Jump to content


Photo

Hello


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 I.Skeptic

I.Skeptic

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ormskirk, England

Posted 19 February 2009 - 10:43 AM

Hi everyone…. Great site – and some thought-provoking debates.

I’m genuinely fascinated by religion and religious beliefs. I’m not here to try and convert (fat chance) or insult people but to discuss and hopefully gain a little insight.

I’m a cultural Christian but my brush with Christianity was brief - I was raised as a Catholic and was taught at a very early age that I was ‘one of the people’. Innately, I knew this to be wrong and began to question and ultimately reject the notion of an afterlife. This didn’t happen through any understanding of evolution but through what I perceived to be the mutually exclusive absurdities of competing religions. This diversity of belief is what intrigues me…and has led me to this forum. On evolution my view is that it is fact about which there are many, sometimes conflicting, theories.

So there it is - a very brief synopsis of my position. I wonder if I could start with a question…when creationists talk about ‘kinds’ (specifically with regard to the Ark) – what do they mean….for example are camels and giraffes of one ‘kind’?

I.Skeptic

#2 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 19 February 2009 - 10:57 AM

Hi I.Skeptic,

Welcome to the boards!

I enjoyed your introduction and look forward to the discussions. Here is a good thread on Kinds:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1928

This particular post is my perspective on the kinds/species discussion from that same thread:

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=24591

As for camels and giraffes... can they bring forth and is it probable that they had a common ancestor?

If you would like, you should start a new thread if you don't feel the question is sufficiently answered. I don't believe we'll ever be perfectly sure, in this life, what the original kinds were but in a general sense it's mostly pretty obvious.

The unanswered questions would be like this:

Were there originally only one bear kind or was there more then one? Was there originally only one cat kind or was there more then one? We can't realistically claim conclusiveness because the answer is locked inaccessible in the past.

#3 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 19 February 2009 - 11:51 AM

Hi everyone…. Great site – and some thought-provoking debates.

I’m genuinely fascinated by religion and religious beliefs. I’m not here to try and convert (fat chance) or insult people but to discuss and hopefully gain a little insight.

I’m a cultural Christian but my brush with Christianity was brief - I was raised as a Catholic and was taught at a very early age that I was ‘one of the people’. Innately, I knew this to be wrong and began to question and ultimately reject the notion of an afterlife. This didn’t happen through any understanding of evolution but through what I perceived to be the mutually exclusive absurdities of competing religions. This diversity of belief is what intrigues me…and has led me to this forum. On evolution my view is that it is fact about which there are many, sometimes conflicting, theories.

So there it is -  a very brief synopsis of my position. I wonder if I could start with a question…when creationists talk about ‘kinds’ (specifically with regard to the Ark) – what do they mean….for example are camels and giraffes of one ‘kind’?

I.Skeptic

View Post


Hi I.Skeptic,

Welcome to the forum. If you are facinated by religion and religious beliefs then you should feel at home within science. Its foundation is just a philosopy (naturalism). A phlosophy that says every phenomena has a natural explanation. Christians on the otherhand would say that every phenomena has a Godly explanation.

As you know, they are diametrically opposed, but oh so similar in their approach.

Now to help you understand the word "kind" as it is used in the scripture, it is used just like the word is used in everyday english....

a category of things distinguished by some common characteristic or quality; "sculpture is a form of art"; "what kinds of desserts are there?"


It is a word that describes differentiation or categories. In the Bible, there are different "kinds" of birds and also different "kinds" of cattle. Noah was commanded to take two of some kinds of animal and seven of other kinds of animals.

You certainly would not say that camels and giraffes are the same kind of animal would you? Would any scientist say that? Yet scientists do say there are different kinds of dogs. And average people do the same. There are different kinds of birds, and there are different kinds of humming birds. So you can see that the word kind is meant to be discerned relative to context.

Llamas and camels are different kinds of animals. But there is evidence that they descended from a common ancetor. That ancestor was on Noah's ark.

If you wish to discuss this further you should take it to an existing thread or start a new one.

#4 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 19 February 2009 - 12:24 PM

Welcome to the boards.

