pshun challenge

Larniavc

Leading a blameless life
Jul 14, 2015
12,271
7,628
51
✟312,681.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Actually the Hebrew when translated into Greek (the LXX) uses a word more akin to "species"....
Don't care.

'Kind' has not been defined by me. In this thread AV was the one defining it as Genus.

That's the thing about 'kind'. It is never defined: two different people will define it in multiple ways.

This is a case in point. AV defined it as Genus, you have said it more like species.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,678
51,423
Guam
✟4,896,929.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
For those of you who don't care for English:

genus: (Latin plural genera), 1550s as a term of logic, "kind or class of things" (biological sense dates from c. 1600), from Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin,"

- Online Etymological Dictionary
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,821
45
✟917,556.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
I never made the claim...
I was responding to someone who did when you replied with: "And that from an atheist...."

I assume you are a YEC? If so, how do you explain genetic diversity and speciation of the modern world?
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
What evidence do you have that the use of the word "kind" in Genesis was meant to establish an immutable divine taxonomy? I believe that the more usual interpretation is that it is intended to express the orderliness of nature--figs don't grow on apple trees, cows do not give birth to sheep, that kind of thing. In a sense it is an expression of the Darwinian Principle of Reproductive Similarity.

I agree with your reproductive similarity idea it is the essence of Christ's sowing and reaping principle...if you plant tomatoes you get tomatoes...tomatoes never produce cucumbers.

Biogenesis states

a. all life comes from life
b. all living things arise from their parental host

In the Bible what we see is that after God created (having already built into creation the laws of physics and chemistry to govern the matter/energy He had made), He used the materials of the earth (elements, molecules etc.) to make the form or material part of creatures but life (bios) came as a result of an act on His behalf.

So in one sense it can be seen as life arising from non-life but what it describes is biogenesis (God is the Life in the Universe) He makes these material forms live...non-living matter has no power of its own to live (animate, respirate, eliminate, reproduce, and so on).

Now then as to the Biblical "kind", the ancient Hebrew "miyn" from the root "to sort" or "to portion" according to Gesenius Heb-Chald lexicon defines the word as "species, kind, sort" and rreelates to a cognate root in Syriac meaning also f that you amily or race.

The Greek "genos" later called genus by some is actually an aggregate term meaning collectively type, offspring, kindred, etc. (or to diversity in said classifications) and is used to describe descent from a particular stock.

So we can see the Bible (not that you accept that) describes different categories...man, beasts, fish, insects, birds, etc., or example read 1 Corinthians 15:39
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I was responding to someone who did when you replied with: "And that from an atheist...."

I assume you are a YEC? If so, how do you explain genetic diversity and speciation of the modern world?

Not a YEC. You must have never read any of my 100s of posts. I explain these the same as you with the exception that due to lack of evidence of anything other, I would say speciation ONLY produces variety and does not cause transmutation of one type of organism (say amphibians) into another (like reptiles)...
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,821
45
✟917,556.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
Not a YEC. You must have never read any of my 100s of posts. I explain these the same as you with the exception that due to lack of evidence of anything other, I would say speciation ONLY produces variety and does not cause transmutation of one type of organism (say amphibians) into another (like reptiles)...
At the point of speciation the two lineages were considerably more similar, it's inaccurate to picture a modern mammal, reptile or amphibian when considering the original split.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,342
26,787
Pacific Northwest
✟728,236.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
This is a case in point. AV defined it as Genus, you have said it more like species.

And in actual fact it's neither; because the ancients didn't engage in academic level taxonomy and cladistics. For the ancient Hebrews bats were a kind of "bird" because both have wings.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,342
26,787
Pacific Northwest
✟728,236.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
What evidence do you have that the use of the word "kind" in Genesis was meant to establish an immutable divine taxonomy? I believe that the more usual interpretation is that it is intended to express the orderliness of nature--figs don't grow on apple trees, cows do not give birth to sheep, that kind of thing. In a sense it is an expression of the Darwinian Principle of Reproductive Similarity.

While the word "species" just means "kind", there is clearly a conflation between the specific use of the word in scientific nomenclature and a more general use. Which is why the ancient Hebrews could conceive of bats as a "kind" of bird; it was a thing with wings that could fly, for practical purposes that was all that was necessary for the defining of a thing. Different kinds of beasts, different kinds of things that creep, different kinds of things that flew in the air, and different kinds of things that swam in the water. A whale could be a "fish", a bat could be a "bird", etc. Because the ancients simply weren't interested in genetic relationships and trying to understand the inter-relationships between living things and forming a rigorous taxonomic naming system in order to understand those inter-relationships.

The failure to grasp that pre-scientific ancient agrarian societies had different priorities and ways of thinking than modern, scientific industrialized societies do seems to be a common feature. One isn't going to understand the Bible if one assumes that people three thousand years ago thought in exactly the same ways we do.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
At the point of speciation the two lineages were considerably more similar, it's inaccurate to picture a modern mammal, reptile or amphibian when considering the original split.

Speciation only produces variety within the same type of organism. SHOW ME otherwise. All natural events of speciation (even Darwin's finches) and ALL lab experiments done, only prove my position.
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,821
45
✟917,556.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
Speciation only produces variety within the same type of organism. SHOW ME otherwise. All natural events of speciation (even Darwin's finches) and ALL lab experiments done, only prove my position.
I agree that speciation occurs in the same type of organism, in this case it is the Amniote type of organism.
Two very similar varieties of creatures who build upon differences over the eons.

Here are the Eothyris, a creature more closely related to modern mammals then to modern reptiles:
Mammal-like-Eothyris-small_zpsy5gskkvu.jpg

And here we have Hylonomus, an actual reptile from long before dinosaurs:
Reptile-Hylonomus-small_zpsrtn7l63h.jpg

Both examples of Amniotes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,821
45
✟917,556.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
Lenski's team has been running their test for decades approaching 100,000 generations of E-Coli with all sorts of mutation and adaptation being presented and guess what? They are still E-Coli!

Why haven't they become something other?
Why should they? The environment they are in isn't conducive to anything radically different.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Let me get this straight. A cocker spaniel mates with a poodle, giving rise to a cockapoo, and that cockapoo is not a new species?
No, they're all members of the same species. 'Species' isn't a well-defined scientific term, it's used in different ways in different biological sciences, and the boundaries between species can be fuzzy, but broadly (for sexually reproducing multicellular organisms), a species is a breeding population that is significantly reproductively isolated, i.e. it's members generally can't or won't mate with members of other populations.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So we have four primary source bats in the Noah story and each female has about three litters per season (usually only one offspring at a time) so first season the number became a minimum of ten, the more females born the greater the number in the next generation, and so on.

Now though there is no way to do the math accurately it is certainly possible.

You seem to be implying that each litter produces a new species/genus?

What possible genetic mechanism can account for that?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,678
51,423
Guam
✟4,896,929.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
They are not.

There are 92.

Not counting extinct forms.

That is a lot of bat kinds.
Sweet.

Then 92 kinds of bats boarded the Ark by twos, not counting the extinct forms (whatever "forms" are).
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Sweet.

Then 92 kinds of bats boarded the Ark by twos, not counting the extinct forms (whatever "forms" are).

Are bats clean or unclean?

Do you realize that you have, in effect, opened the floodgates, as it were, on what gets on the ark?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,678
51,423
Guam
✟4,896,929.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Are bats clean or unclean?
Unclean.

Leviticus 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
15 Every raven after his kind;
16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
tas8831 said:
Do you realize that you have, in effect, opened the floodgates, as it were, on what gets on the ark?
Yes.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0