|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What "kind" are penguins? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6353 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
Okay, then how do we know if an animal is an original animal or a not? That was pretty much where I was hoping to go with this in discussions with Faith. In subsequent messages she has said that my definitions are good and in her opinion it is unlikely that any original kinds survived even as long as the Flood. This means the original kind vs. member of kind distinction is probably moot as far as living animals are concerned. It is - presumably - still an issue as far as fossils are concerned but I have absolutely no idea how you'd go about deciding whether a given fossil is an original kind or a member. I'd even venture a guess that it isn't possible - maybe Faith has some ideas. Ah - just thought The other place where it might be of interest is in ancient DNA. All we have to do is work out how "greater genetic potential" manifests itself in the genome and we can at least work out if the ancient DNA is closer to an original kind than a modern animal. Oops! Wrong Planet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
This passage certainly suggests that, at least by Moses's time, there were more than one Kind of hawk, of raven, of kite, and of heron. Also, Owl appears to be distinct from Little Owl or Great Owl, as are Eagle and Gier Eagle. in the last "kind" thread, i analyzed a few of the biblical kinds, and found it to be loosely and colloquially equivalent to family. though looking at your reference, mine was hardly exhaustive in the bird area. perhaps i will co-op the bird part, and finish it here. but i doubt that's neccessary.
Penguins aren't mentioned, but is it possible that they are a Fowl That Creeps, Going Upon All Four? (sounds like reading Winnie the Pooh, doesn't it?) I sure can't think of any other birds that could even get nominated for that Kind/those Kinds - kiwis and ostriches go strictly on All Twos to the best of my knowledge. Auks and puffins, maybe.... i suspect that "going on all fours" is an idiom for being flightless. though it's really, really hard to tell -- locusts go on all fours, too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Okay, then how do we know if an animal is an original animal or a not? Let's say we're teaching this in a biology class - I'm giving a test. How do students sort it out Why do you all keep on insisting on having information that simply is not available? If we can't know we simply can't know. If there is no answer yet that's just a fact, that's life. Surely there is room in science for the unanswered question. Perhaps genome studies will eventually answer it. WHY DO YOU NEED TO KNOW?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Surely there is room in science for the unanswered question Yes, but not "unanswerable questions". I think it's a big cop out to simply say that you can't describe the animals in the world, and won't even try. What vowels were original vowels? Can we teach English in school?What numbers were original numbers? Can we teach Math in school? I mean, from what you are saying, Noah could have taken 2 of every animal - and only had 6 animals with him total. 2 original members of the "small kind"2 original members of the "medium kind" 2 original members of the "large kind" How is this useful to our understanding?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It seems like neither you nor I have a solid understanding of what people mean by "kind". THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW FOR SURE WHAT THE ORIGINAL KINDS WERE!!! All we know is that God created original kinds that had no ancestors. The word is used in a rather casual way in scripture and in different contexts and is not very useful for scientific purposes, but it's ALL we know. Everything else is a guess, hopefully an intelligent or educated guess but just a guess.
If all the Creationists/IDrs are merely guessing at animal classification, why are they even asking to be considered for education? Surely science doesn't demand answers to questions it simply doesn't have. What kind of nonsense is this?
It seems to me that if a group wants it possition considered seriously, they should maybe develop the idea to the point where their own supporters understand the system. Well, I for one have no hope of its being taken seriously. The prejudice is deep and hostile. I am not a supporter of Creationism in the schools. Forcing something on the majority is a bad thing to try to do, and Christians need to be free to teach without the pressure of public opinion too. I want to see Bible-inerrantist Christians leave the public schools. Why do you call it a "system?" Mostly creationism is a fairly recent attempt to try to answer evolutionist claims based on science that debunk the flood and the special creation of human beings and animals. What is to be taught is the various interpretations of the facts, and that includes the evolutionist interpretation.
I mean, if I was pushing a new type of math but couldn't sort out even and odd numbers, should people still "teach the contraversy"? I would think you could make a LITTLE effort to put yourself in the place of a creationist on this. But I suppose we're all such loonies you can't make the effort. Too bad. I hope what I've said above is somewhat clarifying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes, but not "unanswerable questions". If what you have ARE in fact unanswerable questions then that is science too. Perhaps they will be eventually answerable. No science can possibly know such things in advance. You are making ridiculously unrealistic demands. We know there were original kinds. That's all the facts we have at the moment. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2284 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
We know there were original kinds. That's that.
How can you possibly know that? Its all in the past, which as you've claimed multiple times, is unknowable. Your position is simply based on an interpretation of the evidence, its not fact and can't ever be claimed to be fact. Just a monkey in a long line of kings. If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
We know there were original kinds. That's that.
How can you possibly know that? Its all in the past, which as you've claimed multiple times, is unknowable. Your position is simply based on an interpretation of the evidence, its not fact and can't ever be claimed to be fact. What the Bible says is fact. That's basic YEC. We don't have to rely on our own scientific reconstructions to know that much, as evos rely completely on such reconstructions for their entire theory. Good thing we're here in TC&I instead of science, where hopefully this sort of statement is not up for debate. If it is, then it's just more of the same old same old and we'll never get anywhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
What the Bible says is fact. but we can't actually determine what the bible means when it says something?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well YECs have no problem determining what the Bible means in Genesis. Perhaps the only way we are going to be able to deal with this incessant debate about basic things is to give a list of assumptions for a particular thread that are to be unquestioned for that thread. The YEC assumptions about Genesis should be that for this thread, it seems to me, and the debate about them should be taken elsewhere. However I didn't start the thread so somebody else can call the assumptions. I'm not into debating them here however. I'm trying to answer the questions from the YEC point of view.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2284 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
What the Bible says is fact.
Good thing we're here in TC&I instead of science, where hopefully this sort of statement is not up for debate. If it is, then it's just more of the same old same old and we'll never get anywhere. I don't see the word "Christian" anywhere in the forum title so yes "What the Bible says is fact" is up for debate. For example Odin the Allfather just apparated into my living room and told me that the Bible was full of crap and that what science has it right. Just a monkey in a long line of kings. If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
As I recall, this thread addresses the YEC view of Kinds, so the YEC assumptions, being the basis of this view, should be unquestioned for the duration of this thread IMHO -- you know, for the sake of order and clarity -- as I also just said in Message 40. You are welcome to start your own thread to argue the merits of Odin's revelation.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Why should your interpretation of the Bible carry more weight then mine? On a thread addressed to YEC thinking it would simply break down into chaos to bring in other interpretations of the Bible. Really, it would be off topic. It's another subject. And endlessly questioning each other's assumptions makes it impossible for any discussion to progress beyond the basics. It's like having to reinvent the wheel every time we try to develop our ideas. There are plenty of places where the assumptions are argued to death as it is. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
But I have yet to hear a really concrete definition of "kind".
You won't hear one. It is quite obvious, when reading the Bible, that "kind" simply means all of the creatures that go by the same name, using the folk naming conventions from that era.
Is "Penguin" a kind?
No, it isn't. That's because no name had been assigned to penguins by that culture. Nobody involved in the authorship of the Bible had ever seen a penguin. Since there was no name for that group of birds, they were not a kind.
What the thought process, if any, involved in Creationist classification?
The creationist "kind" is not the same as the biblical "kind". To a creationist, the term "kind" is used for obfuscation and deception (particularly self-deception).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024