What I find often when current atheist refer to when they were Christian. More than 70% of the time they were Catholics before they dropped out. Which should be a red flag right there that something is wrong with that belief if it cannot retain it's followers. And the ones that leave are usually bitter when they do leave.

And they instill fear into their followers about other Christian beliefs which makes the person who leaves the church not persue another type belief in that area of religion. Because the Catholic church teaches that everyone else is a heritic. So I do understand why you left, and why you have that bitter taste for it.

But I hope you will have an open mind and heart so that you know that we are not all the same. And that because people do err, their is really not one person on this planet that could ever represent Christ correctly, but only strive to do so. Those who do not on purpose decieve many, and those who relize they have been decieved become bitter. And rightfully so.

So know that here we do not believe like the Catholics do. And we pursue a real God, and strive to find real truth.

Hope you enjoy your stay.

#5 I.Skeptic

I.Skeptic

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ormskirk, England

Posted 20 February 2009 - 06:32 AM

Thanks for the responses guys. I’ll go along with Ikester’s stat on lapsed Catholics – and I can vouch from personal experience that some of them are bitter…but not me. I’m quite happy with my education and I can look to my catholic upbringing as a provider of many things – not least my republicanism and half-decent education.

I had a read of the threads on ‘kinds’ and very illuminating they are…I don't really see the point of opening up a new one. The reason I asked this question is because, for me, it goes to the heart of the evolution/creation debate. I can see why evolutionists want to pin creationists down on this question and I can see why creationists respond in the way they do – fairly obvious.

Summarising the thread, it seems that some creationists say – we don’t know what was on the Ark so can never be sure of what a ‘kind’ is; the answers are “locked in the past” according to Adam. I’m slightly suspicious of this ostrich-like argument – even as a non-scientist I still want to find the answers to the really big questions and I’d have thought that with the advances made in DNA analysis we’d be able to discover something about the ancestors of present-day animals.

Without getting into the tired old ‘a dog is still a dog’ argument…let me ask this question - at what point does adaptation (variation within a species) stop? And why does it stop? Maybe this could be a new thread?

Isn’t it possible that eventually, a million years from now, the giant flying squirrel might actually have ‘adapted’ wings and joined bats as the only flying mammals on the planet? Is it still a squirrel?

BTW, I mentioned camels and giraffes because to me they are similar creatures – very similar. Much more so than say a Chihuahua and a St. Bernard and from a creationist’s viewpoint, I think it’s possible to say that the ancestor of these two animals was on the Ark.

The conundrum for creationists is that the more animals we link the more likely that evolution has taken place…but the more animals we don’t link, the harder it is to argue that a craft big enough to carry them was constructed.

#6 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 20 February 2009 - 07:18 AM

Summarising the thread, it seems that some creationists say – we don’t know what was on the Ark so can never be sure of what a ‘kind’ is; the answers are “locked in the past” according to Adam. I’m slightly suspicious of this ostrich-like argument – even as a non-scientist I still want to find the answers to the really big questions and I’d have thought that with the advances made in DNA analysis we’d be able to discover something about the ancestors of present-day animals.

View Post

I wouldn't say this is an 'ostrich-like' argument. I would simply say that we don't know, as an honest attempt to recognize our limitations considering how deep in the past the event is that we're talking about. I think we can get sort of close but being dogmatic about it is not honest. It would be a good field of study and there are creationists who roll up their sleeves and look for more clues.

Without getting into the tired old ‘a dog is still a dog’ argument…let me ask this question - at what point does adaptation (variation within a species) stop? And why does it stop? Maybe this could be a new thread?

View Post

This would be a great new thread. We could talk about observed fitness loss occurring from speciation.

Isn’t it possible that eventually, a million years from now, the giant flying squirrel might actually have ‘adapted’ wings and joined bats as the only flying mammals on the planet? Is it still a squirrel?

View Post

Did you ever hear of Haldane's dilemma?

http://www.evolution...ne_rebuttal.htm

Also David Berlinski asks some intelligent questions regarding what is possible and what's reality:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1989

David Berlinski isn't a Christian, he just sees the current dilemma that most evolutionists are ignoring to maintain a science fiction story of the past.

You should pick up this thread where it left off... if you're interested:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1878

That was my first thread ever, here at EFT. It was tons of fun and there are lots of cool pictures and videos. :)

BTW, I mentioned camels and giraffes because to me they are similar creatures – very similar. Much more so than say a Chihuahua and a St. Bernard and from a creationist’s viewpoint, I think it’s possible to say that the ancestor of these two animals was on the Ark.

View Post

You should look at this thread. You'll find this interesting...

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1576

Maybe Ikester or Fred can help out with this but the phylogenetic tree based on body plans doesn't line up with phylogenetic tree based on DNA. I think we have a problem here. Also, we should consider the difference and results associated with artificial selection and natural selection.

The conundrum for creationists is that the more animals we link the more likely that evolution has taken place…but the more animals we don’t link, the harder it is to argue that a craft big enough to carry them was constructed.

View Post

I don't think it's that big of a problem. The videos on this post...

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=22573

...by Dr. Terry Mortenson go out of the way to use modest numbers by including more species then probably would have been required for the ark. That boat was much larger and there are fewer animal species then people realize.

Okay, I wanted to add some more but I gave you too much already... for now. :P

#7 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 20 February 2009 - 08:33 AM

Without getting into the tired old ‘a dog is still a dog’ argument…let me ask this question - at what point does adaptation (variation within a species) stop? And why does it stop? Maybe this could be a new thread?

View Post



I think this is a great topic. I'll post it to get you started.

#8 the totton linnet

the totton linnet

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts
  • Location:Winchester
  • Interests:Friends, fellowship, stuff
  • Age: 19
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Winchester, Hampshire

Posted 20 February 2009 - 09:53 AM

Hi everyone…. Great site – and some thought-provoking debates.

I’m genuinely fascinated by religion and religious beliefs. I’m not here to try and convert (fat chance) or insult people but to discuss and hopefully gain a little insight.

I’m a cultural Christian but my brush with Christianity was brief - I was raised as a Catholic and was taught at a very early age that I was ‘one of the people’. Innately, I knew this to be wrong and began to question and ultimately reject the notion of an afterlife. This didn’t happen through any understanding of evolution but through what I perceived to be the mutually exclusive absurdities of competing religions. This diversity of belief is what intrigues me…and has led me to this forum. On evolution my view is that it is fact about which there are many, sometimes conflicting, theories.

So there it is -  a very brief synopsis of my position. I wonder if I could start with a question…when creationists talk about ‘kinds’ (specifically with regard to the Ark) – what do they mean….for example are camels and giraffes of one ‘kind’?

I.Skeptic

View Post

*
Hi Skeppy.
I'm quite new to the forum too, nice friendly bunch :) they are all out the back sharpening their knives just now :P I was brought up catholic, me grandad was the devout Irish kind but my parents were more easy-going, I stopped going to church around 12 years old.
I used to sit in mass and wonder why everything was so different in the bible, how come it was all so respectable and nice whereas the disciples were always getting their butts chased and stuff, and above all where was God? He seemed to be around a lot in the book of acts, but as you were probably taught too these days you have to go through the priest and he has to go through the virgin Mary.
I used to get into trouble me, I'd ask questions like "I thought we were not to call anybody father?" or "why are we heaping up hail marys?"
When I got saved and discovered that Jesus was just as real and alive and wonderful as He was to the disciples I got really mad at the catholic church, but I've cooled down since then, like you I'm glad for the education and stuff, and well I did learn some things about God. So hello.

#9 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 26 February 2009 - 09:00 AM

So there it is -  a very brief synopsis of my position. I wonder if I could start with a question…when creationists talk about ‘kinds’ (specifically with regard to the Ark) – what do they mean….for example are camels and giraffes of one ‘kind’?

I.Skeptic

View Post


hello Skeptic, and welcome.... I am a bit of a skeptic myself. And actually, the Bible calls on Christians to be skeptics. That having been said, the definition of "kind" was discussed "ad nauseam" at this forum ( I'll try to find it, then post a link here for you). But, as a Catholic, I would have assumed that you knew the definition of a "kind"... But, I know we shouldnt assume... Any way, welcome again, and I hope you find your time here fruitful :lol:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users