Post Reply
Page 11 of 16  •  Prev 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... 16 Next
Switch to Forum Live View What, in scientific terms, is a "kind"?
2 years ago  ::  Apr 07, 2012 - 5:19PM #101
iamachildofhis
Posts: 10,408

Apr 2, 2012 -- 3:26PM, amcolph wrote:



steven_guy: I know that all Creationist websites are run by depraved perverts and criminals and that is why I never visit them. 


amcolph: I examine them at least in a cursory way whenever a link is provided.


So far, I know of none that disprove your assertion.



iama:  This is where your disagreement with CMI, etc., begins.  Since this is Easter weekend, this might be of interest:


Why Did Jesus Die?


The Sacrificial System and Creation


.

The wonder of Christmas is that the God Who dwelt among us, now, can dwell within us. - Roy Lessin
.
"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
.
Justice is receiving what you deserve.
Mercy is NOT receiving what you deserve.
Grace is receiving what you DO NOT deserve.
.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 07, 2012 - 5:50PM #102
iamachildofhis
Posts: 10,408

Apr 2, 2012 -- 11:46AM, Sigmund wrote:



Sigmund: Also notice this informative blurb from the page:


For reasons of logic, practicality and strategy, it is suggested that we:


Avoid the use of the term ‘microevolution’.



iama: The term 'evolution' shouldn't be implied as a process on a creation website, therefore 'microevolution,' which implies evoluton should be avoided.


Rethink our use of the whole concept of ‘variation within kind’.



iama:  'Rethink,' here, is the challenge to creationists to delve into the genetic mechanisms which are responsible for 'variation within kind.'  Mutations are not the mechanism which is responsible for 'variation within kind,' but genetic mechanisms created at the time of The Creation.


Avoid taxonomic definitions of the created kind in favour of one which is overtly axiomatic.



iama: You might not be "killed" if you realize that 'taxonomic definitions' relates to the evolution paradigm and not to the creation paradigm terminologies.  The evolution paradigm has its 'tree of life,' while the creation paradigm diagrams many different trees / kinds exiting, currently, having reproduced many variations of the kind over the many years since The Flood.


Sigmund: That last one truly kills me. "Avoid accurate descriptions of the created kind in favor of one that is overtly taken for granted and is self-evident."


In other words, don't define the word "kinds," take it for granted that everyone knows what it means.



iama: Yes, knowing what 'kind' means re: the creation paradigm, don't use the evolution paradigm's terminology definitions.  Use only creation paradigm terminology definitions.


.

The wonder of Christmas is that the God Who dwelt among us, now, can dwell within us. - Roy Lessin
.
"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
.
Justice is receiving what you deserve.
Mercy is NOT receiving what you deserve.
Grace is receiving what you DO NOT deserve.
.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 07, 2012 - 6:49PM #103
steven_guy
Posts: 11,740

Apr 7, 2012 -- 5:50PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


 Yes, knowing what 'kind' means re: the creation paradigm, don't use the evolution paradigm's terminology definitions.  Use only creation paradigm terminology definitions.




There are no scientific terms in the "Creation paradigm". There are scientific terms and then there are terms that are not scientific.


There is science and then there is hokey nonsense.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 07, 2012 - 7:09PM #104
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Apr 7, 2012 -- 5:50PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

Yes, knowing what 'kind' means re: the creation paradigm, don't use the evolution paradigm's terminology definitions.  Use only creation paradigm terminology definitions.



There is no "creation paradigm." There is only a colossal blunder. It is no less a blunder for being tarted up like a cheap floozie in its own bogus terminology.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 07, 2012 - 7:25PM #105
amcolph
Posts: 17,197

Apr 7, 2012 -- 5:50PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


 


iama: You might not be "killed" if you realize that 'taxonomic definitions' relates to the evolution paradigm and not to the creation paradigm terminologies.  The evolution paradigm has its 'tree of life,' while the creation paradigm diagrams many different trees / kinds exiting, currently, having reproduced many variations of the kind over the many years since The Flood.


 




The 'taxanomic definitions' we use now were developed by a Christian a century before Darwin published Origin of Species.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 07, 2012 - 8:02PM #106
iamachildofhis
Posts: 10,408

Apr 7, 2012 -- 7:25PM, amcolph wrote:



iama: You might not be "killed" if you realize that 'taxonomic definitions' relates to the evolution paradigm and not to the creation paradigm terminologies.  The evolution paradigm has its 'tree of life,' while the creation paradigm diagrams many different trees / kinds exiting, currently, having reproduced many variations of the kind over the many years since The Flood.


The 'taxanomic definitions' we use now were developed by a Christian a century before Darwin published Origin of Species.



iama:  Yes, certainly!  But what has happened to the term 'species' which is Latin for 'kind,' since pre-Darwin's book was published?


What the Christian meant by 'species' / 'kind' and what is meant, today, by 'species' has evolved!


'Species' as used by the evolutionists does not mean 'kind' as it originally did.


.


.

The wonder of Christmas is that the God Who dwelt among us, now, can dwell within us. - Roy Lessin
.
"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
.
Justice is receiving what you deserve.
Mercy is NOT receiving what you deserve.
Grace is receiving what you DO NOT deserve.
.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 07, 2012 - 8:07PM #107
iamachildofhis
Posts: 10,408

Apr 7, 2012 -- 6:49PM, steven_guy wrote:



Apr 7, 2012 -- 5:50PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

iama: Yes, knowing what 'kind' means re: the creation paradigm, don't use the evolution paradigm's terminology definitions.  Use only creation paradigm terminology definitions.


steven_guy: There are no scientific terms in the "Creation paradigm". There are scientific terms and then there are terms that are not scientific.


