Biological Taxonomy - Kinds vs. Species (Linnaean taxonomy)

[6days]

There is no such thing as prehistoric.

I agree... We have a record of history from the beginning... an eye witness account.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Oh.... like with*Hesperopithecus haroldcookii? . Are a Pandas sharp teeth used for ripping meat? Stories are created based on evolutionists assumptions. Often science helps us see through the false assumptions.*


Quite possibly.*

You need to sharpen up your definition of nepesh before throwing it out like its a fact I'm my opinion.

Pandas (and all bears) have these sharp teeth despite being primarily herbivorous. Great pandas (the two different species of them) are the first of any bear to develop a purely vegetarian diet. As such their guts actually do a horrible job of breaking the bamboo down which is why they must eat so much of the stuff. Does that seem like good 'design' to you? No it doesn't. But it is what we'd expect to see in an early branch off species according to the theory of evolution

Once again I apologize for my snarkiness. I appreciate you and George very much. Stripe.....I don't

 

[Wick Stick]

Now I know you haven't read the Bible. Jesus did not subvert the law.

Now you're misunderstanding me. I said Jesus subverted the ORAL LAW. That's not Exodus, that's the giant corpus of case law that the Pharisees and Essenes added to God's Law. It covers important topics such as proper tithing from an herb garden, and not defecating on the Sabbath.

Jarrod

 

[Greg Jennings]

There is no such thing as prehistoric.

Where's your science on this, George? It's an extreme opinion to say the least.

I'll give you one very good reason why you are wrong here friend: man has always made piles of bones of prey animals in the vicinity of their settlements going all the way back to the advent of hunting. We find these all of the time. Never once has a dinosaur bone or a bone of large prehistoric reptiles (outside of Megalania, the Komodo Dragon's larger predecessor in Australia) been found in these waste piles. If there was no prehistory when these creatures existed and thus they lived alongside man then why did man seemingly eat everything but these large reptiles?

 

[Wick Stick]

Where's your science on this, George? It's an extreme opinion to say the least.

I'll give you one very good reason why you are wrong here friend: man has always made piles of bones of prey animals in the vicinity of their settlements going all the way back to the advent of hunting. We find these all of the time. Never once has a dinosaur bone or a bone of large prehistoric reptiles (outside of Megalania, the Komodo Dragon's larger predecessor in Australia) been found in these waste piles. If there was no prehistory when these creatures existed and thus they lived alongside man then why did man seemingly eat everything but these large reptiles?

 

[6days]

You need to sharpen up your definition of nepesh before throwing it out like its a fact I'm my opinion.

Throwing what out as fact?
That there was no death to nephesh creatures before sin?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Throwing what out as fact?
That there was no death to nephesh creatures before sin?

What I mean is that you can't even tell me what nepesh is with any certainty yet you are treating it as an important term that is central to you creation theory

 

[George Affleck]

I've examined many of your posts and threads Stripe. You just don't offer anything to conversation and as such I won't be responding to anything you say. I look forward to your foolish mockery attempts that you use in substitution of real knowledge

That's only because you don't understand him yet.

Some of us (me included) respond for apologetic practice, some for other reasons. He needs no practice and will not tolerate laziness or trolling which describes 99% of the non-Christians here.

I may not agree with everything he says but he is a wealth of knowledge and for those who wish to properly and respectfully engage on equal footing he will post reasonably. Others he will mock because that is what they deserve. They bring it on themselves with their foolishness and repetitious scoffing.

 

[George Affleck]

Where's your science on this, George? It's an extreme opinion to say the least.

I'll give you one very good reason why you are wrong here friend: man has always made piles of bones of prey animals in the vicinity of their settlements going all the way back to the advent of hunting. We find these all of the time. Never once has a dinosaur bone or a bone of large prehistoric reptiles (outside of Megalania, the Komodo Dragon's larger predecessor in Australia) been found in these waste piles. If there was no prehistory when these creatures existed and thus they lived alongside man then why did man seemingly eat everything but these large reptiles?

Would you want to eat a large reptile? You go ahead, I prefer chicken.

 

[Greg Jennings]

That's only because you don't understand him yet.

Some of us (me included) respond for apologetic practice, some for other reasons. He needs no practice and will not tolerate laziness or trolling which describes 99% of the non-Christians here.

I may not agree with everything he says but he is a wealth of knowledge and for those who wish to properly and respectfully engage on equal footing he will post reasonably. Others he will mock because that is what they deserve. They bring it on themselves with their foolishness and repetitious scoffing.

I'll have to respectfully disagree with you George. I looked at his plate tectonics thread, hydroplane thread, and about 20 pages of responses from him on this and various other threads. He knows (and I can't stress this word enough) nothing.

You say he calls out trolls. He is a troll. How can you not see that?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Would you want to eat a large reptile? You go ahead, I prefer chicken.

Do you honestly think pre-societal man could afford to just let prey pass by because they preferred something else? They were constantly starving George. Us now sometimes lose touch with the desperation these people faced. For an example of how desperate hunger makes people watch the show Naked and Afraid. They kill whatever they can catch whether that's birds or alligators or electric eels or snakes or caiman or squirrels and on and on. There is no preference when you're truly hungry.

Anyway, large reptiles are regularly preyed upon by people in countries that aren't first-world. As are insects

 

[6days]

What I mean is that you can't even tell me what nepesh is with any certainty yet you are treating it as an important term that is central to you creation theory

I told you what Nephesh is. It is creatures considered as living beings, or perhaps those with consciousness. I suggested it may be all vertebrates.
Death to nephesh creatures entered the world after man sinned. Physical death is part of the curse.

It isn't really so important to "creation theory" as it is to the gospel. It helps us understand why we have pain, suffering and death in our world.

 

[George Affleck]

I'll have to respectfully disagree with you George. I looked at his plate tectonics thread, hydroplane thread, and about 20 pages of responses from him on this and various other threads. He knows (and I can't stress this word enough) nothing.

You say he calls out trolls. He is a troll. How can you not see that?

Something else for us to disagree on then!

And I was going to try to sell you a Stripe bobblehead. Oh well...

 

[Greg Jennings]

I told you what Nephesh is. It is creatures considered as living beings, or perhaps those with consciousness. I suggested it may be all vertebrates.
Death to nephesh creatures entered the world after man sinned. Physical death is part of the curse.

It isn't really so important to "creation theory" as it is to the gospel. It helps us understand why we have pain, suffering and death in our world.

Your definition offered is too broad to be of much use scientifically. I trust you recognize that. Suggesting it "may be all vertebrates" isn't much to go on

 

[6days]

Do you honestly think pre-societal man could afford to just let prey pass by because they preferred something else?

That sounds like the assumptions evolutionists used to make about Neandertals...until science showed that they were not starving carnivores. Neandertals ate grains and understood medicine. Ancient man was intelligent from the beginning.

 

[6days]

Your definition offered is too broad to be of much use scientifically. I trust you recognize that. Suggesting it "may be all vertebrates" isn't much to go on

Its ok... it doesn't need to be of use scientifically.
We need to know that God created the earth as a perfect place where death to conscious creatures did not exist. The lion and lamb could lay together. We need to understand (as Christians) that Christ (Last Adam) had to physically die, and be resurrected, to defeat the curse of physical death caused by first Adam.

 

[Greg Jennings]

That sounds like the assumptions evolutionists used to make about Neandertals...until science showed that they were not starving carnivores. Neandertals ate grains and understood medicine. Ancient man was intelligent from the beginning.

It has nothing to do with intelligence. It has to do with how hard it is to catch and kill animals and to do it enough to feed a community of people. Even ideal predators like crocodiles and lions and tigers have a successful kill rate that is well under 50%. Humans without modern weapons have a success rate that is even worse. There is no conjecture here. We observe primitive tribes hunting all of the time. Have you ever seen tribes in Africa? There are no overweight people. There are rarely people of average weight. Starving is just a way of life for primitive peoples. And as such they don't and wouldnt ever let prey pass on by

 

[6days]

That's only because you don't understand him yet.

Some of us (me included) respond for apologetic practice, some for other reasons. He needs no practice and will not tolerate laziness or trolling which describes 99% of the non-Christians here.

I may not agree with everything he says but he is a wealth of knowledge and for those who wish to properly and respectfully engage on equal footing he will post reasonably. Others he will mock because that is what they deserve. They bring it on themselves with their foolishness and repetitious scoffing.

Great comments George.

 

[6days]

Have you ever seen tribes in Africa? There are no overweight people. There are rarely people of average weight. Starving is just a way of life for primitive peoples. And as such they don't and wouldnt ever let prey pass on by

Would you consider that we have less intelligence than ancient man?
That is difficult for you because it goes against evolutionary beliefs. As a Christian, I believe the earliest humans had great intelligence, strength and beauty. But thousands of years of genetic burden has reduced our intelligence (different from knowledge), and we are subject to far more genetic disorders now than even a couple thousand years ago.
(Your assumptions have man as a hunter..... Adam had a garden...an orchard)

 

[Greg Jennings]

Would you consider that we have less intelligence than ancient man?
That is difficult for you because it goes against evolutionary beliefs. As a Christian, I believe the earliest humans had great intelligence, strength and beauty. But thousands of years of genetic burden has reduced our intelligence (different from knowledge), and we are subject to far more genetic disorders now than even a couple thousand years ago.

We have the same intelligence. Maybe ever so slightly more but not much of a difference. The difference now is that we've had millennia of accumulated knowledge and inventions passed along by one generation to the next, and each subsequent generation improves upon what they were given.

If you have any scientific journals or documents that say that early man was either subject to fewer genetic disorders or that early man was smarter and better please post them. I'm open minded but pure conjecture without solid backing isn't going to convince me