Original research into intelligent design and/or creationism

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

'Arbitrary'? Okay. That's one way to put it, I suppose.

1) 'Kinds' is not plain language. It is vague. Define kinds please?
2) 'This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.'
Even assuming that's accurate, we're in the 21st century now...
New Thoughts On Evolution: Novel Method Of Creating New Species Observed In Laboratory Yeast

Kind is defined as things with common traits. So kind can work, since primates share common traits. Opposable thumbs, broken vitamin C gene. I'm sure there is more.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Kind is defined as things with common traits. So kind can work, since primates share common traits. Opposable thumbs, broken vitamin C gene. I'm sure there is more.

Nope. Kinds is not commonly defined at all. It is a word without a clearly defined meaning (in terms of biology). Primates are a species, which does have an agreed scientific definition.

The Definition of Kinds

Natural kind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Nope. Kinds is not commonly defined at all. It is a word without a clearly defined meaning (in terms of biology). Primates are a species, which does have an agreed scientific definition.

The Definition of Kinds

Natural kind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I assume that they arent using it biologically. If you go by the laymen definition which they are using that's what it means. It's how people will confuse scientific theory and laymen theory.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I assume that they arent using it biologically. If you go by the laymen definition which they are using that's what it means. It's how people will confuse scientific theory and laymen theory.

The problem is, it's just too hard to argue/debate when the other side uses a definition that is vague, and without a clear definition. If rusra02 equates kinds with species, then cool...I can work with it. But too often I've seen kinds equate with 'stuff that fits my argument'.

 

[Sculelos]

The best and only way to validate creation is by validating the accounts presented in the Bible or conversely find something that can't be true that's presented in the Bible.

All you would need to do to prove creation false is prove any Science in the Bible false. I'd say start with the Book of Enoch as it basically the Whole Bible condensed into 76 pages.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The problem is, it's just too hard to argue/debate when the other side uses a definition that is vague, and without a clear definition. If rusra02 equates kinds with species, then cool...I can work with it. But too often I've seen kinds equate with 'stuff that fits my argument'.

I think they do in some ways equate kind with species. Though they do it by physical qualities, I mean if you looked at a hyena by common traits you would say its related to a dog and you would then classify them by the same kind. When you through DNA and genetics into it, the biology of classification must change. Using kind however I notice ignores the other categories such as genus, and family.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The best and only way to validate creation is by validating the accounts presented in the Bible or conversely find something that can't be true that's presented in the Bible.

All you would need to do to prove creation false is prove any Science in the Bible false. I'd say start with the Book of Enoch as it basically the Whole Bible condensed into 76 pages.

You do realize that the book of Enoch is not widely accepted? I think only the church in Ethiopia accepted it....

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think they do in some ways equate kind with species. Though they do it by physical qualities, I mean if you looked at a hyena by common traits you would say its related to a dog and you would then classify them by the same kind. When you through DNA and genetics into it, the biology of classification must change. Using kind however I notice ignores the other categories such as genus, and family.

It's tougher than that though. Take the fox as an example. There are a dozen species, and that's only counting the vulpus genus.
If I was making a guess, I would imagine it's family, but I really just want to know what rusra02's definition is, to be honest.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You do realize that the book of Enoch is not widely accepted? I think only the church in Ethiopia accepted it....

You're forgetting the great schism between the Church of Ethiopia, and the Church of Eritrea after the civil war. Ahem...

 

[Sculelos]

You do realize that the book of Enoch is not widely accepted? I think only the church in Ethiopia accepted it....

I have read it and have found no fault with it and I've been studying the Bible very diligently practically all my life, Jude clearly refers to it in the New Testament and many times is it referred to throughout the entire Bible. It was essentially the Bible before the Bible was however it was not included with the Bible because it is the Bible and the Bible is an explanation of Enoch.

7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

8 And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again, and said, Go and take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which standeth upon the sea and upon the earth.

9 And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.

10 And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

It's tougher than that though. Take the fox as an example. There are a dozen species, and that's only counting the vulpus genus.
If I was making a guess, I would imagine it's family, but I really just want to know what rusra02's definition is, to be honest.

Maybe it's familyz

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The best and only way to validate creation is by validating the accounts presented in the Bible or conversely find something that can't be true that's presented in the Bible.

All you would need to do to prove creation false is prove any Science in the Bible false. I'd say start with the Book of Enoch as it basically the Whole Bible condensed into 76 pages.

This is the most useless exercise in the history of my time on RF, but what the hell, hey?

How about the entirety of 41?

1 And after this, I saw all the secrets of Heaven, and how the Kingdom is divided, and how the deeds of men are weighed in the Balance.
2 There I saw the Dwelling of the Chosen, and the Resting Places of the Holy; and my eyes saw there all the sinners who deny the name of the Lord of Spirits being driven from there. And they dragged them off, and they were not able to remain, because of the punishment that went out from the Lord of Spirits.
3 And there my eyes saw the secrets of the flashes of lightning and of the thunder. And the secrets of the winds, how they are distributed in order to blow over the earth, and the secrets of the clouds, and of the dew; and there I saw from where they go out, in that place. And how, from there, the dust of the earth is saturated.
4 And there I saw closed storehouses from which the winds are distributed, and the storehouse of the hail, and the storehouse of the mist, and the storehouse of the clouds; and its cloud remained over the earth, from the beginning of the world.
5 And I saw the Chambers of the Sun and the Moon, where they go out, and where they return. And their glorious return; and how one is more honoured than the other is. And their magnificent course, and how they do not leave their course, neither adding nor subtracting from their course. And how they keep faith in one another, observing their oath.
6 And the Sun goes out first, and completes its journey at the command of the Lord of Spirits - and his Name endures forever and ever.
7 And after this is the hidden, and visible, path of the Moon, and it travels the course of its journey, in that place, by day and by night. One stands opposite the other, in front of the Lord of Spirits, and they give thanks, and sing praise, and do not rest, because their thanksgiving is like rest to them.
8 For the shining Sun makes many revolutions; for a blessing and for a curse. And the path of the journey of the Moon is for the righteous light but for the sinners; darkness. In the Name of the Lord, who has created a division between light and darkness, and has divided the spirits of men, and has established the spirits of the righteous, in the name of His Righteousness.
9 For no Angel hinders, and no power is able to hinder, because the judge sees them all, and judges them all Himself.

 

[Skwim]

Primates are a species, which does have an agreed scientific definition.

Excuse me! It's an Order, and defined as . . .

A primate (praɪmeɪt/ PRY-mayt) is a mammal of the order Primates (praɪˈmeɪtiːz/ pry-MAY-teez; Latin: "prime, first rank"), which contains prosimians and simians.

​

Of course, if you're talking about the concept of species, you're correct, but so what?

​

​

 

[Sculelos]

This is the most useless exercise in the history of my time on RF, but what the hell, hey?

How about the entirety of 41?

I believe what it say's. And yes I do believe in Geo-centrism.

Check it out if you have time. The Earth Is Not Moving

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I believe what it say's. And yes I do believe in Geo-centrism.

Check it out if you have time. The Earth Is Not Moving

Lol...oh goodness.

 

[sonofdad]

I disagree.

Shared tansposons and ERVs show shared ancesrtry between species, i.e. shared line of hereditary DNA in different species. This can only happen through macroevolution.

Edit
And shared mutated synonymous codos too.

I was using "proof" in the absolute sense, and I don't think we can prove anything that way except things we define as true.
I agree though that macro evolution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. I would even say its the only rational explanation we have given the current evidence.

 

[sonofdad]

Similarities in DNA can and did happen when the same Person created the vast variety of living things on earth. A common practice amongst computer programmers is to reuse code in various applications that perform quit different functions. Surely, the Creator of all life could do likewise. So your statement that this could only happen through macro evolution is simply not valid, IMO.

Like I said, if shared DNA was the only factor, we could draw many different conclusions from it. Yours could be a valid hypothesis if you could reasonably explain observed (micro)evolution. If DNA was copied perfectly from generation to generation, if mutations weren't inherited, I would find it quite reasonable to think that living creatures came about exactly the way they are now, even if different species shared some genetic material.

But we're seeing evolution in action every day, with every single generation there are variations and there are no apparent boundaries to these variations.

Given the evidence of observed (micro)evolution AND shared DNA that forms an ancestral lineage when compared, the only rational explanation would be that all living things (that we know of) share common ancestry.
This holds true unless some kind of boundary is discovered that prevents species from diverging beyond a certain point. So far, we have not found it. Species can diverge to a point of cross breeding becoming impossible and I don't know of any other mechanisms that could potentially prevent (macro)evolution.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Excuse me! It's an Order, and defined as . . .

A primate (praɪmeɪt/ PRY-mayt) is a mammal of the order Primates (praɪˈmeɪtiːz/ pry-MAY-teez; Latin: "prime, first rank"), which contains prosimians and simians.

​

Of course, if you're talking about the concept of species, you're correct, but so what?

​

​

Meh, lazy post on my part, and you're right.
The point is, you can put up a chart with agreed definitions of all those scientific terms. Kinds is not one. So if kinds is being used as a definition in an argument I'm trying to refute, I really need to understand what is meant by kinds. That's it.

 

[Ouroboros]

Be kind to each other...

 

[Ouroboros]

I was using "proof" in the absolute sense, and I don't think we can prove anything that way except things we define as true.
I agree though that macro evolution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. I would even say its the only rational explanation we have given the current evidence.

Ah.

Perhaps it would be better if I'd said "it's evident from transposons, ERVs, and inherited synonymous codon mutations that different species share common ancestors." Proof can easily be confused with mathematical proof, which is a different thing.