Problems of a different "Kind"

quote:

---

For example:

​

Absent life forms:
Virus, Bacteria, Fungus, and Insects.

---

These are catered to, while not disregarding the generations of mankind and their knowledge quotient at any given time. The once unseen micro creatures and subteranean insects are 'swarms of living creatures' and 'and every living creature that creepeth', respectively.

quote:

---

20 And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.' 21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind;

---

quote:

---

Contradictory life forms:

​

Ground Root Based (Vegetation) - There are many plant species that do not live "on the ground", parasitic vines and water based plants are exceptions to this definition.

---

No contradiction or omissions here, nor can it be said better - all manner of vegetation is catered to, and note the deliberated categories listed. The term, 'root' was my own, to indicate all plants and vegetation as a differential from other kinds of life forms:

quote:

---

'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind

---

quote:

---

Water Based (Fish): The first problem with this definition is that fish are vertebrates, so without further clarification its hard to tell if fish are separate from all other vertebrates in the water. Invertebrates must also be a consideration before water based kind could be accepted. Water based insects, bacteria, and plants are also an unknown; certainly they cannot all be called 'fish'.

---

Before being verterbtrates, they are water borne, the transcendent factor in their differentials. All types are catered too, in what is the first recording of such a breakdown.

quote:

---

Air Borne (Fowl): Again further clarification is needed. Fowl that are unable to fly make this classification impossible. Mammals and insects are also known to fly, reptiles in the fossil record once flew. How does one classify the gliders - land based or air based?

---

All are catered to and well ensconsed in the text when read with equal deliberation as a science or math treatise. Note how 'and every living creature that creepeth' and 'and every winged fowl' is as comprehensive as it can get - for ALL generations of mankind:

quote:

---

21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind

---

quote:

---

Speech Endowed - Though obviously a human classification this also presents problems. What divides the communication of the various methods used in nature from humans? When various species of bird mimic human communication does this ability qualify them as human?

---

Consider you are sitting for one of those tests and have to tick off the uncommon factor from a list, which includes all life forms and humans. If you answer in variance to genesis - you will fail this test. Darwin failed here.

quote:

---

Though an interesting start for a differing classification system it still presents some problems. As one digs into the fossil record these issues become more and more apparent. Its possible that he is suggesting a form of the first definition, but as it stands his definition requires a bizarre form of hyper-evolution. It has been suggested above in this thread by Highestevolvedwhiteguy some form of 'barrier' is inferred by kind, IamJoseph appears to present the exact opposite.

---

Genesis is science, even introducing this faculty. Creationism and Monotheism are absolutely scientific premises. I don't know of any document which is as much science, certainly none in Genesis spacetime, and none of its stats have been disproven: this makes genesis the world's most vindicated science account, by period of time, number of stats and by impact.To put this issue to some examination, which stat of genesis 1/1, which deals with Creation, is not scientific? The following, I believe are scientifically redeemed stats of Genesis 1/1, and this is an example how it's reading is allignable with the best of science:Gen 1:
1. IN THE BEGINNING.
This is the first recording of the universe being finite: there was a beginning. Science reflects this as the BBT. The first 4 words also gives a source for creation, IN THE BEGINNING GOD. The factor of effect is not left bereft of a cause, or takes refuge in the most unscientific premise of all: it just happened, or it was always so. We know for a fact it was not always so, and a finite universe is far more scientific than an infinite one.1. HEAVEN AND EARTH.
This has dual positions, the word heaven having two meanings - the physical galaxies, and a spiritual realm, and it is correct to cater to both premises. One stat says the universe includes two facets, namely corporeal [physical] and incorporeal [non-physical/spiritual] facets, namely heaven and earth. This is not provable but is held by most humans as the lingering issue, that more is occuring than what can be physically verified; it is justified by occurences which have no percievable cause. The other position of this stat is that the two focal points for humanity, which it is addressed to, are the universe at large and the earth: the former is described from the latter human POV.2. Now the earth was unformed and void.
This is not in question: the products we have now were not existent in their current form immediately after the emergence of matter. Unions occured and molecules and atoms formed; there was no water till H2 combined with O, for example, and there were no trees, stars or planets.2. And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light.
Obviously, light had to become existent, when it was not before. While genesis at no time says how it was made, it is for science or mankind to learn these things, same as Genesis does not say how trees were made. We have been given the ability to think - so this is not an escapist stat, but it is scientifically ratifiable that Light would be one of the primal products of the universe.2. and God divided the light from the darkness.
One of the most important words comes into play here, namely 'SEPARATED' - and the reason why we cannot break certain tresholds, such as a pre-universe scenario or an after-death one or the source of the Creator: there is a cnnectivity and a separation - we percieve but cannot grasp it. Of course, light and darkness had to be clearly separated, else this would contradict or make superflous the earlier term of 'void' [chaos/without order]. The term GOOD refers to the infusion of order in the previous order-less. It should be noted that this separation factor is not sufficiently acknowledged in most scientific appraisals, while it should be a prominent factor in all advents of the early emergence of the universe products.5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.The factor which separates day from night is not the movements of the sun and moon, but darkness and light per se - and their separation: had the separation not be implemented, humans would not be able to differentiate light from darkness. Genesis also says the first day began at evening, from where the term eve is derived - and there had to be a first day: but no - it cannot be the first day, because that would signify a precedence - so genesis uses the more correct term as 'ONE DAY' instead of first, but correctly lists the following days as second, third, etc. This is no typo but profound exacting text.6 And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven.This is scientific geography of the universe's early period in two levels. The term heaven is used, namely the galaxies, which were now separated from the non-physical realm. Why the term 'water'? I'm not sure, but one explanation is that water and darkness were prevalent in the unformed period, when the spiritual and physical was as yet not separated. Water and darkness remained on the side of the physical realm after this separation.The other level is the water separation on earth, vital for any life and any order. When it is correctly seen from a creational view, the waters would have covered the planet, with the earth being submerged. The issue that this took a period of time, does not impact or contradict, except that this clearly signifies Genesis is NOT talking about a 24-hour day here or the length of a day, but an epoch of time. We can establish this by a later verse down the track. Obviously, no calendar has been designated, and no life appears yet: the table is not yet ready for the guests.8. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
Note it says 'second' not day two. This is an Epoch two, it's unspecified period being that of the earth's early formation, namely:9 And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas.
The same occured on earth, enabling seas and land, with the separation factor.11 And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.'While the order of the first life emerges after light, water and land, and their critical separations, we have our first toss with science here, namely that there is life before the sun: so what about photosenthesis? Not so fast - this one is easily answered, namely the life was static and not animated [which is clarified later on]. The other issue with science here is, that vegetation is mentioned before the sun - which predates the planet earth. So one has to concentrate better with the exacting mathematical texts: the sun was already created in the opening verse, along with the galaxies - but the sun's luminosity had not yet occured. This may sound controversial, but when seen by this view, some other mysteries or unknowns become more clearer. Regardless of the potential dispute - Genesis still talks science here, and not myth. We know that a star only attains luminosity after a certain period following its formation as a fully developed star, and not in its earliest stages.
The other factor here which is scientifically correct is the structure of vegetation, and how they are able to reproduce from, and emulate, their derivitive host. The poignant factor here is, Genesis is saying the so-called process of evolution is not mentioned or required here, which is justified by the actions of the repro by virtue of the seed. Also what is said, the repro program is embedded in the seed - not the external environment. From this view, Darwin's evolution becomes superflous. This is a legitimate counter account, and is not a stray from science, which is not above logic. It can occur this way, is the point here, and there is no disproof of it. If anything, it is better manifest, all repro being from the seed, as opposed invisable, inexplained, unevidenced factors of a mythical evolution.14 And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.Clearly in the above only luminosity is spoken of, the sun's creation being never mentioned. Also, both astrology [omens] and astronomy [signs] is mentioned, and vindicated today. The word 'formed' is used when mentioning the stars, clarifying it was 'created' before in the opening verse.20 And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.'Here we see the correct order of life forms, and their correct categorising, which will show the error of darwin. This is the first recording of the order of life forms, which Darwin copied from, and called it the evolution chain. The error of darwin is his method of categorising the species, using skelatal imprints - which are common to all life forms, and which subsequently contains man as one of the overall species, thereby ignoring human variations from all other life forms. Darwin says humans and speech is a result of accumulated graduations - but this is not provable, and all evidences contradict it [eg. the time factor and that no other life has attained speech]. Darwin's breakdowns are more directed to sub-divisions within species, than fulcrum differences between primal life forms. Genesis' categorising is far more accurate and contextual, separating species by root [vegetation], water based [fish], air borne [fowl], land based [animals and mammals] and humans - the only one possessing a stand out unique difference. One must consider how they would categorise the life forms on a planet they can witness being formed!This is about the peripheral overview of the creation chapter, and I cannot see anything but a scientific, logical, believable portrayal. The OT calendar, which is the only one using the sun, moon and earth movements, begins at evening of the 6th day's termination, as day one - also the start of history per se, and an affirming the creation days are not 24-hour days. Further, if one disagrees with a certain stat, it does not mean Genesis is not scientific, but is akin to two scientists with two different views only. There is no reason to view this chapter as metaphoric!The first recorded scientific equation:'A SEED SHALL FOLLOW ITS OWN KIND'The first recorded pointer to the origin of all things in their primal emergence:'MAN & WOMAN CREATED HE THEM' - Namely, All life and other universal intities emerged as a duality; there is no actual ONE or ZERO in the universe.The first facet of active and applied science is Medicine, and the first separation of medicine from the occult came from this source.

