|
Author
|
Topic: Bible and "kind"
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 499 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
Message 1 of 148 (103485)
04-28-2004 6:24 PM
|
|
|
Perhaps someone has already explained this, and sorry if I missed it. I still don't understand what the bible means by "kind" when refering to animal. Could someone please explain to me?
The Laminator
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 4 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2004 11:09 AM | | coffee_addict has not replied | | | Message 6 by coffee_addict, posted 04-29-2004 12:32 PM | | coffee_addict has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 499 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
I guess what I really meant was if "kind" distincts individual species within the same genus like Acanthoscurria geniculata (giant white knee tarantula) and Aphonopelma seemanni (zebra tarantula). What about the ones that are in different genus like Aphonpelma seemanni and Grammastola Rosea (rose hair tarantula)? This refers to the story of the flood. Biblically speaking, did Noah really bring onboard over 4 thousand individual tarantulas to keep every species of tarantula alive, several hunreds of tarantulas to preserve each genera, or 2 to preserve the family???
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by coffee_addict, posted 04-28-2004 6:24 PM | | coffee_addict has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 7 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2004 12:48 PM | | coffee_addict has replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 499 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 10 of 148 (103792)
04-29-2004 2:32 PM
|
Reply to: Message 7 by PaulK
04-29-2004 12:48 PM
|
|
That's just it. Tarantulas that are in the same genera but different species cannot interbreed without having deformed offsprings. Tarantulas that are in different genus can't interbreed at all.
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 7 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2004 12:48 PM | | PaulK has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 11 by jar, posted 04-29-2004 3:00 PM | | coffee_addict has not replied | | | Message 12 by mike the wiz, posted 04-29-2004 6:29 PM | | coffee_addict has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 499 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
Mike writes: Spiders really do produce spiders, when discussing spiders Actually, my tarantulas just told me that they prefer to be called arachnids. It's like calling the Apes "monkeys" if you ever land on planet of the Apes. It's offensive to them. 
The Laminator
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 499 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 27 of 148 (104077)
04-30-2004 3:44 AM
|
Reply to: Message 24 by crashfrog
04-30-2004 2:36 AM
|
|
Frog writes: the International Society of Arachnology lists them under the order Araneae, which includes all spiders... and more, like tarantulas. Spiders are common names for true spiders, which are the little 8-legged freaks you find around in your house. Tarantulas are... well tarantulas. 
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2004 2:36 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2004 3:12 PM | | coffee_addict has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 499 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 28 of 148 (104079)
04-30-2004 3:50 AM
|
Reply to: Message 23 by crashfrog
04-30-2004 2:33 AM
|
|
Hahahahaha. As an invert hobbyist, more specifically arachnid hobbyist, I've noticed that most people can't tell the difference between a daddy long leg and an arachnid. Here are some common simple rules to tell them apart. Insects = 3 body parts: head, body, abdomin Arachnids = 2 body parts: carapace, abdomin Daddy long leg = 1 body part If you want to know what I mean by body parts, just find yourself a spider and try to notice the 2 main body parts that I am talking about. The carapace is where all 8 eyes are and where the legs are connected. The abdomin is just a "ball" attached to the carapace. Now, go and find an ant. Notice that there are 3 body parts. Anyway... off topic.
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2004 2:33 AM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 499 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
Re: Yes
Mike writes: I think the position is, that "kinds" have infact always been around since creation. I suppose the evolutionist view is that eventually - things got more simplistic, untill we go as far back as abiogenesis. And abiogenesis is a "must" because then there would have been creatures going back and back and.....But, the creationist view is that species have came about through natural selection from the first "kinds". So all of the "spiders" today would of - as you say, speciated from that original gene pool containing all of the necessary traits for what we see today.
Look at this.
Chiroptera writes: I can envision the members of a certain species of tarantula having a debate on evolution. One tarantula points to hominids, pointing out the evidence that humans evolved from other primates, and the creationist spider saying (okay, everyone in unison): But they're still apes! I agree with Chiroptera. While creationists claim that "they're just spiders," creationists absolutely refuse to apply the same logic to primates.
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 04-29-2004 10:33 PM | | mike the wiz has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 05-03-2004 9:35 PM | | coffee_addict has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 499 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 51 of 148 (105384)
05-04-2004 9:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 46 by jt
05-04-2004 8:59 PM
|
|
Re: JT????
