Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

1…1415171920…232

Comments

  • #482
    Wh1stler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 276 ✭✭Wh1stler


    gkell3 wrote: »
    The Earth turned once yesterday will turn once in 24 hours today and will do it all over again tomorrow and the day after that and so on,there is nothing to cause a divergence between one 24 hour day and one rotation as it is the primary experience everyone has of planetary dynamics.It takes a special person to insist on a 1465 rotation/1461 day imbalance so rightfully the empirical community falls below even the standard of a creationist,that is not an insult but a fact.

    The full outlines which link the 24 hour day with one rotation to the Lat/Long system and the AM/PM cycles were described but vanished without objection as will this post.

    Do you accept that the earth orbits the sun?

    And do you accept that the earth rotates on its axis?

    Take any point on the earth's equator; it is moving at a little over 1000 mph, 'x mph', due to rotation with respect to any stationary point in space. Do you accept this?

    Now, take the point on the sun that is closest to the earth. In a period of 24 hours that point on the sun will move a certain distance along the surface of the sun in the direction of the earth's orbit around it. Because of this motion, the earth's rotation will appear to be slightly slowed down when compared to the apparent speed of rotation with respect to a fixed point in space. Any point on the equator will appear to move at slightly less than 'x mph'.

    If earth was not orbiting the sun but was instead moving toward or away from the sun, then the point on the sun which is nearest to earth would be equivalent to 'any fixed point in space' and it would appear from that point that any point on the earth's equator is moving at 'x mph'.

    The motion of the earth as it orbits the sun causes an apparent slowing of earth's rotation about its axis and this amount of slowing adds up to the loss of one day per year.

    Consequently, there is one more stellar day per year than there are solar days per year.


  • #483
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Wh1stler wrote: »
    Do you accept that the earth orbits the sun?

    And do you accept that the earth rotates on its axis?

    Take any point on the earth's equator; it is moving at a little over 1000 mph, 'x mph', due to rotation with respect to any stationary point in space. Do you accept this?

    Now, take the point on the sun that is closest to the earth. In a period of 24 hours that point on the sun will move a certain distance along the surface of the sun in the direction of the earth's orbit around it. Because of this motion, the earth's rotation will appear to be slightly slowed down when compared to the apparent speed of rotation with respect to a fixed point in space. Any point on the equator will appear to move at slightly less than 'x mph'.

    If earth was not orbiting the sun but was instead moving toward or away from the sun, then the point on the sun which is nearest to earth would be equivalent to 'any fixed point in space' and it would appear from that point that any point on the earth's equator is moving at 'x mph'.

    The motion of the earth as it orbits the sun causes an apparent slowing of earth's rotation about its axis and this amount of slowing adds up to the loss of one day per year.

    Consequently, there is one more stellar day per year than there are solar days per year.

    You're clearly ignorant of these salient words:

    "Doubtful it stood;
    As two spent swimmers, that do cling together
    And choke their art. The merciless Macdonwald--
    Worthy to be a rebel, for to that
    The multiplying villanies of nature
    Do swarm upon him--from the western isles
    Of kerns and gallowglasses is supplied;
    And fortune, on his damned quarrel smiling,
    Show'd like a rebel's whore: but all's too weak:
    For brave Macbeth--well he deserves that name--
    Disdaining fortune, with his brandish'd steel,
    Which smoked with bloody execution,
    Like valour's minion carved out his passage
    Till he faced the slave;
    Which ne'er shook hands, nor bade farewell to him,
    Till he unseam'd him from the nave to the chaps,
    And fix'd his head upon our battlements." -- Sergeant


  • #484
    Wh1stler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 276 ✭✭Wh1stler


    Morbert wrote: »
    You're clearly ignorant of these salient words:

    "Doubtful it stood;
    As two spent swimmers, that do cling together
    And choke their art. The merciless Macdonwald--
    Worthy to be a rebel, for to that
    The multiplying villanies of nature
    Do swarm upon him--from the western isles
    Of kerns and gallowglasses is supplied;
    And fortune, on his damned quarrel smiling,
    Show'd like a rebel's whore: but all's too weak:
    For brave Macbeth--well he deserves that name--
    Disdaining fortune, with his brandish'd steel,
    Which smoked with bloody execution,
    Like valour's minion carved out his passage
    Till he faced the slave;
    Which ne'er shook hands, nor bade farewell to him,
    Till he unseam'd him from the nave to the chaps,
    And fix'd his head upon our battlements." -- Sergeant

    Yes, I'm afraid I am.