quote:

---

But the Bible also tells us that offspring are not identical to their parents.

---

I don't see any reference to being identical or not in the verse. What I see is the traits of a holistic species is pointed to, which is contained in the seed, and passed on. Speech endowed life forms beget the same trai, and water based life forms will do the same. This does not infringe on the individualities of each offspring.

quote:

---

Well, we now have salmon giving birth to trout.

---

Treat the text as you would a physics theory. Both types of those fish come under the same nominated water based 'kind'.

quote:

---

Can we cut out the assertions and just keep with the kinds? I suppose I could riddle my posts with the same such blather and we can both share a headache.

---

I rest my case with the term paranoia.

quote:

---

GROUND ROOT BASED [VEGETATION], WATER BASED [FISH], AIR BORNE [FOWL], LAND BASED [ANIMALS/MAMMALS] - AND SPEECH ENDOWED LIFE FORMS

​

So from the five original groups (kinds) we must add unseen micro creatures kind and subteranean insects kind. The virus and fungi still present a problem.

---

One need not add or subtract anything: the text is literally [grammatically] comprehensive, and includes both micro and subteranean and all living creatures. There are no superflous words or alphabets in the OT, and grammar comes from here: the pristine, shortest distance of words are employed, requiring no input. For sure, as with all other aspects, the majesty of literature is seldom acknowledged here. This is not mere writings, but marks the epitomy of language, utilised by the greatest writers after these writings reached Europe via Greek and Roman translations, which also imported Democracy from here. Such a calibre of writings has never been equalled, and it appears to have arrived suddenly and in already advanced state, being not only alphabetical, but inherent of numerals and able to function with and without vowels; many later languages did not possess all phonetic sounds till well after the latin [eg: 'V']. Well before numerlas became advanced, we have in the same source the first scientific cencus, in the millions, with subototals and corresponding accounting totals, and gender and age breakdowns. Such indicators say the text is a very serious business. It is the literature, and its contruction and clear transcending wisdom inherent here, which first captured me. I now see a high evidence of good writing as the pre-requisite and transcendent factor to wisdom. If we do not know a word - we cannot think that word; how a word is utilised marks the wisdom of the writer. No two words in any language mean the same thing, and we have in the OT the bold advocation not to add or subtract anything - this is an indication of a runaway confidence which appears not perturbed of the future advancements of mankind, and is not seeking refuge of any potential errors in its declarations.

quote:

---

If there is no contradictions then it should be clear, but of course its not. Does this group include plants that are not ground based or have roots?

---

Yes. Read it again. All plants/vegetation is covered in a single stroke of words.

quote:

---

Is photosynthesis a criterea, I am quite unclear about what exactly is a plant? Is a Sea Tulip, Pyura spinifera a plant?

---

I'm not a biologist, but it seems likely that the solar derived photosenthesis acts more as a fuel or catalyst for life - after it is existant. IOW: it is not connected with life's formation. The text caters to this, and more, with the follow-up chapter, illustrating how static life became dynamic, with all fors of vegetation, in the earth, above the earth and those which cling to the earth:

quote:

---

5 No shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground; 6 but there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the earth.

​

quote:

---

Ok, so simply being born in water is what makes this grouping important. Does this also include amphibians (land based), plants (ground based), animals (ground based), and mammals (ground based)?

---

​

Mammals are catered to, including creatures which habitat if the water shores and crevices [shellfish], and those which live in water but require to ascend periodically:

​

quote:

---

21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind

---

​

quote:

---

Comprehensive?! To you perhaps. I would like to know if this includes flying mammals with wings, flying insects with wings, and reptiles with wings. If having wings is the only criterea, do you know that there are several water based kinds that have wings? This gets more confusing as it goes along.

---

​

Its not confusing in the text's version. All land and sea creatures are addressed, including great monsters and beasts, all those that creapeth and all winged creatures. I have read scientific/biological explanations of the texts, though this is not at hand:

​

quote:

---

21 every winged fowl after its kind;

---

​

quote:

---

Speech Endowed
Consider you are sitting for one of those tests and have to tick off the uncommon factor from a list, which includes all life forms and humans

​

Define speech. No I am not being obtuse. Other animals communicate.

---

​

Communication and speech are totally separate phenomenons. All life forms possess the former, only one the latter. What parrots do is not speech but mimmicry, more akin to a circus bear learning how to win food. This faulty view leads to another faulty conclusion, that speech evolved from coos and hisses. If the latter was even partially credible, almost all life forms would possess it - given they had the advantage of time, and that they are better equipped with sound pitches and audio dexterity than humans. It is credible to point this out as a glitch in ToE, and its blind acceptance today with no adequate responsa.

---

quote:

---

That quote from the bible does not even use the word kind. I cannot see how this is a valid form of classification from the quote you have provided, nor from the divisions you have presented so far. To deny that there are contradictions appears, so far, to simply be denial.

---

You have not stated the contradictions you refer to. The term 'kind' is used in all instances of life form categories.

quote:

---

Yet different between what scientists call species. If you saw a 400 year old dead chicken and a 400 year old dead whale - how would you know if they are from the air/water/ground kind? I am having trouble using your method even if the are alive.

---

One would use the means known and available to its generation, same way as now to confirm it correctly.

quote:

---

and more than two thousand years later, I am confused. Could you be more specific so I can understand how all these living creatures are to be classified?

---

There is nothing missing. Swarms identify virus and bacteria [life-form cells]. The first recording of a contagious and infectious desease is in the follow-up books, namely Leviticus, and relating to malignant leprosy, its ID, treatment and quarantine. This is the first notion of medicine and its separation from occultism. The washing of hands, which negates 90% of germs, is also a mandated law here, and enshrined in medical process some 3oo years ago. Its a question of correct comprehension and deciphering of a deceptively simple biblespeak: a cursory acknowledgement of its writings time, should quickly dispell any notion of naivity here. The issue extends itself in all areas, even maths, biology and history: the most daring stat is the specifically nominated dating for speech endowed modern man, namely 5678 years - and this cannot be disproven, while it is evidenced today as being without negation factors. There is not only no name of a human, no king, no country before this date, there is no history per se. The notion speech could not be proven because of the absence of writings is simply not credible: the latter is an effect, not the cause, of speech!

quote:

---

I think we need to start with a definition of science first. It's not just observation and having statistics that haven't been falsified.