The following photos I got from arachnopics. These are for those of you that keep insisting the "but they're just spiders" belief.
This tarantula is a vitalius sorocabae.
This one is a Tapinauchenius purpureus. The 2 are completely different species in completely different genus. Stop saying "they're just spiders!"
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 46 by jt, posted 05-04-2004 8:59 PM | | jt has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 499 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 82 of 148 (105805)
05-06-2004 3:01 AM
|
Reply to: Message 81 by jt
05-06-2004 2:09 AM
|
|
JT writes: Things are not that simple. Rarely (if ever) do you see someone with pure blue eyes or pure green eyes. It is much more common to see shades of colors. For example, my mom has brown eyes, and my dad has light blue eyes. I have eyes that are a slightly darker brown than my mom's eyes. Are there hundreds of alleles for eye color, one for each shade? If there was only one gene that controlled eye color, that would be necessary. However, genetics is not that simple. Genes do more than just turn switches. A single trait can be controlled by more than one gene, such a trait is called a polygenic trait. What this means is that five genes could control eye color. Assuming that each gene was made up of two unique alleles, that would allow for 25=32 shades of color. Square that because there are two dogs on the ark, and you get 1024 different shades of eye color. That is a massive amount of genetic material.
JT, I'd ask that you don't nitpick people's statements and try to get to the point. I am pretty sure that the frog was fully aware of polygenic traits when he wrote that. However, to make it simple, he left out some big words and technical explanations and made a general statement. It would help with this debate if you do not nitpick people's simplified statements for the sake of simplisity. However, if you feel that the oversimplified statements somehow miss the big picture, then feel free to nitpick all you want. Here is what you just sounded to me. Say I make the statement "I breathe air to live." Then, you jump in and say "it's not that... it's much more complicated than that... you breathe in air but only use the oxygen... then your mitochondria..." Now, if I were to make the statement "I breathe dirt to live..." then you can nitpick all you want. You get the idea
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 81 by jt, posted 05-06-2004 2:09 AM | | jt has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 499 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 127 of 148 (106152)
05-07-2004 1:17 AM
|
Reply to: Message 126 by almeyda
05-07-2004 12:48 AM
|
|
Re: ...
What ive always wanted to know is if Evolution has been doing its thing for over billions of yrs. Shouldnt there be hundreds or thousands or at least 1 undisputed proof of ape-human connection?. The earliest known homonids were the australophithecines, specifically the A. ramidus. The oldest fossil we have of them is 4.4 million years old. So, no. Homonids haven't been around for billions of years.
Shouldnt there be hundreds or thousands or at least 1 undisputed proof of ape-human connection?. There are. Homo habilis and homo erectus are 2 known connections. I'm tempted to include homo neandertalensis, but people are still debating whether they were just a side branch of an evolutionary dead end or not.
Surely if the missing link is still missing then somethings wrong. Even if we discard the evidence that we already have, it just means that we don't know everything yet. Can't jump to conclusion because of ignorance of something.
To this day every missing link reported has been discarded or is disputed among Evolutionists themselves. Besides the fact that this is quite an amusing assertion with no support, pointing out debates between scientists ain't going to prove anything. Just like every human thought in this world, there are debates about minor details among scientists. Nothing new!
Could it be that the missing link just does not exist and all humans & apes have are similarites of a common designer? You should look up the meaning of the appeal to ignorance fallacy. This message has been edited by Lam, 05-07-2004 12:18 AM
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 126 by almeyda, posted 05-07-2004 12:48 AM | | almeyda has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 128 by almeyda, posted 05-07-2004 1:30 AM | | coffee_addict has replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 499 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 129 of 148 (106163)
05-07-2004 1:48 AM
|
Reply to: Message 128 by almeyda
05-07-2004 1:30 AM
|
|
Re: ...
almeyda writes: What kind of a dating method could prove the exact age of those bones to exactly 4.4 million yrs? Besides an interpretation of the bones to fit an evolutionary framework? The technicality of dating fossils is not one of my strong areas. Perhaps someone else could answer this question for you. This message has been edited by Lam, 05-07-2004 12:49 AM
The Laminator
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 128 by almeyda, posted 05-07-2004 1:30 AM | | almeyda has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
