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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back a page or two to re-sync the thread and this will then show latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
-
-
Bonkey
And the notion of a day existing after after the earth was created, but before it had a sun to orbit....that would be which?
For a DAY to exist the Sun is NOT required. All that is required is a rotating planet and a discrete source of light (confirmed by Gen 1:3 as provided by God Himself for the first three Days of Creation).
From the Fourth Day of Creation onwards the Sun did mark times and seasons including DAYS on Earth!!!
God determined that DAYS would be created on the First Day of Creation – even BEFORE the Sun was created – a good example of God’s DIVINE MAJESTY in action.
It is also a statement by God that HE is more important than any astronomical object, including the Sun.
The ability and willingness of God to provide physical light is also confirmed in the prophecy of Rev 22:5 about the future New Heaven and New Earth where “there will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light.”
Robin
The earth used to be flat and unmovable. The bible says it quite clearly!
Quote:
"take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it" (Job 38:12-13)
"To whom then will ye liken God? ....It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:18-23)
"The devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world" (Matthew 4:1-12)
"Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken." (Psalm 104:5)
"The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth." Daniel (4:10-11).
Creationists support the PLAIN reading of Scripture – interpreting it LITERALLY when the passages describe obvious literal or historical events and ALLEGORICALLY when metaphors are being clearly deployed.
The first verse above refers to the power of God as exemplified in the coming of the Dawn and as a metaphor for God’s elimination of the wicked powers of darkness – and it says nothing about the shape of the Earth.
The second verse actually confirms that the Earth is CIRCULAR.
The third verse refers clearly to a metaphor for the entire Earth as used by Satan in his temptation of Jesus Christ - and again it says nothing about the shape of the Earth,
The fourth verse is a Psalm and therefore, by definition allegorical, and it refers to the power of God in creating a STABLE Earth and again it says nothing about the shape or movement of the Earth.
The fifth verse refers to King Nebuchadnezzar’s DREAM – and is thus also clearly allegorical – a fact confirmed in subsequent verses by Daniels interpretation of the King’s dream!!!!:cool:
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Scofflaw
What will you do if there's life on Mars, or Titan? Plead Martian Special Creation?
The Bible is silent about ET life. It is unlikely that God created life on other planets without telling us about it. My personal opinion is that it is silent because there is no ET life.
However, I am also aware of at least one Creation Scientist who has had close encounters of the First, Second and Third Kinds with ET Intelligences!!!;)
Anyway, to answer your hypothetical question – in the event that ET life is scientifically proven to exist – then Creation Scientists would obviously accept it’s existence.
However, I don’t think that the discovery of ET life would have any significant impact on the validity of Creation - no more than the existence of other species on Earth has any effect.
It would certainly not be equivalent to the fatal blow delivered to Evolution by Sir Fred Hoyle’s discovery of the mathematical impossibility of producing life via un-directed processes on Earth.
Indeed, the size of Sir Fred Hoyle’s figures proves that it is impossible to produce ET life by un-directed processes anywhere else in the universe either.
Genesis 1 describes (in outline) the creation of LIFE on EARTH during Creation Week – and it is SILENT about the creation of life in any other part of the Universe. There are a number of possible reasons for this silence – and the most obvious reason is that life wasn’t created anywhere else in the Universe.
P.S. Good debate on Late Late Show – looked like a draw to me between Prof. Dawkins and Phiosopher, Dr. Gerard Casey.
The debate was philosophically focussed and therefore a lot of metaphysics was discussed – and very little science.
Pity that a Creation Scientist wasn’t there to re-focus the debate on to the scientific evidence for God’s existence and the Direct Creation of life (as well as the scientific proofs for the invalidity of Evolution)!!!!!:cool: :cool:0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Originally Posted by J C
The second verse (Isaiah 40:22) actually confirms that the Earth is CIRCULAR.
Robin
You'll recall from your maths that circles are flat. Therefore, the you completely agree with me that the bible quite clearly -- no need for metaphors or allegorical interpretations -- confirms that the Earth is FLAT. Flat as a pancake.
A “circle” could describe the outline of a two-dimensional disc OR a three-dimensional sphere.
I would point out that the only circular object that looks like a circle when viewed from every angle is a sphere – a disc only looks like a circle when viewed from directly above its centre. When viewed from any other perspective it is either elliptical (or a line, if viewed edge on).
As God has always been regarded as omnipresent by Biblical Peoples, the only way that he could be regarded as “enthroned above the circle of the Earth” (from all angles so to speak) is if the Earth were a sphere. :cool:
In fact, if it was believed that the Earth was a flat circular disc this passage of scripture would have read that God was enthroned above the disc of the Earth or above the plane of the Earth.:D
The only people who believed that astronomical objects were flat discs were certain gentile nations who, for example, worshipped the Sun as ‘The Solar Disc’ and the Moon as ‘The Lunar Disc’.
'Flat Earth' ideas were held to be true by some Ancient Peoples, (who also believed in the evolution of life) but neither a flat Earth nor evolution were believed-in by ‘The People of God.’:eek:
Robin
Quite apart from the fairly spectacular scientific inaccuracy in genesis, there's a sentence in Deuteronomy (Deut 14:7) which says that rabbits are ruminants (cud-chewers), which they're not. Elsewhere, it says that bats are birds (they're not).
Deut 14:1-21 was a Dietary Law for the Israelites. This passage of scripture was meant to allow easy identification of Kosher and ‘unclean’ animals by ORDINARY people using SUPERFICIAL characteristics.
Camelida (which are Ruminants) and Leporidae & Procaviidae (which aren’t Ruminants) all engage in 'chewing' behaviour.
Because these creatures were regarded as 'unclean' they were therefore highlighted in Deut 14:7 as the EXCEPTIONS to the general rule that ‘cud chewing’ animals could be eaten.
Deut 14:7 was NEVER meant to be a scientific means of identifying these animals – it was only meant to assist ordinary Israelites to comply with a Dietary Law!!!!:cool:
Similarly all of the flying creatures that could not be eaten by the Israelites are listed in Deut 14:19.
The Bat is included as an ‘unclean’ flying creature Deut 14:18 – next to the other great class of ‘unclean’ flying creatures, the insects, in Deut 14:19.:cool:
Wicknight
JC, any chance I can get the scientific papers (on Speciation) I asked about.
It always amuses me when Evolutionists demand scientific papers on Creation, when Evolutionists refuse to peer-review Creation Science papers, in the first place – a kind of Catch 22, so to speak!!!!:D
In any event, when it comes to speciation, particular problems arise (for both Evolutionists and Creationists) in defining exactly what a species is – and therefore what ‘Speciation’ is.
For example, Dromedary and Bacterian Camels are classed as separate species, yet they freely hybridise to produce crosses called Bukhts that are, in turn cross fertile back to a Dromedary.
The supposed ‘Evolutionary distance’ between the South American Llama and the Asian Dromedary should rule out cross fertility but a Cama (which is a camel/llama hybrid) can be produced.
Here is a paper on the problems defining exactly what a species is (and therefore what ‘Speciation’ is):-
http://www.icr.org/article/338/
Here is a paper dealing with the reality of what Biologists actually observe:-
http://www.icr.org/article/110/
Here is a report on the finding of an Evolutuionist conference on Speciation:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/TJ/v11/i2/speciation.asp
Good evidence of RAPID ‘speciation’ within Kinds includes practically ALL of the evidence produced by Darwin in his book on the ‘Origins of Species.’
God Intelligently Designed many creature types to ‘go forth and multiply’ - in both the number of individuals and their species diversity!!:D
For example, Darwin’s Finches have RAPIDLY produced different beak variants that could lead to RAPID speciation if these variants became genetically isolated.
Equally, Darwin’s examples of Artificial Selection RAPIDLY producing very different breed of dogs, Pigeons and Domestic Cattle are examples of rapid ‘speciation’ within Kinds over the past 500 years!!!!
Domestic Cattle breeds are produced by Artificial Selection and genetic isolation within the Bos Taurus Spp.
There are many different Bovine species including Zebu, Yak, Gaur, Banteng, American Plains Buffalo, Wisent and African Cape Buffalo that are cross fertile with each other and with Domestic Cattle.
Further details of the complexities of Bovine Hybridisation are available at:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovid_hybrid
The fact that different species (on different continents) are cross fertile within Kinds supports the idea of recent, rapid and widespread ‘speciation’ within Created Kinds.:cool:
0 -
J C wrote:Wicknight
JC, any chance I can get the scientific papers (on Speciation) I asked about.
It always amuses me when Evolutionists demand scientific papers on Creation, when Evolutionists refuse to peer-review Creation Science papers, in the first place – a kind of Catch 22, so to speak!!!!:D
I can't answer for Wicknight, but since I understand the problems with getting Creationist papers peer-reviewed outside the Creationist movement, I'm perfectly happy to accept non-peer-reviewed papers as evidence.J C wrote:In any event, when it comes to speciation, particular problems arise (for both Evolutionists and Creationists) in defining exactly what a species is – and therefore what ‘Speciation’ is.
For example, Dromedary and Bacterian Camels are classed as separate species, yet they freely hybridise to produce crosses called Bukhts that are, in turn cross fertile back to a Dromedary.
The supposed ‘Evolutionary distance’ between the South American Llama and the Asian Dromedary should rule out cross fertility but a Cama (which is a camel/llama hybrid) can be produced.
Here is a paper on the problems defining exactly what a species is (and therefore what ‘Speciation’ is):-
http://www.icr.org/article/338/
Here is a paper dealing with the reality of what Biologists actually observe:-
http://www.icr.org/article/110/
Here is a report on the finding of an Evolutuionist conference on Speciation:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/TJ/v11/i2/speciation.asp
However, the problem here is more that the discussion articles above lack any basic underpinnings.
While there are certainly issues with the definition of species, in that it appears to have rather fuzzy boundaries, and that there are certainly exceptions, there is, nevertheless, a definition of "species" which works for 99% of organisms, and a well-understood classification system. All known species are placed in this classification - a monumental undertaking.
In comparison, Creationism seems to have no actual definition of "created kind", nor any system for classifying an organism in one or other "kind". This effectively cuts the ground out from under all Creationist articles on "kinds" - there's no definition, so it's impossible for anything meaningful to be said.J C wrote:Good evidence of RAPID ‘speciation’ within Kinds includes practically ALL of the evidence produced by Darwin in his book on the ‘Origins of Species.’
God Intelligently Designed many creature types to ‘go forth and multiply’ - in both the number of individuals and their species diversity!!:D
For example, Darwin’s Finches have RAPIDLY produced different beak variants that could lead to RAPID speciation if these variants became genetically isolated.
Equally, Darwin’s examples of Artificial Selection RAPIDLY producing very different breed of dogs, Pigeons and Domestic Cattle are examples of rapid ‘speciation’ within Kinds over the past 500 years!!!!
Except that breeds aren't species. While rapid speciation may well occur, none of the above are examples of it.J C wrote:Although Domestic Cattle breeds are produced by Artificial isolation within the Bos Taurus Spp, there are many different Bovine species including Zebu, Yak, Gaur, Banteng, (American) Plains Buffalo, Wisent and (African) Cape Buffalo that are cross fertile with each other and with Domestic Cattle.
Further details of the complexities of Bovine Hybridisation are available at:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovid_hybrid
The fact that apparently different species (on different continents) are cross fertile within Kinds supports the idea of recent, rapid and widespread ‘speciation’.:cool:
Except that, again, there's no definition of "Kind", so the contention is meaningless. In addition, different organisms being on different continents does not by itself imply genetic distance, particularly given the very few examples cited.
If one picks species that are (a) recent migrants, and (b) genetically conservative (for reasons of fitness to niche), there will be little genetic distance between them even after a great lapse of time. This will be particularly the case where, as for bovines, repeated migrations appear to have occurred.
In other words, the contention of recent, rapid radiation is supported for bovines (comprising perhaps 0.00001% of all species), but to go from that to the conclusion that therefore it is the case for all organisms is, as usual, either foolish, deluded, or mendacious.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
J C wrote:It always amuses me when Evolutionists demand scientific papers on Creation, when Evolutionists refuse to peer-review Creation Science papers, in the first place – a kind of Catch 22, so to speak!!!!:D
Well I didn't really "demand" anything, I asked you politely (I thought) for the papers I assumed you would have on hand, since you say you are a trained scientists.J C wrote:Here is a paper on the problems defining exactly what a species is (and therefore what ‘Speciation’ is):-
http://www.icr.org/article/338/
Here is a paper dealing with the reality of what Biologists actually observe:-
http://www.icr.org/article/110/
Here is a report on the finding of an Evolutuionist conference on Speciation:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/TJ/v11/i2/speciation.asp
Sorry, I'm not sure you understood my question. I was asking for a scientific paper that details how rapid specialisation, such that found after the Flood, actually happens. I mean the process. These articles don't seem to be scientific papers, and they don't seem to deal with this question. They actually just seem to attack evolution.J C wrote:Good evidence of RAPID ‘speciation’ within Kinds includes practically ALL of the evidence produced by Darwin in his book on the ‘Origins of Species.’
I didn't actually ask for evidence, I asked for a scientific paper detailing the process that takes place.J C wrote:Equally, Darwin’s examples of Artificial Selection RAPIDLY producing very different breed of dogs, Pigeons and Domestic Cattle are examples of rapid ‘speciation’ within Kinds over the past 500 years!!!!
Well as Scofflaw points out, and as I mentioned before, breeds are not the same thing as species. Dogs haven't reproduced themselves into horses in the last 500, so it probably isn't a good example for the rapid increase in species that took place after the flood.J C wrote:Although Domestic Cattle breeds are produced by Artificial isolation within the Bos Taurus Spp, there are many different Bovine species including Zebu, Yak, Gaur, Banteng, (American) Plains Buffalo, Wisent and (African) Cape Buffalo that are cross fertile with each other and with Domestic Cattle.
But that doesn't really explain how they got there in the first place. If you started of with one cow "type", ie a male and female of the original species, how did they mate to produce the large number of different species.
For example sheep have 54 chromosomes, goats have 60. How many chromosomes did the original "kind" that stepped off the Ark and lead to these two species (and many more) have, and what process caused the children of this original "kinds" to lose chromosomes in a rapid time scheme (within a few generations). How did the population all lose these chromosomes at the same time (after all we don't see any of these original "kinds" left over, so the all must have changed), for example did they all have the same mutation appear in offspring at the same time And how was the rapid loss of genetic information not damaging to the offspring.
I'm sure the answer will not be found in one scientific paper, but a link to a few that deal with this question would be handy.
Again doesn't really answer the question. We have known for years that species with similar biological make up, and similar genetic material, and similar chromosome count, can mate together, sometimes even producing children that can reproduce. But I'm not following what this has to do with the original Ark "kinds", since I can't imagine they were similar at all.J C wrote:Further details of the complexities of Bovine Hybridisation are available at:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovid_hybridJ C wrote:The fact that apparently different species (on different continents) are cross fertile within Kinds supports the idea of recent, rapid and widespread ‘speciation’.:cool:
Actually it seems quite unrelated.
Maybe I'm just not following, which is why I am asking for scientific papers detailing the process of speciation. Maybe a list of the original "kinds" that were on the Ark would be handy, possibly detailing their chromosome make up, so at least I know what animals we are talking about.
Taking the example above, some kind of paper explaining how the original "kind" that produced sheep and goats actually produced these animals within a few decades (sheep and goats are mentioned in the Bible after all, so we know they specialised from this original kind very quickly after the Flood). Some process caused at least the lose or gain of 6 entire chromosomes within a few generations (Noah had sheep didn't he?). Creationists name this process "specialisation" I feel it would be unfair of me to comment about this process without first understanding how Creationists believe it happens. And I assume Creationists, from scientific study, have figured out how it happens otherwise you wouldn't be posting here that it does, I'm I right? You seem strongly against accepting ideas without strong scientific backing, so I assume you have at least read some of it. I would simply like to see this scientific research myself, if possible.0 -
-
-
-
Scofflaw
While there are certainly issues with the definition of species, in that it appears to have rather fuzzy boundaries, and that there are certainly exceptions, there is, nevertheless, a definition of "species" which works for 99% of organisms, and a well-understood classification system. All known species are placed in this classification - a monumental undertaking.
Could I firstly point out that the science of biological classification, known as Taxonomy, was established by a Christian scientist, Carl Linnaeus.
Secondly, most of the ‘monumental undertaking’ of defining the main characteristics of all Classification Levels within Taxonomy was originally undertaken by scientists, like Carl Linnaeus!!!
Thirdly, the modern Taxonomical classification system is based on Biblical principles as it actually has a structure based on Created Kinds which approximate to the Genus level of Taxonomic nomenclature. The 7 levels of Taxonomy are Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species.
Evolutionists have attempted to introduce Cladistic Taxonomy, based on supposed Evolutionary Clades, without much success - and so the primary Taxonomic Nomenclature used by Evolutionist Scientists ironically remains the Creationist-based Alpha or Linnaean Taxonomy!!!!
I guess it is difficult to improve on the best!!!!:eek:
Scofflaw
Creationism seems to have no actual definition of "created kind", nor any system for classifying an organism in one or other "kind".
The Created Kind is the type that was originally created by God.
It therefore technically no longer exists for many animal and plant species – as the descendents of many of the original Created Kinds have gone forth and multiplied - in both the number of individuals and their species diversity!!!!
Of course, Mankind is both a Created Kind and a distinct Species – that hasn’t speciated (because God specially designed Mankind NOT to Speciate).
Wicknight
Well as Scofflaw points out, and as I mentioned before, breeds are not the same thing as species. Dogs haven't reproduced themselves into horses in the last 500, so it probably isn't a good example for the rapid increase in species that took place after the flood.
Creation Science postulates that recent, rapid and widespread ‘speciation’ occurred WITHIN Created Kinds.
Dogs and Horses belonged to different Kinds and therefore Dogs didn’t speciate into Horses at any time since the Flood.
However, the Dog Kind probably DID speciate into Wolves, Foxes, Jackals, Dingos, Hyenias, Domestic Dogs, etc.:D
Wicknight
sheep have 54 chromosomes, goats have 60. How many chromosomes did the original "kind" that stepped off the Ark and lead to these two species (and many more) have, and what process caused the children of this original "kinds" to lose chromosomes in a rapid time scheme (within a few generations). How did the population all lose these chromosomes at the same time (after all we don't see any of these original "kinds" left over, so the all must have changed), for example did they all have the same mutation appear in offspring at the same time And how was the rapid loss of genetic information not damaging to the offspring.
We are looking at forensics here, because whatever possible speciation event may (or may not) have produced Sheep and Goats, occurred in the deep past and therefore it isn’t capable of repeatable verification. However, the fact that viable transgenic Sheep/Goat (Geep) hybrids have been genetically engineered proves that the Chromosome barrier isn’t insurmountable - due to the genetic closeness of both Sheep and Goats.
Similarly, Donkeys and Horses have different Chromosome numbers, but this doesn’t prevent viable hybrid Mules and Jennets being produced.
The ‘Triangle of U’ proves that speciation by the crossing of different related species (with different chromosome numbers) can produce a new viable offspring species with yet a different Chromosome number.
For example, crossing certain Brassica species produces allotetraploid NEW species that are self-fertile but which cannot interbreed with either of the ‘parent species’.
Black Mustard (Brassica nigra) n= 8 can be crossed with Turnip (Brassica rapa) n=10 to produce Indian Mustard (Brassica juncea) n=18. However, B. juncea cannot interbreed with either B. nigra or B. rapa – and so it is a separate species – and it is instantaneously speciated at the time of it’s production by cross breeding the B nigra with the B rapa.
Similarly, Ethiopian Mustard (B Carinata) n=17 and Swedes (B napus) n=19 are examples of instantaneous speciation from crossing B. nigra n=9 with B. oleracea n=9 and B. rapa n=10 with B. oleracea n=9 respectively.
Further details are available at:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_of_U
spacecoyote
So what your saying here is that all big cats (lions, jaguars, etc...) descended from one, different Big Cat Kind, and that over a process of thousands of years they developed different characteristics (dietary requirements, etc...) in order to adapt to the environment they found themselves in. I don’t think I need to finish the conclusion of this post, it pretty much speaks for itself
Yes, indeed Creation Scientists fully accept that rapid speciation and Natural Selection operates in a ‘downwards fashion’ from the perfect and genetically diverse, information dense genomes of the originally created Kinds. This fully complies with the Laws of Thermodynamics as it involves dense, complex organised information becoming less organised and dense.
Creation Scientists do not accept that natural processes exist which would allow Pond Scum to be ‘lifted up by it own bootstraps’ to become Man without an input of enormous intelligence. Such a process WOULDN’T comply with the Laws of Thermodynamics as it would involve simple, un-organised information becoming SPONTANEOUSLY more organised, complicated and dense.
