Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On Kinds... again.
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 16 of 63 (63629)
10-31-2003 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by mendy
10-31-2003 10:42 AM


Re: kind
Uh, Mandy, "miracle"?
If you want to believe in miracles that is fine with everyone. However, miracles are not science. Miracles belong in church.
If you wish to stay with your beliefs and are content that they belong in church then I sure don't have any arguement with you. There is really nothing to discuss unless you are particularly interested in learning about other ideas.
If however you wish to meddle in the teaching of science because you think you have something to say about science then we do have something to discuss. However, miracles are religion not science so you have to leave them at the church door.
If you want to use miracles then you don't have to define "kind" or worry about the catch-22 of the ark. God simply magiced it all. There is no need for fundamentalists wasting their time doing "baraminology" or disussin the carrying capacity of the ark.
Obvisously, since there are many fundamentalists who do spend a lot of time and ink on these topics most of them disagree with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by mendy, posted 10-31-2003 10:42 AM mendy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by mendy, posted 10-31-2003 11:56 AM NosyNed has replied

  
mendy
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 63 (63635)
10-31-2003 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Zhimbo
10-31-2003 10:58 AM


Re: kind
Ok. First and foremost -this passage is not about classifying all living things - No one said there should be taxonomic similarities. Why do you think there should be one here or that it reuiqres one? If you read the chapter, its about [1] Giving kosher/non kosher signs for various animals and fish [2] LISTING non the kosher birds and grasshoppers. SO, why should there be a system of classification based on physicla similarities. There isnt and there shouldnt be. There are similarities in types of animals here in that all kosher animals [in verses preceding cited passage] are non aggresive herbivores, while those non kosher prey on others. There is your classification!. So cows, deer, giraffe are kosher - have split 'hooves' and chew their cud -lions, jaguars, etc dont. Its a 'spiritual' classification if you will - dont ea tthese things that menaces others -eat only peacefull ones -and here are their signs so you'll know which is which. Besides which my previous post was general. i recall reading that the system in biblical usage in general in putting 'kinds' together is based on similar appearances and percieved "life styles" of animals in nature - how they lived, ate, slept. More later -this is off the top of my head...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Zhimbo, posted 10-31-2003 10:58 AM Zhimbo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Rei, posted 10-31-2003 1:46 PM mendy has replied

  
mendy
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 63 (63638)
10-31-2003 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by NosyNed
10-31-2003 11:22 AM


Re: kind
Listen NosyNed,
This forum is discussing a particular topic. Just because you are closeminded to other ideas is not my fault. If you can not even imagine the simple idea of a G-d and the idea of a miracle WHEN TALKING ABOUT A BIBLICAL PASSAGE then you have no understanding of the basic ideas of the story...and we are discussing aspects of A biblical story. As for us discussing science, we are trying to understand a passage in Leviticus, not read a science book. So, yes, i gave you a theory - if you cant handle the G-d idea when talking about bible, read and talk about another book. And be nice. Just because we disagree doesnt mean you have to be nasty. as for being a fundamentalist - if you mean following eye witness testimony of my ancestors - then i am one. Nuff said for now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 10-31-2003 11:22 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Zhimbo, posted 10-31-2003 11:59 AM mendy has not replied
 Message 21 by NosyNed, posted 10-31-2003 1:08 PM mendy has not replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 19 of 63 (63639)
10-31-2003 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by mendy
10-31-2003 11:56 AM


Re: kind
This topic is related to so-called "scientific" creationism's use of the word "kind", which seems to be so flexible and ill-defined as to be meaningless.
For example, "scientific" creationists claim that evolution is possible only within "kind".
Well, what does that mean? Read your last post to me. Does your answer make any sense if you want to claim that evolution is limited to "within kind"? Can a cow evolve into a giraffe, for example?
You might lack context for understanding why the issue of "kind" is important in the evo. vs. creationism discussions, I hope this at least gives you an idea.
[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 10-31-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by mendy, posted 10-31-2003 11:56 AM mendy has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 20 of 63 (63654)
10-31-2003 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Rrhain
10-31-2003 9:08 AM


Re: Flying Creeping Thing
quote:
What sort of organism has legs somewhere other than above their feet?
Snails.
Sort of.
They have a foot, but no legs.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-31-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Rrhain, posted 10-31-2003 9:08 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 21 of 63 (63657)
10-31-2003 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by mendy
10-31-2003 11:56 AM


Re: kind
Mandy, I guess I am trying to clarify what you view is.
If miracles are part of the explanation then 'kind' isn't an issue and this topic is about the definition of kinds.
As I pointed out most fundamentalisits seem to disagree with you and seem to think that defining kind and how they rapidly evolved after the flood is important.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by mendy, posted 10-31-2003 11:56 AM mendy has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 22 of 63 (63666)
10-31-2003 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by mendy
10-31-2003 11:47 AM