---

Look at the stats as equations, akin to MC2. The observations and evidencing is upto each generation's status. Science is a recent study, appearing after maths and history. If there is a stat the city Ramesey is a one day journey from Goshen - mankind has to determine and evidence its veracity. Where it says the Nile never runs dry, it becomes evidenced by the terrain examination, namely all rivers flow down and never up from this point: there was never a famine in Egypt. If the text describes the ancient Egyptian diets [the fleshpots of egypt, the fish for naught, the garlic, melons, etc..] - we can verify of this is of contemporanous veracity. The surrounding colliliary gives the credibility factor.

quote:

---

I would like to see IamJoseph propose a topic on just this issue so it can be discussed in depth. I expect this will either show

​

(1) begging the question (defining speech to only apply to humans then concluding it only applies to humans) or

​

(2) that it is only a difference in degree and not in kind, and that to restrict it to humans requires additional parameters specifically chosen to omit other animals (see (1) above).

​

Enjoy.

---

It cannot be a dif in degree: else we would see degrees of equivalent prowess factors elsewhere. Its a one of a kind attribute which is inherent and not inculcated: a parent does not teach a child to talk - it merely clicks a switch on and the rest happens akin to breathing. This attribute decreases with time.

quote:

---

The Biblical use of the word "kind" does not imply any kind of barrier.

---

Sure it does. The word 'kind' is qualified and extended in all its placements - water/ocean life, and referred to 'after its kind' - after water based life forms. There is no other reading than this is about divisions, and is the first recording of life form grads, which was later adapted by Darwin.

quote:

---

This whole paragraph is a perfect example. Nowhere in my post do I ask if the bible is perfectly written or contains 'superflous' words. From what you quoted of my post I simply made the observation that you have added unseen micro creatures kind and subteranean insects kind - if I am incorrect to add these two categories feel free to let me know. I still have not recieved an answer regarding fungi.

---

What I 'added' was relevent to the point of discussion. Being perfectly written is impressive to the factor of your deliberation of virus - the text incorporates this very adequately and eloquently - taking into consideration all of mankind's understanding, including this advanced scientific period. If the text has no superflous words, one must take more seriously the term 'every living creature that swarms and/or creapeth'. Any further elaboration here would make it an overkill and render superflous additions. If you were a scientist, and were to correctly write the texts 3,500 years ago, catering for virus' which would have no meaning till very recently: how would you go about it? Here, the text's veracity reaches total vindication for being comprehensive, and catering to this generation.

quote:

---

So you claim that Plant or Vegetation means anything that clings to the earth? All else is not a plant, correct? I would hate to misunderstand your position as its so easily covered in the single stroke of words. (as you suggest)

---

No, I did not venture there in such a fashion. What I do say is, there is the comprehensive listing of all kinds of vegetation, plants, herbs - which cater to all known categories of vegetation, including root growths like potatoes, lowly shurbs and tall tree growth. Fruits, nuts, grains, cactus, herbs, spices, and vegatables are catered to, and this is dispenced in a few [compacted] wordage.

quote:

---

Where are they catered to? Are you suggesting that I must read the entire bible to acertain what your categories for biology are? You suggested that mammals are Ground Based, I however cannot understand this based on the existance mammals in water. Does the fact that they "ascend periodically" mean that they better fit within the Ground Based kind? This is probably an important issue with the definition. You have asserted Darwins mistake in faulty assumptions, it would be unfair to make me assume the criterea for these categories without clarity.

---

mammals are included here, which is in the same verse as water-based life: 'and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind'. These are creatures which inhabit both water and land ['wherewith the waters'].

quote:

---

Everything with a wing is one kind, correct? Take your time, this ones probably important also.

---

Everything with wings refers to more than air-borne, namely also those birds which are mostly ground based [chickens] but possess wings.

quote:

---

But if a parrot mimics a human in saying "I want food" and it does want food - is that then speech? I don't particularily disagree with you on your final kind (Speech Endowed). Frankly I just do not understand why you feel it to be neglected by science, all definitions of human I can find include this. As such I am lead to believe that your definition of speech is different than science. I am simply trying to figure out this difference.