  • #485
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Creationism is an elegant truth that reveals the narrative of supernatural history. That alone is a reason to defend it. To promote it as a scientific fact is to both miss the point of the story and fail to recognize Gods creation as it exists all around us.
    I would love to know why they think God is in danger of what we find in His creation, only their world view is threatened and to defend that they ignore what God actually did. Who's turning their back on God? creationists or scientists?
    You suggest Genesis is a metaphor for God's actual work of creation by evolution. And of course the Flood also must be a metaphor for...er, ...um, something or other.

    But they read no different from the narrative of Abraham, Jacob, Moses. Hmm, yes, I suppose you deny the factuality of the Exodus too.

    It would help if you could indicate where factual history begins in the Old Testament.

    Or in the New Testament: the narrative of the virgin conception of Christ; the angelic witness to His birth; the massacre of the innocents by Herod; the ministry and miracles of Christ; His death accompanied by three hours of darkness from midday, an earthquake, tearing of the Temple veil, dead saints rising; His bodily resurrection and ascension to heaven; the coming of the Spirit and the signs & wonders performed by the apostles - how much is an elegant truth that reveals the narrative of supernatural history (that is, pious fiction), and how much factual history?

    What value has it if it tells us nothing other than God caused it all somehow? The apostles and Christ Himself seem to have been ignorant of the fact that Genesis was not factual history. They appealed to the events recorded there to establish moral behaviour - woman's role in relation to man, for example. Were they ignorant, or were they manipulating us by a lie?

    *****************************************************************************
    1 Timothy 2:12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.


  • #486
    gkell3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 145 ✭✭gkell3


    Morbert wrote: »
    For anyone who is remotely interested. gkellx's ramblings have been thoroughly and entirely refuted here:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056554296

    Also, a well written article on the Earth's rotation:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_of_day

    Nobody ever reads the words of the original innovators as though they meant nothing or were fearful texts beyond human comprehension.There is no reason for anyone to imagine that one 24 hour day is anything other than one rotation of the Earth and students would love the story that stretches from Newgrange to the Egyptians and on through history to the Christian festivals and Harrison's inventions which we all use today.

    The empiricist view of a 1465 rotation/1461 day imbalance is against all observations that treasure the song of the birds in the morning or a blooming flower,the industry of a day's work and the experience of twilight coming on,it is almost an anti-human view in its disregard for natural sciences much less the attempt to speak for nature.The words of Jesus often used experiences drawn from the land and sea to express God in all things and the human journey to discover the greater Life that encompasses all life but it is not going to penetrate into the minds of people who do not have enough sense to connect one day with one rotation of the Earth.

    http://www.sheinspires.com.au/inspiration/inspiring-flower-quotes

    Christianity is not only a way to deal with difficult times and sometime unrelenting hostility,it is also the background against which human express their own creativity or enjoy it in creation the language of these forums and sometimes suggest that participants are doing God and nature a favor -

    "Above all the graces and gifts of the Holy Spirit which Christ gives to His friends is that of conquering oneself and willingly enduring sufferings, insults, humiliations, and hardships for the love of Christ. For we cannot glory in all those other marvelous gifts of God, as they are not ours but God's, as the Apostle says: 'What have you that you have not received?' But we can glory in the cross of tribulations and afflictions, because that is ours, and so the Apostle says: 'I will not glory save in the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

    To whom be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen." St Francis


  • Advertisement
  • #487
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Morbert said:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    This whole thing has indeed been addressed in the BCP Part 1 thread. But if new posts are made, I'll continue to respond as time permits.

