Post Reply
Page 12 of 16  •  Prev 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 ... 16 Next
Switch to Forum Live View What, in scientific terms, is a "kind"?
2 years ago  ::  Apr 07, 2012 - 10:16PM #111
amcolph
Posts: 17,324

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


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.




It means pretty much the same thing as it did when Linnaeus used it a hundred years before Darwin.  It is arrived at by examining the creatures themselves without regard to their origins.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 07, 2012 - 10:54PM #112
iamachildofhis
Posts: 10,541

Apr 7, 2012 -- 8:47PM, Midutch 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.


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



iama: 


- hawk, falcon, kite, bird of prey: Strong's H344 - 'ayah- include pterosaurs


- dragonfly


Lev 11:20
"All fowls that creep, going upon [all] four, [shall be] an abomination unto you."


- the traveling domain of the flying fish is the water


- penguins wouldn't have existed where the Israelites lived at this time in Egypt, or later in Canaan


- How would they ever capture and eat of the Pegasii? Space ship required!


The Levitical laws related to food consumption.


.

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 08, 2012 - 12:09AM #113
Rgurley4
Posts: 8,653

Man has DEVOLVED since Eden:


1. lost of walk / talk spiritually with God


2. absence of disease in Eden


3. shotened life expectancies (with a slight ~dip upward in the last mere 200 years)


4. geographically and language separated races


5. increased frequency of civil stife and wars / conflicts

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 08, 2012 - 12:16AM #114
Blü
Posts: 24,837

Rgurley


Your kind of Christian needs man to be sinful so you can sell the product.


The Garden story is manifestly a myth.  One of many ways in which mankind is improving is through diminished belief in magic.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 08, 2012 - 12:19AM #115
McAtheist
Posts: 8,067

Iam,


I point you at two fatal failures in your arguments:


1.) You posted: "The basic difference between evolution and creation regarding life-forms, is the barrier which The Bible states exists between kinds of life-forms. "  No scientist has ever found any such barrier or any evidence of its existence.  Either produce links to the scientific literature detailing the evidential basis of this claim or let's just add it to the long list of horrible mistakes, uneducated guesses and outright lies produced by the YEC movement.


2.) You also posted: "Mutations are not the mechanism which is responsible for 'variation within kind,' but genetic mechanisms created at the time of The Creation."  This ones is biologically impossible: the 8 people on the ark could only contribute a maximum of 16 alleles for any given gene, but some human genes have hundreds of alleles.  Either produce links to the scientific literature detailing how 16 alleles morphed to hundreds without mutations or let's all agree that this is just another unbased flight of nonsensical YEC fantasy.


So, can you back up your claims with actual science, Iam?  If not, then non-existent YEC paradigm is dead in the equally non-existent flood water.


As usual, YECism fails.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 08, 2012 - 12:27AM #116
McAtheist
Posts: 8,067

Rgurley4: Man has DEVOLVED since Eden:

1. lost of walk / talk spiritually with God
2. absence of disease in Eden
3. shotened life expectancies (with a slight ~dip upward in the last mere 200 years)
4. geographically and language separated races\
5. increased frequency of civil stife and wars / conflicts.


Your post would be interesting if you had the slightest evidence that Eden existed or that people ever lived to be hundreds of years old or that there was ever a time without wars and conflicts.  No such evidence exists; in fact, every single piece of data strongly contradicts your claims.


There is no more factual or evidential reason to believe in your stories than there is to believe in Bellerophon riding Pegasus or in Thor making thunder with his hammer.  You just like this set of completely unbased ideas because they are your stories instead of someone else's.


And the term "devolved" doesn't even make sense; it's only used by people who don't understand how evolution actually works.


So, while you can believe anything you want, why would anyone else accept such patently incorrect notions?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 08, 2012 - 12:40AM #117
Rgurley4
Posts: 8,653

ETC! = et ctera

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 08, 2012 - 9:46AM #118
Midutch
Posts: 4,164

Apr 8, 2012 -- 12:09AM, Rgurley4 wrote:


Man has DEVOLVED since Eden:


1. lost of walk / talk spiritually with God


Prove it. Your bronze age fable assertions are worthless without logic, reasoning, observations, experiments, scientific research and empirical evidence. Just because you WANT to believe all of this does not make it true.


2. absence of disease in Eden


Prove it.


3. shotened life expectancies (with a slight ~dip upward in the last mere 200 years)


Prove it.


4. geographically and language separated races


How does this demonstrate "devolution"? And if you are refering to the Tower of Babel fable, prove that it happened.


5. increased frequency of civil stife and wars / conflicts


Obviously you don't know much about human history. Civil strife, wars and conflict have been a human constant throughout history. We've just become a whole lot more efficient at it.





"creationism" ... 2000+ years worth of ABYSMAL FAILURE ... and proud of it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 08, 2012 - 12:21PM #119
rsielin
Posts: 4,265

Apr 8, 2012 -- 12:09AM, Rgurley4 wrote:

5. increased frequency of civil stife and wars / conflicts


Except that the real world evidence clearly says otherwise. Typical of a creationist, caught once again making claims of fact where there is clear evidence to the contrary. Couldn't live in a more dream world than that, can you, Rgurley.


