Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Biological Taxonomy - Kinds vs. Species (Linnaean taxonomy)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Wrong thread
    Last edited by Stripe; September 29th, 2019, 11:46 AM. Reason: Delete
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
      Why then do modern creationists run away from the species term and replace it with the "Kinds" of baraminology?
      Nice false accusation.

      The Biblical creationist view is that God originally created kinds and NOT that this was some sort of permanent and never changing arrangement.

      That the kinds had descendants is pretty obvious. That those descendants branch off from the original kinds is not a problem for creationists.
      All of my ancestors are human.
      Originally posted by Squeaky
      That explains why your an idiot.
      Originally posted by God's Truth
      Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
      Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
      (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

      1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
      (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

      Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
        Nice false accusation.

        The Biblical creationist view is that God originally created kinds and NOT that this was some sort of permanent and never changing arrangement.

        That the kinds had descendants is pretty obvious. That those descendants branch off from the original kinds is not a problem for creationists.
        Oh so you do believe in evolution! How nice.
        “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



        - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
          Oh so you do believe in evolution! How nice.
          I suppose you think that this statement is somehow cure or funny. No, it's just childish.
          All of my ancestors are human.
          Originally posted by Squeaky
          That explains why your an idiot.
          Originally posted by God's Truth
          Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
          Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
          (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

          1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
          (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

          Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

          Comment


          • Darwinists are so desperate for validation that they call everything evolution.
            Where is the evidence for a global flood?
            E≈mc2
            "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

            "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
            -Bob B.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Alate One
              Oh so you do believe in evolution! How nice.
              Biblical creationists are excited how science helps confirm the truth of scripture.

              Mutation rates, genetic drift, natural selection, adaptation, genetic load etc is observational empirical science. Belief is not required and the evidence is totally consistent with God's Word. We see evidence of a perfectly created genome that has been subjected to several thousand years of corruption/ mutations.

              The common ancestry belief system does require belief, and is contradictory to both Scripture and science. Fortunately science often helps expose the faulty nature of this belief (junk DNA, backwards wired retina, pseudogenes and retroviruses, dim-witted Neanderthals, scientific racism, beneficial mutations winning against deleterious mutations, simple cells, Darwin's tree and the hundreds of redrawn variations since, eye evolution, recapitulation theory... and human embryos with gill slits, mutations as a creative engine, etc)
              Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                Darwinists are so desperate for validation that they call everything evolution.
                What do you call this 'branching off'?

                Stuart

                Comment


                • Originally posted by 6days View Post
                  Mutation rates, genetic drift, natural selection, adaptation, genetic load etc is observational empirical science. Belief is not required and the evidence is totally consistent with God's Word. We see evidence of a perfectly created genome that has been subjected to several thousand years of corruption/ mutations.
                  Except there is no 'perfect genome' left, is there, so how did you observe that?

                  Stuart

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                    What do you call this 'branching off'?

                    Stuart
                    Adaptation.

                    Do try to keep up.
                    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                    E≈mc2
                    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                    -Bob B.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                      Except there is no 'perfect genome' left, is there, so how did you observe that?

                      Stuart
                      Hey Stuu!! How are you?Good to see you back here.
                      Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by 6days View Post
                        Hey Stuu!! How are you?Good to see you back here.
                        I am very well thank you. I am a non-biblical fan of science who is surprised by how well I can confirm the wellness of my existence.

                        Hope you are well also!

                        Have you ever observed a perfect genome, one that could be compared with the cruddy ones we have had to cope with since a certain serpent (which presumably was made by your god) encouraged a certain naughtiness in Paradise resulting in some kind of entropic process?

                        (And have you got a mechanism for that?)

                        Stuart

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                          Have you ever observed a perfect genome, one that could be compared with the cruddy ones we have had to cope with since a certain serpent (which presumably was made by your god) encouraged a certain naughtiness in Paradise resulting in some kind of entropic process?

                          (And have you got a mechanism for that?)

                          Stuart
                          Have you ever observed the universal common ancestor that we are all supposed descended from?

                          I didn't think so.

                          Both creation and evolution are belief systems about the distant past.

                          Neither uses science in the sense in which we use science to get computers or airplanes, etc.

                          Neither creation nor evolution are repeatable or directly observable.
                          All of my ancestors are human.
                          Originally posted by Squeaky
                          That explains why your an idiot.
                          Originally posted by God's Truth
                          Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                          Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                          (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                          1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                          (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                          Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                          Comment


                          • <repeat post deleted>
                            Last edited by Stuu; October 26th, 2019, 04:12 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                              Have you ever observed the universal common ancestor that we are all supposed descended from?
                              No. My often retort is to ask why there is no photograph of the Judeo-christian god on the front of the bible, with a question asking why it is not possible to have one. So, if I now have to answer that question regarding the 'universal common ancestor' (or common ancestor population, right?) then I would say there are good reasons for having no photos: it was almost certainly a soft-bodied single-cell organism which won't leave fossil remains. We do have fossils which are impressions of soft-bodied organisms left in mud, but when we are considering something that probably existed up to 4 billion years ago, on the surface of a planet that has almost completely rearranged itself many times over due to tectonic plate movement, it is going to be extremely difficult and perhaps impossible to find remains of the actual one, and I don't think that is something that can be criticised negatively. I should be careful, because often enough the one claiming impossible is interrupted by someone announcing that it has been done.

                              Both creation and evolution are belief systems about the distant past.

                              Neither uses science in the sense in which we use science to get computers or airplanes, etc.

                              Neither creation nor evolution are repeatable or directly observable.
                              I know nothing about 'creation' in the sense you use it, and I suggest that no one does. And further you are not meant to, because the religious stories about creation have been invented for the political and social reasons that religion exists. Science and religions both require mystery: science explains the mystery but religion must maintain the mystery. That's why wrong ideas are eliminated from science (eventually) but for something that claims to be true, creationism has more wrong ideas than just about any field of human belief. Except maybe flat Earthism.

                              Evolution is directly observable by you if you have had the flu more than once in your life, or if you have read about superbugs in hospitals. There are bacteria that have evolved to feed on chemical materials that never existed until humans started making them in the past couple of centuries. These bacteria can be reasonably said to form a distinct population that has been permanently changed.

                              It is possible to observe some permanent changes in larger organisms happening quite quickly, but the most obvious examples of new species arising while we are watching is in single-cell organisms that can go through 10,000s of generations in a relatively short time, which is what is needed for mutated alleles to increase in frequency in a population.

                              I disagree that the science used to determine how the variety of life we see came about is any different to the science used to develop engineering technology. You would not deny the value of forensic science in catching criminals, I assume.

                              There are many examples of science where once-only events have been reasonably explained by science. Whatever the reasons the dinosaurs finally disappeared, it would be really perverse to deny that a large meteorite hit the Yucatan Peninsula 65 million years ago. The layer of iridium around the world in the layer that dates to then, and the enormous crater still clearly visible in the geology don't really have any other explanation. Everyday you look at the last second of the sunset as it appears to dip in the west, you are looking at an arrangement of the sun and Earth that had already finished more than nine minutes earlier. The sun has already gone before you see it disappear. Does that make you doubt anything about how astronomy describes the solar system? Many of the stars you can see in the night sky aren't actually there any more, or at least not in the form you observe. Does than mean you should deny the facts we know about them even as you look at the starlight that is still arriving from them? They are observable, but it's from the past and not repeatable.

                              Stuart

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                                No. My often retort is to ask why there is no photograph of the Judeo-christian god on the front of the bible, with a question asking why it is not possible to have one.
                                Materialists always say the silliest things.

                                Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                                So, if I now have to answer that question regarding the 'universal common ancestor' (or common ancestor population, right?) then I would say there are good reasons for having no photos: it was almost certainly a soft-bodied single-cell organism which won't leave fossil remains.
                                Thanks for confirming that you have no observational evidence of the "single universal common ancestor" and therefore must make gross assumptions to support your belief system.

                                Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                                We do have fossils which are impressions of soft-bodied organisms left in mud, but when we are considering something that probably existed up to 4 billion years ago, on the surface of a planet that has almost completely rearranged itself many times over due to tectonic plate movement, it is going to be extremely difficult and perhaps impossible to find remains of the actual one, and I don't think that is something that can be criticised negatively. I should be careful, because often enough the one claiming impossible is interrupted by someone announcing that it has been done.


                                Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                                I know nothing about 'creation' in the sense you use it, and I suggest that no one does. And further you are not meant to, because the religious stories about creation have been invented for the political and social reasons that religion exists.
                                You have a lot of unproveable theories in your bag of tricks.

                                Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                                Science and religions both require mystery: science explains the mystery but religion must maintain the mystery.
                                Nonsense. Science is your "god" and therefore MUST "explain all things".

                                Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                                That's why wrong ideas are eliminated from science (eventually) but for something that claims to be true, creationism has more wrong ideas than just about any field of human belief. Except maybe flat Earthism.
                                Your personal opinions don't have any weight with me and your hatred of God is duly noted.

                                Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                                Evolution is directly observable by you if you have had the flu more than once in your life, or if you have read about superbugs in hospitals. There are bacteria that have evolved to feed on chemical materials that never existed until humans started making them in the past couple of centuries. These bacteria can be reasonably said to form a distinct population that has been permanently changed.
                                Indeed, the Bible says that the created kinds reproduce after their kind. No great mystery there as we do observe this all the time. That's called science.

                                Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                                It is possible to observe some permanent changes in larger organisms happening quite quickly, but the most obvious examples of new species arising while we are watching is in single-cell organisms that can go through 10,000s of generations in a relatively short time, which is what is needed for mutated alleles to increase in frequency in a population.
                                Once again, we observe reproduction along with "change" all of the time. This does NOT prove that all life has a single universal common ancestor. But I do understand that your religion requires one.

                                Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                                I disagree that the science used to determine how the variety of life we see came about is any different to the science used to develop engineering technology. You would not deny the value of forensic science in catching criminals, I assume.

                                Once again, we observe reproduction with distinct limitations and not the free-for-all that evolutionists dream of.

                                Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                                There are many examples of science where once-only events have been reasonably explained by science. Whatever the reasons the dinosaurs finally disappeared, it would be really perverse to deny that a large meteorite hit the Yucatan Peninsula 65 million years ago. The layer of iridium around the world in the layer that dates to then, and the enormous crater still clearly visible in the geology don't really have any other explanation. Everyday you look at the last second of the sunset as it appears to dip in the west, you are looking at an arrangement of the sun and Earth that had already finished more than nine minutes earlier. The sun has already gone before you see it disappear. Does that make you doubt anything about how astronomy describes the solar system? Many of the stars you can see in the night sky aren't actually there any more, or at least not in the form you observe. Does than mean you should deny the facts we know about them even as you look at the starlight that is still arriving from them? They are observable, but it's from the past and not repeatable.

                                Stuart


                                You are really into juggling.
                                All of my ancestors are human.
                                Originally posted by Squeaky
                                That explains why your an idiot.
                                Originally posted by God's Truth
                                Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                                Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                                (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                                1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                                (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                                Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X