    My scientist friends say they have not been refuted. Your claims that they have been are just that - claims. The debate is not settled by claims.

    As to my inability to advance scientific argument, that is not my calling or purpose. I'm here merely to point those who are interested to the fact that there is an alternative scientific case to evolution, and to the historic Christian position on creation.

    What you or others do with that information is up to you.
    Do you not see the problem here? In one statement you say your "scientist friends" claim they have not been refuted. In the next, you say claims do not settle debates.
    No problem in that, for I'm claiming neither the claims of one side or the other settle the matter.
    Furthermore, we are not asking you to advance the scientific argument for creationism. We are telling you that previously tendered criticisms of evolution made by creationists have been refuted, and previously tendered "scientific creationism" claims have been exposed as unscientific.
    And I'm telling you those 'refutations' and 'exposures' have been refuted.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lmaopml
    Why is it such a big deal that some people are Creationists? Why does it matter so much to Atheists, like the Scientists are personal friends or something, or that Science will stop because of a few people like Wolfe, who are in fact quite harmless imo.
    It is a big deal because they attack science in school.
    http://ncse.com/
    Yes, we believe the scientific controversy should be taught in State schools. We would of course teach that in Christian schools, but informing the students that the creationist argument is the correct one. Other non-State schools would be free to promote evolution or creation as they saw fit.

    A helpful resource:
    Welcome to the Virtual Museum! ... towards a post-Darwinian view: some of the evidence
    http://www.worldaroundus.org.uk/




    ******************************************************************
    Proverbs 18:17 The first one to plead his cause seems right,
    Until his neighbor comes and examines him.


  • #488
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    gkell3 wrote: »
    Nobody ever reads the words of the original innovators as though they meant nothing or were fearful texts beyond human comprehension.There is no reason for anyone to imagine that one 24 hour day is anything other than one rotation of the Earth and students would love the story that stretches from Newgrange to the Egyptians and on through history to the Christian festivals and Harrison's inventions which we all use today.

    The empiricist view of a 1465 rotation/1461 day imbalance is against all observations that treasure the song of the birds in the morning or a blooming flower,the industry of a day's work and the experience of twilight coming on,it is almost an anti-human view in its disregard for natural sciences much less the attempt to speak for nature.The words of Jesus often used experiences drawn from the land and sea to express God in all things and the human journey to discover the greater Life that encompasses all life but it is not going to penetrate into the minds of people who do not have enough sense to connect one day with one rotation of the Earth.

    http://www.sheinspires.com.au/inspiration/inspiring-flower-quotes

    Christianity is not only a way to deal with difficult times and sometime unrelenting hostility,it is also the background against which human express their own creativity or enjoy it in creation the language of these forums and sometimes suggest that participants are doing God and nature a favor -

    "Above all the graces and gifts of the Holy Spirit which Christ gives to His friends is that of conquering oneself and willingly enduring sufferings, insults, humiliations, and hardships for the love of Christ. For we cannot glory in all those other marvelous gifts of God, as they are not ours but God's, as the Apostle says: 'What have you that you have not received?' But we can glory in the cross of tribulations and afflictions, because that is ours, and so the Apostle says: 'I will not glory save in the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

    To whom be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen." St Francis

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_of_day


    Also. Remember these words:
    "Some are explained by the geographical and commercial history of the drive type's development (as detailed in the history section); these include Allen, Unbrako, and Inbus key or wrench. The synonym zeta key or wrench refers to the sixth letter of the Greek alphabet. The term hex-head is sometimes used to refer to this type of drive, but this use is not consistent with its more conventional use referring to external-wrenching hexagons."


  • #489
    gkell3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 145 ✭✭gkell3


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    You suggest Genesis is a metaphor for God's actual work of creation by evolution. And of course the Flood also must be a metaphor for...er, ...um, something or other.

    "What else did Adam do but this same thing? It is said, it was because Adam ate the apple that he was lost, or fell. I say, it was because of his claiming something for his own, and because of his I, Mine, Me, and the like. Had he eaten seven apples, and yet never claimed anything for his own, he would not have fallen: but as soon as he called something his own, he fell, and would have fallen if he had never touched an apple. Behold! I have fallen a hundred times more often and deeply, and gone a hundred times farther astray than Adam; and not all mankind could mend his fall, or bring him back from going astray. But how shall my fall be amended? It must be healed as Adam's fall was healed, and on the self-same wise. By whom, and on what wise was that healing brought to pass? Mark this: man could not without God, and God should not without man. Wherefore God took human nature or manhood upon Himself and was made man, and man was made divine. Thus the healing was brought to pass. So also must my fall be healed. I cannot do the work without God, and God may not or will not without me; for if it shall be accomplished, in me, too, God must be made man; in such sort that God must take to Himself all that is in me, within and without, so that there may be nothing in me which striveth against God or hindereth His Work. Now if God took to Himself all men that are in the world, or ever were, and were made man in them, and they were made divine in Him, and this work were not fulfilled in me, my fall and my wandering would never be amended except it were fulfilled in me also. And in this bringing back and healing, I can, or may, or shall do nothing of myself, but just simply yield to God, so that He alone may do all things in me and work, and I may suffer Him and all His work and His divine will. And because I will not do so, but I count myself to be my own, and say "I," "Mine," "Me" and the like, God is hindered, so that He cannot do His work in me alone and without hindrance; for this cause my fall and my going astray remain unhealed. Behold! this all cometh of my claiming somewhat for my own."

    http://www.passtheword.org/dialogs-from-the-past/theogrm1.htm

    This is the genuine Christian heritage,how Christians once looked on Genesis and the fall of Adam, it is a historical event as it happens every day to everyone in some shape or form but of course it depends on how confident the reader is when faith raises the curtain on our own lives and how we interpret our successes and failings.What began in a garden ended in one for such is Christ and Christianity.


  • #490
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    So I don't know any way to prove the reality of any 'kind'. The best Biblical criteria seems to be the ability to breed.
    How many "kinds" are there? Presumably, creatures that CAN interbreed are of the same "kind"? Can creatures who have lost the ability to interbreed be considered the same "kind"? How do you determine this? Do YOU, a creationist, rely on phenotypic or genotypic data for your taxonomic classifications of "kinds"?
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    If a cat and a dog could breed together, then it would suggest they are a 'kind'. They can't of course, and that suggests they are not.
    So your definition of "kinds" maps to a basic definition of "species"?


  • #491
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    And I'm telling you those 'refutations' and 'exposures' have been refuted.

    Where?


  • Advertisement
  • #492
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Yes, we believe the scientific controversy should be taught in State schools. We would of course teach that in Christian schools, but informing the students that the creationist argument is the correct one. Other non-State schools would be free to promote evolution or creation as they saw fit.
    Do you believe that students should be taught astrology, stork theories of reproduction and alchemy?


  • #493
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Wh1stler wrote: »
    Were there any Neanderthals on the ark?
    If they were humans, when did their variant arise and when did it die out - before or after the Flood? If they arose after the Flood, they arose from the same genetic pool you and I do - Noah's sons and their wives. If they arose and died out before the Flood, they had Adam and Eve's gene pool only and did not survive to make it onto the ark.

    Could Noah's family have been Neanderthals? I don't know what genetics tell us about our relationship to Neanderthals. If they are our ancestors, then Noah's family could have been Neanderthal. We then would be the variation that arose from them.

    ********************************************************************
    Genesis 9:18 Now the sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And Ham was the father of Canaan. 19 These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.


  • #494
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Do you believe that students should be taught astrology, stork theories of reproduction and alchemy?
    No, for those are not advanced as scientific models by scientists, unlike creationism and evolution.

    I hope I haven't spoken out of turn - you did have that 'birds and bees' chat with your mum? ;)



    *************************************************************************
    Genesis 9:18 Now the sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And Ham was the father of Canaan. 19 These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.


