Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others)
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


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 replied

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


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 replied

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

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


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 replied

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

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


Message 399 of 425 (543104)
01-15-2010 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by Chippo
01-15-2010 3:31 AM


Re: Kind
Hi Chippo,
Chippo writes:
I cannot speak directly for others but I want to see if there is a way "to break down these creatures and catalog them" because there needs to be some way we can put your idea of kinds to the test,
My kinds are already broken down into all the kinds that exist on the earth today. So how are you going to break them down any further.
Your aim is to trace everything back to a single cell life form. Which is impossible. If you think it is possible start with humans and go back step by step as far as you can go. Remember you would be doing science so there could be no missing information where you would have to make guesses or draw conclusions but you would have verifiable reproducable evidence. Lots of luck on than one.
Chippo writes:
if they cannot be put to the test then it isn't science.
I never said Biblical kinds was science. It is theology as it is taken from the Bible not a science book.
Chippo writes:
The Theory of Evolution says that dogs and whales for example have a common ancestor,
The Theory of Evolution does not say anything. Man interpets the ToE to say all kinds of things.
Science has so far in all experiments preformed to date proved that life produces life. In 150 year of experiments with the best equiptment and best scientist available no life has been created out of non life.
Now the Bible claims all life forms came from the same life form.
If all life forms came from one life form then they would all have the same ancestor.
So how about that the Bible says dogs and whales have a common ancestor. Does that mean they are the same kind or that they received life from the same life form?
Chippo writes:
while creation according to you suggests that they could not possibly be related because they are derived by two different kinds that are completely separate.
But I do believe they are related as they got their life from the same life form. I also believe they are different kinds even though the dog can swim.
Chippo writes:
how do we measure, study or even find such evidence to back up your assertion that animals of two 'kinds' cannot possibly be related?
But there was only one life giving life form which gave life to all the different kinds and since I have never asserted two kinds cannot possibly be related there could be no evidence for you to find to disprove your strawman, or something like that.
Conclusion:
It has been proven thus far by science that "non life" can not produce life.
It has been proven by science that "Life produces life".
All life forms on earth had to be produced by one life form, since science tells us every living thing has a common ancestor.
God is the only life form that has ever been presented that would be able to produce that life.
That life form gave us a record of how that was accomplished.
Science is still working on theirs.
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 394 by Chippo, posted 01-15-2010 3:31 AM Chippo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 410 by greyseal, posted 01-15-2010 1:28 PM ICANT has replied

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


Message 401 of 425 (543106)
01-15-2010 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by Coyote
01-13-2010 5:18 PM


Re: Kind
Hi Coyote,
Coyote writes:
It was done to reflect new knowledge provided by the theory of evolution, not to prove that theory.
So Linnaeus classifications was changed to say the same thing that the Theory of Evolution said.
That means the classifications of Linnaeus ceased to be the Linnaeus classifications.
They then became the classification of the ToE. Which just happen to agree with the Toe.
I get it now.
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 390 by Coyote, posted 01-13-2010 5:18 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 404 by Coyote, posted 01-15-2010 12:31 PM ICANT has replied

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


Message 409 of 425 (543119)
01-15-2010 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 404 by Coyote
01-15-2010 12:31 PM


Re: Kind
Hi Coyote,
Coyote writes:
No, I doubt that you do, or that you ever will.
Scientific classification:
Life, Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.
In the taxonomy of Linnaeus there are three kingdoms, divided into classes, and they, in turn, into orders, genera (singular: genus), and species (singular: species), with an additional rank lower than species.
Are those 2 the same? Yes/No
Wiki on Linnaeus taxonomy.
Wikipedia writes:
For Animals
Only in the Animal Kingdom is the higher taxonomy of Linnaeus still more or less recognizable and some of these names are still in use,
For Plants
His orders and classes of plants, according to his Systema Sexuale, were never intended to represent natural groups (as opposed to his ordines naturales in his Philosophia Botanica) but only for use in identification.
For Minerals
His taxonomy of minerals has dropped long since from use.
Rank-based scientific classification
This rank-based method of classifying living organisms was originally popularized by (and much later named for) Linnaeus, although it has changed considerably since his time.
Source
The system in use today is not the Linnaeus classifications.
If you disagree then present your evidence.
God Bless,
Edited by ICANT, : add source

"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 404 by Coyote, posted 01-15-2010 12:31 PM Coyote has not replied

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


Message 411 of 425 (543122)
01-15-2010 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 410 by greyseal
01-15-2010 1:28 PM


Re: You still haven't actually defined "kind"
Hi greyseal,
I will address some of this post.
greyseal writes:
abiogenesis and evolution have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with each other
But the beginning of life and how it got here has everything to do with kinds.
You can't have kinds unless you have life.
Then again you can not have evolution without life either.
greyseal writes:
the line for humans goes back in an unbroken line for several hundred thousand years, and in a broken line for several million. The line for the horse goes back similarly far into antiquity.
Would you care to start a thread and present evidence for a unbroken line of modern mankind and modern horse kind to back up this assertion.
greyseal writes:
gee whiz. Now your biblical "kinds" argument is made of even weaker sauce.
Why is it weak?
Does Science says all life has a common ancestor?
The Bible says all kinds came from one single ancestor that gave them life.
In fact the Bible said it at least 3,000 years before science did.
ABE After re-reading your message I have decided to stick a fork in this turkey as it is done.
God Bless,
Edited by ICANT, : add ABE

"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 410 by greyseal, posted 01-15-2010 1:28 PM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 412 by Rahvin, posted 01-15-2010 2:38 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 413 by Taq, posted 01-15-2010 2:53 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 414 by Briterican, posted 01-15-2010 3:14 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 415 by greyseal, posted 01-15-2010 5:25 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 416 of 425 (543165)
01-15-2010 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 412 by Rahvin
01-15-2010 2:38 PM


Re: KIND
Hi Rahvin,
Rahvin writes:
But then, two birds will always produce a bird. Two fish will always produce fish offspring.
No.
Only if the male can fertilize the egg of the female.
Rahvin writes:
Is there a Bird Kind? A Fish Kind?
There are a lot of different bird kinds.
There are a lot of different fish kinds.
I will try to clear this up for you.
In the beginning God created mankind, all plant life, all fowl of the air, and land creatures. There was no seas in the beginning therefore no fish were created then.
I would assume that when God cursed the earth with briars and thorns He also provided the pests.
I would also assume that God created seas and fish later because they existed at Genesis 1:21 as they were called forth after their kind. For that to happen they had to exist prior to being called forth.
These two assumptions are necessary as the Bible does not say.
Everything that exists today was called forth from a kind that existed prior to Genesis 1:2.
With the exception of modern man and whales who were created some 6,000+ years BP.
I think one of our biggest problems is that you believe the universe is only 13.7 billion years old with the earth only 4.5 billion years old.
When I believe they are infinitely old. That would put the creation of mankind, plants, animals and fowl infinitely into the past. There could have been trillions of each created in the infinite past as God did not stop creating until 6,000 years BP.
That would answer the question some have about what God was doing for eternity before he created the universe?
So If I have to sum up and try to nail down what I believe the Bible to say which really does not make one bit of difference in eternity I would say.
God created mankind. In mankind we have several different kinds.
God created animals (which includes everything in and on earth). In which there are many different kinds of animal critters.
God created fowl of the air. In which there are many different kinds.
God created water creatures. In which there are many different kinds.
Someone asked me how I would explain a duck kind to a first grader and I will answer that here.
I would take a picture of a drake followed by a female duck (hen) followed by their brood. I would tell them what kind of a duck was in the picture. I would explain that the drake was the father duck and the hen was the mother duck and the little ducklings were their babies. I would then tell them that these baby ducklings could only be produced by a Father duck and a mother duck and that the father duck and the mother duck would never produce anything but baby ducklings just like them.
It takes two largemouth bass to produce largemouth bass fingerlings.
It takes two small mouth bass to produce small mouth bass fingerlings.
So after all that I think I am defining kind as the same thing as a scientific species. Correct me if that conclusion is wrong.
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 412 by Rahvin, posted 01-15-2010 2:38 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 417 by Coyote, posted 01-15-2010 8:47 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 418 by Rahvin, posted 01-15-2010 8:55 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 423 by Arphy, posted 01-16-2010 5:50 AM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 419 of 425 (543174)
01-15-2010 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 414 by Briterican
01-15-2010 3:14 PM


Re: Life and Kinds
Hi Briterican,
Briterican writes:
You say you can't have kinds unless you have life. That almost implies that "life" was there before "kinds",
Can life come from non life?
If life can not come from non life then a life form of some kind had to produce the first life form on earth.
The Bible declares God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and he became a living being. Genesis 2:7
I can not find a better answer. Do you have one?
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 414 by Briterican, posted 01-15-2010 3:14 PM Briterican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 421 by anglagard, posted 01-15-2010 10:58 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 425 by Briterican, posted 01-16-2010 12:35 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