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 Origin of Specious Nonsense"
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Useful information ---Yes, but if you ignore the bits where J C makes himself look really stupid*, there's actually a fascinating array of useful information in here. Just look at oldrnwisr's recent posts.
1. For a christian, it is Christianity
2. For a Jew, It is Judaism
3. For a muslim, It is Islam
4. For a hindu, it is hinduism
and at last for an atheist, useful information is that information which matches his/her creed of no God --- Atheists finds it very useful information, which explains beginning of everything without God ----
Ah! human being are disgusting things -- You prefer that information which explains beginning of everything without of God ---- He prefers that information which explains beginning of every thing with God
JC isn't stupid, He is doing the same job which you are doing --- what's the difference -- You think yourself as torch bearer of truth, he thinks himself --- You don't want to believe what he prefer to believe, he doesn't want to believe what you prefer to believe --- End of storyJ C makes himself look really stupid*
wasted life -- wasted time --- may be I'll see all of you --- wait for end --- Dead_one
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
right, quran supports evolution as general development of life into stages but see God's power behind this --- as quran supports evolution, it means you have no problem with its theory of creation -- Keeping your above claims in minds --- please answerMost Muslims have no problem with either evolution indeed claim such things are mentioned in the Quran.
1. According to quran human are considered as a special act of creation.
Do you agree with above quranic claim if not then please explain how above claim is in line with evolution as you saidOriginally Posted by Wibbs
indeed claim such things are mentioned in the Quran.
What do you mean, he looks stupid, when he explains things in context of God --- Obviously, he looks like stupid, as his useful information doesn't match with yours ---I never said J C was stupid dead one. Only that he makes himself look stupid.
Do you think, he is a liar, He isn't liar at all -- His lies contain that truth which you don't prefer to believe--- Similarly -- JC could think, you are liar, as your lies contain truth which he doesn't want to accept -- You both parties aren't liar, coward, fraud at all --- Because you have accepted something thinking it as truth and you see every information in context of that truth ---Sure, I've called him a liar, a coward, a fraud and so misinformed and willfully ignorant he could be in the Guinness book of world records,0 -
1. According to quran human are considered as a special act of creation.
Do you agree with above quranic claim if not then please explain how above claim is in line with evolution as you said
You might want to understand what evolution is before you ask how it does/doesn't contradict your holy texts
If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
-
You have made my day --- That is my point to claims of wibbsYou might want to understand what evolution is before you ask how it does/doesn't contradict your holy texts
Well done,Originally Posted by Wibbs
indeed claim such things are mentioned in the Quran.
I could have done this by myself, But I leave it and you've done all this ---- are you not happy?Originally Posted by koth View Post
You might want to understand what evolution is before you ask how it does/doesn't contradict your holy texts
How you are feeling koth to betray your own kind--- You willfully exposed Wibbs's ignorance about evolution ---0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
And where are you getting this list of kinds from? It's sounds suspiciously like you're just making it up as you go along.
Well I wouldn't say that JC is making it all up. He's just repeating what other creationists are saying. They're the ones making it up as they go along.
I've managed to find a list of at least some solid kinds from the Creation Wiki:
Felidae
Canidae
Camelidae
Bovidae
Equidae
Caprinae
Crocodilia
Elephantidae
Humanity
For comparative purposes here are the equivalent Wikipedia pages:
Felidae
Canidae
Camelidae
Bovidae
Equidae
Caprinae
Crocodilia
Elephantidae
Humanity
There are multiple problems with the list on the Creation Wiki.
1. Definition of kind
The first point is that there doesn't seem to be any creationist out there who is willing to define the term kind in a consistent way. Henry Morris, founder of ICR, states:
"It will probably be found eventually that the min [Hebrew word for kind] often is identical to the "species," sometimes the "genus," and possibly once in a while with the "family"."
Indeed Morris' loose terminology is supported by others such as Russell Mixter who says:
"One should not insist that "kind" means species. The word "kind" as used in the Bible may apply to any animal which may be distinguished in any way from another, or it may be applied to a large group of species distinguishable from another group ... there is plenty of room for differences of opinion on what are the kinds of Genesis."
This highlights the fundamental dishonesty of the creationist position. They openly acknowledge that the definition of kind is based not on solid evidence but on whatever most suits their motives at a particular time.
2. Biblical interpretation of kinds
It should also be pointed out that the word "kind" in the Bible carries no indication of specificity. The word kind in Hebrew is:
מִין
which is almost identical to the Hebrew word min, meaning from:
מִן
Biblical linguists suggest that the word kind is approximate to the word species. Species, of course, derives from the equally general word specere, meaning to see or to behold. The original use of the word species simply meant a group, same as kind.
The difference is that the development in biology in the 450 years since the word appeared in the English language has allowed us to narrow the definition of species. Creationists, however, haven't managed to do the same.
Furthermore, the adherence of creationists to the idea of the word kind in Genesis as a barrier to variation is weakened by the bible itself. The word kind is again used in Leviticus when establishing dietary laws. In particular:
"These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat." Leviticus 11:13-17.
An analysis of the Hebrew text shows the same textual form of kind, namely:
לְמִינֵ֔הוּ
(lə·mî·nê·hū)
used in both Genesis and Leviticus. Additionally, the structure of the text in Leviticus suggests that the little owl, cormorant, great owl etc. are listed so as to be examples of the hawk kind, something not supported by even the loosest creationist definition.
3. Membership criteria of a kind
When it comes to establishing a predictive framework for associating species with "created kinds", the wiki provides just one criterion:
"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."
This at least echoes what JC has previously claimed:The definitive test for a Created Kind is the ability to cross-breed or cross-breed with an intermediary within a Kind.
The problem with this definition is that it is undermined by the list of kinds previously given. For example, the dog kind is listed by the creation wiki as approximate to the family Canidae. The problem with this interpretation is that it contradicts the idea of reproductive compatibility. This can be seen in the compatibility table here. Since there is no possbility of a dingo-fox or coyote-fox hybrid and since there is no data concerning dhole hybrids, there is no basis for assigning them to the same group, at least not based on the sole criterion above.
Indeed, a further problem with the inclusion of Canidae on the above list of created kinds is the fact that the wiki includes the entire canidae family while JC claims a narrower definition closer to the genus Canus. However, both groups cite the same basis for their claim and neither provide any research to support their assertions.
Another problem with this definition is that it, like any other creationist term, is not applied consistently. For example, the list of kinds above is, for the most part, equivalent to the biological classification family. However, the human kind is limited to the Homo genus. This, is not because of reproductive compatibility, however, but rather because this is the way it is described in the bible. This is openly acknowledged by some creationists including Wayne Frair who comments:
"Scripture claims (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations. For example humans are a separate holobaramin because they separately were created (Genesis 1 and 2)."
4. Hybrids
A significant divergence between standard biological classifications and creationist baraminology is the increased status afforded to hybrid organisms. One of the most widely held definitions of species is that two groups are considered to be separate species when they can no longer reproduce successfully. Successfully in this context means that the offspring of such hybrids are viable, fertile and widespread.
Creationists, naturally, are nowhere near as rigorous in their definitions and consider any hybrid animal to be evidence of shared kinds. Unfortunately, this is where the creationist position also falls apart. If all hybrids are to be considered when determining kinds then interfamilal hybrids such as this chicken-guineafowl hybrid (on the left):
create a problem that the current creationist definitions of kinds fail to explain.
5. Further inconsistencies
Something else that crops up in the creationist use of kinds is that inconsistency creeps in at every level because the term kind is an ad-hoc unsupported classification.
One example of this is the inclusion on the list of kinds above of both Bovidae and Caprinae, which is odd given that Caprinae is a subfamily of Bovidae. Yet neither the Bovidae nor Caprinae pages offer any explanation why both groups are listed separately nor any other reference to this glaring error.
The creationist use of the term kind is unscientific, inconsistent, dishonest and unsupported by any peer-reviewed research. There is no classification of significance in biology beyond species and creationists have yet to present any serious challenge to the established body of research.0 -
-
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59087
Get a room you un Christian perverts.I love oldrnwisr.
Though I have to say looking through the creation wiki external links on Hominids, in particular Neandertals, the creationist Dr. Jack Cuozzo( I think the chap is a dentist?) has an interesting and involved take on their dentition and the conclusions from same. It's got feck all to do with Biblical "science" mind, but as actual science he does raise interesting questions on a few points. I'd not go within an asses roar of some of his conclusions, but like I said interesting secondary views on this. Science is science and if a dog told me the sky was blue* I'd be thinking two things, 1) Fcuk me a talking dog, where's the number for the circus? And 2) Fcuk me, I hadn't fully considered that and he may be right.
I'd certainly agree(along with Dr Alan Walker, a really well respected man in this field and a great mind to boot) that with hominid reconstruction, it can be and is all too often a subjective "political" reconstruction going on. It's certainly led by fashion that's for sure. With Neandertals, we've gone from bent over apemen(because of a fcukup with identifying an elderly and diseased chap as the type specimen) to the recent view of "oh they're sooo like us, just put them in jeans and a tee and they'd fit right in you know". This goes back and forth. The reality is most likely somewhere in the middle.
*not always a foregone conclusion. Many ancient Greek observers named it's colour as bronze.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
![[-0-]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9fe3689003eb73770da7be6d014ea6d5.svg)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement