Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-20-2019 3:05 PM
30 online now:
AZPaul3, Hyroglyphx, kjsimons, PaulK, PsychMJC, ringo, Stile, xongsmith (8 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,303 Year: 9,339/19,786 Month: 1,761/2,119 Week: 521/576 Day: 116/80 Hour: 0/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2425
26
272829Next
Author Topic:   Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others)
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2677 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 376 of 425 (542565)
01-10-2010 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 372 by ICANT
01-10-2010 4:12 PM


Re: Kind
ICANT writes:

Domestic Dog is a creature that has been said in this thread is a wolf that has been domesticated by mankind.

If that is the case there is no such thing as dog. They are only domesticated wolves.

That rules out my dog kind and makes them only a wolf kind.

Thanks for pointing out this statement of yours from Message 331. However, I don't think that it helps you much. So at the risk of repeating myself:

What is the definition of a kind that would help you - specifically you, who appears to be rejecting all other modes of classification - to determine whether an animal was of the dog kind, of the wolf kind, or of some other kind?

Edited by ZenMonkey, : No reason given.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2010 4:12 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Chippo
Junior Member (Idle past 3335 days)
Posts: 9
From: Sydney, NSW, Aus
Joined: 01-10-2010


Message 377 of 425 (542579)
01-11-2010 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 372 by ICANT
01-10-2010 4:12 PM


Re: Kind
ICANT writes:

Well I did not say the goldfish and the blue whale were the same kind. The goldfish as his name implies is a gold colored, "fish kind".

The whale would be a sea serpent kind.

Thank you for the reply and thanks for the welcome I just want make sure I can accurately measure these kinds suggested because I do have a question to ask you on this subject but i need to know specifically what would constitute a kind in these cases.

You are saying goldfish is a fish kind because of the name we give it but you reject the jellyfish despite its name implying the same thing, so does the Jellyfish fall into another category if so in your opinion what would that be?

The blue whale as you say falls under the sea serpent kind, what other creatures in the ocean fall under that kind? Dolphins, Sharks, Giant Squid?

Edited by Chippo, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2010 4:12 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by ICANT, posted 01-13-2010 2:16 PM Chippo has responded

    
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2767 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 378 of 425 (542580)
01-11-2010 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 360 by ICANT
01-07-2010 3:51 PM


Re: Kind
Why do we need taxonomy?

Its only purpose is to prove evolution.

Could you perhaps clarify this please?
Wikipedia on Biological Classification

quote:
Current systems of classifying forms of life descend from the thought presented by the Greek philosopher Aristotle, who published in his metaphysical and logical works the first known classification of everything whatsoever, or "being". This is the scheme that gave such words as 'substance', 'species' and 'genus' and was retained in modified and less general form by Linnaeus.

Credit seems to be given to two people for our current system of classification; Aristotle (384 BC 322 BC) and Carl Linnaeus (1707 1778).

Your timeline is mixed up a bit it seems.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by ICANT, posted 01-07-2010 3:51 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by ICANT, posted 01-13-2010 2:27 PM Vacate has not yet responded

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 2028 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 379 of 425 (542581)
01-11-2010 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by ICANT
01-04-2010 10:49 AM


woah, totally missed this, ICANT, but...one remark?
They are different hybrids we call dogs.

Domestic Dog is a creature that has been said in this thread is a wolf that has been domesticated by mankind.

If that is the case there is no such thing as dog. They are only domesticated wolves.

That rules out my dog kind and makes them only a wolf kind.

you're one step closer to being an atheist, well done! (jk)

but seriously, now you've got a bigger problem. If dogs ARE wolves, like you admit is the logical conclusion to wolves and dogs having babies together (you ARE saying you AGREE with this statement? You're not going to claim later you never said this?) - then:

* how come you don't like the chihuahuahs and great danes being the same "kind"

* how do you explain the "hybrids" you were so sure existed (or rather, now, the extremes between the sizes and shapes)

* and finally, why is a falabella not the same as a shire horse, if a chihuahuah is the same kind as a great dane?

you know, in all these 350+ messages, we are precisely zero steps closer to even the simplest definition of "kind" that you hold so dear, so exact, so perfect and so complete. In all the messages in all this entire board the only two statements I have heard about what a kind IS says "if they can have babies - however forced - they're the same kind". the only other statement is a sop that says "if they CAN'T have babies - they might STILL be the same kind" which is entirely useless.

