|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Genesis "kinds" may be Nested Hierarchies. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
I don't think there is a need for a creationists to explain what a "kind" is. That is not the point of the Scripture, which is this: If God initially created simple life forms that later evolved into all the life we see on earth today, there would be no point in him saying creatures were created "according to their kinds", because the original "kinds" were destined to evolve into oblivion.
That is to say, the words, "according to their kinds" suggests a fixity of kinds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I don't think there is a need for a creationists to explain what a "kind" is. ... Then they can't say what is not a "kind" ... but then you try to explain what a "kind" is:
That is to say, the words, "according to their kinds" suggests a fixity of kinds. Would that not mean that in any generation of any species, that the young would appear to be pretty much the same as their parents within the variation seen in that generation? Certainly within the variation seen in dogs, yes? Let's look at A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate quote: Does that not look like a species reproducing "according to their kinds" from generation to generation?
... If God initially created simple life forms that later evolved into all the life we see on earth today, there would be no point in him saying creatures were created "according to their kinds", because the original "kinds" were destined to evolve into oblivion. How so? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
IOW, you have absolutely nothing to say.
I could agree to that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Dredge writes: That is to say, the words, "according to their kinds" suggests a fixity of kinds. Fine, but you can't have it both ways. Noah either filled his boat with every 'kind' exactly as we see them today, or he took some subset of them which then evolved into all the organisms we see today. They're either fixed or they're not, which are you choosing?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Which is simply additional evidence that God got it wrong in both Genesis 1 & 2. Ignorant God.
None of the kinds mentioned in the Bible existed at the beginning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
But "fixity of kinds" requires an explanation of what kinds are. What, exactly, is fixed? Poodles beget poodles after their kind and sheepdogs beget sheepdogs after their kind. Dogs are not necessarily a kind. What is fixed?
That is to say, the words, "according to their kinds" suggests a fixity of kinds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
But "fixity of kinds" requires an explanation of what kinds are. What, exactly, is fixed? Poodles beget poodles after their kind and sheepdogs beget sheepdogs after their kind. Dogs are not necessarily a kind. What is fixed? The dogs that don't meet the purebred standard? by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
quote:Try the article "Do all life forms fall into a nested hierarchy?" at evolutionnews.org.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Too funny.
You really use something like Discovery Institute as though it had anything to do with science? Sheesh. That explains a lot!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Lenski's experiment: 50,000 generations of E. Coli and nothing to suggest that E. Coli can be anything but E. Coli. After 50 billion generations the result will be the same - E. Coli producing nothing but more E. Coli.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Does a platypus fall into a nested hierarchy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
See, you believe crap like that has any meaning; ignorance writ large. E-coli is not just one organism but one of the most diverse examples of bacteria out there with lots of different strains.
What that so called experiment actually shows is about like saying mammals reproduce mammals or plants reproduce plants. Remember, Creationists, particular those who claim to be scientists are counting on your ignorance so you don't simply laugh out loud when they are fund raising.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
You assume that bacteria can evolve into something that is not bacteria but something more functionally complex. But what evidence is there that that can happen?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Dredge writes: You assume that bacteria can evolve into something that is not bacteria but something more functionally complex. But what evidence is there that that can happen? Too funny. You really can't do anything but the Gish Gallop can you? There is a whole bunch of threads that cover the evidence that it can and in fact did happen. We have the fossils so we win. Once there was nothing living on Earth more complex than single celled organisms. Now there are things more complex than single celled organisms. So far the ONLY explanation is that evolution happened and the Theory of Evolution explains how it happened. Stop listening to the liars known as Creationists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
"Everybody knows that organisms get better as they evolve. They get more advanced, more modern, and less primitive. And everybody knows, according to Dan McShea (who has written a paper called Complexity and Evolution: What Everybody Knows), that organisms get more complex as they evolve. From the first cell that coalesced in the primordial soup to the magnificent intricacies of Homo sapiens, the evolution of life--as everyone knows--has been one long drive toward greater complexity. The only trouble with what everyone knows, says McShea, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Michigan, is that there is no evidence it’s true." - Onward and Upward?, discovermagazine.com, June 1993.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024