This phenomenon has NEVER been observed to occur - as it would be something akin to your computer spontaneously writing your postings - in your usual logical, intelligent manner!!!!:D
CREATION WARS – a special edition of the Sunday Sequence programme broadcast by BBC Northern Ireland on Sunday 10th December 2006 from 8.30-10.15.
Professor Richard Dawkins turned up on this special radio programme last Sunday morning, which focussed on the scientific and religious dimensions to Creationism, ID and Evolution.
Some interesting ideas emerged during the discussion including :-
*Professor Steve Fuller, who is a Sociologist and Secular Humanist, DEFENDING the teaching of ID in SCIENCE classrooms.
*Professor Andy McIntosh from ‘Truth in Science’ countering Prof Richard Dawkin’s argument that Genetic Information is merely Genetic Complexity, by pointing out that Genetic Information is also ordered and meaningful as well as being complex, thereby indicating that it has an ultimate intelligent source.
*Professor Richard Dawkins proposing the idea of 'Multiple Universes' as the solution to the enormous odds against the Physical Constants being randomly fixed at levels that would allow life to exist.
The programme visited the AIG Creation Museum in Kentucky, as well as visiting a school in Northern Ireland, that discusses Creation Science in their science classes, apparently within the GCSE Science Curriculum.
The entire programme is at :-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/radioulster/programmepages/sundaysequence.shtml0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
J C wrote:Scofflaw
While there are certainly issues with the definition of species, in that it appears to have rather fuzzy boundaries, and that there are certainly exceptions, there is, nevertheless, a definition of "species" which works for 99% of organisms, and a well-understood classification system. All known species are placed in this classification - a monumental undertaking.
Could I firstly point out that the science of biological classification, known as Taxonomy, was established by a Christian Scientist, Carl Linnaeus.
Secondly, most of the ‘monumental undertaking’ of defining the main characteristics of all Classification Levels within Taxonomy was originally undertaken by Creation Scientists, like Carl Linnaeus!!!
Thirdly, the modern Taxonomical classification system is based on Biblical principles as it actually has a structure based on Created Kinds which approximate to the Genus level of Taxonomic nomenclature. The 7 levels of Taxonomy are Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species.
Evolutionists have attempted to introduce Cladistic Taxonomy, based on supposed Evolutionary Clades, without much success - and so the primary Taxonomic Nomenclature used by Evolutionist Scientists ironically remains the Creationist-based Alpha or Linnaean Taxonomy!!!!
I guess it is difficult to replace the best!!!!:eek:
As so often, it's hard to know where one starts to disentangle the ravelled heap of nonsense....so, in no particular order:
1. Perhaps you can tell me where in the Bible it mentions "Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species" ?
2. So "Created Kinds" approximates to Genus level? Really? There's about 340,000 genera, you know. Has there been "rapid speciation" past the Species level to create new Genera?
3. All taxonomy attempts to take account of evolutionary relationships, whether cladistic or not. The argument is over how best to determine and represent the evolutionary relationships, not evolutionary-vs-creationist as your bum says.
4. Linnaean taxonomy, as devised by Linnaeus, has long been abandoned (hmm, long enough for a Creationist to notice? no - it's less than a century...). What has been kept is the form of names, and the principle of classifying subsets into larger sets, which is, I can assure you, not unique to Linnaean taxonomy.
5. You have managed not to address the main point, which is that despite the enormous amount of material produced by Creationists, the definition of Kind remains no less fuzzy. "Approximates to Genus" is Ok as an opening statement, but it is then necessary to go and explain (a) the rationale for Kind, and (b) the ways in which it matches, and does not match, the Genus level.J C wrote:Scofflaw
Creationism seems to have no actual definition of "created kind", nor any system for classifying an organism in one or other "kind".
The Created Kind is the type that was originally created by God.
It therefore technically no longer exists for many animal and plant species – as the descendents of many of the original Created Kinds have gone forth and multiplied - in both the number of individuals and their species diversity!!!!
So, what you're saying is that, although biologists have elucidated many of the complex evolutionary sequences that came about over billions of years, and involve millions of now-extinct species, Creationist scientists have not been able to do so for 16,000 Created Kinds over the far shorter timescale of a few thousand years? Are you all thick?J C wrote:Of course, Mankind is both a Created Kind and a distinct Species – that hasn’t speciated (because God specially designed Mankind NOT to Speciate).
So, Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons, all the various different kinds of humanoids found in the fossil record, are all what? H. florensis? H. erectus? H. habilis? What are they all then? Why do they even appear to have existed?
And the different types of people alive today - Caucasians, Asians etc? How did that happen exactly? Why a little bit of divergence, but no speciation?J C wrote:Wicknight
Well as Scofflaw points out, and as I mentioned before, breeds are not the same thing as species. Dogs haven't reproduced themselves into horses in the last 500, so it probably isn't a good example for the rapid increase in species that took place after the flood.
Creation Science postulates that recent, rapid and widespread ‘speciation’ occurred WITHIN Created Kinds.
Dogs and Horses belonged to different Kinds and therefore Dogs didn’t speciate into Horses at any time since the Flood.
However, the Dog Kind probably DID speciate into Wolves, Foxes, Jackals, Dingos, Hyenias, Domestic Dogs, etc.:D
And there we see the magic of the Kind in action. Because the definition is so fuzzy, JC feels comfortable making a statement like this, even though he's mentioned several different Genera in the one breath, despite his definition of Kinds earlier as "approximate to genera".
Now, he hasn't done anything wrong, because there really isn't any definition of Kind, so he's free to make it up as he goes along.
How, on the other hand, he thinks "Creation Science" can be taken seriosuly, when it lacks something as basic as a list of the Created Kinds, I don't know, although I can (and do) speculate, often rudely.J C wrote:spacecoyote
So what your saying here is that all big cats (lions, jaguars, etc...) descended from one, different Big Cat Kind, and that over a process of thousands of years they developed different characteristics (dietary requirements, etc...) in order to adapt to the environment they found themselves in. I don’t think I need to finish the conclusion of this post, it pretty much speaks for itself
Yes, indeed Creation Scientists fully accept that rapid speciation and Natural Selection operates in a ‘downwards fashion’ from the perfect and genetically diverse, information dense genomes of the originally created Kinds. This fully complies with the Laws of Thermodynamics as it involves dense, complex organised information becoming less organised and dense.
Creation Scientists do not accept that natural processes exist which would allow Pond Scum to be ‘lifted up by it own bootstraps’ to become Man without an input of enormous intelligence. Such a process WOULDN’T comply with the Laws of Thermodynamics as it would involve simple, un-organised information becoming SPONTANEOUSLY organised, complicated and dense.
So....tempting. However, I'll be good.
Usual couple of points: (a) no-one says it's spontaneous, with or without capital letters; (b) you fail totally to understand what the Second Law implies, and how it simply doesn't apply to open systems.JC wrote:*Professor Richard Dawkins proposing the idea of 'Multiple Universes' as the solution to the enormous odds against the Physical Constants being randomly fixed at levels that would allow life to exist.
Hardly "proposing". It's not a new idea.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
-
Originally Posted by J C
Professor Steve Fuller, who is a Sociologist and Secular Humanist, DEFENDING the teaching of ID in SCIENCE classrooms.
Bluewolf
A sociologist is not a biologist by any stretch...
A Sociologist is a LIFE SCIENTIST……
………..and I thought that it was very interesting that Professor Fuller, as a scientist and Secular Humanist, DEFENDED the teaching of ID in science class – and actually attended the trial in Dover, Penneselvania to give evidence in favour of the teaching of ID!!!!!!;)
Scofflaw
it's important to realise that JC has not abandoned the idea of "keeping within kinds" - …………………
...............…. the goalposts for macro-evolution can be shifted to at least Class level (Family level for the more familiar species), and still only have 6,000 "kinds" on the Ark (is it 6,000 or 16,000?
You’re beginning to think like a Creation Scientist, Scofflaw - and not for the first time!!!:)
However, could I gently correct you on one aspect – the phenomenon that you are describing above, is technically macro-Devolution from the originally created information-rich Kinds and NOT macro-Evolution from Pond Slime!!!!!:D
Scofflaw
Still, it's a milestone
It certainly is a milestone for you, Scofflaw.
Did I ever tell you that God has great plans for you – and He wants to save YOU!!!!
Scofflaw
1. Perhaps you can tell me where in the Bible it mentions "Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species" ?
Alpha or Linnaean Taxonomy used these terms to categorise Created Kinds according to these seven levels – and nearly three centuries later we have these Categories still being used by EVOLUTIONISTS!!! The irony of it all would make a cat laugh!!!:eek:
2. So "Created Kinds" approximates to Genus level? Really? There's about 340,000 genera, you know. Has there been "rapid speciation" past the Species level to create new Genera?
There are only about 8,000 Land Animal Genera (including extinct ones like the Sauropods) and the classification of creatures above the level of species is quite inexact, and in some cases Created Kinds may extend up to the Order level of nomenclature. :cool:
3. All taxonomy attempts to take account of evolutionary relationships, whether cladistic or not. The argument is over how best to determine and represent the evolutionary relationships, not evolutionary-vs-creationist
That is obviously the objective of Evolutionists – but Alpha Linnaean Nomenclature has stood the test of time and (many) failed attempts by Evolutionists to replace it!!!!!
4. Linnaean taxonomy, as devised by Linnaeus, has long been abandoned (hmm, long enough for a Creationist to notice? no - it's less than a century...). What has been kept is the form of names, and the principle of classifying subsets into larger sets, which is, I can assure you, not unique to Linnaean taxonomy.
According to Wikipedia at:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linnaean_taxonomy#Taxonomic_ranks
Linnaean taxonomy still “remains the only extant working classification system at present that enjoys universal scientific acceptance.” Need I say more??:cool:
5. You have managed not to address the main point, which is that despite the enormous amount of material produced by Creationists, the definition of Kind remains no less fuzzy. "Approximates to Genus" is Ok as an opening statement, but it is then necessary to go and explain (a) the rationale for Kind, and (b) the ways in which it matches, and does not match, the Genus level.
As I have already said, the Created Kind is the type that was originally created by God.
It therefore technically no longer exists for many animal and plant species – as the descendents of many of the original Created Kinds have gone forth and multiplied - in both the number of individuals and their species diversity!!!!
…and as I have said at point number 2 above, it can potentially extend up to the Order level (as proven by the hybridisation of Whales and Dolphins) and the Family level in the case of Equidae. :cool:
Equally, the ‘fuzziness’ of Taxonomy isn’t unique to Creationists. According to Wikipedia, Evolutionists believe that a Genus should fulfill 3 criteria to be descriptively useful:-
(1) monophyly - all descendants of an ancestral taxon are grouped together;
(2) reasonable compactness - a genus should not be expanded needlessly; and
(3) distinctness - in regards to evolutionarily relevant criteria
An example where at least one criterion is violated no matter what the generic arrangement, are the dabbling ducks of the Genus Anas. Considering them distinct Genera (as is usually done) violates criterion 1, including them in Anas violates criterion 2 and 3, and splitting up Anas so that the mallard and the American black duck are in distinct Genera violates criterion 3.
So Evolutionists can’t even agree on classifying a flock of ducks! (or Anas, if you prefer)!!!
Scofflaw
And there we see the magic of the Kind in action. Because the definition is so fuzzy, JC feels comfortable making a statement like this, even though he's mentioned several different Genera in the one breath, despite his definition of Kinds earlier as "approximate to genera".
Strong words from Evolutionists - who can't distinguish their Anas from their Ducks!!!:D
Scofflaw
So, what you're saying is that, although biologists have elucidated many of the complex evolutionary sequences that came about over billions of years, and involve millions of now-extinct species, Creationist scientists have not been able to do so for 16,000 Created Kinds over the far shorter timescale of a few thousand years?
Such is the benefit of quality over quantity - and taking the time to get it right !!!:D
Scofflaw
So, Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons, all the various different kinds of humanoids found in the fossil record, are all what? H. florensis?? H. habilis? What are they all then? Why do they even appear to have existed?
Neanderthals, H. erectus and Cro-Magnons were Humans.
H habilis is a ‘junk’ category into which all kinds of pieces of bone have been categorised.
Now would you tell me exactly where Eanthropus and Hesperopithecus now fit into the Evolutionist Worldview – even though they were originally claimed to be ‘missing links’???
Scofflaw
And the different types of people alive today - Caucasians, Asians etc? How did that happen exactly? Why a little bit of divergence, but no speciation?
Exactly the same reason that some people have beautiful blue eyes and other people beautiful brown eyes – the amazing diversity of genetic information that was within the genome of Adam!!!!:D
Originally Posted by JC
*Professor Richard Dawkins proposing the idea of 'Multiple Universes' as the solution to the enormous odds against the Physical Constants being randomly fixed at levels that would allow life to exist
Scofflaw
Hardly "proposing". It's not a new idea.
……..and do all Evolutionists believe in ‘Multiple Universes’?
0 -
-
J C wrote:Originally Posted by J C
Professor Steve Fuller, who is a Sociologist and Secular Humanist, DEFENDING the teaching of ID in SCIENCE classrooms.
Bluewolf
A sociologist is not a biologist by any stretch...
A Sociologist is a LIFE SCIENTIST……
Mein Gott. It's a social science, you muppet. Here, go and educate yourself, again.J C wrote:………..and I thought that it was very interesting that Professor Fuller, as a scientist and Secular Humanist, DEFENDED the teaching of ID in science class – and actually attended the trial in Dover, Penneselvania to give evidence in favour of the teaching of ID!!!!!!;)
Did you? Well, it's the kind of thing that sociologists do, because they believe that truth is socially determined.J C wrote:Scofflaw
it's important to realise that JC has not abandoned the idea of "keeping within kinds" - …………………
...............…. the goalposts for macro-evolution can be shifted to at least Class level (Family level for the more familiar species), and still only have 6,000 "kinds" on the Ark (is it 6,000 or 16,000?
You’re beginning to think like a Creation Scientist, Scofflaw - and not for the first time!!!:)
It's easy! I can do it without really thinking at all. So do you.J C wrote:However, could I gently correct you on one aspect – the phenomenon that you are describing above, is technically macro-Devolution from the originally created information-rich Kinds and NOT macro-Evolution from Pond Slime!!!!!:D
There's no proven way of stopping you spouting this kind of guff, so go right ahead.J C wrote:Scofflaw
Still, it's a milestone
It certainly is a milestone for you, Scofflaw.
Did I ever tell you that God has great plans for you – and He wants to save YOU!!!!
Yes, you did, and I think I told you where you could stick your Bronze Age tribal tyrant.J C wrote:Scofflaw
1. Perhaps you can tell me where in the Bible it mentions "Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species" ?
Alpha or Linnaean Taxonomy used these terms to categorise Created Kinds according to these seven levels – and nearly three centuries later we have these Categories still being used by EVOLUTIONISTS!!! The irony of it all would make a cat laugh!!!:eek:
A very poorly educated cat, possibly. One who hadn't read point 4, or thought that Linnaean taxonomy was exactly the same now as when Linnaeus first invented it. However, cats are generally pretty smart, so it's low probability.J C wrote:2. So "Created Kinds" approximates to Genus level? Really? There's about 340,000 genera, you know. Has there been "rapid speciation" past the Species level to create new Genera?
There are only about 8,000 Land Animal Genera (including extinct ones like the Sauropods) and the classification of creatures above the level of species is quite inexact, and in some cases Created Kinds may extend up to the Order level of nomenclature. :cool:
Fuzzy as you like.J C wrote:3. All taxonomy attempts to take account of evolutionary relationships, whether cladistic or not. The argument is over how best to determine and represent the evolutionary relationships, not evolutionary-vs-creationist
That is obviously the objective of Evolutionists – but Alpha Linnaean Nomenclature has stood the test of time and (many) failed attempts by Evolutionists to replace it!!!!!
By the way, what is this "Alpha Linnaean Nomenclature" you refer to. It yields exactly 0 results in Google (until Google indexes this page).
Nomenclature is a system of naming. Taxonomy is a system of classification. alas, you have confused the two.J C wrote:4. Linnaean taxonomy, as devised by Linnaeus, has long been abandoned (hmm, long enough for a Creationist to notice? no - it's less than a century...). What has been kept is the form of names, and the principle of classifying subsets into larger sets, which is, I can assure you, not unique to Linnaean taxonomy.
According to Wikipedia at:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linnaean_taxonomy#Taxonomic_ranks
Linnaean taxonomy still “remains the only extant working classification system at present that enjoys universal scientific acceptance.” Need I say more??:cool:
Er, yes. The bit that makes it Linnaean is the binomial naming system, and the use of hierarchical sets to classify organisms. Any reason why that would change?
Do you have even the faintest idea what you're talking about? Really, JC, you have confused the outline of the system ("binomial naming system, and the use of hierarchical sets to classify organisms") with the current usage (organisms are now classed according to evolutionary criteria where possible). You appear to think that because the outline of the system has not changed, the actual use hasn't changed - the equivalent of claiming that a bag must always contain the same tings, because it remains a bag.J C wrote:5. You have managed not to address the main point, which is that despite the enormous amount of material produced by Creationists, the definition of Kind remains no less fuzzy. "Approximates to Genus" is Ok as an opening statement, but it is then necessary to go and explain (a) the rationale for Kind, and (b) the ways in which it matches, and does not match, the Genus level.
As I have already said, the Created Kind is the type that was originally created by God.
Very useful. Very fuzzy.J C wrote:It therefore technically no longer exists for many animal and plant species – as the descendents of many of the original Created Kinds have gone forth and multiplied - in both the number of individuals and their species diversity!!!!
…and as I have said at point number 2 above, it can potentially extend up to the Order level (as proven by the hybridisation of Whales and Dolphins) and the Family level in the case of Equidae. :cool:
Yes, JC. it may amaze you to realise that the many extinct animals known to science have also been classified. This is called "doing some work", and it appears not to be a Creationist priority - quite the reverse.J C wrote:Equally, the ‘fuzziness’ of Taxonomy isn’t unique to Creationists. According to Wikipedia, Evolutionists believe that a Genus should fulfill 3 criteria to be descriptively useful:...
So Evolutionists can’t even agree on classifying a flock of ducks! (or Anas, if you prefer)!!!
Well, you see, that's the kind of problem you run into when you deal with reality. It's messy.
On the other hand, perhaps you can tell me which Kind ducks belong to?J C wrote:Scofflaw
And there we see the magic of the Kind in action. Because the definition is so fuzzy, JC feels comfortable making a statement like this, even though he's mentioned several different Genera in the one breath, despite his definition of Kinds earlier as "approximate to genera".
Strong words from Evolutionists - who can't distinguish between their Anas and their Ducks!!!:D
And a weak comeback from Creationists, who haven't even tried.J C wrote:Scofflaw
So, what you're saying is that, although biologists have elucidated many of the complex evolutionary sequences that came about over billions of years, and involve millions of now-extinct species, Creationist scientists have not been able to do so for 16,000 Created Kinds over the far shorter timescale of a few thousand years?
Such is the benefit of quality over quantity - and taking the time to get it right !!!:D
...that's entirely meaningless, I think. Or possibly Zen - it's always hard to be sure. What sound does one idiot clapping make?
Cretinists have actually had longer to work on the problem, if that is what you are trying hard to imply.J C wrote:Scofflaw
So, Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons, all the various different kinds of humanoids found in the fossil record, are all what? H. florensis?? H. habilis? What are they all then? Why do they even appear to have existed?
Neanderthals, H. erectus and Cro-Magnons were Humans.
H habilis is a ‘junk’ category into which all kinds of pieces of bone have been categorised.
Oh. Right - they're not real then?J C wrote:Now would you tell me exactly where Eanthropus and Hesperopithecus now fit into the Evolutionist Worldview – even though they were originally claimed to be ‘missing links’???
Eanthropus? As in Piltdown Man? JC, are you au fait with current science at all? Do you understand what is meant by the words "progress", or "improvement"? Ah, no, of course, everything has got worse since the Golden Age (sorry, Eden, whatever)...J C wrote:Scofflaw
And the different types of people alive today - Caucasians, Asians etc? How did that happen exactly? Why a little bit of divergence, but no speciation?
Exactly the same reason that some people have beautiful blue eyes and other people beautiful brown eyes – the amazing diversity of genetic information that was within the genome of Adam!!!!:D
But stopped short of speciation, because....? Because God said so? This is your "Creation Science"?J C wrote:Originally Posted by JC
*Professor Richard Dawkins proposing the idea of 'Multiple Universes' as the solution to the enormous odds against the Physical Constants being randomly fixed at levels that would allow life to exist
Scofflaw
Hardly "proposing". It's not a new idea.
……..and do all Evolutionists believe in ‘Multiple Universes’?
Nope. However, it is very strongly implied by quantum computing, rather scarily. I won't bore you with the details, since it would be a waste of my time and yours.
Honestly, JC, how you claim to be a scientist without choking I shall never know, but somewhere there is a Professorship in Unclear Thinking with your name on it.
You are the fattest fish in my personal barrel, and a necessary character (need I say which?) in the global village. Don't you go changing!
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement