|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 801 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
So, do you trust paternity tests?
(*hint: both use the same techniques)
But science is not the ultimate truth. Nor does it seek to be. Only religion seeks to be "the ultimate truth". But it sure does give us a hell of a lot better understanding of the world we live in.
their research into genes has shown that all people are decended from one pair and they give certain dates for when these ancestors lived but is their calculation accurate??? Can you be sure they are 100% accurate in their dates?? Rarely is anything in science 100% accurate. They could be off by a couple thousand years. Having said that, the bible is NEVER 100% accurate, yet you are not skeptical of that? I call shenanigans. Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people -Carl Sagan For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.-Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
bluescat48 writes: This would be exactly what one would expect primitive men to postulate since they had no knowledge of animal relationships and could only go on certain external characteristics. except that moses was not trying to postulate anything other then the fact that God had created the animals. Genesis was not trying to explain nature, it was explaining where nature came from.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Nuggin writes: All that is left are the Western Blosorts and the Eastern Blosorts - neither of which can reproduce with the other. By your definition of "kind" these are now two different "kinds". Right? not necessarily for the reason that there are many different 'kinds' of birds and within each 'kind' there are many different'varieties'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Bluejay writes: So, what's the difference between genetically-caused reproductive isolation and speciation? i have no idea, perhaps they are the same thing? But i draw the line at linking all existing animals with previous lower life forms.
Bluejay writes: Peg, the example of ring species is not a matter of definitions or semantics. It's an actual, natural phenomenon: these are real animals that show gradients of interfertility between populations, not words or viewpoints or interpretations of data! I'm aware of that, but its been said that ring species is proof that evolution changes animals from one species into another as i said, i think it has more to do with genetics rather then animals slowly evolving into new species of animal.
Bluejay writes: We can't figure out how to distinguish one species of these gulls from another, because, any definition we use will either include some that cannot interbreed, or exclude some that can interbreed, both of which kind of violate our definition of "species" and your definition of "kind." this is where i gets confusing because its still a bird, but its a different variety of bird...yet you call it a new species. So while you are calling this particular bird a new 'species', genesis would be calling it a 'kind' the winged kind and a variety within the winged kind. I think it has everything to do with definitions. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
hooah212002 writes: So, do you trust paternity tests? its not the genetics that is the problem, its the dating they put to it that I think is harder to pinpoint. And there have been many examples where one scientist dates something at a particular point and someone else at a much younger point and someone else at a much older point. You tell me what the accuracy rate of dating is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
not necessarily for the reason that there are many different 'kinds' of birds and within each 'kind' there are many different 'varieties' Peg. You're being dishonest. You just said that kind was determined by whether or not the things can reproduce a few posts ago. I'm simply trying to go by your definition, but now you are changing the definition and adding "varieties" as a 2nd catagory which, frankly, is not mentioned in the Bible. It wasn't "The cows after their kind, except for some of them which had different varieties which were a sort of kind but not really". What's the deal? Is it just that the word "kind" really has no meaning because the people writing the Bible didn't intend it to be taken so seriously?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
You tell me what the accuracy rate of dating is?
I do a lot of radiocarbon dating. The accuracy is generally within about 3% when all of the calibrations that we use are applied. It is often a lot closer. Good enough? But this has nothing to do with species/kinds. Back to the topic! Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
And there have been many examples where one scientist dates something at a particular point and someone else at a much younger point and someone else at a much older point. Great, can you present us with one of those examples in which none of the three people are Creationists? If there are "many" examples, it shouldn't be too hard to find just one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 801 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Unfortunately, Peg, I am unable to find much in the way of accuracy of genetic dating. All I could find is a recent hullabaloo about ancient penguins being found to be 1-500,000 years older than previously thought. -->ancient penguins being found to be 1-500,000 years older than previously thought.
