Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others)
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 16 of 425 (539512)
12-16-2009 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Peg
12-16-2009 6:30 AM


winged creatures were obviously made in great variety and in different 'kinds' so the fact that we have ostraches and chickens and pelicans and finches etc also shows that genesis is in harmony with what we see.
So then how many bird "kinds" did Noah have? Or better still how many bird "kinds" are there?

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 12 by Peg, posted 12-16-2009 6:30 AM Peg has not replied

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


Message 17 of 425 (539523)
12-16-2009 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Huntard
12-14-2009 3:37 PM


Re: Kinds
Hi Huntard,
Huntard writes:
What I'd like to focus on here is how kinds are defined
Kind is defined by whoever is giving the definition.
The Hebrew word miyn translated kind means kind as our translators did not have a definition for it.
It comes from an unused root meaning of to portion out.
The problem with the word kinds is that when it is used it is not when God created plants, animals birds, water fowl and water creatures. That was simply when He called them forth after their kind that had already existed.
In Genesis 2:7 God formed mankind from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living being.
In Genesis 2:8 God planted a garden. It does not specify what He planted.
In Genesis 2:9 God made every tree to grow out of the ground.
In Genesis 2:19 God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air.
The word every is all inclusive. It includes every kind of creature that ever existed and we have on and in the earth and air today.
There was a massive extinction event that took place.
Thus after restoring the earth to be inhabitable in Genesis 1:2-10.
In Genesis 1:11 God called the vegetation forth from the seeds that was in the ground after their kind.
In Genesis 1:20 God called the moving creature and fowl from the waters.
In Genesis 1:21 God created great whales and every living creature that moveth. The waters brought them forth after their kind and every winged fowl after his kind.
In Genesis 1:25 God made every creature upon the earth after his kind.
In Genesis 1:27 God created mankind in the image of God created He them male and female.
Now the problem with kind as I see it is that man has his own ideas about what kind is.
But God created every creature that you can find that has ever existed on the planet earth in any shape form or fashion. Except the ones that man has engineered.
God only ceased creating some 6,000 years ago as we are told in Genesis 2:2.
Prior to that He could have created anything at anytime He so desired and if He did not tell Moses about the specifics we would not have them. All we do have is what God told Moses during their 40 days together on the mount.
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 1 by Huntard, posted 12-14-2009 3:37 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Huntard, posted 12-17-2009 3:04 AM ICANT has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4808 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 18 of 425 (539530)
12-16-2009 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Peg
12-16-2009 6:19 AM


Re: One little detail
Peg writes:
however, we were specifically refering to the crossbreeding of lions and domestic cats
You were saying in general terms that Genesis distinguishes wild and domestic animals as different kinds. I was simply showing how, by your definition, wild and domestic animals really aren't different "kinds". In fact, most domestic animals are quite capable of breeding with their wild relatives.
Peg writes:
can it be stated with certainty that 'wild cats' were not from domestic cats that have become feral?
Indeed, not in every case. Some breeds of wild cat might indeed have been domesticated at some point in time. However, most wild cats are very timid and avoid humans. They also have the characteristics of wild animals, like camoflauge, while many domestic cats would stick out like a sore thumb out in the wild.
Wild cats and domestic cats are similar to dogs and wolves. In both cases, domestic and wild could both be said to be the same species.
I'm curious as to why you're making a distinction between wild and domestic, as two different kinds. Many wild animals that are rarely ever considered domesticable have been successfully domesticated. Like foxes
Many domestic animals also have wild counterparts, like the aforementioned cats and dogs. But also goats, cattle etc.
Since domestication of new species goes on to this day, one can hardly divide animals into two defined groups based on this criteria.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Peg, posted 12-16-2009 6:19 AM Peg has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4433 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 19 of 425 (539554)
12-17-2009 2:43 AM


Didn't we go over this just a wee while ago? See Message 1what is a kind?

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 20 of 425 (539556)
12-17-2009 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by ICANT
12-16-2009 2:35 PM


Re: Kinds
So, how many kinds did Noah take on the Ark then? One for every species? That'll never fit.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by ICANT, posted 12-16-2009 2:35 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by ICANT, posted 12-17-2009 11:53 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 21 of 425 (539557)
12-17-2009 3:18 AM


Why is it?
Why is it that ten year old kids can see that the Noah's Ark narrative is a myth yet many adults cannot (or refuse to admit)?

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Huntard, posted 12-17-2009 3:43 AM Brian has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 22 of 425 (539558)
12-17-2009 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Brian
12-17-2009 3:18 AM


Re: Why is it?
Brian writes:
Why is it that ten year old kids can see that the Noah's Ark narrative is a myth yet many adults cannot (or refuse to admit)?
Probably because they've told themselves they must believe it, or else Jesus's teachings are worth nothing.... Or something like that.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Brian, posted 12-17-2009 3:18 AM Brian has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 23 of 425 (539562)
12-17-2009 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Huntard
12-16-2009 7:07 AM


Huntard writes:
This poses a problem, because many species which you put in one kind are not interfertile. I'm trying to get a workable definition of kind here.
thats true and as i said, i wasnt taking into consideration that the genesis account mentions many different 'kinds' being created
so, we may never know exactly what a genesis 'kind' is because they are not individually named, however they are spoken of as being able to reproduce.
So I guess if a number of animals, such as lions/tigers etc, are able to cross breed, they can be considered to be of the same kind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Huntard, posted 12-16-2009 7:07 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Huntard, posted 12-17-2009 5:00 AM Peg has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 24 of 425 (539563)
12-17-2009 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Peg
12-17-2009 4:56 AM


Peg writes:
So I guess if a number of animals, such as lions/tigers etc, are able to cross breed, they can be considered to be of the same kind.
Ok. That makes Cheetahs a different kind of cat. However, if species that are not interfertile are not of the same kind, Noah runs into a problem...

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Peg, posted 12-17-2009 4:56 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Peg, posted 12-17-2009 5:22 AM Huntard has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 25 of 425 (539565)
12-17-2009 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dr Jack
12-16-2009 7:09 AM


Mr jack writes:
Which is yet another reason why the Ark story is silly. According to you every human on earth traces their entire genetic lineage to a handful of people 4000 years ago
not only according to me Mr Jack.
geneticists have found evidence that all humans have a common ancestor, their studies were based on a type of mitochondrial DNA, genetic material passed on only by the female and we've all got it. They've also found that the genetic material on the [Y] chromosome which all humans have today, came from one original man.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dr Jack, posted 12-16-2009 7:09 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Huntard, posted 12-17-2009 5:26 AM Peg has replied
 Message 29 by Dr Jack, posted 12-17-2009 5:50 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 26 of 425 (539567)
12-17-2009 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Huntard
12-17-2009 5:00 AM


Huntard writes:
Ok. That makes Cheetahs a different kind of cat. However, if species that are not interfertile are not of the same kind, Noah runs into a problem...
no it doesnt because Noah was told to take 2 of 'each' kind
true, we have no way of knowing what those kinds were but that does not present a problem because whatever they were, they are still around today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Huntard, posted 12-17-2009 5:00 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Huntard, posted 12-17-2009 5:28 AM Peg has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 27 of 425 (539569)
12-17-2009 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Peg
12-17-2009 5:10 AM


Peg writes:
geneticists have found evidence that all humans have a common ancestor, their studies were based on a type of mitochondrial DNA, genetic material passed on only by the female and we've all got it. They've also found that the genetic material on the [Y] chromosome which all humans have today, came from one original man.
Of course all humans have a common ancestor. This is also exactly what evolution predicts. However, you're a bit wrong in your assumptions about this mitochandrial eve and y chromosome adam. I'll post a video that explains this nicely this evening. It's something like this:
If there were say three women who gave birth to our ancestors, yet in two of those lines after that at one time there are no female offspring, the mitochandrial dna of those two women is lost, and the one remainng woman is then mitochandrial eve. The same goes for the men, if there were three men and in two lines there are at one point only female offspring, then those two y chromosomes are lost, and the one remaining line becomes y chromosome adam.
{ABE}:
Link here
Edited by Huntard, : Just saw something went wrong when copying text
Edited by Huntard, : Added video

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Peg, posted 12-17-2009 5:10 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Peg, posted 12-20-2009 12:32 AM Huntard has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 28 of 425 (539570)
12-17-2009 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Peg
12-17-2009 5:22 AM


Actually, I was referring to the space problem. All species that are interfertile with one another (which are your kinds) could never fit on the ark.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Peg, posted 12-17-2009 5:22 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Peg, posted 12-20-2009 12:47 AM Huntard has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 29 of 425 (539572)
12-17-2009 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Peg
12-17-2009 5:10 AM


geneticists have found evidence that all humans have a common ancestor, their studies were based on a type of mitochondrial DNA, genetic material passed on only by the female and we've all got it. They've also found that the genetic material on the [Y] chromosome which all humans have today, came from one original man.
And do the dates of these lines match up? (Clue: it's not an affirmative).
Because, ta-da, the genetics are categorically not those of a population of handful a few thousands years ago. Common ancestors are inevitable, what they are not is a point in time when there was just a handful of people. Mitochondrial Eve was not the only woman alive at that time (she might not even be an individual at all!). Y-Chromosome Adam was not the only man alive at that time. The MRCA was only one of tens of millions.
Also, don't you think it's spectacularly dishonest of you to claim that the very same techniques used by geneticists are real, proper, valid science when you think they support you but reject them when they show we diverged from Chimps 6 million years ago?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Peg, posted 12-17-2009 5:10 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Peg, posted 12-20-2009 12:53 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 30 of 425 (539575)
12-17-2009 9:59 AM


Thought of another problem
Peg, I've just thought of another problem with your "kinds are interfertile" position. What about ring species?
This is where there are let's say species A, B, C, and D in one area. Species A is interfertile with species B, but not with C and D. Species B is interfertile with species A and C, but not with D. Species C is interfertile with species B and D, but not with A. And species D is interfertile with species C, but not wit A and B.
Now, to what Kind do these belong?

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Dr Jack, posted 12-17-2009 10:36 AM Huntard has replied
 Message 87 by Peg, posted 12-20-2009 12:58 AM Huntard has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024