Re: kind
Hmm... I have a question then. Are rabbits kosher? Why or why not?
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by mendy, posted 10-31-2003 11:47 AM mendy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by mendy, posted 11-01-2003 8:30 PM Rei has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 63 (63672)
10-31-2003 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Jack
10-29-2003 5:02 AM


15: Every raven after his kind;
16: And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind
So if a cuckow population evolved into something resembling a raven, would that count as macroevolution, or rather evolution between kinds?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Jack, posted 10-29-2003 5:02 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
mendy
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 63 (63848)
11-01-2003 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Rei
10-31-2003 1:46 PM


Re: rabbits kosher?
Rabbits are not kosher. Some say that this is explicit in the text -modern hebrew calls a rabbit an "arnevet" or a "shafan" [which might be a hare] -this is one of the four examples of non kosher animals brought down. Any which way -rabbits dont chew their cud..so not kosher

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Rei, posted 10-31-2003 1:46 PM Rei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by NosyNed, posted 11-01-2003 9:06 PM mendy has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 25 of 63 (63862)
11-01-2003 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by mendy
11-01-2003 8:30 PM


Re: rabbits kosher?
I don't usually get into these biblical arguements since I certainly am not an expert but:
Leviticus 11:6
The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you
From the NIV, ( I don't know if that is a "good" bible or not).
This agrees with you that the rabbit isn't kosher but because of it's feet not because of it's cud chewing habits.
It seems that rabbits do chew their cud!! That is sure a surprise to me (and I would think to the rabbits too )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by mendy, posted 11-01-2003 8:30 PM mendy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by mendy, posted 11-01-2003 9:47 PM NosyNed has replied

  
mendy
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 63 (63871)
11-01-2003 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by NosyNed
11-01-2003 9:06 PM


Re: rabbits kosher?
OK - you got me Ned,
when I'm wrong, Im wrong -i just said it from memory and had it backwards- i remembered it wasnt kosher, just forgot which was which. Funny thing i remember an article i once read that said that the hebrew there "arnevet" is not really a rabbit -...that it was a mistranslation..bacause rabbits really dont chew there cuds -they eat their own droppings...[i think that why i got it backwards - i was thinking of that]. either way i can tell you that rabbits today are not considered kosher

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by NosyNed, posted 11-01-2003 9:06 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by NosyNed, posted 11-01-2003 10:26 PM mendy has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 27 of 63 (63877)
11-01-2003 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by mendy
11-01-2003 9:47 PM


Re: rabbits kosher?
Ok, thanks. I have no idea about the quality of the translations. Perhaps some of those knowledgable in Hebrew can help here? I don't suppose it matters much does it?
The writers of the bible simply didn't understand much rabbit physiology is just as likely as the translations being wrong I would think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by mendy, posted 11-01-2003 9:47 PM mendy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by mendy, posted 11-01-2003 10:42 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
mendy
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 63 (63880)
11-01-2003 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by NosyNed
11-01-2003 10:26 PM


Re: rabbits kosher?
i speak, read and write fluent hebrew, and have a pretty good aramaic. the verses say "shafan" and "arnevet" translated as hare and rabbit. in modern hebrew, those translations are correct but i think they might be wrong for the biblical ones.
As for their knoweldge of animal physiology - i have to differ -consider that they were an agrarian society AND that they were constantly involved in anmial offerings which were disected. And remember that for offerings any slight blemish rendered it unfit,- i think they were intimately aquainted with physiology. I can say from talmud study that their oral knowledge on animal physiology, passed down from generation to generation, is immense. See Babylonian Talmud - tractate Chulin. So they knew physiology very well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by NosyNed, posted 11-01-2003 10:26 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Zhimbo, posted 11-02-2003 12:39 AM mendy has replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 29 of 63 (63887)
11-02-2003 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by mendy
11-01-2003 10:42 PM


Re: rabbits kosher?
Well, actually they DIDN'T have their physiology down, if the passage does indeed say that rabbits chew the cud. Because they don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by mendy, posted 11-01-2003 10:42 PM mendy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by mendy, posted 11-02-2003 12:45 AM Zhimbo has replied

  
mendy
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 63 (63891)
11-02-2003 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Zhimbo
11-02-2003 12:39 AM


Re: rabbits kosher?
and so we said its a mistranslation -its not a rabbit - we shall leave the original wording-it was an "arnevet" whatever that is which does chew its cud but no slipt hooves. problem solved i think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Zhimbo, posted 11-02-2003 12:39 AM Zhimbo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Zhimbo, posted 11-02-2003 12:50 AM mendy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024