Three Big Questions

[pitabread]

I guess that's why the Bible uses the term 'Kind.'

'Kind' doesn't appear to have any biological reality either.

 

[inquiring mind]

'Kind' doesn't appear to have any biological reality either.

Welcome to the club.

 

[pitabread]

Welcome to the club.

Huh?

 

[inquiring mind]

Huh?

You said ‘Kind’ has no biological reality either, as to say neither does 'species'… so I said welcome to the club. Pita, please don’t make me start explaining everything I say.

 

[pitabread]

You said ‘Kind’ has no biological reality either, as to say neither does 'species'… so I said welcome to the club. Pita, please don’t make me start explaining everything I say.

I've long said that taxonomic categories are artificial. So I'm still not sure what your point is?

 

[inquiring mind]

I've long said that taxonomic categories are artificial. So I'm still not sure what your point is?

Everytime I’ve mentioned ‘Kind,’ you’ve said something to the effect… no one knows what a ‘Kind’ is. So, when you said, “Technically speaking, species don't exist,” I simply said welcome to the club. Is it that hard to understand or are you just trying to make hash out of it?

 

[SelfSim]

Everytime I’ve mentioned ‘Kind,’ you’ve said something to the effect… no one knows what a ‘Kind’ is. So, when you said, “Technically speaking, species don't exist,” I simply said welcome to the club. Is it that hard to understand or are you just trying to make hash out of it?

The category of 'species' is useful to science as it ultimately facilitates objective testability, which leads onto testable predictions. 'Kind' may be useful for reinforcing faith based beliefs which, in turn, evidently produce different outcomes.

Whether either (species or kind) is 'real' or not, is related to the respective purposes (and context) behind the dissimilar thinking approaches.

 

[pitabread]

Everytime I’ve mentioned ‘Kind,’ you’ve said something to the effect… no one knows what a ‘Kind’ is. So, when you said, “Technically speaking, species don't exist,” I simply said welcome to the club. Is it that hard to understand or are you just trying to make hash out of it?

I think you're conflating two different things.

In the context of "kinds", creationists claim they have biological reality, but can't show that this is the case. In particular, there is no consistent definition of "kind" as used by creationists. Thus my criticisms of "kinds" as used by creationists is on this basis.

In the case of taxonomic classifications used by biologists, these classifications are inherently artificial. I'm not criticizing them in this context; I'm simply recognizing that artificial classifications are artificial.

 

[inquiring mind]

I think you're conflating two different things.

In the context of "kinds", creationists claim they have biological reality, but can't show that this is the case. In particular, there is no consistent definition of "kind" as used by creationists. Thus my criticisms of "kinds" as used by creationists is on this basis.

In the case of taxonomic classifications used by biologists, these classifications are inherently artificial. I'm not criticizing them in this context; I'm simply recognizing that artificial classifications are artificial.

And, I think you're making too much out of the original comment. But, you succeeded in making hash out of it... I'll give you that. Now I've got to defend something inconsistently defined against something that doesn't exist. No, thank you.

 

[pitabread]

And, I think you're making too much out of the original comment. But, you succeeded in making hash out of it... I'll give you that. Now I've got to defend something inconsistently defined against something that doesn't exist. No, thank you.

For the record, I genuinely had no idea what your original comment was supposed to mean.

Bottom line is this:

1) "Kind" has no biological relevance, no consistent definition and no practical usage. It's basically a non-starter.

2) Modern taxonomy is artificial in nature, but generally has practical usage since it is more-or-less agreed upon by biologists and therefore makes it easier to talk about groups of organisms.

Does that help?

 

[inquiring mind]

2) Modern taxonomy is artificial in nature, but generally has practical usage since it is more-or-less agreed upon by biologists and therefore makes it easier to talk about groups of organisms.

You might add... this has no biblical relevance because it doesn’t exist (except as a biologist conversation tool). So, it’s basically a non-starter as well then.

 

[pitabread]

You might add... this has no biblical relevance because it doesn’t exist (except as a biologist conversation tool). So, it’s basically a non-starter as well then.

It's not my place to judge what has Biblical relevance or not. That's up to believers.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And, I think you're making too much out of the original comment. But, you succeeded in making hash out of it... I'll give you that. Now I've got to defend something inconsistently defined against something that doesn't exist. No, thank you.

The difference is that taxonomic categories, although arbitrary, are based on objective and consistent biological differences between populations of creatures. Species are the least well-defined category because they attempt to divide a continuum of population changes over time at a point where the differences between populations are considered to be important or significant enough in some respect (usually reproductive compatibility) to justify distinguishing between them as populations.

But you probably knew that...

 

[AV1611VET]

1. Does anybody else believe that Christianity and evolution can coexist with one another?

2. If so in what ways? (I'm asking before I state my beliefs because I want to see if they line up with mine.)


3. Since the Bible doesn't say one way or the other, is it possible that God created life on other planets?

1. As long as evolution doesn't contradict the Bible ... yes.
2. On the micro scale (adaptation).
3. Meh ... I doubt it. Other planets could be R & R spots for the angels.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well to me I don't see why they both can't be accurate.

They actually contradict each other.

It says the creation of the world was made in six days in the book of Gensis,

More broadly, the entire universe was created in six days, with the Earth coming first; before any sun, moon, or stars.

... but it doesn't say that it couldn't have caused a big bang after God spoke the universe into existence.

It doesn't have to say that.

If I said something is square, I don't need to say it isn't round.

Also how do we know that after Adam and Eve were created that they looked exactly like we do today? They could have looked more ape-like as God might have used monkeys as a similar design pattern and hence evolution taking place.

Because we were made in the image & likeness of God on the sixth day.

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem is all the scientific evidence out there is very clear that man is the product of evolution.

Only if you move the decimal place as needed.

Need more time for something to have developed?

Just move that decimal point one space to the right, and voila:

Millions of years become a billion!

You can't force-fit millions of years into a universe created in 4004 BC, then claim "all the scientific evidence out there is very clear ..." and expect us to swallow it hook, lie, and sinker.

Er ... I mean "hook, line, and sinker."

 

[Yttrium]

You can't force-fit millions of years into a universe created in 4004 BC, then claim "all the scientific evidence out there is very clear ..." and expect us to swallow it hook, lie, and sinker.

I wouldn't expect anybody to swallow new ideas hook, line and sinker. That's just gullibility. It's best to be at least a bit skeptical, although I may be biased about that.

For those who firmly believe the universe has only been in existence for less than 10k years, we shouldn't expect you to swallow the new ideas at all.

But I think we can safely say that the universe at least has the appearance of great age, regardless of when it was actually created. (For a very long list of reasons, including being able to see other galaxies.) So it's reasonable for someone who doesn't assume a young age to think that the required amount of biologic evolution could fit in easily.

 

[AV1611VET]

I wouldn't expect anybody to swallow new ideas hook, line and sinker. That's just gullibility. It's best to be at least a bit skeptical, although I may be biased about that.

For those who firmly believe the universe is less than 10k years old, we shouldn't expect you to swallow the new ideas at all.

But I think we can safely say that the universe at least has the appearance of great age, regardless of when it was actually created. (For a very long list of reasons, including being able to see other galaxies.) So it's reasonable for someone who doesn't assume a young age to think that the required amount of biologic evolution could fit in easily.

For the record, I'm not a YEC.

I believe the universe is much older than 10,000 years.

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

BUT, it has only been in existence since 4004 BC.

 

[Yttrium]

For the record, I'm not a YEC.

I believe the universe is much older than 10,000 years.

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

BUT, it has only been in existence since 4004 BC.

Yes, I'll adjust my wording a little. Old universe, short existence. That's what I'm getting at, regardless of the actual creation date, it sure looks like it's been around a long time. So it's not a case of scientists increasing the time to fit evolution, it's a case of plenty of time appearing to be available, so we wouldn't think the amount of time needed would be a problem... unless we followed a specific Biblical interpretation.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's what I'm getting at, regardless of the actual creation date, it sure looks like it's been around a long time.

No argument there.

It certainly does look like it's been around for millions of years.

But if it hasn't been around that long, wouldn't it be nice to know that?

So it's not a case of scientists increasing the time to fit evolution, it's a case of plenty of time appearing to be available,

Well appearances can be deceiving, can't they?

Time is one thing ... age is another.

God can create a dress tomorrow so old, it can fall apart with age.