Ring species

[AV1611VET]

you seem to have confused the word atheistic and scientific.

You're right --- it's hard keeping the two separated, since atheists hijacked God's science and put their own spin on it.

 

[Naraoia]

So, I would not marry a black 400 pound woman with a big nose. That doesn't mean that she might not turn on some male counterpart. That doen't make her a different species, just a turnoff for me. And if the saving of mankind was depending on my co-operation, well, my guess is that would be the end of humanity.......

Although you didn't really address the problem I was thinking of, you unknowingly raised an interesting point. Thanks for reminding me of this:

I honestly don't know if E. e. eschscholzi and E. e. klauberi would be capable of interbreeding (and producing fertile offspring) if they chose to (anyone knows this?).

And I'm undecided as to whether not interbreeding under natural circumstances, or not being able to interbreed should be the basis of the biological species definition. (I see the two as just two stages in speciation - to not be able to interbreed with someone you first have to stop interbreeding with them, otherwise there will never be enough differences between you to prevent successful interbreeding.)

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

You're right --- it's hard keeping the two separated, since atheists hijacked God's science and put their own spin on it.

as a scientist who believes in God i resent that. Science can only deal with the natural, it cannot address God.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'm not going to debate with you guys using atheistic terminology.

There is no such thing. We are using scientific terminology, but science is by no means atheistic.

That is, science is atheistic in the same way the USA is Christian: in numbers only.

To be honest, I'll agree with anything, as long as it doesn't disagree with the Bible. If I say, "Okay, it's 'phylum,'" and that leads to a conclusion that contradicts the Scriptures, then I'll have to backtrack.

Which makes any and all discussion with you pointless.

No --- that's not my specialty --- Creation and the Flood are.

Quoting the Bible and holding it as true even in the fact of a disproof is not expertise.

You're right --- it's hard keeping the two separated, since atheists hijacked God's science and put their own spin on it.

How on Earth is that at all true?

 

[Naraoia]

It's easy, Naraoia --- just look at the animal that is at the top of the taxon for any given species.

Where is the top of a taxon?

Take a dog, for instance. Find it on the taxon list, then look up until you see the first entry for its genera*, and there you go.

Huh? I've never seen a taxon list that works like that. Do you mean... like... the most "primitive" member of its genus (that's the singular or genera, in case you didn't know)? This doesn't seem to make much sense.

If you want to see the oldest living kind in existence, look no further than the mirror.

Oh, but the beasts and birds and fish and plants and crawlers and creepers all came into being before humankind, didn't they? That's what my humble knowledge of the Bible suggests to me...

Which, I believe, is a coyote.

Why coyote? Why not a jackal or a red wolf or something?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Oh, but the beasts and birds and fish and plants and crawlers and creepers all came into being before humankind, didn't they? That's what my humble knowledge of the Bible suggests to me...

i believe he meant that while other kinds diverged into the millions of varieties today, humans are the same as they were in the garden. of course he didnt explain why humans are exempt from the laws of genetics that rule other organisms but i digress.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

You're right --- it's hard keeping the two separated, since atheists hijacked God's science and put their own spin on it.

Oh noes!!!

 

[Patashu]

You're right --- it's hard keeping the two separated, since atheists hijacked God's science and put their own spin on it.

When people say science is atheistic they don't mean science says there is no God, they say science says nothing about God.

 

[Split Rock]

You're right --- it's hard keeping the two separated, since atheists hijacked God's science and put their own spin on it.

What does "God's science" even mean? Should we talk also about "God's plumbing," "God's architecture," and "God's mechanical engineering?"

 

[Blayz]

Where is the top of a taxon?

Huh? I've never seen a taxon list that works like that. Do you mean... like... the most "primitive" member of its genus (that's the singular or genera, in case you didn't know)? This doesn't seem to make much sense.

Oh, but the beasts and birds and fish and plants and crawlers and creepers all came into being before humankind, didn't they? That's what my humble knowledge of the Bible suggests to me...

Why coyote? Why not a jackal or a red wolf or something?

I think he's looking at a taxanomic tree where related species are listed alphabetically. So Coyote is at the top of a taxon because it starts with a "C".

The humour of this aside, I'd consider it a win if I could get him to use the plural (taxa) in the appropriate places. At least he hasn't said "taxons" yet.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

When people say science is atheistic they don't mean science says there is no God, they say science says nothing about God.

Shouldn't it be science is "secular" then?

 

[AV1611VET]

as a scientist who believes in God i resent that. Science can only deal with the natural, it cannot address God.

As a scientist who believes in God, you should hold science up to a higher Standard, then.

I applaud you Jack, because I think God-given scientists are rare; but in my opinion, you're abusing your gift.

(And that's just my opinion.)

 

[AV1611VET]

i believe he meant that while other kinds diverged into the millions of varieties today, humans are the same as they were in the garden.

Good job --- that's exactly what I meant. There's no reason at all science and Scripture cannot walk hand-in-hand --- none.

 

[AV1611VET]

What does "God's science" even mean? Should we talk also about "God's plumbing," "God's architecture," and "God's mechanical engineering?"

You can start with "God's creation" --- all 6 days of it.

Like I always say --- if you can't get past Genesis 1, you're in for a doosey of a ride; because it'll only get harder from there.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

You can start with "God's creation" --- all 6 days of it.

Like I always say --- if you can't get past Genesis 1, you're in for a doosey of a ride; because it'll only get harder from there.

but why should the first chapters be literal?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You can start with "God's creation" --- all 6 days of it.

Like I always say --- if you can't get past Genesis 1, you're in for a doosey of a ride; because it'll only get harder from there.

Then help us out.
The biggest problem most people have with Genesis 1 (and the rest of the Bible for that matter) is the fact that there is no reason to take it as anything more than fiction.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

As a scientist who believes in God, you should hold science up to a higher Standard, then.

I applaud you Jack, because I think God-given scientists are rare; but in my opinion, you're abusing your gift.

(And that's just my opinion.)

by higher standard you mean agreement with the bible not a higher standard of evidence. the bible is of often wrong when taken literally which is why i dont take it literally. i use the bible as my moral guide and science as my guide to reality. i think so many biblical tales are useless as historical or scientific accounts but highly useful as morality tales. the flood is a good example: literally it is completely and in all ways impossible however the messages of death and rebirth, obedience, and punishment and forgiveness are all good moral themes.

 

[LittleNipper]

as a scientist who believes in God i resent that. Science can only deal with the natural, it cannot address God.

But, in dealing with the natural, a Christian scientist should not project into the past those things he did not see and were not revealed by GOD, passing that off as truth. The Christian is answerable to a much higher authority. He MAY present what he sees, but he dare not pass of what he presently see, for things GOD did.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

But, in dealing with the natural, a Christian scientist should not project into the past those things he did not see and were not revealed by GOD, passing that off as truth. The Christian is answerable to a much higher authority. He MAY present what he sees, but he dare not pass of what he presently see, for things GOD did.

does that mean that you cannot investigate the past using evidence available in the present? Does that mean that any science not revealed in the bible isnt valid? I personally think the universe that actually exists is far more beautiful and more poetic than that which is portayed by any religious text. It is a much greater testament to the work of God than any collection of words regardless of source.

 

[AV1611VET]

but why should the first chapters be literal?

God doesn't take His Word lightly; and He wouldn't start It out with a fable.

Jesus would not die on a Cross for something that was just an allegory.

We are born with a Sin Nature, and the only way we know that is because we take the first chapters of Genesis literally.