Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-21-2019 8:43 PM
22 online now:
DrJones*, edge (2 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,001 Year: 5,038/19,786 Month: 1,160/873 Week: 56/460 Day: 56/91 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
24252627
28
29Next
Author Topic:   Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others)
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 406 of 425 (543114)
01-15-2010 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 403 by New Cat's Eye
01-15-2010 12:31 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-15-2010 12:31 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 407 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-15-2010 12:59 PM hooah212002 has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 407 of 425 (543116)
01-15-2010 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 406 by hooah212002
01-15-2010 12:40 PM


Re: Kind
I can't see the pic. Work keeps things locked down pretty tight.

It was a joke. Can you just see it at the web location?:

http://www.mattcutts.com/images/duty_calls.png


This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by hooah212002, posted 01-15-2010 12:40 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 408 by hooah212002, posted 01-15-2010 1:08 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 408 of 425 (543117)
01-15-2010 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 407 by New Cat's Eye
01-15-2010 12:59 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-15-2010 12:59 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

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


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 yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1969 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 410 of 425 (543121)
01-15-2010 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 399 by ICANT
01-15-2010 12:00 PM


You still haven't actually defined "kind"
Hi ICANT.

Again. Honestly, you're as obtuse as SO and his batty geocentrism...I know this is a losing battle. the "special olympics" line comes to mind, but still...press on a wee bit.

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.

you say this, and yet you still have not uttered a single line explaining what a kind IS and IS NOT. Your name, it seems, is well suited because UCANT do it. You proclaim loudly about the infinite wisdom of god and his ability to create "Kinds" yet you apparently have no idea how you define them, despite assuring us of the fidelity of their existence and the uselessness of the taxonomy system we use today.

You even went back on your weaselly words about dogs and wolves when I called you on it. I'm disappointed. Rather than sticking with your "I'm right and you're all wrong" line you mumbled an "if" out of one side of your mouth whilst shouting "never!" from the other. Quite a trick.

But press on.

I never said Biblical kinds was science. It is theology as it is taken from the Bible not a science book.

then, my dear sir, you are in the wrong thread. This is what annoys me about you IDiots, because you belat about wanting to "teach the controversy" in SCIENCE classrooms - when there is none. They tell us how unworthy and useless science is - when at the same time their own pet theory is a wet fart more than an explosion of shock and awe.

When - if - you ever have something useful to teach about kinds (like their actual definition) then by all means write it up like hundreds of thousands of patient, dedicated scientists have done and overturn the world's knowledge.

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.

I don't get this. see, you ask for flawless, unbroken lines of information from scientists - when talking about billions of years and multiple theories (once again, abiogenesis and evolution have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with each other - have you got this simple fact into your brain yet?) - and yet your own pet theory is less than useless. It is, infact, anti-knowledge. It is a poisoned chalice. Not only does it offer no knowledge but it stifles real investigation and discovery because you claim to know EVERYTHING and offer precisely nothing.

You IDiots cannot even agree on whether a dog or a wolf is the same kind or not, yet you claim to know everything.

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.

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.

And what can you offer? no evidence for a global flood. no evidence for a single race of humans evolving into blacks, whites, reds and yellows. no evidence for anything - even the pre-flood and post-flood worlds in your own book and the people and places in it are essentially identical.

you can't even find a boat on a mountain - a boat big enough to hold every single "kind" of animal (whatever that meaningless term is).

The "aim" of ToE has nothing to do with finding a single-celled common ancestor for everybody and everything - the ToE would be perfectly adequate an explanation for the change you claim can't happen (even whilst talking about a world full of "hybrids" - nice going, do your sneakers really taste that nice?) even if your theological view of the universe was correct.

Once again, abiogenesis has nothing to do with the ToE. Stellar evolution, the big bang, planet formation - none of this is in the ToE.

The Theory of Evolution does not say anything. Man interpets the ToE to say all kinds of things.

Man interprets the Bible 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.