  • #495
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Morbert wrote: »
    Where?
    On the creationist sites and publications. I've pointed you to them often. You don't agree they successfully refute the evolutionists arguments, but that's your problem.

    *************************************************************************
    Proverbs 18:17 The first one to plead his cause seems right,
    Until his neighbor comes and examines him.


  • #496
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    You suggest Genesis is a metaphor for God's actual work of creation by evolution. And of course the Flood also must be a metaphor for...er, ...um, something or other.
    The flood is a myth.
    But they read no different from the narrative of Abraham, Jacob, Moses. Hmm, yes, I suppose you deny the factuality of the Exodus too.

    It would help if you could indicate where factual history begins in the Old Testament.
    It dosn't, the OT contains some history but it's not a history.
    Or in the New Testament: the narrative of the virgin conception of Christ; the angelic witness to His birth; the massacre of the innocents by Herod; the ministry and miracles of Christ; His death accompanied by three hours of darkness from midday, an earthquake, tearing of the Temple veil, dead saints rising; His bodily resurrection and ascension to heaven; the coming of the Spirit and the signs & wonders performed by the apostles - how much is an elegant truth that reveals the narrative of supernatural history (that is, pious fiction), and how much factual history?
    Pious being the key word here but not in the derogatory sense you meant.
    What value has it if it tells us nothing other than God caused it all somehow? The apostles and Christ Himself seem to have been ignorant of the fact that Genesis was not factual history. They appealed to the events recorded there to establish moral behaviour - woman's role in relation to man, for example. Were they ignorant, or were they manipulating us by a lie?
    They were telling the truth from their perspective and understanding.
    *****************************************************************************
    1 Timothy 2:12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
    Timothy was a muppet for that bit anyway.


  • #497
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    If they were humans, when did their variant arise and when did it die out - before or after the Flood? If they arose after the Flood, they arose from the same genetic pool you and I do - Noah's sons and their wives. If they arose and died out before the Flood, they had Adam and Eve's gene pool only and did not survive to make it onto the ark.

    Could Noah's family have been Neanderthals? I don't know what genetics tell us about our relationship to Neanderthals. If they are our ancestors, then Noah's family could have been Neanderthal. We then would be the variation that arose from them.
    Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis diverged from a common ancestor around 600,000 years ago.


  • #498
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    No, for those are not advanced as scientific models by scientists, unlike creationism and evolution.

    You head them up, I'll nod them in...

    Creationism is not a scientific model advanced by scientists. For a start, it doesn't advance anything.

    Scientists can turn one element into another. There is a huge amount of evidence for alchemy.


  • #499
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    doctoremma said:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    So I don't know any way to prove the reality of any 'kind'. The best Biblical criteria seems to be the ability to breed.
    How many "kinds" are there?
    A few/several thousand.
    Presumably, creatures that CAN interbreed are of the same "kind"?
    Yes.
    Can creatures who have lost the ability to interbreed be considered the same "kind"?
    Yes.
    How do you determine this? Do YOU, a creationist, rely on phenotypic or genotypic data for your taxonomic classifications of "kinds"?
    I'm not sure what criteria they use outside interbreeding. This gives a brief comment on the issue:
    “Species” and “Kind”
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cfl/species-kind
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    If a cat and a dog could breed together, then it would suggest they are a 'kind'. They can't of course, and that suggests they are not.
    So your definition of "kinds" maps to a basic definition of "species"?
    ??? Of course not. More like "Families".



    ********************************************************************
    1 Timothy 2:12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.


  • #500
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    doctoremma wrote: »
    You head them up, I'll nod them in...

    Creationism is not a scientific model advanced by scientists. For a start, it doesn't advance anything.

    Scientists can turn one element into another. There is a huge amount of evidence for alchemy.
    Of course creationist scientists have advanced their scientific models of creationism. You don't accept them - that's up to you.

    Yes, I should have qualified my comment on alchemy. I simply didn't think you were being pedantic. Yes, I'm aware that very expensive means of changing the atomic nature of an element can turn lead into gold.