Is Violence History?


Steven Pinker’s [book] “Better Angels of Our Nature” tells us … why violence has declined. …  Has the past century witnessed moral progress or a moral collapse?


… our era is less violent, less cruel and more peaceful than any previous period of human existence. The decline in violence holds for violence in the family, in neighborhoods, between tribes and between states. People living now are less likely to meet a violent death, or to suffer from violence or cruelty at the hands of others, than people living in any previous century.


Pinker assumes that many of his readers will be skeptical of this claim, so he spends six substantial chapters documenting it.


It’s not only deaths in war, but murder, too, that is declining over the long term. … your chance of being murdered is now less than one-tenth, and in some countries only one-fiftieth, of what it would have been if you had lived 500 years ago.


Pinker admits that followers of our news media will have particular difficulty in believing this, but as always, he produces statistics to back up his assertions.


… Pinker discusses … the “rights revolution,” the revulsion against violence inflicted on ethnic minorities, women, children, homosexuals and animals that has developed over the past half-century. Pinker is not, of course, arguing that these movements have achieved their goals, but he reminds us how far we have come in a relatively short time from the days when lynchings were commonplace in the South; domestic violence was tolerated to such a degree that a 1950s ad could show a husband with his wife over his knees, spanking her for failing to buy the right brand of coffee;


What caused these beneficial trends? … Pinker has argued that evolution shaped the basic design of our brain, and hence our cognitive and emotional faculties. This process has given us propensities to violence — our “inner demons” as well as “the better angels of our nature” (Abraham Lincoln’s words) — that incline us to be peaceful and cooperative. Our material circumstances, along with cultural inputs, determine whether the demons or the angels have the upper hand.


Pinker argues that enhanced powers of reasoning give us the ability to detach ourselves from our immediate experience and from our personal or parochial perspective, and frame our ideas in more abstract, universal terms. This in turn leads to better moral commitments, including avoiding violence. It is just this kind of reasoning ability that has improved during the 20th century. He therefore suggests that the 20th century has seen … an accelerating escalator of reason carried us away from impulses that lead to violence” and that this lies behind the long peace, the new peace, and the rights revolution.


Reason also … moves us away from forms of morality more likely to lead to violence, and toward moral advances that, while not eschewing the use of force altogether, restrict it to the uses necessary to improve social welfare, like utilitarian reforms of the savage punishments given to criminals in earlier times. For reason does, Pinker holds, point to a particular kind of morality. We prefer life to death, and happiness to suffering, and we understand that we live in a world in which others can make a difference to whether we live well or die miserably. Therefore we will want to tell others that they should not hurt us, and in doing so we commit ourselves to the idea that we should not hurt them.


“The Better Angels of Our Nature” is a supremely important book. To have command of so much research, spread across so many different fields, is a masterly achievement. Pinker convincingly demonstrates that there has been a dramatic decline in violence, and he is persuasive about the causes of that decline. But what of the future? Our improved understanding of violence, of which Pinker’s book is an example, can be a valuable tool to maintain peace and reduce crime, but other factors are in play.


www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/books/review/...

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 11:00AM #120
HuntPA
Posts: 32

I apologize for the gap in my postings, but I am unable to view and respond on the weekends.


After reading the followings of my post, I am at a loss as to how to continue the dialog.  According those present, it is apparent that this discussion has run its course as there is no way to actually begin the dialog. 


-When I stated that "species" was not a term in use during the translation of the Bible, I am told that yes it was, it just wasn't defined as it is today.  The original term "kind" was defined by "species" and "genus".  But it is not a scientific term because it is not defined in scientific terms.


-When I stated that the "kind" definition relates to taxonomy somewhere around the family step (in my belief), I am told that it is a fairy tale and not scientific at all even though I am relating it directly to what is curently taught as scientific fact in schools.  The only difference being where the taxonomy begins (I state at the family, give or take, and evolution holds it to be a single molecule).  Both hold the same realtionships, but because my premise is creation, my theory is automatically rejected as non-scientific.


-When I post that there are in fact practicing scientists that believe in creation and the Creator and even post names of people working in scientific fields, I am told that they "quit being scientists" when they began researching creation(by the way, the theory of plate techtonics and creation as written by one of these "non-scientists" seems awfully technical to me).  I am also told that if a person does not get a PHD using a thesis proving creation, they are just faking it and not real scientists.  You will also find that these scientists have published papers regarding creation and their field of expertise.  They are published in journals that are not afraid to publish documents that are not accepted by the mainstream.


Since I am not a scientist, and anyone that does not hold the theory of evolution as "gospel" (my attempt at Monday morning humor) is not a scientist; how am I supposed to make the science based definition of "kind".  I guess to that end, I have stated my belief as to what kind is, so I will be moving on to the next subject and hope for a more objective discussion on that topic.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 12 of 16  •  Prev 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 ... 16 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook