Jump to content


Photo

Noah Had Two Of Every Kind On The Ark


  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

#41 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 29 December 2008 - 05:56 PM

Hmmm. You responded to this post, so it's hard to conclude you overlooked it.

QUOTE(CTD @ Dec 24 2008, 04:02 PM)
Any two lifeforms with a common ancestor are the same kind.



Perhaps in your haste to declare victory, you forgot?

View Post



By your definition, all life on earth is the same "kind." :rolleyes:

#42 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 29 December 2008 - 05:58 PM

By your definition, all life on earth is the same "kind." :rolleyes:

View Post

Prove it.

#43 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 29 December 2008 - 06:10 PM

Exceedingly simple request Judy… Evolutionists believe everything evolved from some primordial ooze correct? And that’s not any kind of dog is it? Evolutionists believe all land animals subsequently evolved from some aquatic animal or something isn’t that correct?  And that’s not any kind of dog is it? So, basically, given just the two examples (one more than you asked for) you're denying that primordial ooze produced a dog? If that’s what you’re saying, you just stood the model of evolution on its collective ear!

Though, I must agree with you… I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist either….

View Post



Oh I guess I misunderstood. I thought ikester was implying that suddenly a dog must produce something radically different from itself, or a human being must produce a creature totally unlike itself, for evolution to be true.

I've used this analogy before, but I'll try again. There is a group of languages known as Romance languages. Among others, French, Italian, and Spanish all evolved from Latin. Do you agree that these are all different languages? And do you agree that they are all different from Latin?

In order for these languages to have evolved, do you believe that an ancient Roman woke up one morning and began speaking modern French? No, most likely that would have been as weird as an ape giving birth to a full-fledged human being. It would be bizarre. No evolutionist thinks that's what happened, just like no linguist thinks Latin suddenly gave birth to French or modern-day Italian.

Now before you guys say "but, but, they're all still languages!" let me say preemptively, "but, but, they're all still animals!"

(Also, if you reply by telling me the myth of the Tower of Babel, I will have no answer to that.)

#44 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 29 December 2008 - 06:42 PM

Latin evolving into french is like wolves evolving into labs.

slime evolving into people is like language evolving into telepathy.

#45 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 29 December 2008 - 06:49 PM

Latin evolving into french is like wolves evolving into labs.

slime evolving into people is like language evolving into telepathy.

View Post




Slime (or "goo", by which I'm understanding you to say single-celled creatures), didn't evolve into people in a single step. Just like Latin didn't evolve into French in a single step.

I thought we established that wolves and labs are basically the same species, but two different breeds. The DNA of these two breeds can still "speak" to each other well enough to produce fertile offspring. So that is more like two different dialects of French. Like a Parisian speaking to a someone from Provence. They could still understand each other quite easily.

French and Italian could more easily be compared to a wolf and a fox. Obviously related, yet no longer able to understand each other, or breed with each other.

#46 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 29 December 2008 - 07:04 PM

Slime (or "goo", by which I'm understanding you to say single-celled creatures), didn't evolve into people in a single step.

View Post


How about it didn't happen at all?

Your language example is really a perfect example against Darwinian evolution. Language is information and information requires both a sender and a receiver, simultaneously, to have function. DNA is language.

Does it matter how many bowls of alphabet soup you drop and make words if the being looking at those words doesn't know how to read?

#47 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 29 December 2008 - 09:23 PM

Hi Judy,

Slime (or "goo", by which I'm understanding you to say single-celled creatures), didn't evolve into people in a single step. Just like Latin didn't evolve into French in a single step.


Do you even study genetics or are you hoping were so ignorant we dont know any better.An amoeba has the largest genome of any living thing,are you suggesting an amoeba devolved into a human?Other bacterias have hundreds of chromosones,I guess they must have devolved into people as well.

If evolution predicts simple to complex,then evolution is falsified.




Thanks.

#48 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 December 2008 - 10:58 PM

Oh I guess I misunderstood.  I thought ikester was implying that suddenly a dog must produce something radically different from itself, or a human being must produce a creature totally unlike itself, for evolution to be true.

I've used this analogy before, but I'll try again.  There is a group of languages known as Romance languages.  Among others, French, Italian, and Spanish all evolved from Latin.  Do you agree that these are all different languages?  And do you agree that they are all different from Latin?

In order for these languages to have evolved, do you believe that an ancient Roman woke up one morning and began speaking modern French?  No, most likely that would have been as weird as an ape giving birth to a full-fledged human being.  It would be bizarre.  No evolutionist thinks that's what happened, just like no linguist thinks Latin suddenly gave birth to French or modern-day Italian.

Now before you guys say "but, but, they're all still languages!" let me say preemptively, "but, but, they're all still animals!"

(Also, if you reply by telling me the myth of the Tower of Babel, I will have no answer to that.)

View Post


Langauges don't evolve in a biological sense.

Also, out of over 350 breeds of dogs that exist, did even one look like it was evolving into a non-dog? You see, if every species of animal requires more than 350 changes to become some thing else. We would have so much different dead animals to find we would be falling over them. And all the gaps in the evolution tree from one species to another would be filled with no more room, or no more questions.

But that is not what we see is it? We don't find over 350 different changes between chimp to man. But yet a dog can breed 350 different types and not evolve into some thing else?

All supposed evolving life forms is controlled by one template. And that is the DNA template. So if one species cannot do it after 350 changes, what makes you think any other can? Have you or any one else on this planet observed this? Or is it by faith that you believe that it happened?

#49 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 30 December 2008 - 08:17 AM

Oh I guess I misunderstood.  I thought ikester was implying that suddenly a dog must produce something radically different from itself, or a human being must produce a creature totally unlike itself, for evolution to be true.
I've used this analogy before, but I'll try again.  There is a group of languages known as Romance languages.  Among others, French, Italian, and Spanish all evolved from Latin.  Do you agree that these are all different languages?  And do you agree that they are all different from Latin?
In order for these languages to have evolved, do you believe that an ancient Roman woke up one morning and began speaking modern French?  No, most likely that would have been as weird as an ape giving birth to a full-fledged human being.  It would be bizarre.  No evolutionist thinks that's what happened, just like no linguist thinks Latin suddenly gave birth to French or modern-day Italian.
Now before you guys say "but, but, they're all still languages!" let me say preemptively, "but, but, they're all still animals!"
(Also, if you reply by telling me the myth of the Tower of Babel, I will have no answer to that.)

View Post


As you know, to use language as an analogy for evolution model has its own plethora of built in contradictions. I’ll point out just a few of the many.

Every language we use is a hybrid (or partial amalgamation of the others), and there is NO “pure” language. In other words, aside from accents and dialect, EVERY language we use (or have used), borrows from the others…. But they are still JUST languages. And languages are nothing more than verbalizations of the ideas (or thought processes) of individuals and observations of those individuals.

It (language) is NOT a living, breathing thing. Like mathematics and logic, languages are expressions of ideas (mathematics and logic actually have to be expresses using languages). Unlike language, mathematics and logic have unchanging laws that govern them. You can change the principles of language to fit the needs of the peoples using it (I know, there are those who try to do the same with mathematics and logic); therefore it (language) is malleable and does evolve. But, its evolution can only be likened to micro-evolution, not macro evolution. Language cannot become mathematics or logic; it can only express mathematics or logic…

And you are correct; there is no punctuated equilibrium in language, because language is an acquired skill that crosses boarders, barriers ideals and people groups (etc…). BUT, language changes can happen within a few months, a few years or a few generations. The word “blog” popped up in a very short time (it evolved awfully rapidly), but the word “G*y” which use to mean happy, carefree, giddy (etc…) took on a derogatory meaning that took generations to catch on (it evolved more slowly). And the word “dinosaur” didn’t exist prior to the 18th century; it was invented (or evolved) to describe an item/idea/discovery. But, no language has been shown to take millions of years to evolve. Nor has language been shown to evolve into anything but another language!

