- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 72
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Just to show that satan made a fatal mistake, so he only gets people like you.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Then why did you make such a foolish and incorrect post in the first place?
Just to show that satan made a fatal mistake, so he only gets people like you.
You explained it well.
This is why I think the Biblical term "kind" CAN also be elaborated into a system comparable to the cladistic system, but only with a more "practical" criteria. I really like to see that Christian biologists would develop such a system. Unfortunately, I don't think it will happen. If I were a biologist and give me 20 more years, I WILL do it.
Cladistics is Typology, which is essentially Kinds. Most organisms group very neatly within discontinuous groups. Common ancestors are virtually non-existent, as are any semblance of gradations between cladistic types. Evolution is just a magic show of trying to make you believe the imaginary nodes are real.
There have been some rigorous work done on Baraminology (kinds) classification recently, if you search around for it.
Don't expect much intelligent discussion on the subject here. Most members are absolutely desperate to trash anything related to the Bible, and they don't care if their points make any sense or not, just as long as they're flinging some mud at the Word of God. Just look at one of the last comments "'Kinds' doesn't work because we can transplant pig organs to humans." That is the level of intellect you're dealing with here.
I think I understand. Cladistics would not necessarily be needed for this as for most cases Linnaean and Cladistics probably would produce adequate results. Keep in mind that dogs and humans have the same organs as far as I know. In other words, show a human organ that a dog does not have or the other way around. There are variations on the organs but the basics are the same (example: color vision in dogs and humans).For example:
1. We want to treat these animals this way because their common ancestor was this.
2. Because the common ancestor of these life forms was this, so they are unique in providing this material for this purpose.
etc.
Because satan controls this world.
See what I mean? Since their own theory is bankrupt, evolutionists have to resort to jumping around screaming "oh yea? what kind is this?!?! what kind is this??!" as if Creationists need to know every single classification of every single animal that lived and died on Earth or Kinds are bust. Silly, isn't it?
This is done a lot with animal studies in medicine. For the most part, the more closely related the species the more likely the reactions to medications will be similar. Another example, a broad one, would be treating all mammal reproductive systems as similar due to common ancestry.
Errrr O.K. if you say so.The metaphysical assumption of "relation" is completely unnecessary. I can change the highlighted text to "the more biologically similar the species..." and it works just the same. This is what makes discussion so difficult, is that evolutionists have a hard time separating their philosophy from the empirical science.
I am really looking for ward to hearing of "Biblical Creation and it's real arguments".
The metaphysical assumption of "relation" is completely unnecessary. I can change the highlighted text to "the more biologically similar the species..." and it works just the same. This is what makes discussion so difficult, is that evolutionists have a hard time separating their philosophy from the empirical science.
[Color added by OllieFranz to highlight text]
Cladistics is Typology, which is essentially Kinds. Most organisms group very neatly within discontinuous groups. Common ancestors are virtually non-existent, as are any semblance of gradations between cladistic types. Evolution is just a magic show of trying to make you believe the imaginary nodes are real.
There have been some rigorous work done on Baraminology (kinds) classification recently, if you search around for it.
Don't expect much intelligent discussion on the subject here. Most members are absolutely desperate to trash anything related to the Bible, and they don't care if their points make any sense or not, just as long as they're flinging some mud at the Word of God. Just look at one of the last comments "'Kinds' doesn't work because we can transplant pig organs to humans." That is the level of intellect you're dealing with here.
Yes, cladistics and baraminology do closely mesh, if you accept the Last Thursdayism of YEC. But where do you place the root species? And what of the speciies that apparently went extinct long before Last Thursday?
Are all felines the same kind, or are the great cats a separate kind from the lesser cats? Are smilodons great cats, lesser cats, or a hoax planted to create conflict between science and the Bible?
Are all canines in the same kind? Are bears in that kind also? If not, where do dog-bears fit in? Are they dog-kind, bear-kind, or their own kind? And what of the older carnivores that appear to be ancestral to both cats and bear-dogs?
And these are just some of the easier questions.
clade thread
I think I understand. Cladistics would not necessarily be needed for this as for most cases Linnaean and Cladistics probably would produce adequate results. Keep in mind that dogs and humans have the same organs as far as I know. In other words, show a human organ that a dog does not have or the other way around. There are variations on the organs but the basics are the same (example: color vision in dogs and humans).
But to respond your questions as best I can, (This is rapidly getting out of my range.)
"1. We want to treat these animals this way because their common ancestor was this."
This is done a lot with animal studies in medicine. For the most part, the more closely related the species the more likely the reactions to medications will be similar. Another example, a broad one, would be treating all mammal reproductive systems as similar due to common ancestry.
"2. Because the common ancestor of these life forms was this, so they are unique in providing this material for this purpose."
I am not sure just what you mean by this but I will give one possible example. Xenotransplantation (learned a new word-cool) , the transplantation of organs from animals to humans is an active field of research. The cladistic relations appear to be very important to this as genetic similarities would be very relevant here.
I think the big thing though is that like the periodic table was developed primarily for use of scientists but is used in a number of ways so is biological classification. Linnaean taxonomy was good but cladistics appears to give us a more accurate way of determining genetic relationships where Linnaean taxonomy could not.
If I am off on any of this, could someone with better knowledge correct me?
Both the table of elements and cladistics as well as Linnaean taxonomy were developed for primarily scientific purposes and practical aspects are a bonus.
What I like about conversations like this is that it gets me to do research I might not have done otherwise.
Dizredux
Wrong. We ask to show that if, instead of insisting on the Last Thursdayism of YEC, we simply examine the evidence, we see no discernable difference in the relationship between two species that divurged from a common ancestor after Last Thursday from the relationship between two related (or, if you prefer, similar) species that were already separate on Last Thursday.
In addition, the fossil record, the DNA profiles, and every other indicator we have gives the same common ancestors and time of separation. Why would a god who created the world Last Thursday go to such lengths to ensure that no matter how we investigated we would find that apprently the world is older than Last Thursday, and that life has been evolving in exactly the same way, and paced by exactly the same factors, so there is not only no scientific way of dating Last Thursday, but no evidence at alll that there even was any "Last Thursday"?
The metaphysical assumption of "relation" is completely unnecessary. I can change the highlighted text to "the more biologically similar the species..." and it works just the same. This is what makes discussion so difficult, is that evolutionists have a hard time separating their philosophy from the empirical science.
Again, where is the boundary between baramins? What can you point to scientifically that says that a and b are related (both descended from c) but A (at a higher taxonomic level) is not and never was related to B when the similarities are of the same order as those between a and b, and there is a viable candidate C to be their common ancestor (or a close sibling thereof)?
If you forget the Last Thursday argument and assume the earth has a longer history, would you argument still hold?
It is not necessary to assume that the earth has a longer history. As I said once before, there is no [lb]logical[/b] reason that a Last Thursday scenario is not true, but, at the same time, there is no empirical, scientific, evidence that there was a first day Last Thursday or when that Last Thursday would have been.
There are reasons that we say that scientific theories are never proven. They are built inductively rather than deductively, which means that they can always be improved on. They are not guarenteed to to perfectly match reality, but they follow the evidence as closely as possible without extra assumptions. Since there is no empirical evidence of a Last Thursday, assuming one is an extra assumption, and therefore not a part of an elegant scientific theory.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?