In other words, a biological specimen determined by traditional DNA testing to be 100,000 years old may actually be 200,000 to 600,000 years old, researchers suggest in a new report in Trends in Genetics, a professional journal. But what do you know? SCIENCE did what it does best and corrected itself. Edited by hooah212002, : whoops. I jumped the gun. should have cleaned it up BEFORE hitting submit Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given. Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people -Carl Sagan For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.-Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 3895 days) Posts: 663 Joined: |
its not the genetics that is the problem, its the dating they put to it So chimps are our cousins, it just happened much more recently? Was it before or after the flood? (Hint: read up on Cain, Ham and Esau. Apes don't turn up in the Bible until around Solomon's time, so you have lots of room.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Nuggin writes: You just said that kind was determined by whether or not the things can reproduce a few posts ago. I'm simply trying to go by your definition, but now you are changing the definition and adding "varieties" as a 2nd catagory which, frankly, is not mentioned in the Bible. animals of the same kind were told to go forth and multiply, so the genesis kind is one that can reproduce. However I did also say that there were multiple 'kinds' created for example:
God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds how many sea creatures are there? Millions? And these millions of sea creatures cannot all reproduce together, only ones of the same 'kind' can do so. For a simpler example, we have dogs.Dogs are one 'kind' but they come in great variety. You may call it 'speciation' because dogs have become so different??? but they are still dogs and they are still the same 'kind' i hope that is clearer.
Nuggin writes: What's the deal? Is it just that the word "kind" really has no meaning because the people writing the Bible didn't intend it to be taken so seriously? the bible kept it very simple because, unlike evolutionists, it wasnt trying to define anything. the hebrew word 'kind' is literally a 'genus' I dont really know how else to explain it. I think the problem is that the terms evolutionists use today is much different to a genesus 'kind' so they are incompatible. What do evolutionists call animals that can interbreed? (please keep in mind that lions and tigers can interbreed)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Iblis writes: So chimps are our cousins it fits with the evolution theory so i guess it must be true! I'm sorry but I dont believe that chimps and humans are related.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 3895 days) Posts: 663 Joined: |
I'm sorry but I dont believe that chimps and humans are related. Why does the paternity test say they are, then? I don't see why you think you can have all these murder convictions and acquittals, and the Cohens, and Y-chromosome Noah and Mitochondrial Eve, without admitting Washoe and Koko are people too. I would mention that they talk, but I know that doesn't faze you; if snakes and donkeys can talk, why not monkeys. But you sure seem to cherry-pick the genetic testing. In another thread, you noted that lions and tigers don't mate naturally, only in test tubes. On the other hand, sheeps and goats do, horses and donkeys do, both producing hybrids. On yet the other hand, llamas and cows do, moose and cows do, cowboys and cows do, but no offspring. What's up with this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
I'm sorry but I dont believe that chimps and humans are related. Unfortunately for you, your belief doesn't have any impact on reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
hooah212002 writes: But what do you know? SCIENCE did what it does best and corrected itself. Its been correcting itself over human origins for years...but it keeps making the same mistakes over and over lol The theoretical family tree of human evolution is full of castoffs of previously accepted so called 'links' Piltdown man was accepted by the whole scientific community for about 40 years before modern testing revealed it was a fake One of these earliest mammals claimed to be in the line of man is a small, rodentlike animal (not sure of its name) supposed to have lived about 70 million years ago. There was also the Aegyptopithecus or Egypt ape of 40 million years ago. It was proclaimed to be our human ancestor even though there was no link to the small rodent that came before it. Then a new creature called Ramas ape came along that was said to be from 14 million years ago. From its fossils evolutionsists constructed an apelike creature who walked on two limbs. It was called the first representative of the human family and it was presented as such in evolutionary literiture as such. But all this was based on a few jawbone fragments and teeth! How do you get an upright walking ape with such little evidence??? Pure imagination! The mistakes kept coming though. The next one that had been listed as an ape-man was the Australopithecus of about 3 or 4 million years ago. In time it came to be accepted by nearly all evolutionists as man’s ancestor. But later it was discovered that the Australopithecine skull was simian, not human. All this after telling the world that the real ape-man had finally been found! then there is Lucy. She's our ancestor for sure except that her scull is a 3rd the size of a human scull and even New Scientist reported that Lucy's skull is more chimp then human. Neanderthal man was first pictured as bent over, stupid looking, hairy and apelike. But now it is known that the original reconstruction was based on a fossil skeleton that was badly deformed by disease. Since then, many Neanderthal fossils have been found and its been confirmed that he was not much different from modern humans. It wasnt an ape at all just like Cro-Magnon man who is also not an ape man. It seems pretty clear to me that belief in ape-men is unfounded. Any apelike creatures that did live in the past were simply that, apes. And any fossils of ancient humans that do differ from ours demonstrate the variety within the human kind. We have large and small living side by side today and they are all still human. Evolutionists may correct themselves, but they continually repeat the same mistakes because they are hell bent on proving their theory that humans came from apes.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024