Oh, attention everyone! attention! sorry, sorry, ICANT has declared the 150 years or so we've had is enough. we can't possibly learn anything more in any longer time. all scientists go home.

despite the fact that nobody seriously believes that we can create life from non-life, or do anything or the sort in the lab in less time that several million years and several billion chemical experiments, we have to declare that because of this one teeny problem (which is in no way related to the ToE) that the ToE has to be rendered completely null and void, despite it's predictive power.

Sorry, it's all or nothing if it's scientific, or vague suggestions of possibly having something correct if it's the bible. The lower standards for ignorance win, sorry guys.

Your crack about "from the same life form" is amazing, because it implies that god would stand up and say "all your base pairs are belong to me" - and yet you don't agree with the facts that ERV's and the like tell us about human and ape co-evolution. Apparently you get to pick and choose which orifice you talk from depending on which set of facts you mention that day.

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.

I do believe the dog and whale are related as they both evolved from a common ancestor. I also believe that they are different species, even though the dog can swim.

and more than that, I can demonstrate why and how. Can you?

...I have never asserted two kinds cannot possibly be related...

so, kinds are kinds. dogs are dogs. wolves are wolves. wolves aren't dogs and vice-versa. but different kinds can be related.

gee whiz. Now your biblical "kinds" argument is made of even weaker sauce. I can at least tell you why a shark and a dog cannot possibly be the same species. but you can't, other than saying "it's obvious" and babbling something about one breathing underwater.

dude, you must - really, you MUST - decide whether you believe in hyper-evolution (few kinds on a realistic ark EXPLODE in diversity over a thousand years, maximum, such that cats must have been giving birth to nematodes and so on), no-evolution (all kinds, everywhere, ever, on a tardis-like ark which could never have been built) or "what" - but you can't even tell me what a kind is, so hey, you'll never explain.

It has been proven thus far by science that "non life" can not produce life.

you lie.

It has been proven by science that "Life produces life".

despite the meaninglessness of this statement, it's the closest you've got in your whole post to something true.

All life forms on earth had to be produced by one life form, since science tells us every living thing has a common ancestor.

I could say you are lying, but instead I will say you are just ignorant. science does not tell us this. It is the inference we make, but we cannot be sure at this time whether all life on earth is from one single abiogenetic event.

God is the only life form that has ever been presented that would be able to produce that life.

you are lying or ignorant, unless you truly believe that god is cyanobacteria. or midiclorians.

That life form gave us a record of how that was accomplished.

You'd like to think so, but it doesn't. It's just a list of "god waved his arms and POOF!". It doesn't explain how, when or where. Or why. we only have the what, and a tiny, teeny part of the "what" at that, unless you believe that the bible mentions all umteembillion species of beetle...

Science is still working on theirs.

Edited by greyseal, : wonderful. the net.monster ate part of my post!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by ICANT, posted 01-15-2010 12:00 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 411 by ICANT, posted 01-15-2010 1:52 PM greyseal has responded

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


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 responded

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

    
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1294 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 412 of 425 (543125)
01-15-2010 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 411 by ICANT
01-15-2010 1:52 PM


Re: You still haven't actually defined "kind"
Hi ICANT,

All I want is a description of how you determine what kind a given creature belongs to. Nothing more. If you say "I look in the Bible and see what it says," I'll accept that, even though obviously the Bible doesn;t spend much time classifying living things.

The Bible says that God created all of the fruit-bearing plants, all of the creeping things and beasts of the Earth, the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea.

Are those kinds, ICANT? Is a duck of the Duck Kind, or the Bird Kind? Both? What differentiates a bird from a creeping thing? From a fish? From a fruit-bearing plant?

We're working without definitions here, ICANT. Explain it as if you would to a 1st-grade child. How do I know that animal x is a duck, and animal [i]y[/y] is a dog?

The general sense that I get from you is that "kinds" are basically populations of animals that bred true. As you say, two dogs will always produce a dog.

But then, two birds will always produce a bird. Two fish will always produce fish offspring. Is there a Bird Kind? A Fish Kind? Or is your definition of Kinds "any population that can interbreed to produce viable offspring, but which cannot do so with other populations?" This would be more like the species level - since a duck and a finch cannot interbreed, there can be no Bird Kind, but rather there are a Duck Kind and a Finch Kind.