---

Speech is only recently being scientifically considered as a mysterious phenomenon. It is the only unique attribute of humans, and correctly declared in the texts. Communication and the brain are common to all life. We speak, but we have no idea how - it is not because we have voice boxes or any organ which is condusive to it. Its an involuntary feature, and connected to the brain in an intergrated form. It is not a phenomenon of evolution, and not explained by it. Unfortunately, ToE has no input here. The situation becomes compounded when we consider that animals and birds have a greater degree of natural understandings when they can anticipate earthquakes, smell a fire coming, adapt to sonar, see without eyes and had the benefit of greater time to adapt - yet have not 'evolved' to the most powerful adaptation tool: speech. Here we see why the statute to GO FORTH AND HAVE DOMINION OF ALL THE WORLDS is linked to a speech endowed life form, but one which is not the most powerful in any other area: imagine if dogs, tigers and gorrilas had speech - they would transcend us and prevail in the dominion stakes.

quote:

---

Perhaps you misunderstand my position. A flying mammal is not generally considered a 'fowl', a non-flying 'fowl' is not generally considered air borne. Animals arent often called plants, plants arent often called fish. Surely you must understand that while tearing down the method used by biologists to categorize life some questions will arrise. I am asking simple questions regarding your method and have been quite clear about what I see as contradictions. If they are not contradictions I should not be expected to understand your position ahead of time.

---

As I said, I'm not a biologist to answer the minutae details correctly, but I have read on it, and agree there are no contradictions here. The term 'EVERY' is placed strategically in many places, and are conducive to your questions.

quote:

---

Can you explain why a virus is like a bacteria? I am particularily interested to know why you think a virus has a cell, and why you feel it is even alive. I am not trying to trap you by claiming a virus is not 'alive', I dont think of them as rock but surely they do not fit with bacteria?

---

I don't think your trying to trap, but rather there are big swathes of mis reps of the OT the last 2000 years, by religions which took in on board, but without the correct understanding of it and without the explainatory laws. Christianity and islam, which spread the OT to the world at large, understandably had their focus on their own new scriptures. The variance of a virus and bacteria is addressed in infectcious and contagious deseases respectively [as with the multi-page descriptions in the various forms of leprosy and other deseases]. The reference to cell was to anticipate you bringing up single celled amoeba.Allow me to extend, how the biology of life forms is fully known here. Take the example of the given reason for the dietary laws, which forbids the consumption of pig meat. This is not for health or hygiene reasons, and this law made life much more difficult for a farming community where meats were luxury items. The relevent factor here is the depiction of the pig as having an attribute not shared by any other life form on the planet - and this attribute is a hidden, camouflaged one. It is the only animal with split hooves, but which does not chew its cud - which all domestic animals do. How can such a factor be known by the ancients or indeed even today? How was it known there was no such animal in the Amazon or in Tasmania? To dispell that it was a good guess, three other animals are nominated which have the oppositte attributes of the pig: they chew their cud but have no split hooves: there is not a 4th one.The reason the pig is forbidden is because slaughtering a pig via its throat would cause it great pain, applicable even for slaughter or killing an animal. Unlike all other nominated animals with the said two attributes, the pig does not posses a loop in its throat vein which connects to the brain - slitting this vein would thus cause it pain, while in the other nominated animals, it would render them unconscious within a few seconds by virtue of this hidden loop which acts as a filter stoppage of blood flow to the brain. A case was won on this grounds recently, when a canadian animal rights group embarked on legal action to ban kosher slaughtering. Scietists and prominent biologists were called in and detailed mid-section filmography was shown in the court. The animal rights group lost, and all costs were awarded against them, with the court order that if such a case was brought again - the evidences tended must be shown. The OT understands biology and medicine, which are prime factors of science.

quote:

---

So let's take a look at the creation of man:

​

Gen 1:27 " 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

---

This says the duality of man ['him'] has Godlike qualities [a unique attribute not said of others].

quote:

---

Gen 2:22 " 22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."

---

This says how and when the 'woman' [the counterpart of the aforesaid duality] was formed.

quote:

---

Gen 5:2 " 2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created."

---

This says humans [woman too/the duality] were blessed jointly [together/designated equal status] when they were created.

quote:

---

There's 3 passages give the same information - they are, by definition superfluous.

​

Therefore we must NOT take these passages seriously.

​

Thank you, you are finished.