    The traditional alchemist rather hoped for a money-making process.

    ************************************************************************
    1 Timothy 2:12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.


  • #501
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis diverged from a common ancestor around 600,000 years ago.
    Only your dating is wrong then? Still doesn't tell us if it was before or after the Flood.


    ***********************************************************************
    Proverbs 18:17 The first one to plead his cause seems right,
    Until his neighbor comes and examines him.


  • Advertisement
  • #502
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    So Wolfsbane, all bears are one 'kind', despite there now existing several different species that cannot interbreed? Similarly, all beetles are one kind? All birds?

    Again, how are you determining kinds? How a creature looks compared to others? Or it's genetic relationship to others?


  • #503
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Timothy was a muppet for that bit anyway.
    It was Paul who wrote it - and your comment says a lot about your view of the word of God.

    *********************************************************************
    Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.


  • #504
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    doctoremma wrote: »
    So Wolfsbane, all bears are one 'kind', despite there now existing several different species that cannot interbreed? Similarly, all beetles are one kind? All birds?

    Again, how are you determining kinds? How a creature looks compared to others? Or it's genetic relationship to others?
    Perhaps genetics can help in identifying 'kinds'. Appearance and similarity of function are no proof - as God could have created such as separate kinds.

    Interbreeding is the only positive test. Apply that to the birds, bears, etc.


    ********************************************************************
    Proverbs 18:17 The first one to plead his cause seems right,
    Until his neighbor comes and examines him.


  • #505
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Interbreeding is the only positive test. Apply that to the birds, bears, etc.
    You said earlier that even animals that could no longer interbreed could be considered the same kind. How does that fit with your statement above, which maps 'kind' to the same basic definition as 'species'.


  • #506
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    On the creationist sites and publications. I've pointed you to them often. You don't agree they successfully refute the evolutionists arguments, but that's your problem.

    I have specifically tendered refutations of creationist literature in this thread. For example, here is a paper demonstrating increase in biological information through natural selection of random mutations.

    http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/28/14/2794

    You are claiming that this has been refuted by creationist literature. Where?


  • #507
    Cossax
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭Cossax


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Only your dating is wrong then? Still doesn't tell us if it was before or after the Flood.


    ***********************************************************************
    Proverbs 18:17 The first one to plead his cause seems right,
    Until his neighbor comes and examines him.

    Evidence that the dating is wrong?
    Evidence that there was a biblical flood?


  • #508
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Zombrex wrote: »
    How is the debate settled? You seem to simply reject anything that does not fit into a particular narrative. To be honest this is to be expected since you believe that you have absolute certainty that the Bible as you interpret it is the word of God.

    What debate then are you looking for? We have told you a million times that how you describe the scientific community, full of scared scientists and Satan's influences, is not how the scientific community actually is. You simply don't believe us, preferring to hold again to the particular narrative that all of science is pitched against the truth of Christianity.

    It does call into question what purpose continuing to debate with you serves?
    The debate can only be settled - or at least ended - when one of these occurs:
    A. Evolution beyond the Family level is demonstrated.
    B. Christ returns and brings all mankind to His judgement seat. They'll know there the truth of all He has told us.

    But in the meantime, indications of the scientific facts can be gained by testing the various suggested mechanisms involved in evolution/creation. The story one builds upon the observed mechanisms will not be sure proof of course - other explanations may arise. The controversy over the cosmological constant is an example outside the evolution/creation debate.

    The nature of the scientific community is a point of disagreement for us. You do not see the pressure ideology has on evolutionists, but you have no bother seeing it among creationists. You further do not accept the Biblical assessment of the deceptive nature of man's heart - how he will resist anything that would give credence to the God of the Bible. Both of these skew your assessment.

    You evolutionist guys must decide on the value of debating with creationists. Creationists are happy to debate with you - at least for an extended time - because we know God uses His truth to convert sinners. We aim to win you to Christ, not to creationism. The latter is an important truth, but not an essential one.