How do you tell the difference between a duck and a finch?

Modern taxonomy uses physical morphology. For instance:

quote:
“Primates” are collectively defined as any gill-less, organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally-symmetrical, endothermic, digestive, tryploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelemate with a spinal chord and 12 cranial nerves connecting to a limbic system in an enlarged cerebrial cortex with a reduced olfactory region inside a jawed-skull with specialized teeth including canines and premolars, forward-oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits, and a single temporal fenestra, -attached to a vertebrate hind-leg dominant tetrapoidal skeleton with a sacral pelvis, clavical, and wrist & ankle bones; and having lungs, tear ducts, body-wide hair follicles, lactal mammaries, opposable thumbs, and keratinized dermis with chitinous nails on all five digits on all four extremities, in addition to an embryonic development in amniotic fluid, leading to a placental birth and highly social lifestyle.

I copied that bit directly from Aronra of Youtube, whose Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism series is a very well-made set of videos. Recommended viewing for all.

But the point is that the physical features of an organism are used to determine how we classify them in science.

Is that what you do as well? I mean, we can all (I hope) recognize a dog and a horse on sight and distinguish between the two - we learn the difference at such a young age that we find it difficult to even put into words the methodology we use to do so. But the fact is that we're observing the physical characteristics of the two animals and matching them up to what we know about dogs and horses. We know, if we think about it, that horses and dogs have the same number of limbs, for example, but completely different foot strictures. The shape of their skulls both include elongated snouts, but are very different in their specific shape, such that even if you were only presented with a picture of each animal's head you's still easily be able to distinguish between the two. Their teeth are different. Their eyes are different. Their shape is very generically similar, specifically very different and easy to distinguish.

Do we agree that the way we determine what a given organism is, is by its physical characteristics when we observe it, and how those characteristics match our definitions for named creatures? Or do you have a different methodology? If so, can you please explain it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by ICANT, posted 01-15-2010 1:52 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 416 by ICANT, posted 01-15-2010 8:26 PM Rahvin has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7694
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 413 of 425 (543128)
01-15-2010 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 411 by ICANT
01-15-2010 1:52 PM


Re: You still haven't actually defined "kind"
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.

Why would we need to? They are both in the mammal kind.

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.

Science does not say that all life has a common ancestor. The evidence says this, and this evidence has been around since the beginning of life, 3.5 billion years before the Bible was written.

You also forget that the map is not the territory. The menu is not the meal. A book can claim that the Earth is a cube, but the Earth will not transform into a cube upon reading the book. There is this thing out there called reality, and it describes itself.

So in reality, where do we find these divisions in kinds? Anywhere? For example, what genetic markers should not be shared by species from different kinds, and why? What mixtures of characteristics should we not see in living and fossil species, and why? If you can't explain these things then you have no way of knowing if two species belong to the same kind or not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by ICANT, posted 01-15-2010 1:52 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 2056 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 414 of 425 (543130)
01-15-2010 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 411 by ICANT
01-15-2010 1:52 PM


Re: You still haven't actually defined "kind"
Hi ICANT

ICANT writes:

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."

You say you can't have kinds unless you have life. That almost implies that "life" was there before "kinds", otherwise you're just talking in circles, kinds require life, life requires kinds. Where did that life come from? You say God, based on scripture.

As evolution (the ToE specifically) deals with life, then you need life to begin with, yes. Where did that life come from? We admit that we don't know, but there are many promising lines of enquiry into the matter through science, and these do not have the "cop-out" of an intelligent designer who defies explanation.

I believe the day will come when we can demonstrate processes in which "non-living" matter can become "living" given naturally occuring circumstances. The ToE doesn't address abiogenesis, but neither does the big bang theory address where the unverse came from.

Rest assured, scientists have been busily pushing on with these sort of enquiries, giving those of us who live in the last generation or two a glimpse of the first millisecond at the edge of time.