---

I don't think so. Each verse is separate, pivotal and indispensable to one deliberating, asking and seeking the correct process. There is no good science when comprehension is not transcendent, and here is a transcendent writing. The rules of comprehending and grammar comes from this source: eg: if the term GOD is used twice consecutively, it is not superflous [obviously] and denotes an expression of approval - often used in normal speech as an expression of affection [a mother calling a child, etc]; if the expression 'I AM THE LRD' appears at the end of a sentence, it is a disapproval or warning and the matter will be dealt with - often used in normal expression by mankind as a warning also [a father warning a naught son not to speak badly to his father]. My response here is not a religious but scientific one, concerning the deciphering of a text only.

I believe I was using the wrong 'reply' buttons, but what do you mean with 'qs' instead of 'quote':It's not a requirement that you do the name when hitting the reply button but do use "qs" rather than "quote." It is usually best to do the name also, imo.

quote:

---

This lead me to believe that insects are the only creatures that fit into the Subteranean Insects category.

---

The creaping things upon the earth are designated one category from those that are sub-terreanean, and those which perform both such as the snail and moles:These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind,30And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the snail, and the mole.

quote:

---

Its now quite obvious that a visual identification is difficult. Are these also insects or is the category broader than expected? How do we identify the animals listed here, from the bible, as compared to other Land Based kinds?

---

The correct ID is subject to our knowledge at a given time. There may be hidden conditions which we may not be privy to at any time, or our understandings may alter, and must allow for this.My pain point in this discussion was to focus one factor only: the designation of Genesis as a document varied from the normal, generic allocation given to all religious texts, and from this pov it is also scientific - which does not mean it must allign with every premise deemed scientific by anyone's particular understanding. Better, that it is a view which has differences but remains a logical and independent view wherever it differs.What we call science today, are not all factual or mutally agreed upon by all scientists, and this also contains scientific beliefs which are unproven, inconsistant, deflective and unknown. Here, there are things which can impact and render some answers for science - eg, the premise of a 'duality' at the source of life origins; that life's design is precedent to external evolutionary impacts and is reliant on the parent host seed; that humans constitute a separate classification and this is not based on skelatal separations; and speech is varied from communications seen in all other life forms and thus outside of any evolutionary process. That such premises differ from one's understanding does not render it unscientific by any means.Genesis should be better viewed as an independent document from other religious texts - and if one cannot do so, it requires deliberation and debate, if the paranoia of casting all religious sounding texts can be abated. Genesis, it should be remembered, is 2000 years older than today's prominent religions, and the aspect of creation is not discussed in other theological texts, certainly not with a set of bold specifics and a detailed process as with Genesis. Also, I am not presenting Genesis as a theology, but as a scientific treatise - I do not share the view of some here, that it does not belong in a science thread, nor have I responded unscientifically to any science issues.Creationism and Monotheism are not unscientific premises, when seen in the document which introduced these premises: Genesis is not talking about a personalised diety, but declares the Creator as unseen and unprovable, but existent - this alligns with all sciences and knowledge today, and thus wholly vindicated - with no opposing scenario. Monotheism is proposed by science in another form [the quest for an indivisable/irreducable entity/GUF]; Creationism/Creator being a logical 'cause and effect' premise, though not provable, but without any opposing scenario at hand. IOW, there is no option than attending what is said in genesis as a legitimate counter to atheistic science - on a scientific basis, and this is only viable with one document.

What I said/meant was that excellent writing is a mark of wisdom, and what is true must be independently determined. There is no contradiction here. Wisdom and proof are separate but alligned, and both have to be respected; one should not conclude irespectively.

quote:

---

Do you agree that anything scientific should have the ability to stand up to scrutiny? If it cannot stand up to questioning should we {A:} Change the definition of science so that it no longer has to stand up to scrutiny or {B:} Leave science as it is and make alternate theories stand up to questioning?

---

Obviously yes, because science is making a declaration as a constant, specially a new view against the grain of what was previously held - this must be vindicated, else it is not science. By the same token, some factors require more than science as the determining factor, while still under the hammer of requiring proof and vindication. One is never obligated to follow anything which they sinserely do not hold as true or correct - the operative factor being 'sincerely' [honestly, and to the best of one's ability].

quote:

---

You don't have to share the view of others here, but to consider something to be scientific I think it should make basic sense. It should also stand up to questioning. If you have not responded unscientifically then further questioning is obviously in order as I, in my limited comprehension abilities, find many of your concepts to be completely foreign to my understanding of biology.