If living creatures were like your analogy for language evolution, we would be evolving back an fourth willy-nilly, between other species. And we would do so randomly, as the need arose. And the ability to do so would only take a few months, a few years or a few generations… No language has shown millions of years to adapt!

Also keep in mind; Language shows the design of the speaker, not random or accidental appearance...

#50 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 30 December 2008 - 12:47 PM

Anyhow, back to kinds... :rolleyes:

I discussed this with scott in another thread. It's all very well saying there is dog kind, cat kind and frog kind, but the problem is that there is a complete lack of criteria to distinguish one kind from another. For example:

Are seals and dogs the same kind or two separate kinds?

I'm going to make an assumption here, and that is that you will say they are separate kinds.

So in that case, my next question is:
Is seal kind more like dog kind or is seal kind more like frog kind? Or are they equally unlike both dog kind and frog kind?

I hope you see where I'm going here. If you think seal kind is more like dog kind than frog kind (again, an assumption I'm making), then what criteria do you use? Where do you draw the line between one kind and another?

Scott previously suggested that kinds and species were basically the same thing. Would you accept that as a definition for kinds?

#51 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 30 December 2008 - 12:59 PM

Scott previously suggested that kinds and species were basically the same thing. Would you accept that as a definition for kinds?

View Post

I can't speak for others, but I wouldn't dream of replacing a defined term with an undefined term.

#52 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 30 December 2008 - 01:22 PM

Anyhow, back to kinds... :rolleyes:

I discussed this with scott in another thread. It's all very well saying there is dog kind, cat kind and frog kind, but the problem is that there is a complete lack of criteria to distinguish one kind from another. For example:

Are seals and dogs the same kind or two separate kinds?

They are two separate kinds.

I'm going to make an assumption here, and that is that you will say they are separate kinds.

So in that case, my next question is:
Is seal kind more like dog kind or is seal kind more like frog kind? Or are they equally unlike both dog kind and frog kind?

I hope you see where I'm going here. If you think seal kind is more like dog kind than frog kind (again, an assumption I'm making), then what criteria do you use? Where do you draw the line between one kind and another?

Likeness depends entirely upon criteria. Seals and dogs have the traits we associate with mammals, so an argument could be made that they're more alike. Seals and Frogs are aquatic creatures, so they could be considered more alike. Frogs and dogs rhyme, and have four legs; they could be considered more alike.

But which kind is "more like" another kind isn't the same issue as which kind is separate from another kind. When asking which kinds are more alike, one already assumes different kinds exist, and can be identified. I also note that one of the questions is far, far more objective than the other.

I don't draw lines between kinds. I observe them. I also rely upon the observations of others.

#53 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 30 December 2008 - 02:15 PM

Anyhow, back to kinds... :rolleyes:

I discussed this with scott in another thread. It's all very well saying there is dog kind, cat kind and frog kind, but the problem is that there is a complete lack of criteria to distinguish one kind from another. For example:

Are seals and dogs the same kind or two separate kinds?

I'm going to make an assumption here, and that is that you will say they are separate kinds.

So in that case, my next question is:
Is seal kind more like dog kind or is seal kind more like frog kind? Or are they equally unlike both dog kind and frog kind?

I hope you see where I'm going here. If you think seal kind is more like dog kind than frog kind (again, an assumption I'm making), then what criteria do you use? Where do you draw the line between one kind and another?

Scott previously suggested that kinds and species were basically the same thing. Would you accept that as a definition for kinds?

View Post


Bad analogy… A seal would never been required on the Ark in the first place… The better line of questioning is why you’re still arguing for cross-speciation anyway? Why you’re attempting to bate a hook with bad logic? Is it to string someone along prior to springing a trap? I’m not accusing, I’m just wondering (out loud) if this is the case. Are you attempting to argue that all the species (or kinds) could not have fit on the ark? Are you somehow thinking that all dogs could not have come from one pair?

If that is the case, it’s a defeatist argument for the evolutionists as well. In order for the evolution model to have any credence, it has to postulate a canine emerging from a single pair (of what ever) as well, does it not? Many of these questions have to be considered on both ends of the discussion.

The bigger question for the atheist is this: where is your reasonable explanation for where all the species came from in the first place (emphasis on the word reasonable)? With out a reasonable and solid foundation, a building will crumble, whether it is physical, metaphysical, mathematical, logical or philosophical…

#54 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 30 December 2008 - 02:55 PM

I honestly think the bible was being vauge with the term "Kind" anyway.It realy does'nt go into any great detail defining it,so it can lead to wrong speculations in doing so.I do beleive God created species that cannot break the Genus barrier and I'm not suggesting that every Species came from only one pair of any one paticular Genus.We can find Species that did branch off from an existing Genus and we can also find Species that did not.

#55 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 30 December 2008 - 03:16 PM

A seal would never been required on the Ark in the first place

Why not?

The better line of questioning is why you’re still arguing for cross-speciation anyway? Why you’re attempting to bate a hook with bad logic? Is it to string someone along prior to springing a trap? I’m not accusing, I’m just wondering (out loud) if this is the case. Are you attempting to argue that all the species (or kinds) could not have fit on the ark?

I'm not up to bait and hook or anything else deceptive. We're talking about the creaionist tearm 'kinds'. I just can't get my head around it. It seems you can group animals/plants into kinds as you see fit and depending on the context...

I can't speak for others, but I wouldn't dream of replacing a defined term with an undefined term.


Are you somehow thinking that all dogs could not have come from one pair?

When it comes to kinds, creationists always use dogs as an example. I understand why - there are so many vastly different variations of dog, but they are all still dogs.
But what about wolves, dogs and dingoes? I've raised this before. Wolves can breed with dogs, dogs can breed with dingoes, but wolves can't breed with dingoes. Are they all 'dog kind'? If so, then what makes wolves and dingoes the same kind? If not, and you extend the 'ability to breed criteria' to other animals, it becomes a big 'not enough room on the ark' problem.

In answer to your question though, I don't think for a second that all dogs came from one pair.

If that is the case, it’s a defeatist argument for the evolutionists as well. In order for the evolution model to have any credence, it has to postulate a canine emerging from a single pair (of what ever) as well, does it not?

No, it doesn't postulate that at all. But we're not talking about evolution here, we're talking about creationist kinds

The bigger question for the atheist is this: where is your reasonable explanation for where all the species came from in the first place (emphasis on the word reasonable)? With out a reasonable and solid foundation, a building will crumble, whether it is physical, metaphysical, mathematical, logical or philosophical…

Again, not for this particular discussion. We're talking about kinds.

#56 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 30 December 2008 - 03:25 PM

I can't speak for others, but I wouldn't dream of replacing a defined term with an undefined term.

CTD, I've reread your posts and think I quoted you out of context in my last post. Apologies if I did. You think that species is an undefined term while kind is a defined one. Is that correct?

#57 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 30 December 2008 - 03:56 PM

Hi Falcone,

When it comes to kinds, creationists always use dogs as an example. I understand why - there are so many vastly different variations of dog, but they are all still dogs.
But what about wolves, dogs and dingoes? I've raised this before. Wolves can breed with dogs, dogs can breed with dingoes, but wolves can't breed with dingoes. Are they all 'dog kind'?


Can all breeds of dogs breed with wolves?We all know genetic isolation can lead to some species no longer being interfertile.As you know there are no wolves in austrailia for dingoes to keep genetic recombination stable across the species.

If not, and you extend the 'ability to breed criteria' to other animals, it becomes a big 'not enough room on the ark' problem.


The ark was able to carry something like 170,000 sheep,so I doubt room would be a problem.

If you look at the Genus Macaque you will see something like 25 species in several different groups.Starting out with 5 groups is'nt any different than starting out with 2 or 3 groups of dogs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macaque




Thanks.

#58 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 30 December 2008 - 04:07 PM

Why not?

View Post


Because they don’t require land to survive... Don't you know that?


I'm not up to bait and hook or anything else deceptive. We're talking about the creaionist tearm 'kinds'. I just can't get my head around it. It seems you can group animals/plants into kinds as you see fit and depending on the context...

View Post


Fair enough, but the word and term kind (from the Hebrew Miyn- which means kind or species) has been around thousands of years. These indexes of grouping have been around longer then the terms you are used to. And for you to say “you can group animals/plants into kinds as you see fit” as if we came up with the definition on our own authority, is either arrogant on your part, or you don’t understand that the definition is well established, and is a bit disingenuous on your part.. Also, the definition you are use to is determinate to context as well (I do hope you understand that).


When it comes to kinds, creationists always use dogs as an example. I understand why - there are so many vastly different variations of dog, but they are all still dogs.
But what about wolves, dogs and dingoes? I've raised this before. Wolves can breed with dogs, dogs can breed with dingoes, but wolves can't breed with dingoes. Are they all 'dog kind'? If so, then what makes wolves and dingoes the same kind? If not, and you extend the 'ability to breed criteria' to other animals, it becomes a big 'not enough room on the ark' problem.

View Post


Creationists don’t always used dogs for example (you need to get out more). But dogs ARE a good example due to the breeding techniques and success of sheer numbers of breeds. And to wonder why a wolf cannot breed with a dingo is a fact that needs to be established. But, even if they cannot, that changes nothing in the argument (unless you are positing that a dingo is not the same species as a dog). And none of this has anything to do with the adequate volume of the Ark. But, you may attempt that argument if you wish…


In answer to your question though, I don't think for a second that all dogs came from one pair.

View Post


If all dogs didn’t come from the same pair, then how did they evolve? Did they just pop into existence? Did they come from a cat? You see, you have yourself on a bit of a catch-22 here. If you say the first dog wasn’t born from one pair of ancestors, then you are admitting to some kind of miracle! And if you admit that they did, then you are admitting that I was correct! And like Lucy “you have some splainin to do”…

No, it doesn't postulate that at all. But we're not talking about evolution here, we're talking about creationist kinds Again, not for this particular discussion. We're talking about kinds.

View Post


No, you’re failing to attempt an argument about the difference between a kind and a species… And there is none… And the evolutionary model does promulgate the very fact that everything came from a common ancestor. But, all along the way, evolutionists try to hide the fact that they are treading on shaky ground in their circular reasoning…

#59 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 31 December 2008 - 06:58 AM

I can't speak for others, but I wouldn't dream of replacing a defined term with an undefined term.

CTD, I've reread your posts and think I quoted you out of context in my last post. Apologies if I did. You think that species is an undefined term while kind is a defined one. Is that correct?

View Post

I didn't see anything out-of-context. Might've got confused who said what, but it's no big deal.

As for your question,
The term 'kind' is defined. The term 'species' isn't, for any and all practical purposes. I see nothing to be gained by rendering a good term useless. We already have a useless term if we should need to employ one.

I prefer to leave it to the evolutionists to come up with a better scheme for misdefining 'kind'. Sweet-talking me into doing it myself won't cut it. And that'd be useless in the long run anyhow, for I'm not recognized as an authority and it might turn out that I'm not too proud to admit making a mistake. I have always taken a great deal of pride in my humility.

#60 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 31 December 2008 - 07:42 AM

I have always taken a great deal of pride in my humility.

View Post

;)

This whole topic of "What is kinds..." is a red herring.

This is the relativist trying to convince us that an idea can not be known to be true if it is not understood in an absolutist sense.

The problem is, evolutionists don't take their own medicine when it comes to the theory of evolution and namely the topic of 'species'.

CTD, I've been pondering your original definition and it really is concise:

Any two lifeforms with a common ancestor are the same kind.

View Post

This definition is perfectly fine but as a testable demonstratable concept it does not fall subject to the scientific method. Does that mean it's not accurate? Hey, if accuracy and truthfulness relied solely on testing and demonstrating, we're in a world of trouble intellectually.

Also, anyone who doesn't see what we're saying about kinds in a general sense, not an exhaustive omniscient sense, but a general sense, has a preordained agenda to confuse with relativism.

Adam




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users