|
Author
|
Topic: Define "Kind"
|
jar
Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
Message 36 of 300 (289127)
02-21-2006 11:45 AM
|
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
02-21-2006 11:35 AM
|
|
Luckily, your request has been answered.
Our source is the Bible, and the Bible has absolute authority. We know there were discreet Kinds because it says so. But it doesn't define them. That's for science to do. Science has been able to define Kinds. There are three Kinds:
- living things
- things that are not alive
- and things that we can't quite tell if they are alive or not
Now you may not like that, but it's FACT.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 34 by Faith, posted 02-21-2006 11:35 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Luckily, your request has been answered.
That shouldn't be a problem. According to the Bible the living Kind was made from the Not Living Kind anyway.
11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. So we have non-living kind, the earth, producing the living kind. Fruit trees, Living Kind, produce Living Kind. Ever since then the Living Kind produce Living Kind. Seems pretty clear and Biblical.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 37 by Wounded King, posted 02-21-2006 11:54 AM | | Wounded King has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Bariminology will NEVER be science.
and the outcome is that bariminology is never going to be science or even of any value.
This contains links to a number of papers which seem to make real attempts to put forward methods for identifying baramins The problem is that they are based on a heirachy of evidence which begins with an assertion that is itself a conclusion.
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 this paper Note the part I bolded. They have begun with the conclusion, that despite any evidence to the contrary, what is written in the Bible will take precedence. Baraminology is but religion, not science.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
jar
Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 214 of 300 (290743)
02-26-2006 9:35 PM
|
Reply to: Message 209 by Faith
02-26-2006 7:20 PM
|
|
The Bible is not scientific nor even science.
I don't care that people here deny that the Bible is factual, that is where the Biblical creationist starts, and it is a perfectly legitimate and perfectly scientific place to start. It is where the Biblical Creationist begins and ends. It is certainly neither ligitimate or scientific. In fact it is the antithesis of science. Kinds will never be anything more than a joke, a sad and bankrupt perversion of both Christianity and Science. To support Biblical Creationism and the concept of kinds is only to embrace ignorance and an abdication of the gifts given by the Creator.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 209 by Faith, posted 02-26-2006 7:20 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 232 of 300 (291413)
03-02-2006 9:07 AM
|
Reply to: Message 229 by Faith
03-02-2006 8:40 AM
|
|
Stacking the deck.
The concept of "kind" is in fact vague and undefined and to this point undefinable. Its source is the Bible, meaning God. That's where the creationist starts. You want to insist we start somewhere else. That's stacking the deck against us. The deck is certainly stacked against the Biblical Creationist and rightly so. But it is the Biblical Creationist that did the stacking. It is THEIR failure, not reality or science. All of the evidence has shown that the Biblical Creationist is simply wrong. They have not defined Kind because it is based on a conclusion that cannot be supported by anything other than an act of wilfull ignorance. The Biblical Creationist says that humans are a Kind because that is how they are descibed in the Bible. But reality says that humans are one of the primates, yet another of the apes. Almost everyone, including Christian Creationists gave up the idea of humans as a KIND when the evidence became overwhelming that humans were primates, apes. The holdouts are simple those who choose to deny the overwhelming body of evidence. The Biblical Creationists have had many thousands of years to present a workable definition of KIND. They have never been able to do so. That is why the deck is stacked against them. They have failed. Failed utterly. Failed because they are Wrong!
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 229 by Faith, posted 03-02-2006 8:40 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 233 of 300 (291414)
03-02-2006 9:10 AM
|
Reply to: Message 231 by Faith
03-02-2006 9:00 AM
|
|
Re: Further clarification
You don't have to give anything any weight whatever. But if you care about having a discussion with creationists then you have to accept a few things from our side. If you just want to win the debate, that's easy, just define our concerns out of the picture. It is not science that defined your concerns out of the picture, but GOD. GOD created the world we live in,not science. It is GOD that defined man as one of the primates, another ape.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 231 by Faith, posted 03-02-2006 9:00 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 243 of 300 (291665)
03-03-2006 12:10 AM
|
Reply to: Message 242 by Faith
03-02-2006 11:46 PM
|
|
Re: Further clarification
So far the Creationists have NEVER presented anything but their ultimatum. Perhaps if they EVER do any science and come up with anything that can stand up to even a cursory examination, they may be able to take part in the discussion. So far though they have been able to contribute nothing and only whine that they are being dissed. Biblical Creationists have never defined KIND because they are unwilling to admit that all of the evidence says that humans are just another primate, an ape. They simply can't come up with a definition of kind that is supported by any evidence. They are just WRONG!!!!!!!!!!
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 242 by Faith, posted 03-02-2006 11:46 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 244 by Faith, posted 03-03-2006 12:23 AM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 245 of 300 (291669)
03-03-2006 12:31 AM
|
Reply to: Message 244 by Faith
03-03-2006 12:23 AM
|
|
Re: Further clarification
Well, we start from the Kinds, that's the way it is, and it only makes sense to deal with it as you find it, it seems to me. Yup, you do. And that is why you will never make any progress. You start from the answer and work backwwards. You deny GOD and what he has given us. To quote from the Clergy Project:
We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. The modern Biblical Creationist deliberately embraces scientific ignorance and transmits such ignorance to our children.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 244 by Faith, posted 03-03-2006 12:23 AM | | Faith has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 251 by ramoss, posted 03-03-2006 8:20 AM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 252 of 300 (291750)
03-03-2006 9:41 AM
|
Reply to: Message 251 by ramoss
03-03-2006 8:20 AM
|
|
Re: Further clarification
There was earlier Religious documents that also mentioned about Christians and the natural world. How about Saint Augustine?? Yes, which is why I brought up the Modern Biblical Creationist. They believe that the Bible is the actual words of GOD, but to do so they have to apply the same wilfull ignorance to the book that they apply to the evidence of the world. They read Genesis 1 & Genesis 2 and then simply will away the fact that there is not one creation myth in the Bible but two mutually exclusive stories. KIND is a word that would please the Reverend Charles Lutwidge Dodgson and may well be the exact one he had in mind when he penned this exchange.
Humpty Dumpty: When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.
Alice: The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things.
Humpty Dumpty: The question is: which is to be master - that's all.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 251 by ramoss, posted 03-03-2006 8:20 AM | | ramoss has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2