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
-
Well, Homer mentioned the "wine-dark sea" many times which doesn't make much sense unless the Greeks were drinking bright or dark blue wine.
It does raise an interesting point about variability in the perception of colors, sounds (animal sounds are notoriously country-specific) and so on. I don't recall the Romans having a word for 'gray' and I think it was Virgil who described people's facial expressions in the extremes of fear, humor etc but they weren't doing quite what we'd expect them to do.
Not to mention tastes in food and I'm thinking here of stuff like the hellish Indonesian durian (generally banned indoors) the dreadful Irish collared head, the and the truly inexplicable Swedish surströmming.
A carefully selected photograph of a Greek sunset;)
0 -
-
-
-
The Evolutionists think that Pondkind 'pulled itself up by its own slime' to become all of the above Kinds ... without any evidence or logic to support it ...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.
... while Creationists believe that each Kind was specially created by an inordinate intelligence.
The above lists aren't lists of Kinds
There is a degree of flexibility on what constitutes a species in Evolutionism as well ... so please face the fact that defining either a species or a Kind isn't an exact science -for either a Creationist or an Evolutionist.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.
Quote Wikipedia:
Some biologists may view species as statistical phenomena, as opposed to the traditional idea, with a species seen as a class of organisms. In that case, a species is defined as a separately evolving lineage that forms a single gene pool. Although properties such as DNA-sequences and morphology are used to help separate closely related lineages,[5] this definition has fuzzy boundaries.[6] However, the exact definition of the term "species" is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes,[7] and this is called the species problem.[8] Biologists have proposed a range of more precise definitions, but the definition used is a pragmatic choice that depends on the particularities of the species of concern.[8
I don't blame the Evolutionists for the imprecision of their definitions nor do I assign malicious intent to them ... so I would respectfully suggest that the same courtesy be extended to Creation Scientists as well.
... and your prejudicial comments about the work of eminent Creation Scientists is just old-fashioned bigotry dressed up in the language of materialism!!!
Both Species and Kinds now have more precise scientific definitions ... but neither have been defined with absolute precision.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.
The KJV says:-[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..
13And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
14And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
15Every raven after his kind;
16And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
17And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
18And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
19And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
It is clear that the Bible is referring to example species of different Kinds in the above verses of Scripture. For example.Verse 19 is clearly indicating that the stork, heron, lapwing and bat are members of separate kinds ... and that these entire kinds are non-kosher.
Good ... now will you believe me?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:
Dog-fox and Coyote-dog hybrids have been produced and thus all three species fall within the definition of kind as two species that can interbreed with a third species are all within the same 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.
Morphology is also used to assign species to Kinds.
The entire Canidae family is part of the dog Kind.[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.
...Why??? ...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)."
Do Evolutionists believe that Humans are interfertile with Apes???
There is no problem ... Domestic Chickens, Pheasants and Guinea Fowl are all capable of cross breeding ... and thus are members of the Fowl Kind.:)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.
... so Evolutionists believe that Goats and Cattle are one Kind ... but Creation Science classifies them as separate Kinds ...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.
... ever try to mate a Bull to a Goat???
Ye guys must have real problems with animal welfare!!!!:eek:
Ye are the guys who seem to want to mate with Apes ... and cross Bulls on Goats ... and ye have the audacity to scoff at eminent Creation Scientists who tell ye that this is both immoral ... and impossible!!!:eek: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 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement