What "kind" is it?

[lucaspa]

1st April 2003 at 09:59 PM Arikay said this in Post #47

John, first of all Luca has a very good point. You classified Mammals as a group.

Second, is calling him stupid and then a jerk really called for?

Thank you, Arikay. 

The hope is that I will get distracted by the insults and turn the conversation into a flame war.  That way John can then forget the "very good point".  You will find it a common tactic on internet forums.

 

[JohnR7]

1st April 2003 at 10:30 PM lucaspa said this in Post #59

When we "trace the DNA back", we find that all life is a single "kind" because it all came from a single gene pool. 

What are you talking about: A single gene pool? 

Remember, we are talking science and not theology.

 

I suppose we are talking about science. Sense you have a rule in your science class that you do not discuss theology, then maybe we should have the same rule in our theology class, that we do not talk about biology. 

What non-Bible literature? Can you give us the names of the books, John?  Thank you.  [/B]

Gilgamesh and Hammurabi's code predate the Bible. There are others. Mostly people like to do a comparison between Gilgamesh and the books that Moses wrote. But they also like to compare the law given by Moses with the law written by Hammurabi.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/GILG.HTM




 

 

[LadyShea]

 

John, lucaspa (i believe) is saying that the word "kinds" is not scientifically valid. There is no such barrier in biology.

Are you trying to say that some kind of reproduction took place before kinds became established?

 

[JohnR7]

1st April 2003 at 10:33 PM lucaspa said this in Post #61 The hope is that I will get distracted by the insults and turn the conversation into a flame war. 

No, that is not true at all. The hope was that you would quit acting stupid and quit acting like a jerk. It seems to have worked.

You said you had students and I figured that they were most likely walking out of the class room and talking about you with each other. But sense they are getting a grade, they would not dare to confront you. Least you get offended and get mad at them.

I actually thought enough of you that I figured if I said something you would make the adjustment. If I did not think you were capable of correcting yourself, I would not have said anything.

 

[Arikay]

Still very bad form to call someone stupid and a Jerk IMHO.

1st April 2003 at 07:51 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #64



No, that is not true at all. The hope was that you would quit acting stupid and quit acting like a jerk. It seems to have worked.

You said you had students and I figured that they were most likely walking out of the class room and talking about you with each other. But sense they are getting a grade, they would not dare to confront you. Least you get offended and get mad at them.

I actually thought enough of you that I figured if I said something you would make the adjustment. If I did not think you were capable of correcting yourself, I would not have said anything.

 

[judy]

1st April 2003 at 10:59 PM Arikay said this in Post #65

Still very bad form to call someone stupid and a Jerk IMHO.

I know. It reminded me of Dan Aykroyd saying to Jane Curtin:

"Jane, you ignorant ****!"

on SNL.

 

[JohnR7]

1st April 2003 at 10:59 PM Arikay said this in Post #65

Still very bad form to call someone stupid and a Jerk IMHO.

It depends on how hard headed they are. It is not bad form to use plain language with people. My wife uses plain language and she has no problem to communicate at all. In fact she has no problem to communicate in 3 or 4 different languages. If she were to go shopping and want to buy something, she can communicate just fine in just about any language

 

[Arikay]

John, Attempting to insult someone is bad form. I really dont care how you and your wife talk to each other. On the forums I expect people to be able to actually mind their manors and treat each other respectfully when debating. Unfortunatly it doesnt seem like you can do this.

1st April 2003 at 08:50 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #67



It depends on how hard headed they are. It is not bad form to use plain language with people. My wife uses plain language and she has no problem to communicate at all. In fact she has no problem to communicate in 3 or 4 different languages. If she were to go shopping and want to buy something, she can communicate just fine in just about any language

 

[JohnR7]

2nd April 2003 at 12:02 AM Arikay said this in Post #68

John, Attempting to insult someone is bad form.

That is your opinion not mine. Just what right do you think you have to force your opinion on me? I heard you out, I listened to what you have to say and that's it.

We run into a lot of problems on here when we try to convert people to our way of thinking. It is enough just to share with people what you believe and leave it at that.

Romans 14:4  Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.

Matthew 23:15
    "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.






 

 

[Arikay]

So you think its Ok to insult people because its your "opinion" dont these forums have rules about being nice to people, or is that just me?

rather sad john.

 

[LadyShea]

How about we all kiss and make up and get back to the topic? Everyone else in support of that?

 

[Cantuar]

John, if your ultimate authority about "kinds" is the Bible and you don't particularly care about where echidnas and legless lizards fit in but are completely satisfied with some vague description involving dogs never turning into cats and elephants never turning into sunflowers and humans being the only members of their kind by biblical definition, that's fine. Really. Just don't try and pass it off as anything remotely to do with science. Leave science to do its thing, believe what the Bible says about origins if you want to, and we'll all do just fine. The problem comes when you want to put this Bible-based vague stuff about dogs and cats but ignoring echidnas and lizards into science class and call it science - and especially if you want to claim that it's better science than the science we have at present.

 

[JohnR7]

2nd April 2003 at 12:37 AM Cantuar said this in Post #72

The problem comes when you want to put this Bible-based vague stuff about dogs and cats but ignoring echidnas and lizards into science class and call it science.

I was just trying to answer a question. The Bible is not so much a book about creation as it is a book about redemption. We really do not need to go back any further than 6000 years. We really do not need to deal with pre history. There is very little in the Bible on prehistory, it just happens to be the first chapter.

That is why it is better just to start at chapter two. From there on, we do not seem to have any problem answering your questions, but there does seem to be a lot of unanswered questions that have to do with chapter one of Genesis.

 

[Arikay]

Yeah, sorry for off tracking the thread.

1st April 2003 at 09:31 PM LadyShea said this in Post #71

How about we all kiss and make up and get back to the topic? Everyone else in support of that?

 

[JohnR7]

2nd April 2003 at 12:21 AM Arikay said this in Post #70

So you think its Ok to insult people because its your "opinion" dont these forums have rules about being nice to people, or is that just me?

Why don't you go down to the bottom of the page and push that little button that says moderator and sign up. Sense you seem to feel a urge to be a policeman.

In the mean time, quite trying to upsurp authority and quit trying to do their job for them. If you want to participate in the debate, then join the debate, if you want to be a moderator then be a moderator, but you can not do both at the same time. You can not serve two master, you have to serve one or the other.

 

[LadyShea]

One more "what kind is it" pic before bed...goodnight all!

What kind is this?

 

 

This animal, the civet,  is sometimes referred to as a living fossil...the common ancestor of both dogs and cats, Miacis, is thought to have been similar to this species. 

 

 

[Arikay]

Thanks for the remarks John, they were, um, entertaining.

Very interesting Lady. Unfortunatly I dont think you will get a answer to what kind these different animals are as im not sure creationists really understand what a kind is either.
They have been very interesting and enlightening to me. I like animals

 

[L'Anatra]

2nd April 2003 at 12:47 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #73
I was just trying to answer a question. The Bible is not so much a book about creation as it is a book about redemption. We really do not need to go back any further than 6000 years. We really do not need to deal with pre history. There is very little in the Bible on prehistory, it just happens to be the first chapter.

That is why it is better just to start at chapter two. From there on, we do not seem to have any problem answering your questions, but there does seem to be a lot of unanswered questions that have to do with chapter one of Genesis.

But that's exactly the issue, John!

In a sense, you have stated that Genesis 1 leaves a whole heck of a lot out regarding origins. Do you deny this?

I agree completely with your statement that the Bible is more a book about redemption rather than creation. That's why it's difficult for me to sympathize with the creationist (i.e., those who reject evolution) position. You said it yourself, John: the Bible doesn't deal very much with prehistory. That's precisely the reason why we can't use it to answer our questions about prehistory! Somehow, very sadly, a number of people seem to think that this discredits God and the Bible...

I know many people feel this is unimportant to their daily lives, but there are many more (perhaps) who do. Some people make it their life's work.

So they go out and make it a point to find out how and why the world is the way it is and spend years and years observing it. They gain hundreds of times more experience at observing the world than you or I have. They posit useful theories explaining their observations.

Then (and here's the kicker) people that have no clue what they're talking about waltz on in and call their whole body of work "lies." And then they spread their nonsense on to others who are in no position to think for themselves (a la Kent Hovind)

Yes, scientists are human. Probably certain scientists don't always have the best intentions. But how can you not realize how ridiculous this assertation is?

Anyway: I like animals, too. I never learned anything about the echidna; what a strange creature!

 

[JohnR7]

2nd April 2003 at 03:48 AM L'Anatra said this in Post #78

But that's exactly the issue, John!

In a sense, you have stated that Genesis 1 leaves a whole heck of a lot out regarding origins. Do you deny this? 

Actually, that is the beauty of Moses, he did not leave anything out. He just does not tell you much about it. All the rest of the Bible explains what God gave to Moses. In Genesis you may read one sentance on something, then later on in the Bible there will be a whole chapter to explain that one sentance. You could write whole books on something Moses mentions briefly.

I could give you almost countless examples. Here is one:

Genesis 3:15
    And I will put enmity
    Between you and the woman,
    And between your seed and her Seed;
    He shall bruise your head,
    And you shall bruise His heel."

Countless books could be written about this one sentance. Here is another famous passage.

Genesis 4:7
    If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it."

Moses just has a way to pack a lot into a very small little seed that has to take root and grow in your heart.

Did you know in the design of the Temple, every tiny minute detail has significant meaning. Every thread, and the color of every thread has significance and meaning. There is no detail that does not tell us a story and educate us.

Ezekiel explains it like a flowing river. You can stand on the shore and not get wet. Or you can go in up to your ankel. If you want you can go in up to your knee. If you go deep enough your in over your head and your feet do not even touch bottom anymore.

It is up to each individual how deep they want to go in.

 

[notto]

Site discussing the evolution of dogs, wolves, foxes, etc.
http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne2.htm

This page contains a nice diagram showing ancestreal relationships between carnivours (it is too small to read well in the article, the link below takes you directly to the chart).

http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/images/W2FIG2.gif

This chart even includes the civet!!

It seems to be well researched. Can't speak to its accuracy though. Any comments?