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.
Bats are mammals because they feed their young using their mammary glands. Birds don't have these glands, and they lay eggs rather than give bird to live young.
The Hebrew word for "bird" came from the term "to fly". Obviously they didn't use the same specific classifications we do.
None of yer business - nyah!Kirkwhisper said:You say this while sticking your tongue out at me. How old are you?
Earlier you said "kinds" meant family or order - but yes, species makes much more sense.Kirkwhisper said:Thanks for establishing my case. That bold faced statement is exactly our position on the issue, per Mendel.
The general response would be that most animals living today simply have not had the time to diverse into different species. This process takes many thousands, if not millions of years. The domestic dog, for example, split from wolves (or a wolf-like ancestor) roughly 100,000 years ago - and some estimate it may have been as long as 400,000 years ago. Today they're still capable of interbreeding.Kirkwhisper said:Why are you, like the other neo-Darwinists on this thread avoiding Mendel? I have quoted him about five times.
I'm not an expert in ancient Hewbrew, obviously, but they seemed to have several words. In Leviticus, they use the term "Owph", which roughly means "to fly" or "posses a wing". Deuteronomy uses the word "Tsippowr", which comes from the term "to hop about" - admittedly not something bats are known for.Kirkwhisper said:That's wrong. The Hebrew word is tsippowr, tsip-pore'
or tsippor {tsip-pore'}; from 6852; a little bird (as hopping):--bird, fowl, sparrow.
We're talking about God's designation in His law. So God was wrong & neo-Darwinians are correct in the classification?
Well, we can certainly see whose side of the issue you are on.
However the common ancestor of cats and dogs is neither a cat nor a dog and both of them being descendants of a common ancestor does not include your scenario.
From an evolutionary point of view a cat giving birth to a dog is as ridiculous as your cousin Sadie being your daughter. But a cat and a dog having a common ancestor is as reasonable as you and your cousin having the same grandparent.
BUt...a different species is not the same as a different kind. Kind, as most creationists understand it, is somewhere on the family/order level of the Linneaus classification system.
None of yer business - nyah!
I made a direct, clearly defined challenge and you come back at me with another (ridiculous) challenge. You did not answer the question nor provide the evidence that I asked for. That is because you cannot.
Furthermore, your answers are frivolous. Example "Evolution says minnows are still Eukaryotes. Feel free to check whether minnows do indeed have a true nucleus in their cells."
You could have been honest enough to the other readers to say, "One- celled eukaryotes eventually evolved into minnow sized eukaryotes" which, though it is still wrong, would have completed the idea I was asking about.
But you have avoided the truth of this issue throughout this debate just like you avoided the statements of the founders, movers & shakers of the field of genetics.
Statements like:
"Species do not transform one into the other. They show stability from generation to generation, and my experiments demonstrate that fact. Isnt anyone listening?" Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), Father of Genetics
Every series of breeding experiments that has ever taken place has established a finite limit to breeding possibilities. Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (New Haven, Connecticut: Ticknor and Fields, 1982), p. 55.
All competent biologists acknowledge the limited nature of the variation breeders can produce, although they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the evolutionary ax. William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1984), pp. 184185.
A rule that all breeders recognize, is that there are fixed limits to the amount of change that can be produced. Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), p. 96.
Bye.
However, this definition of "kind" is comparatively recent (dating from about 1940 when it was first introduced).
Prior to that time all Christians, whatever their belief about evolution understood "kind" to be equivalent to "species". Linnaeus himself intended "species" to have this meaning. This is one of the terms (along with "genus") used in the Latin Vulgate to translate the Hebrew term "min" which the KJV translates into English as "kind".
So the original equivalence was
Hebrew 'min' = Latin 'species' = English 'kind'.
Most modern anti-evolutionists are unaware of this linguistic history and that their own leaders have changed the meaning of scripture by detaching 'kind' from its original equivalence with 'species'/'min'.
Fr. Seraphim writes specifically about the Protestant view...I must say that after reading your quote and doing a bit more research on the subject, I stand corrected. Firstly, yes, Origen's views are quite (what we would call) liberal, though as a historical source concerning the views that were in circulation at the time he needs to be checked out, no?
And I think your characterization of St. Basil the Great's views is accurate. Indeed, in his homily on the first day, he does go so far as to say that the length of a day in Genesis 1 is indeed the length of an ordinary day.
These links were really helpful for me:
Note to Orthodox Evolutionists: Stop Trying to Retroactively Recruit / Shanghai the Fathers to Your Camp!
What Makes Me Uneasy About Fr. Seraphim (Rose) and His Followers
In the first link he takes Orthodox evolutionists to task for misusing the Fathers (which also covers me, by extension!), and in the second he takes Orthodox YECs under Fr. Seraphim Rose to task for being inconsistent in using Protestant science (!!) while claiming to uphold Orthodox Patristic views. The following paragraph (from the second link) is instructive, with the second half of the comment being greatly expanded on in the first link:
On the issue of "Creation Science"-style creationism, I would like to make a couple of comments. First, the Fathers usually believed that the days in Genesis 1 were literal days and not something more elastic. I believe I've read at least one exception, but St. Basil, for instance, insists both that one day was one day, and that we should believe that matter is composed of earth, air, fire, water, and ether. The choice of a young earth and not any other point of the Fathers is not the fruit of the Fathers at all; it is something Protestant brought into the Orthodox Church, and at every point I've seen it, Orthodox who defend a young earth also use Protestant Creation Science, which is entirely without precedent in the Fathers.
I think I shall use this position from now on.
That doesn't compute nor even make a reasonable comparison. The truth is that a cat cannot give birth to not only a dog, it cannot give birth to ANY non-feline. The genetic limitations are there according to Mendel.
"Species do not transform one into the other. They show stability from generation to generation, and my experiments demonstrate that fact. Isnt anyone listening?" Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), Father of Genetics
Now, prove Mendel was wrong. Give observed evidence.
My understanding is that you're the one who posed the ridiculous challenge to begin with. Are we not in agreement that wolves/chihuahuas/poodles/dogs etc are a monophyletic group, that lions/tigers/kittens/cats are another monophyletic group, and that none of the dogs could possibly have produced one of the cats, nor one of the cats possibly have produced one of the dogs? My understanding is that you're trying to challenge my to disprove what I believe in, and don't understand why I refuse to do so.
As I was saying, it is reproduction after their kind. Once a Eukaryote, always an Eukaryote. Sure, a minnow looks different from an amoeba. But a chihuahua looks different from a wolf too, and you don't see any problem with that. So we each believe in reproduction after their kind, I just believe in bigger kind groupings than you do, with the consequent greater variation.
Are you now parading your ignorance of the scientific method now? Evidence for a theory never proves it, a limited test of a theory cannot be considered proof valid for all possible cases even beyond the scope of what was tested, nor do authoritarian statements constitute proof of anything. When you tell me about how Mendel conducted experiments for millions of years and saw no changes, then I'll consider his experiments to have a scope of millions of years. Did you expect Mendel to disprove evolution, by showing it happens a million times faster than the theory of evolution predicts, or what?
You just agreed with me and the theory of evolution. Right. A cat, being a feline, cannot give birth to a non-feline.
It can, however, share an ancestor with a non-feline.
You must be overusing the exfoliant. Your skin seems a bit thin.Kirkwhisper said:Guess what, kid? You just joined the ranks of the non-existent in the oobliant. Bye.
None of yer business - nyah!
Earlier you said "kinds" meant family or order - but yes, species makes much more sense.
The general response would be that most animals living today simply have the time to diverse into different species. This process takes many thousands, if not millions of years. The domestic dog, for example, split from wolves (or a wolf-like ancestor) roughly 100,000 years ago - and some estimate it may have been as long as 400,000 years ago. Today they're still capable of interbreeding.
--------------------------------
I'm not an expert in ancient Hewbrew, obviously, but they seemed to have several words. In Leviticus, they use the term "Owph", which roughly means "to fly" or "posses a wing". Deuteronomy uses the word "Tsippowr", which comes from the term "to hop about" - admittedly not something bats are known for.
Even though they didn't have the same classifications we do, even the ancient Hebrews knew full well a bat is not the same as a bird.
It wasn't just Darwin! You ignored all the other geneticists I quoted as well. That tells me that YOU JUST DON'T CARE about the evidence. You certainly haven't given me any in this entire debate. Like Assyrian, you play a semantic game and then sit there with your finger pointing in the air as if there is substance to what you say. There is none. You have none.
Had you posted observed evidence of the stage-by-stage, step-by-step evidence of evolutionary change of one type of organism into a clearly different type of organism you could have easily won this conflict and I would have to abdicate my position. But you didn't. You can't.
My debate with you is come to an end on this issue.
You are correct! if Genesis is not true? Toss the rest out. The same God of Genesis rules the new testament.
Genesis is true and 6 days should be true too. Although the earth could be older due to the fact we do not know how long it sped around the universe before God began working with it.
I went to a Catholic boys school. We were taught evolution in high school - in Biology.
Many of the so-called proofs for it I found out to be false. In fact, they were widely known to be frauds well before I even started school
Such as Haeckel's embryonic drawings.
And the Miller-Urey experiment - which was supposed to demonstrate abiogenesis.
Try not to be rude to everyone you disagree with.Don't bring up Shenren again. Is that clear?
Perhaps if you could address his points you would be able to expose the terrible mockery you have been subject to.The one being rude is that mocking fellow with the condescending attitude. But since he agrees with you he gets a pass, right?
People disagree with me and are taken aback when I point out that the bible doesn't actually say what they think it does. However all the other have managed to disagree with me courteously, you are the only one calling me a dishonest and a liar.If you have read comments on this thread carefully then you should have observed that i am not the only one who thinks your statements are appalling.
So you know I am a liar because I am one. Wow. How is you heart so full of bitterness that you want to believe the worst about those who disagree with you? Did it never enter you mind that someone could disagree with you and simply be wrong? That I might actually believe 'according to their kind' doesn't mean 'reproduce according to their kind' and that I don't actually need to be a liar to say what I think is true. Never mind the fact I might actually be right about what the text says, you need to have a look at the anger and bitterness in your heart.Because you were and are. I am disenchanted with the way you treat God's holy Word.
Sorry to disappoint you, I don't feel persecuted at all, I just think it is sad when Christians to talk to their fellow believers like that. But it would be so much easier for all of us to have a discussion once you drop the insults, so by all means lets stick to the subject.Why don't you stop complaining and stick to the subject, O persecuted one.
No I'm not a JW, but instead of simply claiming I have given the wrong application perhaps you could show where I went wrong. Glad you think I have the correct definition though, why not take the Hebrew I have analysed and show where reproducing after their kinds makes its way into the text.You've done it yet again; you take a the correction definiton and then give the wrong application as to its meaning. Are you a Jehovah's Witness? But the truth is that I have seen this in you repeatedly including the last confrontation I had with you months ago.It think 'after its kinds' means 'according to the different varieties, the different sorts of those animals'.
The Hebrew is למינהם lemiynehem
le the letter lamed is a preposition with a variety of meanings: to or towards, at, on account of, according to...
miyn which according to Strong's means:From an unused root meaning to portion out; a sort, that is, species: - kind.Then you have a variety of different pronouns at the end of the construction, in our example here it is
ehem meaning 'their',
It simply means are different sorts of animals and they were created according to their sorts, species or different varieties. There is nothing in the Hebrew that says 'reproduce'.
Not sure how Moses repeating the phrase 17 times make your argument any better. If 'reproducing after their kind' isn't in the text repeating the phrase 17 times isn't going to help. Of course, I am not trying to fit evolutionary change into Genesis, Genesis isn't teaching evolution. What I am doing is showing that a Creationist argument against evolution, that 'the bible says animals reproduce according to their kind' is simply not scriptural.So the Holy Spirit inspired Moses to write those words (after his kind, after its kind,) 17 times in the first seven chapters of Genesis so that people like you can be justified to make it fit evolutionary change? You've got to be kidding me. You deal with the truth like its a rubber band to be played with, Assyrian.
Actually I don't know what their concept of kind was, I very much doubt their shared the creationist idea family or order you mentioned, which owes more to trying to make creation science work than any study of Hebrew or the bible. Creationists assume kind is the equivalent of a modern scientific definition, rather than a word that describes all the different categories you can sort animals into, which could include categories and sub categories we see in the way the bible describes animals, that ravens are a kind of bird, but there are also different kinds raven. I seriously doubt they would have considered donkeys and horses the same kind the way creationists do, though they would have considered them both livestock. If kind means a sort or portioning out, then if you can put given horses and donkeys different names then they are different kinds. So the Israelites recognised different varieties of animals and would have realised that most of the time they produced the same variety, at the same time then understood something of breeding sheep and goat as well as the forbidden hybridisation. So there is no reason to think they had the Aristotle's concept of fixity of species, or even thought about the idea, regardless of whether you can fit what they would have know into an Aristotelian framework. But the real issue isn't whether the ancient Jews believed in fixity of species, but whether it is taught in the bible, and it isn't.Our ancient forefathers had NO inclination as to 'after its kind' being anything but a differentiation between non-related organisms which brought forth offspring that can only successfully reproduce one of like kind. If you can prove that wrong then do so. The Jews didn't believe that.
Have you missed all the posts where people told you you completely misunderstand how evolution works?So tell me, sir, have you ever seen a wheat seed produce anything but wheat (of the several different varieties of....guess what; wheat)? How about corn seed? How about daisies? Have you ever observed or come across evidence that the DNA of a pig can produce non-pigs? How about bears? How about giraffes? Show the readers that you actually do know what you're talking about and demonstrate observable evidence that living organisms do in fact co-mingle with and change into identifiably, classifiably different kinds/families.
Do you have a source in Mendel's quote?Lastly, I ask you to comment on the founders, movers & shakers of the genetic world and what they said about this matter. So far I haven't seen a reply:
"Species do not transform one into the other. They show stability from generation to generation, and my experiments demonstrate that fact. Isnt anyone listening?" Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), Father of Genetics
Every series of breeding experiments that has ever taken place has established a finite limit to breeding possibilities. Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (New Haven, Connecticut: Ticknor and Fields, 1982), p. 55.
All competent biologists acknowledge the limited nature of the variation breeders can produce, although they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the evolutionary ax. William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1984), pp. 184185.
A rule that all breeders recognize, is that there are fixed limits to the amount of change that can be produced. Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), p. 96.
Comment on these statements and tell the readers why they are all wrong.
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?