|
Author
|
Topic: Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others)
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 821 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
|
Message 310 of 425 (541329)
01-02-2010 3:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 308 by ICANT
01-02-2010 3:02 PM
|
|
Re: "Kinds" do exist...
So then according to you our domestic dog is a tame wolf. Not exactly. Wolves were domesticated and bred into what we now see as domestic dogs.
Then why does he not have the eating habits of the wolf.
Why does the dog with the strongest jaw strength have only 750 lbs per sq inch when a wolf has 1500 psi. Come on ICANT, you claim to have bred animals, yet you feign ignorance on this?
You got all you are going to get as you asked for my opinion. Glad to see I stumped you. 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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 308 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2010 3:02 PM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 821 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
|
|
Message 316 of 425 (541356)
01-02-2010 6:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 315 by Peg
01-02-2010 6:33 PM
|
|
Re: "Kinds" do exist...
And if they did come from wolves (which they likely did) then Noah needed only take two wolves on the ark and as those two wolves bred, they could have produced the great variety we now have. But Peg, domesticated dogs would then be traced back to flud times to 2 wolves and that most definitely is not the case.
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 315 by Peg, posted 01-02-2010 6:33 PM | | Peg has not replied |
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 821 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
|
|
Message 359 of 425 (542084)
01-07-2010 2:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 357 by ICANT
01-07-2010 1:16 PM
|
|
Re: Kind
Hi ICANT. in Message 309, I posted a link to a fairly comprehensive list of animals, listed via taxonomy. Feel free to respond to that. 359 posts and still we do not have any further idea what you guys mean by kind.
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 357 by ICANT, posted 01-07-2010 1:16 PM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 821 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
|
|
Message 362 of 425 (542101)
01-07-2010 4:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 360 by ICANT
01-07-2010 3:51 PM
|
|
Re: Kind
Long story short, you have absolutely no clue, nor do you care to learn, what a kind is. Good job on sticking to your ignorance.
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 360 by ICANT, posted 01-07-2010 3:51 PM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 821 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
|
|
Message 375 of 425 (542554)
01-10-2010 6:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 372 by ICANT
01-10-2010 4:12 PM
|
|
Re: Kind
ICANT, I see you acknowledge this...NEW post. Maybe you should tackle some of the other questions posed to you. Whaddya say? Give us heathens something to work with here. All we are asking for is HOW do we determine the difference between kinds? Is this:
the same "kind" as this?:
How about this:
is it the same "kind" as this?:
Is this:
the same kind as this?:
I'll let you chew on those for a bit.
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 372 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2010 4:12 PM | | ICANT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 381 by ICANT, posted 01-13-2010 2:03 PM | | hooah212002 has replied |
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 821 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
|
|
Message 387 of 425 (542903)
01-13-2010 3:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 381 by ICANT
01-13-2010 2:03 PM
|
|
Re: Kind
{ABE}By the way Buz, this IS the science section. The bible isn't a science text, you spouting biblical nonsense is not acceptable. Evidence brother. PLEASE. So those are all individual kinds, eh? WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE!!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?! The first 2 are both sharks, the second two are both fish, the 3rd set are actually pretty far from one another. The first being a dingo (dingo kind?) and the second is, as pointed out earlier, a thylacine, or tazmanian tiger.
Nothing to compare to but a red X. By that, I assume your software is out of date. or your machine. That doesnt absolve you from the argument. you could have said "I do not see any pictures".
Maybe you will get the idea sooner or later that I believe all kinds are created as they were prior to Genesis 1:2. The only kinds that have been changed are the ones man has tampered with, and the two new kinds created in Genesis 1:20 and 27. And maybe you will get the idea that your kind is not a definition, it is not scientifc, it doesnt even explain anything. It's like me saying "that thar is bauhdiuh" and using that as an explanation. If the animals I showed you ARE seperate kinds, you need a much larger ark than you think AND you pretty much moved changed your whole argument from when you said wolves and dogs are the same kind. Continuity and a line is all we ask. Not "god made some kinds". 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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 381 by ICANT, posted 01-13-2010 2:03 PM | | ICANT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 388 by ICANT, posted 01-13-2010 4:24 PM | | hooah212002 has replied |
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 821 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
|
|
Message 389 of 425 (542905)
01-13-2010 4:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 388 by ICANT
01-13-2010 4:24 PM
|
|
Re: Kind
See Message 385 for where I draw the line. That doesn't help anything. that is not a line. Let me make it abundantly clear since you cannot grasp it. In defining a term, you do not use said term to define itself. if you take a stroll in a jungle and see an animal, how do you know what "kind" it is? How do you know if the animal next to it is the same "kind"? I am really at my wits end with this backwards talk, and moreover, your grammar is atrocious to boot. The willful ignorance is not a cute as a bunny act ICANT, give it up.
God did not make some kinds. He made all kinds. Evolution requires continuity and a line of descent. Kinds do not require continuity and a line. They were created "as is" found prior to Genesis 1:2 6,000 years BP. God did not stop creating until Genesis 2:3 when He rested from all His creative work. So from the beginning until then He could create anything He desired. He did create some beautiful creatures that live 1,000 feet deep in the ocean that I have been priviliged to see. Along with the many land and air creatures we see. This isn't bible study forum ICANT, this is the SCIENCE section. Shall I use larger font? Edited by hooah212002, : changed buz to ICANT. Thanks bluejay
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 388 by ICANT, posted 01-13-2010 4:24 PM | | ICANT has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 395 by Blue Jay, posted 01-15-2010 10:12 AM | | hooah212002 has replied |
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 821 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
|
|
Message 391 of 425 (543001)
01-14-2010 12:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 388 by ICANT
01-13-2010 4:24 PM
|
|
Re: Kind
Let me guess, This:
is a duck billed platypus kind? yet dogs and wolves are the same kind.....
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 388 by ICANT, posted 01-13-2010 4:24 PM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 821 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
|
|
Message 396 of 425 (543099)
01-15-2010 11:09 AM
|
Reply to: Message 395 by Blue Jay
01-15-2010 10:12 AM
|
|
Re: Kind
There actually is a pretty solid definition for "baramin," which is the "kind" of the modern, trendy Intelligent Designist. It uses a concept called "Potentiality Regions," which simply delimits the amount of gross evolutionary change that is possible for a single species or lineage to undergo. However, in all honesty, it is no different in principle from the lack of agreement among mainstream scientists about how to properly delimit "species," and both Peg and ICANT are justified in their complaints about this. Except that science is a hell of alot more concise so as not to confuse a wolf for a dog. There may not be a specific designation for species, but general science will never confuse two obviously different species. Furthermore, an argument FOR a definition of "kind" should NOT include an argument against evolution (as is one of my largest quams with ID/creationism).
The first has been hammered to death in this thread. However, in all honesty, it is no different in principle from the lack of agreement among mainstream scientists about how to properly delimit "species," and both Peg and ICANT are justified in their complaints about this. Hammered to death? Well, they still can't agree on wolves and dogs.
The third is the most ideologically problematic. There could very well be something to the "potentiality region" concept, but to try to cram it within the mythology of any particular religion is entirely too narrow-minded and, more importantly, unevidenced. I have to actually thank you for this post. I am, however, disappointed it had to come from you and not a touted IDist. All ICANT recites is biblical kind this biblical kind that. I just read a portion of a "paper" about baraminology (couldn't read the whole thing: I'm at work) and I read enough of it to see that basically, if it can mate, it's in the same baramin(kind), and supposedly, even if the embryo cannot/does not survive. We know through actual research that this poses quite a problem, which has been pointed out numerous times. {ABE} here is the "paper". It is the only thing remotely close to a study I could find (even though the first good chunk is critiquing someone elses work and not, seemingly, critiquing his own study). It almost sounds like a book report. Edited by hooah212002, : added link
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 395 by Blue Jay, posted 01-15-2010 10:12 AM | | Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied |
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 821 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
Re: Kind
Thanks. I stand corrected. I am indeed having trouble keeping track here since we have no track to run on. I suppose it would be easier (and require less, if any, actual thought) if I just said a kind is a kind, and left it at that. However, I can't do that.
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
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 821 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
Re: Kind
Why not? You answered "why not" yourself.
The Bible doesn't provide one. If you take it down to the speicies level, then there's too many of them to fit on an ark. If you bring up to, say, the family or genus level, then there'd be too much "hyper-evolution" to get the diversity we see now today. in a general discussion, the term kind is fine. but this isn't a general discussion, now is it? Creo's use the term to validate a global flood, they use it to validate a young earth, they use it to validate genesis. Guess what? When you use the same term as your proof, yet keep it's meaning so flexible: your proof is shit. I give 2 shits if you, me, or joe blow says " I saw me a kind of possum th' other day". But when you say "the biblical flood is TRUE" and go on and use this ONE term as evidence....you kinda need to stick to some sort of specifics. "Kind" may as well mean moon rocks then. {ABE} If I were to say to you: I have a kind of dog for sale, 900 bucks. Are you going to buy it without some more specifics? If your wife tells you to pick up some lettuce, and you ask which kind, does she say "duh, the lettuce kind!"? If you get bitten by a snake, is it wise to tell the doctor "i got me a bite from the snake kind"? hopefully you see where this is going.... 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
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 821 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
Re: Kind
I can't see the pic. Work keeps things locked down pretty tight.
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
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 821 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
Re: Kind
And that site is blocked. I'll wait until I get home.
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
|
™ Version 4.2