Some of the incredulity expressed by some of the creationists here has to be based in either a disbelief in the age of the universe (in the case of the big bang), or the earth (in the case of the ToE), or a dramatically inadequate appreciation of this vast expanse of time.

As to the topic specifically again... as so many have pointed out, you still haven't given us what we are asking for: a definition for kind.

Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by ICANT, posted 01-15-2010 1:52 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 419 by ICANT, posted 01-15-2010 9:07 PM Briterican has responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1969 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 415 of 425 (543147)
01-15-2010 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 411 by ICANT
01-15-2010 1:52 PM


Re: You still haven't actually defined "kind"
greyseal writes:

gee whiz. Now your biblical "kinds" argument is made of even weaker sauce.

Why is it weak?

because, according to you (and others):

*) kinds breed true (dogs always make dogs, horses always make horses) - although you nixed that description when you decided that dogs and wolves are different kinds BUT CAN MAKE HYBRIDS, so we still can't tell what animals ARE the same kind (same kinds breed - different kinds breed, where's the beef?)

*) two different animals that CANT breed together might STILL be the same kind - so we still don't know what animals are NOT the same kind (different kinds don't breed, SAME kinds might not - where's the beef?)

*) two different kinds can be "related" - although I'm not sure what that means given that, related or not, they may or may not be able to breed, so we still can't tell which animals are WHICH kind (different kinds - although different - are "similar", so...where's the beef?)

to recap, you:

* don't know what is a kind
* don't know what isn't a kind
* have no clear way of dividing two kinds even if you clear up unequivocally the first two

good job! your turkey is a damp squib. that's a kind of failure. You have provided less than nothing to your cause.

Does Science says all life has a common ancestor?

as has been pointed out to you and others many, many painful times, science doesn't tell us this. the EVIDENCE tells us this - but doesn't prove it. When better evidence comes along that tells us a different and even more complete story that fits all the FACTS, the story you'll hear from scientists may be different (but please, if you think flat earth to round earth to heliocentric earth means that the round earth idea was wrong because it was incomplete, you're a bigger fool than I take you for - the amount of "wrongness" decreases with each jump, it does not invalidate the previous theory completely, for example, the Earth IS flat when you're close enough to it!).

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.

no, it does not, it never has and it never will. The bible says god created everything, NOT that all kinds came from a single ancestor. The ONLY theory that says that is a conclusion tentatively reached from the ToE based on all the evidence we've got about life that we have, from cyanobacteria in 3.5 billion year old rocks, up through early fishes, to tetrapods, to the dinosaurs and finally to us through several lineages of proto-humans, only one of which gave rise to us.

stop trying to grasp those straws that you are sure prove the bible is a better science than that produced by real scientists using the scientific method - you said it quite clearly yourself earlier - it is NOT science it is theology. That is ALL it is - this thread WAS an attempt to get IDiots to put their money where their mouth is and show us HOW their faith is scientific.

almost 400 messages later and the simplest of arguments you IDiots have amongst yourselves still hasn't been solved, and the simplest question is not one tiny step closer to having any sort of useful answer.

The only thing that is clear so far is that IDiots should not be allowed in the science classroom until they have something of scientific merit to present.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by ICANT, posted 01-15-2010 1:52 PM ICANT has not yet responded

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


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 responded

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

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 213 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 417 of 425 (543169)
01-15-2010 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 416 by ICANT
01-15-2010 8:26 PM


Re: KIND
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.

We can't correct you on this, as you are providing the biblical definition for "kind" (at long last!).

But we can point out that if kinds=species then the ark would have been awfully crowded! In fact, impossibly crowded.

And this is not even counting the stray Brontosaurus or two and all their cousins and in-laws that some believe were taken along for the ride!

---------

Q. What's harder than getting a pregnant Brontosaurus in the ark?

A. Getting a Brontosaurus pregnant in the ark!

(Noah! Make them stop. I'm getting seasick!)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by ICANT, posted 01-15-2010 8:26 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 420 by anglagard, posted 01-15-2010 9:14 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1294 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 418 of 425 (543172)
01-15-2010 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 416 by ICANT
01-15-2010 8:26 PM


Re: KIND
Hi ICANT,

I think we're making progress here. That's a pleasant change for you and I.