    *****************************************************************
    Acts 19:8 And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. 9 But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus.


  • #509
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    doctoremma wrote: »
    You said earlier that even animals that could no longer interbreed could be considered the same kind. How does that fit with your statement above, which maps 'kind' to the same basic definition as 'species'.
    How does it map 'kind' to the same basic definition as 'species'? I've said it does not. Are you suggesting all birds are the ones species? I'm not.


    *********************************************************************
    Proverbs 18:17 The first one to plead his cause seems right,
    Until his neighbor comes and examines him.


  • #510
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    How does it map 'kind' to the same basic definition as 'species'? I've said it does not. Are you suggesting all birds are the ones species? I'm not.

    You have said that the ability to interbreed is indicative of 'kind', indeed the 'only positive test'. This matches how taxonomists determine a 'species'. So domestic dogs are both the same species and the same 'kind'.

    Your grouping of 'kind' is wider though, you call it more like a 'family', meaning a 'family of similar animals'? You acknowledge that genetics helps determine the relatedness of different animals. This matches how taxonomists and geneticists determine the relatedness of different animals. Your 'kind' is now defined at the level of 'genus' (dogs and wolves) or even 'family' (dogs, wolves and foxes).

    The same processes you accept as valid to map dogs and wolves into the same kind are used to map dogs, wolves and foxes into the same family - the clear patterns of genetic relatedness.

    Unless you don't think dogs and wolves are the same kind?

    So, how far back does the 'kind' to which dogs belong extend?

    Only dogs?
    Are dogs and wolves the same kind?
    Are dogs, wolves and foxes the same kind?
    Are dogs, wolves, foxes, cats and bears the same kind?


  • Advertisement
  • #511
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    The debate can only be settled - or at least ended - when one of these occurs:
    A. Evolution beyond the Family level is demonstrated.

    That's great. So we can settle this now then.

    We have observed interfamilial hybrids.

    300px-Guinea-hybrids.jpg

    The bird on the left in the photo above is a hybrid of the domestic chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus, family Phasianinae) and a guineafowl (Numida meleagris, family Numididae).

    However, even such a hybrid isn't necessary to show that creationism is full of crap.

    Firstly, membership of a kind depends on the ability to interbreed. That presents a problem whenever lists of kinds are produced by creationists. Take the Felidae kind or baramin for example. There are 42 members of the Felidae baramin. Considering the possibility of different outcomes with male-female crosses of different species, the total number of possible pairings is 1722. There have only ever been 67 confirmed pairings within this group however, or 3% so the creationist postulate looks a little shaky.

    Secondly, the intention of the creationists who first began to study kinds was to create a new picture of evolution, replacing the tree of life with the creationist orchard below.

    EE.tree2_0.jpg

    This approach is equally baseless because the only thing necessary to undermine this idea is to show where any two kinds share a common ancestor, which has been found repeatedly, particularly humans and other apes, feliformes and caniformes and even whales and hippos.

    Thirdly, the creationists who have made it their business to specialise in this kind of snake-oil selling have already by their own publications shown themselves to be dishonest and unscientific.

    From the definitive work "Understanding the Pattern of Life":

    "We creationists rest instead on the philosophical and biblical foundation...Since we believe that something like a diverse unit of biological creation must exist, detecting baramins becomes a matter of adjusting our context until the baraminic limits emerge"

    "Clearly when the Bible claims discontinuity, any other evidence is unnecessary. As a result, the quality of the Australopithecine or whale series is overruled by the biblical claims of discontinuity between humans and apes and whales and land creatures."

    Finally, given that this is the Christian forum I have to say wolfsbane that you and all the other creationists are doing a great disservice to your religion. I think that to suggest that the word kind as originally used in the hebrew bible has any kind of specific meaning in relation to modern biology is to utterly denigrate the message of the original story. If I were a Christian I would be terribly offended that someone who also proclaims to be a Christian would twist the Bible in such a way in order to peddle some pseudoscientific bullcrap.


Advertisement