The verse simply means "all kinds of ravens". i.e "all types of ravens". or in modern terms, perhaps "all species of ravens". kinds means the sub-types- not a grouping.
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
The verse simply means "all kinds of ravens". i.e "all types of ravens". or in modern terms, perhaps "all species of ravens". kinds means the sub-types- not a grouping.
Rosenritter
New member
Don't get too carried away with "species" however, as there is some loose fudging room with that term. Is there any external regulation on that? I understand that its a bit arbitrary and subject to interpretation.
Five and six are defined integers and are externally defined. But someone decides that a beak is slightly more curved and they assign their name to this "new" species...
I agree that the term "species" is not really appropriate here. My point is that the verse clearly means "kinds" to be the specific types of birds, not a generalized bird.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
"Kind" seems to require some "fudging room" as the boundary between "kinds" is not well defined...
"Most of the controversy regarding created kinds revolves around the asserted boundaries between the kinds -- the position that the kinds are unrelated. Those challenging creation biology often ask what basis creation biologists have for asserting that such boundaries exist, or for determining what those boundaries are.
The project of determining the precise boundaries between the kinds is not easy, because it is in essence a historical project, in which the evidence is strictly limited by the evidence available today. This problem is analogous to the problems in constructing*phylogenetic trees, where evolutionary biologists struggle to determine which criteria should be used in determining how life is related.
Creationists generally assert that conclusions about common ancestry should only be drawn if there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion. That is, one should not presume that forms of life are related, but should hold that position only if there is solid reason to do so.
In the absence of the ability to directly observe life in its original form, classification of kinds generally revolves around reproductive compatibility -- that is, created kinds are generally seen as having common descent if they are reproductively compatible. Thus, humans and*frogs*are considered to be different kinds because they are not reproductively compatible at all, while the African and European*races*are considered to be clearly of the same kind, because they are totally reproductively compatible.
The classification is more difficult when reproductive compatibility is partial, as in the case of the*mule, a*hybrid*of the*horse*and the*donkey*which, although viable, is not fertile. While it is possible that the two species descend from a common ancestor due to their reproductive compatibility, it is also possible that they do not, but were created separately with reproductive systems similar enough to create viable offspring, but not similar enough to create fertile offspring.
Other criteria for common ancestry are rejected. The mere fact that organisms are alive is not seen as evidence of common ancestry, because there is no evidence available to refute the possibility that life originated in several unrelated forms. Genetic and physiological similarities are not seen as evidence of common ancestry, because there is no evidence available to refute the possibility that the genetic similarities are a result of a similar design being used on different "kinds."
Since 2001, creation biologists at the*Baraminology Study Group*have been developing a new method for demarcating created kinds. The new method involves the application of morphological character data to create a "biological character space," which can then be used to determine continuity and discontinuity between species, and ultimately to determine "biological trajectories."*Creation scientistsgenerally recognize that kinds are a form of*clade*since created kinds refer to common ancestry.*Baraminology, or the effort to classify life according to the created kinds, is thus the creationist equivalent of*cladistics." http://www.creationwiki.org/Created_kind
Since this "boundary problem" is essentially the "species problem" that Stripe is so fond of highlighting, can we assume that "kind" is a summarily useless term due to being "a bit arbitrary and subject to interpretation"?
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
Rosenritter
New member
I accept that mules, donkeys, horses... would have had a common ancestor. A common ancestor of the "horse" kind, that is. You know, horsey-like, with a big head, hooves, four legs, long horsehair tail, likes to run, eats all the horseradishes in your garden. The "horse" kind. Mules and donkeys are look pretty horsey. Zebras too, for that matter. I'm sure you get the idea. It may seem a little loose, but it's hard to describe in precise detail all the possible combinations that horse genes can be expressed. Let's go with the common sense impression.
In contrast, I saw one of those evolutionary tree theory diagrams yesterday and it had horses coming from the "mouse" kind. No mane or tail of hair, tiny, a creeping rodent. That would be an example of "not" the "horse kind." So while "kind" may seem useless to someone with an "Evolution" mindset, it's because they're trying to apply it to the wrong model.
Thanks for the level headed reply. Hope you are well Hunter.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
I'll take that as a, "Yes", then.
:liberals:
I've never ever responded any other way.
Saw Stripe making a fool of himself over gravity but didn't reply. Why an English teacher would deem himself qualified to discuss phusics with engineers is funny in the extreme.
Kind isn't used to describe all birds. All birds aren't one kind.
Amd the dance continues.
Kind has a clear and rock-solid definition. Darwinists hate that fact and will deny it repeatedly even after having been shown the definition numerous times.
You're a liar and a troll.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
Rosenritter seems to disagree:
"I accept that mules, donkeys, horses... would have had a common ancestor. A common ancestor of the "horse" kind, that is. You know, horsey-like, with a big head, hooves, four legs, long horsehair tail, likes to run, eats all the horseradishes in your garden. The "horse" kind. Mules and donkeys are look pretty horsey. Zebras too, for that matter. I'm sure you get the idea. It may seem a little loose, but it's hard to describe in precise detail all the possible combinations that horse genes can be expressed. Let's go with the common sense impression." - Post 20026
Birds are birdy-like the same as horses are horsey-like. "Kind" begets "kind", right? (Except if the "bird" is a bat.)
Common sense was never your strength.
... except when it doesn't, see above. "Kind" doesn't seem so "rock solid" after all. :sigh:
If "darwinists hate reading" equals "shown numerous times", then, sure.
Reporting you does nothing to stop your abusive behavior due to your protected status.
6days
New member
Black pot... meet the kettle.gcthomas said:
Astrophysicist Jason Lisle agree with you in that unknown conditions in the past are impossible to factor in. You are more than eager to consider all kinds of hypotheticals rather than evidence pointing to creation.
Evolutionist Just So Story (Fabrication)
Boys and girls... once upon a time, billions of years ago; something really big crashed into our planet. What a mess! Dirt and rocks flew into space. Fortunately for us all this dirt and rock got glued together to form our moon. It was a hot hot hot place!
But we don't know for sure if that is how it happened. Some people think a nuclear explosion on Earth that sent our moon into space. Really we aren't sure how it happened but we know that God did not create it.
Now... we don't know how close the hot molten moon was to earth at the beginning. But it might have been so close that the tides were hundreds of feet high. And, it might have been so close that our Earth was spinning super super fast. The days on Earth back then may have been only 10 hours long or even less than that.
Anyways.... one thing we do know is that we are sure lucky that the lesser light, the moon is just the right distance from earth to make our earth such a beautiful place. And... boys and girls; it might seem like the moon was designed for our planet, but don't believe it - our moon is a fluke accident.
gcthomas said:
I assume you believe in some version of the just so story above. We can ask you GC... why do you try dress up fabricated stories like that with scientism? Isn't your blind faith enough?
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
6days proves once again that he doesn't know the difference between a strawman and an actual argument any more than he knows the difference between a hypothesis and a scientific theory.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
6days
New member
Does that mean you didn't enjoy the just so story?:crackup:
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
If your goal was to show the world your total inability to grasp the difference between a strawman and an actual argument and the difference between a hypothesis and a scientific theory, then, congratulations, you succeeded.
Huh??? Are you projecting? I just reviewed every post I have made in this thread, and I said nothing whatsoever about evolution prior to asking why you use the term as you do.
No, I don’t know that, and that is not my experience at all. I have had numerous conversations in which the word “evolution” was central to what was being discussed, and almost never was it ambiguous.
So??? Most words in the dictionary have multiple meanings. The intended meaning is often very obvious from context. I could take almost any sentence in your reply and turn it into a dispute over exactly which meaning you meant for each word. Do you routinely have difficulty understanding people because the words they use have multiple meanings?
That’s unfortunate. If I am talking about people who study biology, I will probably refer to them as biologists. “Physicists” refers to those who specialize in the study of matter and energy and their relationship. I don’t see that applying a label (evolutionist) from one specific branch of biology to other scientists who may have no interest, qualifications, or even agreement with that branch of biology facilitates accurate communication. What do you have against employing the accurate normal labels?
Au contraire. I have tried to be explicit in seeing if this claim of the moon having a perfect orbit is actually based on science. It has become abundantly clear that no one in this conversation is going to present any science showing what is meant by a perfect moon orbit.
Clearly you were presenting your beliefs, which you are certainly entitled to. But please, have the integrity to not pretend your beliefs are what constitute science. I was not discussing my beliefs; I was (in vain) trying to see if someone had something beyond just their beliefs. As to evidence, instead of nebulously suggesting you have some, just present it.
I feel confident that with time and counseling, you'll get over it. :up:
| "I accept that mules, donkeys, horses... would have had a common ancestor. A common ancestor of the "horse" kind, that is. You know, horsey-like, with a big head, hooves, four legs, long horsehair tail, likes to run, eats all the horseradishes in your garden. The "horse" kind. Mules and donkeys are look pretty horsey. Zebras too, for that matter. I'm sure you get the idea. It may seem a little loose, but it's hard to describe in precise detail all the possible combinations that horse genes can be expressed. Let's go with the common sense impression." |
Yeah, because that contradicts what I said.
You're a moron.
Nope. Clear and rock-solid. You've been shown it numerous times.
We know you hate it.
Rosenritter
New member
Silent one, although I used the term "loose" it was in the sense that anyone who isn't a complete dummy can figure out a "horse" kind. It runs and whinnies and could make a guest appearance on "My Little Pony."
Oh, by the way, bats are a kind of bird. You see, the Hebrews classified the major types by movement and habitat. Dolphins and lobster are fish. Bats and locusts are birds.
It's not hard to figure out even for someone who has only been raised with the modern system where combinations of warm bloodedness, hair, feathers, and eggs are counted. Except when those rules have their exceptions of course.
Rosenritter
New member
He gave you the opportunity to endorse it or correct his assumption. That's not a straw man, that's you avoiding the implied question.
gcthomas
New member
Has Jason Lisle ever worked as an astrophysicist since he left university? You keep describing him by his qualifications, rather than his actual employment — he is NOT an astrophysicist now, and since his PhD was in solar physics I doubt that any of his higher knowledge is applicable to the study of tidal forces that he has probably never studied. This is obvious from his naïve and hugely simplistic modelling, which involved no Physics whatsoever (He fitted a curve to one data point on a graph if you remember. I would fail my physics students for that sort of incompetence in any assessed research.)
gcthomas
New member
When there is only an appeal to the authority of someone who once studied for a PhD in an unrelated topic, then dismissing that spurious authority is all that is left to do.
Provide a proper physics argument and I'll deal with that. And please, don't try to resurrect your zombie elementary school physics 'argument', I don't think my sides could hold out.
- Status