---

Science is a sacred institution, being non-biased and the closest thing to truth. Yet it is subject to error and corruption, equally as any other faculty, including its application of verification. Thus a sound premise can overide science, specially where proof is not available or possible. IMHO, science is about the B to Z, namely post-creation, and does not apply outside this factor [Genesis, incidently, begins with the second alphabet]. What does relate to the first alphabet or a pre-creation, is also not answerable, but in some instances scientific verification does not apply. When we cannot prove either way, for or against, other tools and faculties come into play, such as a sound premise. eg:We cannot prove the universe was created, or brought about by a supreme mind - but its antithesis is an unsound, unscientific premise. We have a choice here of not believing in a Creator - which becomes legitimate when one has sinserely considered the issue. However, if we decide there is no Creator and propose other, equally unsound premises - such as a complexity resulted by itself or from a random foundation - we have to prove this premise also. When proof is not available either side - only the sound premise will help. There are distortions of equal magnitude on both these paths: all of science and all religious beliefs cannot be right - because they are contradictory and mutually exclusive. Currently, the distortions of science are at the forefront, while those of religions are seen as understood but which cannot be helped.

quote:

---

Perhaps you feel that your method of kinds is scientific then you should be confident in your groupings and be able to explain them. As it stands currently I am sure you are able to understand my confusion. I have come to understand biology in terms that are totally at odds with your methods.

---

I see a problem in using darwinian speciation as applicable in primal, original overviews, and that it pertains only to sub-groupings which can entail many further layers. A rough analogy would be casting human ethnic groups [chinese, mexicans,etc] as fulcrum divisions of life forms, as opposed sub-groups. the difference between canine animals and feline animals are sub-groups, while the land based grouping is the transcendent grouping factor here. This means genesis is correct, and darwin is not wrong - 'when seen as a sub-group' division.

quote:

---

Do you or do you not understand the problems from my point of view with many of the organisms you place within certain groups? Are you confident that these groups best explain the biblical interpretation of biology?

---

The issue of primal, creation-viewed divisions has nothing to do with biology, because biology is not a primal factor but a subset view; its not about which life form has protruding lobes and upright structures, but which has a transcendent factor above these divisions. View the planet and its life forms as though you are witnessing its original formation and take notes: biology would not figure here.

quote:

---

Have you considered Noah's ark and the complications that are inevitably going to arrise while trying to explain the flood while denying evolution? (I hate to give away the game, but it should be blindingly obvious)

---

I say, prove something by the provables; what are listed as miracles should not be the criteria - specially not when these are presented as miracles [above nature] and not natural phenomena subject to science verification. Having said that, the Noah story is blazenly misrepresented, and subsequent to a less than adequate comprehension of the text. This was a regional flood with domestic animals only: the intro verse to the story preambles it applies to Noah and his household [family and possessions]. When one considers it properly, it cannot ever apply to the world, but rather only the then known world: this is grammatically vindicated, with further inferences in the text. Had the text been discussing the whole world as we know it now - it would correctly incur a grammatical blemish: it does not suffer this error, and its expressionism of the whole earth is well vindicated and acceptable. The writings must be read as subjective to its designated subject, in the subject's spacetime - not one which is 5,500 years apart. Equally, our conclusions today would not apply 5,500 years in the future: perhaps six new planets may be incorporated as humanity's spheare of relevence 5500 years from now - the ratio between us and Noah. What's next - the splitting of the sea?

quote:

---

Based on this last post insects are now related (in kind) to moles, snails, weasels, mice, tortoises, ferrets, chamelions, and lizards. If you don't have an issue with this - please explain why. Subteranian is the only criterea for this group?

​

What about snakes, worms, bears, bats, bacteria, and fungi? (still unresolved)

---

I see it as all life forms which are land based are one kind; those which fall into transitory groups are catered to, and do not pose a negation of the premise. Certainly, there may be forms of life as yet not discovered or imagined, or some life forms may be connected with points we never associated them with previously.