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.
A few scientists, no doubt. Most people don't care.It goes much deeper than that.
When the Bible mentions KINDS in Genesis 1, academian nuts say it can't possibly mean SPECIES, because that would mean the Ark would be overcrowded.
So when you move it up one category from SPECIES to GENUS, and say KINDS in Genesis 1 means GENUS in the lab, these nuts claim that two different GENERA can mate and have viable offspring, in violation of Genesis 1.
So now you have people like this John Woodmorappe moving up the ladder again and saying KIND means FAMILY.
And who do you think is in the background laughing his head off at all this?
They might wonder why you take man-made arbitrary classification systems so seriously.I'm afraid they wouldn't spend too much time with the likes of me.
They'd probably write me off as some kind [pardon the pun] of anti-science nut and be done with me.
Lucaspa, Glen Morton, Aron Ra, and Rmwilliams III spent little time putting up with me here, before they wrote me off.
'Twas done intentionally to thwart you, y'know(?)
I have pointed this out to you several times with regard to "cats" and "flying squirrels" and all the different genera they span. But I'm glad you're beginning to recognize the flaw in your thinking regarding "kinds."Perhaps I need to rethink the definition of "kind" that I use ("genus").
This information I'm getting here is news to me, and I'm not familiar with it.
I didn't know birds like honeycreepers could have different genus names.
So I either need to change my definition, or assume they play loose with assigning genus names.
Question:
Can a honeycreeper in one genus mate with a honeycreeper in another genus and have viable offspring?
They still won't use your "kinds" system because it's not convenient for their work. It's not clear in any case how an arbitrary man-made classification system "steamrollers" the Bible. No ontological claimed is made for them.
I may not know much science, but that doesn't mean I'm going to sit idly by and let them steamroll over the Bible without letting them know how I feel.
And telling them they're "wrong," when I have the Bible to back me up, suits me just fine.
I have pointed this out to you several times with regard to "cats" and "flying squirrels" and all the different genera they span. But I'm glad you're beginning to recognize the flaw in your thinking regarding "kinds."
They still won't use your "kinds" system because it's not convenient for their work.
It's not clear in any case how an arbitrary man-made classification system "steamrollers" the Bible.
I understand why they won't now.
If KIND in the Bible is the same as GENUS, then according to the Bible, different genera cannot mate and have viable offspring.
But if ornithologists want to play loose with honeycreepers and assign them all sorts of different GENERA for convenience sake, then I'm sure they won't agree with me.
In short, the Bible won't let them legitimately do it, so they take the BIBLE CAN TAKE A HIKE stance.
If religious beliefs are such an emptyThey still won't use your "kinds" system because it's not convenient for their work. It's not clear in any case how an arbitrary man-made classification system "steamrollers" the Bible. No ontological claimed is made for them.
I understand why they won't now.
If KIND in the Bible is the same as GENUS, then according to the Bible, different genera cannot mate and have viable offspring.
But if ornithologists want to play loose with honeycreepers and assign them all sorts of different GENERA for convenience sake, then I'm sure they won't agree with me.
In short, the Bible won't let them legitimately do it, so they take the BIBLE CAN TAKE A HIKE stance.
See my comment above.
No claim of proven Truth is ever made inI think you're missing a third stance that can be chosen: That both Science AND the Bible can be taken with a grain of salt, stance.
That's the one I stand in. It's a more Realist and Existential one.
I think you're missing a third stance that can be chosen: That both Science AND the Bible can be taken with a grain of salt, stance.
No claim of proven Truth is ever made in science, still less of infallibility.
But every position taken is variously backed by observation, experiment, math.
Faith based claims of eternal Truth based on an individual's (Often self styled as infallible) chosen reading of the bible are hardly equivalent ...
So do people who claim that they take the Bible "literally." So, you're not really getting any leverage here over or upon me with that comment.People who take the Bible with a grain of salt run the risk of ending up in Hell.
I beg to differ.People who take science with a grain of salt don't run that risk.
Oh, please. Spare me your hubris.I have a feeling artists like Mozart and Rembrandt didn't really care for science that much.
"True" science. What even is that?As far as me personally, I have a deeper respect for [true] science; giving God the credit for its source.
Of course you do.And I believe God has given me a set of standards that bring the two together in harmony, without contradicting the Bible.
So I don't believe your "third stance" applies to me.
Genetics. Comparative anatomy. Fossils. Biogeography.And many innocent people have served lengthy prison sentences.
The OP asked for facts. If you've got a mountain full, just give me one.
There's no proof, yet you asked for a disproof. A little confusing, don't you think? Reminds me of this:For at least the 10,000th time:
There's no proof in science.
Not when you understand the nature of inductive logic. But it doesn't matter. All you have to do is produce empirical evidence which is notThere's no proof, yet you asked for a disproof. A little confusing, don't you think? Reminds me of this:
I understand both inductive and deductive. Both are used in science.Not when you understand the nature of inductive logic.
My explanation is what they call micro-evolution. What's most notable about your chart of birds is that they are all birds. There are no whales or humans there. I have blue eyes and straight hair. My biological brother had brown eyes and curly hair, and was about an inch taller than me. These are not facts from which to originate a science fiction as Darwin did.Right -- that's why I said that science usually has higher standards than courts.
These are honeycreepers:
View attachment 344106
They are a diverse set of birds: different colors, different sizes, different diets with beaks suited to each. They're all found in Hawaii, and it is a fact that, despite their diversity, each one is more similar genetically to other honeycreepers than it is to any other bird in the world. Evolution explains that fact. What's your explanation?
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?