There is science and then there is hokey nonsense.



iama:  steven_guy, I know that you enjoy reading fantasy-type novels / science fiction novels. When you respond to my posts, it appears that you are, also, desiring to exist in a fantasy realm.


It would be interesting to know what terms you consider to be 'not scientific.'


Are you restricting scientists from using certain terms in the language?


.

The wonder of Christmas is that the God Who dwelt among us, now, can dwell within us. - Roy Lessin
.
"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
.
Justice is receiving what you deserve.
Mercy is NOT receiving what you deserve.
Grace is receiving what you DO NOT deserve.
.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 07, 2012 - 8:08PM #108
steven_guy
Posts: 11,740

Apr 7, 2012 -- 8:02PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


Apr 7, 2012 -- 7:25PM, amcolph wrote:



iama: You might not be "killed" if you realize that 'taxonomic definitions' relates to the evolution paradigm and not to the creation paradigm terminologies.  The evolution paradigm has its 'tree of life,' while the creation paradigm diagrams many different trees / kinds exiting, currently, having reproduced many variations of the kind over the many years since The Flood.


The 'taxanomic definitions' we use now were developed by a Christian a century before Darwin published Origin of Species.



iama:  Yes, certainly!  But what has happened to the term 'species' which is Latin for 'kind,' since pre-Darwin's book was published?


What the Christian meant by 'species' / 'kind' and what is meant, today, by 'species' has evolved!


'Species' as used by the evolutionists does not mean 'kind' as it originally did.




Kind is a vague term dreamt up by ignorant savages.


Species, as used by scientists, has a vastly more specific meaning.


Heck! The ignorant desert goatherds who wrote the Bible classified bats as birds.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 07, 2012 - 8:18PM #109
iamachildofhis
Posts: 10,408

Apr 7, 2012 -- 8:08PM, steven_guy wrote:



iama: You might not be "killed" if you realize that 'taxonomic definitions' relates to the evolution paradigm and not to the creation paradigm terminologies.  The evolution paradigm has its 'tree of life,' while the creation paradigm diagrams many different trees / kinds exiting, currently, having reproduced many variations of the kind over the many years since The Flood.


amcolph: The 'taxanomic definitions' we use now were developed by a Christian a century before Darwin published Origin of Species.


iama:  Yes, certainly!  But what has happened to the term 'species' which is Latin for 'kind,' since pre-Darwin's book was published?


What the Christian meant by 'species' / 'kind' and what is meant, today, by 'species' has evolved!


'Species' as used by the evolutionists does not mean 'kind' as it originally did.


steven_guy: Kind is a vague term dreamt up by ignorant savages.


Species, as used by scientists, has a vastly more specific meaning.


Heck! The ignorant desert goatherds who wrote the Bible classified bats as birds.



iama:  The Hebrew term 'Strong's H5775 - `owph - a wing' comes from the Hebrew term 'Strong's H5774 - `uwph - to fly'


From Strong's Concordance - blueletterbible:


1) flying creatures, fowl, insects, birds


a) fowl, birds


b) winged insects


So, the bat has wings, and the bat flies, and the bat uses the space above the Earth's surface to move about.


The translators of the English NKJ Bible chose 'fowl' when they should have specified winged creatures.


.

The wonder of Christmas is that the God Who dwelt among us, now, can dwell within us. - Roy Lessin
.
"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
.
Justice is receiving what you deserve.
Mercy is NOT receiving what you deserve.
Grace is receiving what you DO NOT deserve.
.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 07, 2012 - 8:47PM #110
Midutch
Posts: 4,127

Apr 7, 2012 -- 8:18PM, iamachildofhis wrote:


Apr 7, 2012 -- 8:08PM, steven_guy wrote:



iama: You might not be "killed" if you realize that 'taxonomic definitions' relates to the evolution paradigm and not to the creation paradigm terminologies.  The evolution paradigm has its 'tree of life,' while the creation paradigm diagrams many different trees / kinds exiting, currently, having reproduced many variations of the kind over the many years since The Flood.


amcolph: The 'taxanomic definitions' we use now were developed by a Christian a century before Darwin published Origin of Species.


iama:  Yes, certainly!  But what has happened to the term 'species' which is Latin for 'kind,' since pre-Darwin's book was published?


What the Christian meant by 'species' / 'kind' and what is meant, today, by 'species' has evolved!


'Species' as used by the evolutionists does not mean 'kind' as it originally did.


steven_guy: Kind is a vague term dreamt up by ignorant savages.


Species, as used by scientists, has a vastly more specific meaning.


Heck! The ignorant desert goatherds who wrote the Bible classified bats as birds.



iama:  The Hebrew term 'Strong's H5775 - `owph - a wing' comes from the Hebrew term 'Strong's H5774 - `uwph - to fly'


From Strong's Concordance - blueletterbible:


1) flying creatures, fowl, insects, birds


a) fowl, birds


b) winged insects


So, the bat has wings, and the bat flies, and the bat uses the space above the Earth's surface to move about.


The translators of the English NKJ Bible chose 'fowl' when they should have specified winged creatures.


Pterosaurs, dragonflies, flying fish, penguins, Pegasii, etc. are winged creatures as well. Why weren't they included in the Leviticus list?

"creationism" ... 2000+ years worth of ABYSMAL FAILURE ... and proud of it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 11 of 16  •  Prev 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... 16 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook