with translations.
Here are 4 which say that insects have 4 legs.
KJV Leviticus 11:
21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
Douey Rheims Leviticus 11:21 But whatsoever walketh upon four feet, but hath the legs behind longer, wherewith it hoppeth upon the earth,
22 That you shall eat, as the bruchus in its kind, the attacus, and ophiomachus, and the locust, every one according to their kind.
23 But of dying things whatsoever hath four feet only, shall be an abomination to you:
KJVUP Leviticus 11:21 Yet these may all of you eat of every flying creeping thing that goes upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap likewise upon the earth;
22 Even these of them all of you may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
World EB Leviticus 11:21 Yet these may you eat of all winged creeping things that go on all fours, which have legs above their feet, with which to leap on the earth.
22 Even these of them you may eat: the locust after its kind, and the bald locust after its kind, and the cricket after its kind, and the grasshopper after its kind.
23 But all winged creeping things, which have four feet, are an abomination to you.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by ICANT, posted 10-20-2009 9:33 PM ICANT 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