There are a lot of different bird kinds.

There are a lot of different fish kinds.

Okay. So "fish" is not a kind, but "bass" and "tuna" and "minnow" are kinds?

Is that correct?

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.

I;m trying to be very, very specific here ICANT, because I really think we can talk about kinds and how we identify organisms without talking about the age of the Universe, the origin of life, or any of the other things that you and I will just never agree on.

I think a tuna is a tuna whether tuna have been around for billions of years or twenty minutes, whether they evolved or were created by a deity. Don't you agree?

God created mankind. In mankind we have several different kinds.

I;m rather curious about this one. I thought you considered mankind to be one distinct kind. Now you say we have sub-kinds? Are you talking about races? If so, I'm curious as to why you'd identify human races as different kinds, but identify all dogs as one single kind.

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.

Alright. I can fit this pretty easily into my unerstanding of taxonmy. "Fowl of the air" would be feathered animals, typically with hard beaks, hollow bone structure, etc. Within that very broad definition, we have individual kinds like ducks and hawks and eagles. Is that correct?

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.

And what if the child pointed to a picture of a pellican, which looks vaguely similar to a duck? Or a swan? If the child asked you "How do I tell what's a duck and what's a pellican or a swan, if I just find one and don;t have someone to tell me," what would your response be?

My respnse would be that I distinguish between a pellican and a duck because of the easily observed physical differences. I'd tell the child "Well, these animals are similar, but they are also different. They are both birds, because they have feathers, lay eggs, fly, etc. The both swim in the water and eat fish. But ducks don't have the same type of bill that pellicans have - that big scoop-shaped part. Their bills are also of very different sizes compared to the rest of the body. Pellicans tend to be much larger than ducks, as well."

Is that something like what your respnse would be?

It takes two largemouth bass to produce largemouth bass fingerlings.

It takes two small mouth bass to produce small mouth bass fingerlings.

Of course.

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.

Close to it.

It seems to me that you identify organisms by "just looking." You've seen so many horses and dogs, for example, that you don't need to think about it to be able to tell the difference.

The science of taxonomy just specifies what we're doing in the blink of an eye - defining the very specific physical characteristics that distinguish one "kind" from other "kinds," even ones that are very similar. You and I can both immediately tell a dog from a horse, but if we were writing a taxonomy paper, we would point out the morphological differences - hooves vs. paws, for example - that distinguish the two "kinds."

I think you do the same thing.

The reason I'm taking the time to discuss this with you in such fine detail is because I think it's the only way we can avoid the evolution/creation stuff and actually agree on some basics, and because it was always possible that you tried to use the Bible to specifically enumerate all of the "kinds" in existence. It doesn't look like you do that, fortunately.

What do you think? Are we pretty much in agreement at this point?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by ICANT, posted 01-15-2010 8:26 PM ICANT has not yet responded

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


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 responded

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

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2185
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 420 of 425 (543175)
01-15-2010 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 417 by Coyote
01-15-2010 8:47 PM


Re: KIND
Coyote writes:

We can't correct you on this, as you are providing the biblical definition for "kind" (at long last!).

But we can point out that if kinds=species then the ark would have been awfully crowded! In fact, impossibly crowded.

And this is not even counting the stray Brontosaurus or two and all their cousins and in-laws that some believe were taken along for the ride!

Way back in the past (the early 70s) I read somewhere that if the purported ark was to hold all species known back then it would have had to have been scaled up to 60 miles long.

Strange that the rules of Leviticus and Deuteronomy become metaphor for convenience while Genesis becomes science due to a simple minded and fundamentally unchristian jealousy of the educated.


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
— Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 417 by Coyote, posted 01-15-2010 8:47 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 422 by Chippo, posted 01-16-2010 3:03 AM anglagard has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
24252627
28
29Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019