|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Genesis "kinds" may be Nested Hierarchies. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Genesis 1 describes how God created creatures "according to their kinds". Creationist Literalists are often critiqued for not being able to define what "kinds" are. I would like to suggest the possibility that "kinds" actually refers to what are known by biologists as "nested hierarchies".
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
My understanding of what a nested hierarchy is is probably lacking. I like to think of the world's languages as nested hierarchies. God created different languages during the "Tower of Bable" incident (as you know) and they are distinct from each other. For example, German is distinct from Mandarin.
God created primates, which includes humans. Is this not a nested hierarchy? You say "all life is a nested hierarchy", but apparently there are many creatures that don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
quote:Try the article "Do all life forms fall into a nested hierarchy?" at evolutionnews.org.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 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 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Does a platypus fall into a nested hierarchy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
On second thoughts, the whole "nested hierarchy" thing is very overrated - to put it mildly. In fact, from start to finish, it's an imaginary concept invented by Darwinists.
And as Gould said, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." Notice how Gould says "however reasonable" - how quaint. Beware of what a Darwinist considers to be "reasonable"! The theory of evolution is heavily reliant on speculation and baseless assumptions that are quite often preposterous - "reasonable" junk science, in other words. The bottom line is, armed with a fertile imagination and phantom ancestry "branches", a Darwinist can fit any creature at all into a "nested hierarchy" - even a platypus. Darwinists justify this farce by adopting the a priori position that all life is related, therefore every creature must somehow fit into the "bush of life". Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
JonF writes: The fact that life can be arranged in a nested hierarchy is an observation. Don't be silly. It's not an "observation". It's an atheist fable which got its inspiration from a science-fiction novel written by Charles Darwin. Darwin, in turn, got the inspiration for his novel while under the influence of a large dose of the hallucinogen, mescaline, when he was in South America.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
How does a playpus fit into a nested hierarchy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Yes, and to think they all evolved from a bacterium that didn't produce eggs ...
Evolution is so amazing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Oh, this is excellent junk science and classical Darwinism - "The fossilised Steropodon ... is composed of a an opalised lower jawbone with three molar teeth". Yep, one can tell a whole lot from just a jawbone with three teeth! Furthermore, this "ancestor" of the platypus had teeth, whereas the adult platypus has no teeth at all. Then there is some other "ancestor" of the platypus, "Tienolophos", which the article nonchalantly mentions,"lacked a beak". Hey, no problem at all - just wave Darwinism's magic wand of deep time and smoke a bagful of baseless assumption and Voila! ... a mouthful of teeth vanish and a beak appears!
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Well of course Mr. Linnaeus didn't call it a "nested hierarchy" - because that's not what he observed. Nested hierarchies are a figtree of Darwinist imagination - you know, like Charlie's mythical "Tree of Life".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
In others words, any creature can be fitted into a nested hierarchy - all you need is a vivid imagination and an appetite for fake science.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024