In The Zone

[Earthling]

Basically we have and share the same type of cell structure where the nucleus of the cell is enclosed in a membrane called eukaryotes by which elephants and pine cones are established in fact as being related, and had sprung up from a common ancestor. Same as we are.

Cladistics notes physical and molecular similarities (like genes and DNA) among various organisms and categorizes those with shared traits into a more accurate lineage that can be traced back to its original known ancestors.

I understand this, but my concern is where does this create any conflict with the Bible. All of these classifications have been made, and that's fine, and then there is the assumption based upon them of a common ancestor.

That's like saying to me, these apes have a skull that looks like ours so we are related. They have fingers and so we are related. Well, none of those assumptions, conclusions founded in anything real because you can't show me one producing the other. The Bible, then is correct according to everything we know and see. Your assumptions are not.

The term related itself has very little meaning to me. What do we see. No elephants making pine trees. No pine trees making elephants.

What do we not see. A common ancestor that defies the Biblical kind.

 

[Earthling]

Correction, known to have evolved as demonstrated by almost endless evidence.

No. That hasn't been established as far as I can see.

And though early cladistics was based largely on appearances modern cladistics relies much more heavily on DNA. The and science that says "You ARE the father!!" also straightens out questions of how different groups of animals are related.

Appearances or DNA doesn't make any difference. It's the same thing. There are these similarities in all living organisms. It doesn't mean anything other than there are these similarities in all living organisms.

From examining DNA what is most similar to humans? A banana or an ape? Based upon appearances you could say we are "related" to the ape. Based upon DNA maybe the banana or something. It doesn't matter. A banana can't make a human. An ape can't make a human. They can't get together and make a banana.

And there is no clear Bible definition of "kinds". Tell me how would You determine if two different groups were of the same kind or not.

They can reproduce.

 

[Earthling]

I said that we can and have observed evolution to the "bring forth" definition that Hovind loves to use. But until you can come up with a working definution, something that Hovind failed to do, I would suggest that you avoid the ter.

At this point in the video he hasn't had time. Ra sure does like to blow his own horn, doesn't he. But I put forth the definition on the Biblical kind. It is what we experience and observe all throughout our lives and have since recorded history. That's why the 8th grader laughs at the suggestion that pine trees growing elephants. That isn't a working definition. That is nonsense.

And yes, we do know that life evolves. The low level of macroevolution needed for speciation has been directly observed countless times.

Macro-evolution? Perhaps these things are discussed later in the video? Don't jump ahead. Patience. Speciation? I've already pointed out to you that there can be many species in a Biblical kind so what significance is speciation?

I am not sure where you are in the video, but the "dogs only have dogs" idiocy of Hovind's only proves that he does not even have a high school level of understanding of evolution.

How educated does one have to be to have come to the conclusion that "dogs only have dogs?" Have you seen a dog give birth to a platypus? "Well," The veterinarian said. "We can't tell if your precious Sadie will deliver puppies again or orangutans this time. Maybe an eggplant. You just never know."

Please try to remember that "change of kinds" is a creationist strawman using a term that creationists cannot define. There is no change of kind in evolution.

Then there's no conflict with the Bible, except for that Ra and you have said that Elephants and Pine Trees are related. Did an elephant adopt a pine tree for this anomaly? Related through marriage? What's the common ancestor? You don't know, do you? You might say something obtusely intellectual and academic like "We suspect it might have been a hyena."

Nonsense.

Why use a source written by either liars or idiots? Why don't you try to use valid sources?

Because they make more sense than the alternative, and, I might point out, they weren't used as sources they were mentioned as having proposed something that you stated. They agree with you.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I understand this, but my concern is where does this create any conflict with the Bible. All of these classifications have been made, and that's fine, and then there is the assumption based upon them of a common ancestor.

That's like saying to me, these apes have a skull that looks like ours so we are related. They have fingers and so we are related. Well, none of those assumptions, conclusions founded in anything real because you can't show me one producing the other. The Bible, then is correct according to everything we know and see. Your assumptions are not.

The term related itself has very little meaning to me. What do we see. No elephants making pine trees. No pine trees making elephants.

What do we not see. A common ancestor that defies the Biblical kind.

Awhile back, they didn't have genetic mapping and DNA to the extent that it is now. Cladistics or phylogenetic systematics is relatively new and scientifically sound. I believe it was introduced during the mid 60s, so I would think most people were and are still taught the preceding model of evolution termed Phenetics in places ,and consequently used during debates and discussions concerning evolution. It's basically valid yet outdated information that has been replaced by newer more accurate classification as a result of new technologies and discoveries that confirms these things.

There is no getting around that elephants and pine cones are related solely because it's cellular makeup is indisputable of which such traits are passed down and shared by its antecedents.

That is certainly something we can see that establishes the relationship shared as a species whether it be pine cones or humans, or elephants, we will always be eukaryotes.

There's simply no getting around that for which cladistics has made tracing such lineages amazingly precise and accurate.

The only reason you don't see elephants giving birth to pine cones and pine cones giving birth to elephants is because a Pinecone will always be a Pinecone and an elephant will always be an elephant.

Biblical kinds would seem to suggest that kinds can procreate and be compatible for which dogs will always produce dogs with one major flaw when it comes to speciation and branching off of "kinds".

A lion will never produce a house cat, and a house cat will never ever produce a lion even though they are in the same family, they have speciated for which millions of years from now will likely look vastly different from one another both physically and genetically. A lion will always be a lion and a cat will always be a cat exactly like pine cones and elephants, cats and lions, will always be eukaryotes.

It's why those crazy notions like Ray Comfort's Crocoduck becomes so hilarious because you will never be able to produce a crocoduck. But I can definitely see a crocodile looking like a duck in the future or a duck looking like a crocodile in the future depending upon the environments they live in. Same manner T-Rex is now traced to a Chicken.

 

[Earthling]

Awhile back, they didn't have genetic mapping and DNA to the extent that it is now. Cladistics or phylogenetic systematics is relatively new and scientifically sound. I believe it was introduced during the mid 60s, so I would think most people were and are still taught the preceding model of evolution termed Phenetics in places ,and consequently used during debates and discussions concerning evolution. It's basically valid yet outdated information that has been replaced by newer more accurate classification as a result of new technologies and discoveries that confirms these things.

There is no getting around that elephants and pine cones are related solely because it's cellular makeup is indisputable of which such traits are passed down and shared by its antecedents.

That is certainly something we can see that establishes the relationship shared as a species whether it be pine cones or humans, or elephants, we will always be eukaryotes.

There's simply no getting around that for which cladistics has made tracing such lineages amazingly precise and accurate.

The only reason you don't see elephants giving birth to pine cones and pine cones giving birth to elephants is because a Pinecone will always be a Pinecone and an elephant will always be an elephant.

Biblical kinds would seem to suggest that kinds can procreate and be compatible for which dogs will always produce dogs with one major flaw when it comes to speciation and branching off of "kinds".

A lion will never produce a house cat, and a house cat will never ever produce a lion even though they are in the same family, they have speciated for which millions of years from now will likely look vastly different from one another both physically and genetically. A lion will always be a lion and a cat will always be a cat exactly like pine cones and elephants, cats and lions, will always be eukaryotes.

It's why those crazy notions like Ray Comfort's Crocoduck becomes so hilarious because you will never be able to produce a crocoduck. But I can definitely see a crocodile looking like a duck in the future or a duck looking like a crocodile in the future depending upon the environments they live in. Same manner T-Rex is now traced to a Chicken.

What I'm looking for is something that says the Bible is wrong when it says God created plants and animals and man according to their kind. All of the classifications of science coming to the conclusion that traits are passed down and shared by their antecedents doesn't do that.

Likewise, If the assumption has always been that a house cat could produce a lion then that, too, is the same sort of classification that doesn't demonstrate that the Bible is wrong when it says God created according to their kinds.

All that tells me is that someone, maybe Hovind, has classified them as kinds when they weren't.

However, that in and of itself may be debatable as well. A black person won't produce a white person yet here we are. Red, yellow, black, white, brown. You can take that down to the color of the eyes, the hair, etc.

Then the question would become, has a domestic cat ever produced anything that gradually became a lion?

These are the things I'm looking at.

 

[viole]

An ape can't make a human.

Of course it can.

Since humans are apes (together with primates, mammals, vertebrates, etc), then it follows that this brand of apes make humans all the time.

Maybe you mean chimps or gorillas cannot make humans.

Ciao

- viole

 

[gnostic]

I understand this, but my concern is where does this create any conflict with the Bible. All of these classifications have been made, and that's fine, and then there is the assumption based upon them of a common ancestor.

That's like saying to me, these apes have a skull that looks like ours so we are related. They have fingers and so we are related. Well, none of those assumptions, conclusions founded in anything real because you can't show me one producing the other. The Bible, then is correct according to everything we know and see. Your assumptions are not.

The term related itself has very little meaning to me. What do we see. No elephants making pine trees. No pine trees making elephants.

What do we not see. A common ancestor that defies the Biblical kind.

But the Bible never clearly defined what kind is.

It is far too vague to be of any use.

 

[Earthling]

Of course it can.

Since humans are apes (together with primates, mammals, vertebrates, etc), then it follows that this brand of apes make humans all the time.

Maybe you mean chimps or gorillas cannot make humans.

Just calling an ape a human and a human an ape doesn't mean you can rationally state that an ape can produce a human. This is how evolution works. Just call things something else and make it almost like true.

How desperate do you have to be to reject God. Just reject him without the nonsensical adaptations.

 

[Earthling]

But the Bible never clearly defined what kind is.

It is far too vague to be of any use.

He created according to its kind. If you want to plant a pine tree you know that putting an elephant in the ground won't do the trick. Genesis 1:12a And the earth began to put forth grass, vegetation bearing seed according to its kind and trees yielding fruit, the seed of which is in it according to its kind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. That hasn't been established as far as I can see.

That is only because you do not understand the nature of evidence. That is typical among those that avoid the sciences. Care to learn?

Appearances or DNA doesn't make any difference. It's the same thing. There are these similarities in all living organisms. It doesn't mean anything other than there are these similarities in all living organisms.

Once again you ignore the concept of evidence. Scientific evidence is based upon testable ideas. If one side can produce evidence and the other cannot the other sides claims are less than worthless. Testable ideas can even when shown to be wrong give us an indication of the right way to go to find an answer. Untestable ideas are worthless in the world of science.

From examining DNA what is most similar to humans? A banana or an ape? Based upon appearances you could say we are "related" to the ape. Based upon DNA maybe the banana or something. It doesn't matter. A banana can't make a human. An ape can't make a human. They can't get together and make a banana.

Poorly worded phrase. The proper phrasing would be "a banana or another ape". We are apes whether you like it or not. And of course apes can make a human. Did your parents 'make' you? Your argument is specious and incredibly wrong.

They can reproduce.

Then we have directly observed macroevolution. In fact we can see it in progress with ring species. Ring species are a concept that cause your definition of "kind" to fail.

 

[Subduction Zone]

At this point in the video he hasn't had time. Ra sure does like to blow his own horn, doesn't he. But I put forth the definition on the Biblical kind. It is what we experience and observe all throughout our lives and have since recorded history. That's why the 8th grader laughs at the suggestion that pine trees growing elephants. That isn't a working definition. That is nonsense.

That is not true. Hovind keeps repeating the same idiotic error and he keeps getting the same correction. That he "does not have enough time" is his fault And no one suggested pine trees producing elephants. Hovind sounds like an idiot when he makes that claim. The only reason that Hovind can sound at all reasonable to you is demonstrated by your total ignorance of how evolution works. Pine trees and elephants are the same 'kind" , something that Hovind admitted to. They are both eukaryotes.

Macro-evolution? Perhaps these things are discussed later in the video? Don't jump ahead. Patience. Speciation? I've already pointed out to you that there can be many species in a Biblical kind so what significance is speciation?

I am not jumping ahead. You do not know what macroevolution is either. It is the same as speciation. When you admit to speciation you admit that macroevolution has occurred.

How educated does one have to be to have come to the conclusion that "dogs only have dogs?" Have you seen a dog give birth to a platypus? "Well," The veterinarian said. "We can't tell if your precious Sadie will deliver puppies again or orangutans this time. Maybe an eggplant. You just never know."

It is a statement that only an uneducated person would make. A person saying that thinks that he is making a point when he is not. Once again, there is no change in kinds in evolution. Let's start with you as an example. You had an ancestor (a very recent one) that was a human being, you are still a human being. No change of kind. You share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, that ancestor was an ape, you are still an ape. you share a common ancestor with lemurs, that ancestor was a primate, you are still a primate. You share a common ancestor with elephants, dogs, and cats, that ancestor was a placental mammal. You are still a placental mammal. Have you seen a "change of kind" yet? i could keep going back. What you will see is that as you go back the group that you belongs to gets larger and larger. That even occurs at the family level. As you go back to your father, then grandfather then great grandfather. you will see that the number of members in your group gets larger and larger. The same occurs as we go back on an evolutionary scale.

Then there's no conflict with the Bible, except for that Ra and you have said that Elephants and Pine Trees are related. Did an elephant adopt a pine tree for this anomaly? Related through marriage? What's the common ancestor? You don't know, do you? You might say something obtusely intellectual and academic like "We suspect it might have been a hyena."

Nonsense.

Except for the fact that there never were only two people. And instead of trying to make your self look like a fool you really should try to ask proper questions. A good starting point for you would be to realize that you are completely wrong and cannot refute something that you do not understand by asking ignorant 'gotcha" questions. You are not thinking properly. You need to work backwards in time, you can't just jump across.

Because they make more sense than the alternative, and, I might point out, they weren't used as sources they were mentioned as having proposed something that you stated. They agree with you.

Only for the completely ignorant that do not wish to learn. It does not take a lot of education to know that those people have no clue. Those that can do science have to lie to themselves to maintain their beliefs.

Just for your information, the common ancestor of the pinetree and elephant would have been so far back as to be totally unrecognizable as either. It would have been a single celled eukaryote. Neither plant nor animal. And you will find that quite often in evolution. When you have two very widely separated life forms their common ancestor will resemble neither of them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He created according to its kind. If you want to plant a pine tree you know that putting an elephant in the ground won't do the trick. Genesis 1:12a And the earth began to put forth grass, vegetation bearing seed according to its kind and trees yielding fruit, the seed of which is in it according to its kind.

And once again you can't refute an idea that you do not understand. You can only make others do massive face palming.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just calling an ape a human and a human an ape doesn't mean you can rationally state that an ape can produce a human. This is how evolution works. Just call things something else and make it almost like true.

How desperate do you have to be to reject God. Just reject him without the nonsensical adaptations.

But you do not know what an ape is. If you did you would realize that people are apes. Even the creationist man that first came up with a classification system for life realized that men were apes. Linnaeus challenged others to come up with a biological difference and none could be found.

This article may help you;

Why Are Humans Primates? | Science | Smithsonian

 

[Earthling]

That is only because you do not understand the nature of evidence. That is typical among those that avoid the sciences. Care to learn?

I don't know if I've posited this before, I think I have, but if not, I will here. You can teach me science if you will let me teach you the Bible.

Once again you ignore the concept of evidence. Scientific evidence is based upon testable ideas. If one side can produce evidence and the other cannot the other sides claims are less than worthless. Testable ideas can even when shown to be wrong give us an indication of the right way to go to find an answer. Untestable ideas are worthless in the world of science.

I understand this. I'm not ignoring the concept of evidence, I'm saying the evidence doesn't conflict with the Bible. The theory of evolution conflicts with the Bible because it states that grass can produce spider monkeys, is this correct? No. Evolution just says that they have similarities, as far as the evidence has presented itself so far. It only becomes problematic when the claim is made that they have a common ancestor. That somewhere down the line, grass produced spider monkeys or something to that effect.

Poorly worded phrase. The proper phrasing would be "a banana or another ape". We are apes whether you like it or not. And of course apes can make a human. Did your parents 'make' you? Your argument is specious and incredibly wrong.

This Is An Ape

This Is A Human

Now. I will admit. There are similarities, but they can't reproduce. That's all you have to come to grips with if you question the Biblical kind. As silly as it may seem to someone who insists they are one in the same while questioning my sense of reality. Everyone knows that what I'm saying is true. No one has ever seen anything contrary to it. Just because you call them the same thing doesn't mean anything. Except for that you are deluded.

Then we have directly observed macroevolution. In fact we can see it in progress with ring species. Ring species are a concept that cause your definition of "kind" to fail.

We will cross that bridge when we come to it. If you would stick to the facts it would take a great deal less time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know if I've posited this before, I think I have, but if not, I will here. You can teach me science if you will let me teach you the Bible.

The problem is that you are far from an expert in the Bible and refuse to use resources when needed. I will gladly support my claim with appropriate sources. When it comes to the Bible you appear to have no better of an understanding than I do.

I understand this. I'm not ignoring the concept of evidence, I'm saying the evidence doesn't conflict with the Bible. The theory of evolution conflicts with the Bible because it states that grass can produce spider monkeys, is this correct? No. Evolution just says that they have similarities, as far as the evidence has presented itself so far. It only becomes problematic when the claim is made that they have a common ancestor. That somewhere down the line, grass produced spider monkeys or something to that effect.

The Bible rally says nothing about that. And when you use such poor arguments there is no need to refute you.
try again.

This Is An Ape

This Is A Human

Now. I will admit. There are similarities, but they can't reproduce. That's all you have to come to grips with if you question the Biblical kind. As silly as it may seem to someone who insists they are one in the same while questioning my sense of reality. Everyone knows that what I'm saying is true. No one has ever seen anything contrary to it. Just because you call them the same thing doesn't mean anything. Except for that you are deluded.

Wrong again. They are both apes. In fact they are both great apes:


Hominidae - Wikipedia

We will cross that bridge when we come to it. If you would stick to the facts it would take a great deal less time.

I am the one sticking to facts here. I can support my claims, you can't seem to support yours.

 

[Earthling]

The problem is that you are far from an expert in the Bible and refuse to use resources when needed. I will gladly support my claim with appropriate sources. When it comes to the Bible you appear to have no better of an understanding than I do.

Well, then, so much for the exchange, let's move on, then.

The Bible rally says nothing about that. And when you use such poor arguments there is no need to refute you.

try again.



Wrong again. They are both apes. In fact they are both great apes:


Hominidae - Wikipedia


I am the one sticking to facts here. I can support my claims, you can't seem to support yours.

OK, thanks. Discussion over. I'm not going to waste my time with insults and accusations. You want to talk about the video let me know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, then, so much for the exchange, let's move on, then.



OK, thanks. Discussion over. I'm not going to waste my time with insults and accusations. You want to talk about the video let me know.

There were no insults, except from perhaps you. Trying to use moronic arguments is rather insulting.

You are in no position at all to refute evolution. You seem to have forgotten a very reasonable challenge that I offered in regards to Kent Hovind.

 

[Earthling]

There were no insults, except from perhaps you. Trying to use moronic arguments is rather insulting.

You see? There. That. When you have something to say other than that we can carry on. If my arguments are moronic then show me the error other than simply saying that I must think like you. I'll show you in a hypothetical example.

Hypothetical Earthling: The Bible constitutes a kind as anything that can reproduce. Dogs don't make cats, cats don't make dogs.

Hypothetical Subduction Zone: But the Bible doesn't say that.

Hypothetical Earthling: Genesis 1:12 says it.

Hypothetical Subduction Zone: That's too vague.

Hypothetical Earthling: It isn't vague at all. If you plant grass seed you get grass. It's simple.

You see?

You are in no position at all to refute evolution.

Okay.

You seem to have forgotten a very reasonable challenge that I offered in regards to Kent Hovind.

Is it buried in your arrogance and insults? I don't have time for it. I'm going to continue to watch and comment on the video you suggested, and I will comment on any points you have to make on the subject. I'm going to ignore your bull**** and concentrate on the meaningful things.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You see? There. That. When you have something to say other than that we can carry on. If my arguments are moronic then show me the error other than simply saying that I must think like you. I'll show you in a hypothetical example.

Hypothetical Earthling: The Bible constitutes a kind as anything that can reproduce. Dogs don't make cats, cats don't make dogs.

Hypothetical Subduction Zone: But the Bible doesn't say that.

Hypothetical Earthling: Genesis 1:12 says it.

Hypothetical Subduction Zone: That's too vague.

Hypothetical Earthling: It isn't vague at all. If you plant grass seed you get grass. It's simple.

You see?



Okay.



Is it buried in your arrogance and insults? I don't have time for it. I'm going to continue to watch and comment on the video you suggested, and I will comment to any points you have to make on the subject. I'm going to ignore you bull**** and concentrate on the meaningful things.

I explained your errors. You merely repeated them.

And you do not know the meaning of the word hypothesis either. What reasonable test could possibly refute any of your ideas?

 

[Earthling]

Moving on in the video, I think Aron and Kent both make excellent points. First Aron says that he thinks we should both start from not believing anything and just review the possibilities. That's what I'm trying to do here.

Kent makes the point which I've made in this thread, more or less, that just because you draw some lines on a piece of paper don't make something true.

It comes down to this. The Bible says, simply, that God created all living things, plants, animals and man, according to their kind. Genesis 1:12 The seed of which is in them.

Science has all sorts of ideas on how things are related which basically amount to similarities in organisms. That's fine, but it doesn't demonstrate the biblical kind as false until it makes the claim that certain organisms have a common ancestor.

That's the bottom line. That's where evolution and the Biblical kind are at odds. There may be more to it but that's the simple face of it.