So, please, honestly, Peg, ICANT, anyone, what IS and what IS NOT a kind and WHY, in a concise, scientific, falsifiable manner?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by ICANT, posted 01-04-2010 10:49 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by ICANT, posted 01-13-2010 3:08 PM greyseal has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 380 of 425 (542891)
01-13-2010 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by Iblis
01-07-2010 4:13 PM


Re: Kind
Hi Iblis,

Iblis writes:

The Hebrew word dag is what is translated as "fish" in Genesis 9:22, Numbers 11:22, First Kings 4:33, Second Chronicles 33:14, Nehemiah 3:3, 12:39, and 13:16, Job 12:8 and 41:7, Psalm 8:8, Ecclesiastes 9:12, Ezekiel 38:20, Hosea 4:3, Habakkuk 1:14, Zephaniah 1:3 and 10, and of course Jonah 1:17ff. Do all these uses really mean "sea monster"?

What does the Hebrew word dag translated fish have to do with the Hebrew word tanniyn translated whale?

Iblis writes:

This is talking about an actual sea monster, and expressing the idea that he can't be taken with tools suitable only for mere fish (dag).

The Hebrew word livyathan is transliterated into English as leviathan. It does mean sea monster, dragon or something else as the exact meaning is not known.

Iblish writes:

The Greek word ketos "cetacean" is commonly translated whale. As for example in the "Septuagint" version of Job 7:12 and Ezekiel 32:2, representing the Hebrew tanniyn. Is a tanniyn not a kind of dag? Is the Fish Gate in Jerusalem actually a Sea Monster gate?

Jonah was never in the belly of a whale. God prepared a "gadowl
dag" which is a very large fish. No whale, or sea monster just a very large fish of the fish kind.

Ketos is used one time in the NT in Matthew 12:40. There are other words for fish used in the NT.

But what does this have to do with different kinds?

All "kinds" that are present today was present prior to Genesis 1:2. With the exception of the only kinds created in Genesis 1:11-27 this sea monster whale kind in verse 21 and modern mankind in verse 27.

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 361 by Iblis, posted 01-07-2010 4:13 PM Iblis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by Iblis, posted 01-15-2010 3:05 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 381 of 425 (542892)
01-13-2010 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by hooah212002
01-10-2010 6:31 PM


Re: Kind
Hi hooah,

hooah writes:

I'll let you chew on those for a bit.

No

No

No

Nothing to compare to but a red X.

No thing has ever evolved into another thing. Even though some of those things may have mixed with other things creating hybrids.

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.

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 375 by hooah212002, posted 01-10-2010 6:31 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by hooah212002, posted 01-13-2010 3:41 PM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 382 of 425 (542893)
01-13-2010 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 377 by Chippo
01-11-2010 1:23 AM


Re: Kind
Hi Chippo,

Chippo writes:

You are saying goldfish is a fish kind because of the name we give it but you reject the jellyfish despite its name implying the same thing, so does the Jellyfish fall into another category if so in your opinion what would that be?

Actually the goldfish is of the goldfish kind.

A jellyfish is of he jellyfish kind.

Why does Biblical kinds have to be broken down like science wants to catalog everything?

God created every individual kind that existed prior to Genesis 1:2. From those kinds He called into existence things after their kind in Genesis 1:2-2:3.

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 377 by Chippo, posted 01-11-2010 1:23 AM Chippo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by Chippo, posted 01-15-2010 3:31 AM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 383 of 425 (542894)
01-13-2010 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by Vacate
01-11-2010 1:49 AM


Re: Kind
Hi Vacate,

Vacate writes:

Could you perhaps clarify this please?

From the article you cited:

quote:
Whereas Linnaeus classified for ease of identification, it is now generally accepted that classification should reflect the Darwinian principle of common descent.

It seems like todays classification is to prove evolution to me. Maybe you read this statement differently.

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 378 by Vacate, posted 01-11-2010 1:49 AM Vacate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by Coyote, posted 01-13-2010 2:36 PM ICANT has responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 273 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 384 of 425 (542895)
01-13-2010 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 383 by ICANT
01-13-2010 2:27 PM


Re: Kind
It seems like todays classification is to prove evolution to me. Maybe you read this statement differently.

You've read it backwards.

Evolution has been proved as much as any theory we have.

Classification is most useful when it reflects, rather than contradicts, that reality.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by ICANT, posted 01-13-2010 2:27 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by ICANT, posted 01-13-2010 3:16 PM Coyote has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 385 of 425 (542897)
01-13-2010 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by greyseal
01-11-2010 1:50 AM


Re: woah, totally missed this, ICANT, but...one remark?
Hi greyseal,

greyseal writes:

you're one step closer to being an atheist, well done! (jk)

Not in your wildest nightmare.

greyseal writes:

but seriously, now you've got a bigger problem. If dogs ARE wolves, like you admit is the logical conclusion to wolves and dogs having babies together (you ARE saying you AGREE with this statement? You're not going to claim later you never said this?)

I did not say dogs were wolves.

I said:

quote:
Domestic Dog is a creature that has been said in this thread is a wolf that has been domesticated by mankind.

If that is the case there is no such thing as dog. They are only domesticated wolves.

That rules out my dog kind and makes them only a wolf kind.


That "IF" just flew right over your head did it?

greyseal writes:

So, please, honestly, Peg, ICANT, anyone, what IS and what IS NOT a kind and WHY, in a concise, scientific, falsifiable manner?

A kind is any creature that existed prior to Genesis 1:2 which was some 6,000+ years BP.

What is not a kind is all the new creatures, and plants that have been created by modern mankind.

I think you will find my kind at the bottom of the species list in your scientific list. Even though there is no close agreement on the criteria to be used to determine species or sub-species. Which makes it just as hard to have a scientific answer as it does a Biblical one.

So "IF" a species is determined to be something that cannot reproduce a like thing and existed prior to Genesis 1:2 that would equal a Biblical KIND. Because these are what produced what we have today except the two creations in Genesis 1:20 and 27 along with all the things modern mankind has created from what exists today.

It that is not a satisfactory definition of Biblical KIND find another turkey to chase because this one is done.

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 379 by greyseal, posted 01-11-2010 1:50 AM greyseal has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 386 of 425 (542899)
01-13-2010 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by Coyote
01-13-2010 2:36 PM


Re: Kind
Hi Coyote,

Coyote writes:

You've read it backwards.

My quote.

quote:
Whereas Linnaeus classified for ease of identification, it is now generally accepted that classification should reflect the Darwinian principle of common descent.

We had Linnaeus classifications.

Along comes Darwin with his principle of common descent.

The NOW generally accepted classification should reflect Darwinian principle of common descent.

That means Linnaeus classifications had to be modified to reflect Darwins principle of common descent.

That means it was done to prove evolution, or at the least to testify to evolution being true. Take your choice, I made mine.

God Bless,

Edited by ICANT, : correct spelling


"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 384 by Coyote, posted 01-13-2010 2:36 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by Coyote, posted 01-13-2010 5:18 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 392 by Briterican, posted 01-14-2010 4:42 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by ICANT, posted 01-13-2010 4:24 PM hooah212002 has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 388 of 425 (542904)
01-13-2010 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 387 by hooah212002
01-13-2010 3:41 PM


Re: Kind
Hi hooah,

hooah writes:

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".

Not a thing wrong with the machine or software. Just was no picture of the thylacine kind. All the other pictures were fine but as big as they are they sure make the page load slow as I have 100 messages per page. It did begin to appear on my screen shortly after my post stating I had the red X.

hooah writes:

WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE!!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!

See Message 385 for where I draw the line.

hooah writes:

Continuity and a line is all we ask. Not "god made some kinds".

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.

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 387 by hooah212002, posted 01-13-2010 3:41 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by hooah212002, posted 01-13-2010 4:45 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 391 by hooah212002, posted 01-14-2010 12:38 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
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 yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 395 by Blue Jay, posted 01-15-2010 10:12 AM hooah212002 has responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 273 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 390 of 425 (542908)
01-13-2010 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 386 by ICANT
01-13-2010 3:16 PM


Re: Kind
That means Linnaeus classifications had to be modified to reflect Darwins principle of common descent.

The classifications were modified to better reflect reality. They were modified, in part, to reflect genetic data also.

That means it was done to prove evolution, or at the least to testify to evolution being true.

It was done to reflect new knowledge provided by the theory of evolution, not to prove that theory.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by ICANT, posted 01-13-2010 3:16 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 401 by ICANT, posted 01-15-2010 12:11 PM Coyote has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2425
26
272829Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019