EvC Forum: What "kind" are penguins?

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: What "kind" are penguins?

jar

Member (Idle past 423 days)

Posts: 34026

From: Texas!!

Joined: 04-20-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 14 of 83 (328972)
07-05-2006 1:25 PM

Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
07-05-2006 1:18 PM

Re: Were there only kinds pre-Flood?

However it works, Noah's sons and their wives had all it took to propagate the entire human population since then, and all of us now living descend from them.

What is your explanation for blue eyes, green eyes, brown eyes and hazel eyes? I imagine that you believe that Noah's children were descended from Noah and his wife, is that correct?

AbE: forgot grey eyes.

Edited by jar, : No reason given.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
	Message 13 by Faith, posted 07-05-2006 1:18 PM		Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 15 by Faith, posted 07-05-2006 1:40 PM		jar has replied

jar

Member (Idle past 423 days)

Posts: 34026

From: Texas!!

Joined: 04-20-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 18 of 83 (328981)
07-05-2006 1:56 PM

Reply to: Message 15 by Faith
07-05-2006 1:40 PM

Re: Were there only kinds pre-Flood?

You had said:

Faith writes:

However it works, Noah's sons and their wives had all it took to propagate the entire human population since then, and all of us now living descend from them.

so your answer, while interesting really doesn't address the question. If we are going to get into mutation and selection as the cause of the variations we now see, then it is obvious that the originals did not have the genes needed and variation is the result of evolution.

I happen to think that is a great explanation, however the time line YECs propose is way too short to account for all the variation seen without invocing super-mega-hyper-macroevolution.

so again, what is the model for kind?

How can we answer the question in the OP about Penguins? What characteristics would let us place Penguins into some kind?

they breathe air.
they walk on two legs.
they have feathers.
they have scales.
they lay eggs.
they are carnivorous.
they swim.
they mate in bonded pairs.
they share duties during hatching.
they show protective behaviors.
they can't fly.
they do not build nests.
they cannot run.
they live in social colonies.
they exhibit herd behavior.

So which characteristics could be used to classify Penguins as a kind?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
	Message 15 by Faith, posted 07-05-2006 1:40 PM		Faith has not replied

jar

Member (Idle past 423 days)

Posts: 34026

From: Texas!!

Joined: 04-20-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 43 of 83 (329081)
07-05-2006 8:48 PM

Reply to: Message 40 by Faith
07-05-2006 8:43 PM

Presenting cases.

The YEC assumptions about Genesis should be that for this thread, it seems to me, and the debate about them should be taken elsewhere.

Why?

From a theological basis there are many of us who are Bible believers but also understand that it was written by men of a given era, given culture and that it is meant as a theological tome, not as a science book.

Why should your interpretation of the Bible carry more weight then mine?

AbE:

We both believe that GODdidit. The difference is in how GOD did it. I believe that GOD did it over about 14+ billion years and through evolution. You can present your model of How GOD did it, I can present my model of How GOD did it.

Edited by jar, : fix subtitle and add model info.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
	Message 40 by Faith, posted 07-05-2006 8:43 PM		Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 44 by Faith, posted 07-05-2006 9:00 PM	jar has replied
	Message 46 by MangyTiger, posted 07-05-2006 9:08 PM	jar has not replied

jar

Member (Idle past 423 days)

Posts: 34026

From: Texas!!

Joined: 04-20-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 48 of 83 (329089)
07-05-2006 9:13 PM

Reply to: Message 44 by Faith
07-05-2006 9:00 PM

Re: because it's off topic

Well, not off topic at all IMHO and I believe an important point. You have every opportunity to make the best possible case, to present the YEC model, but that does not or should not exempt it from being challenged both theologically and scientifically.

If YECs are going to claim that there is some real thing called KIND, then it should be one that can be determined.

Let me ask a few questions which hopefully will lead us towards the topic.

First, do you agree that the YEC model must conclude that everything living today is descended from critters that were on the Ark?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
	Message 44 by Faith, posted 07-05-2006 9:00 PM		Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 49 by Faith, posted 07-05-2006 10:03 PM		jar has not replied

jar

Member (Idle past 423 days)

Posts: 34026

From: Texas!!

Joined: 04-20-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 66 of 83 (329403)
07-06-2006 2:06 PM

Reply to: Message 62 by deerbreh
07-06-2006 1:50 PM

Re: Identifying the kinds is NOT possible! Sorry.

The problem is that the idea of Kinds just can't be supported at any level of specificity.

The closest thing to a reasonable approach is the idea of Bariminology. Like so many other approaches this suffers from the assumption that the term Kind actually had some specific meaning to the authors of the Bible other than a simplistic grouping or ordering of critters as seen at the time.

In accomplishing the goal of separating parts of polybaramins, partitioning apobaramins, building monobaramins and characterizing holobaramins, a taxonomist needs guidelines for deciding what belongs to a particular monobaraminic branch. These standards will vary depending upon the groups being considered, but general guidelines which have been utilized include:

1. Scripture claims (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations. For example humans are a separate holobaramin because they separately were created (Genesis 1 and 2). However, even as explained by Wise in his 1990 oral presentation, there is not much relevant taxonomic information in the Bible. Also, ReMine’s discontinuity systematics, because it is a neutral scientific enterprise, does not include the Bible as a source of taxonomic information.

from Creation Research Guidelines for Baraminology

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
	Message 62 by deerbreh, posted 07-06-2006 1:50 PM		deerbreh has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

2 online now:	Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Percy (Admin)
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,903 Year: 4,160/9,624 Month: 1,031/974 Week: 358/286 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0