Message 91 of 100 (691621) 02-23-2013 11:18 AM

Reply to: Message 88 by Eli 02-22-2013 8:17 PM

What part of: "ONE OR OTHER OF THE KINGDON-LEVEL CLASSIFICATIONS IS STILL WIDELY EMPLOYED AS A USEFUL WAY OF GROUPING ORGANISMS"... don't you hard heads understand???
.
.
.
.

Message 92 of 100 (691623) 02-23-2013 11:35 AM

Reply to: Message 87 by DBlevins 02-22-2013 4:48 PM

If you don't believe my version then you opt to insist that the Bible does not correspond with scientific facts, while if you do accept my comparisons with what science says, tne scripture is amazingly correct about things like "all the water gathered together into one place" as part of the geological history of the Earth found in the six rock layers that corrpond to the six days of creation in Genesis.

Supporting that this first gathering together took place with Rodinia, during the late Archean and early Proterozoic eras is that this would correpond to the Third "day" in Genesis:

Neo-archean evening of the Archaean Era-

… and the Paleo-proterozoic morning of the Proterozoic Era/ = Third Day

Message 93 of 100 (691631) 02-23-2013 12:44 PM

Reply to: Message 91 by kofh2u 02-23-2013 11:18 AM

What part of "the Linneus model is not employed whatsoever becuase it has been found to be in error and thus, useless to tell us anything about the natural relationships of living things to each other" don't YOU understand?

Besides that, when the 2 Kingdom system was in use, bacteria were classified as an animal.

Their discoverer, Leeuwenhoek, wrote a letter to the Royal Society in 1676 which began “In the year of 1675 I difcover’d living creatures in Rain water which had stood but a few day in a new tub, that was painted blue within.1 This observation provoked me to investigate this water more narrowly; and especially because these little animals were, to my eye, more than ten thousand times smaller than the animalcule which Swam-meidam' has portrayed, and called by the name of Water-flea. or Water-louse, which yon can see alive and moving in water with the bare eye.”

He referred to bacteria as "creatures" that he called "animalcules" and compared to tiny insects.

Linneaus, himself, designated "animalcules" (bacteria) as a type of insect, namely a coccus in Systema Naturae and John Hill of Petersborough included the bacteria microlife in his book "A History of Animals": a treatise written in 1752.

The study of bacteria in the time of the 2 Kingdom System was a study of entomology.

If we are going to apply your 2 Kingdom theory to the bible, we will apply it consistently. In the 2 kingdom system, bacteria fall in the "Animalia" category. So, the first living things, according to the system that you insist upon using, were animals.

So the bible is still wrong, even using the 2 kingdom system.

Message 94 of 100 (691664) 02-23-2013 7:29 PM

Reply to: Message 90 by kofh2u 02-23-2013 11:09 AM

Stop making up stuff and assigning it to me.

I haven't argued any such thing. Your two proposals are not the only options. I can easily think of several others. My personal belief, which I have not made any attempt to argue for, is that the flood story is meant to describe man's relation to God, and that the story need not be true to accomplish that goal.

No I'm not.

Message 95 of 100 (691668) 02-23-2013 8:13 PM

Reply to: Message 93 by Eli 02-23-2013 12:44 PM

Not according to he scientists who say "ONE OR OTHER OF THE KINGDON-LEVEL CLASSIFICATIONS IS STILL WIDELY EMPLOYED AS A USEFUL WAY OF GROUPING ORGANISMS"...

... and who add "not withstanding problems with this approach, such as Bacteria,... which are rejected by the phylogenetic classification systems."

But the point is that the Bible writers were not electing which Kingdom applied to Genesis, but simply never mentioning anything but Plants and Animals which we therefore realize is using the Two Kingdom System, NOT CERTIFYING IT nor recommendeing it.

Message 96 of 100 (691669) 02-23-2013 8:33 PM

Reply to: Message 94 by NoNukes 02-23-2013 7:29 PM

Of course it is that too.

It is a divinely revealed piece of information that corresponds one-to-one with the extinction of all other kinds of men that os=ccurred 40 thousand years ago.

That coorespondence is no coincidence.
The previous chapters in Genesis, 4, and 5, tell us of the 22 previous humanoids that actually correspond to those 22 now extinct humans which is also factually true.

This is no coincidence either.

Genesis tells us that there was hybridizations before the "flood of modern man Out-of-Africa."
That too is true, since we all carry the genes of Neanderthal man today.

That is no coincidence.

The whole tale corresponds directly with what science is telling us today.
The ONLY axiom needed in order to see the two stories are one and the same is to understand the necessity for writing the tale in analogy to water instead of people.

It is no coincidence that the mention of the Ark refers to the skull of Modern man which contained the visions of all the animals nd carried them into the New Heaven and New Earth that began 40,000 years ago for us, the sons of God to come.

The ONLY possible "Ark" that could carry all the animals into this new world of Modern man was our own skull:

That is why Moses continued this tale:

Message 97 of 100 (691675) 02-23-2013 11:08 PM

Reply to: Message 95 by kofh2u 02-23-2013 8:13 PM

Not the systems, the kingdom level classifications.

Ex: Animal, Protista, Plantae

The classifications are still used and are still useful.

Some of the systems that utilize those classifications are outdated, however.

This is a matter of failed comprehension on your part.

Regardless, the "two kingdom" recommendation set forth in the bible is chronologically wrong, no matter how you try to slice it.

Message 98 of 100 (691676) 02-23-2013 11:12 PM

Reply to: Message 96 by kofh2u 02-23-2013 8:33 PM

There are not 22 humanoids listed in those chapters. There are people listed in those chapters and their numbers are 27, not 22.

And, no, your claim that there are 22 extinct human species is not factually true. Do not post an image of the book "A Guide To 22 Extinct Species." It does not support your claim.

Both your claims are wrong. There is no correspondence.

Message 99 of 100 (691697) 02-24-2013 1:08 PM

1) Atheistic Denial of Creationsim Interpretations
2) Creationism/ID Genesis Interpretations
3) Theistic evoution Synthesis of Science with a different Genesis Explanation

NOTE:

Religion did NOT have to be mentioned as evidenced here in these responses.
The entire discussion is merely about Reading Comprehension and Factual Information.

There has been no requirement that one be religious, or a particular denominational member of any organization.

Religion and State was not involved here, merely science and English.

Hence, my point has been made de facto:

"Evolution and the seven Christian hypothesis on Creation ought all be taught as Public Education."

Message 100 of 100 (691704) 02-24-2013 2:03 PM

Reply to: Message 99 by kofh2u 02-24-2013 1:08 PM

Also, you should drop the numerology bit. It isn't working for you. There aren't "Seven Christian hypothesis on creation."