tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post6634468521888425199..comments2024-03-19T01:46:23.275-04:00Comments on Debunking Atheists: Science (continued)D. A. N. http://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-61649434754460989122008-09-03T06:33:00.000-04:002008-09-03T06:33:00.000-04:00Dan- quasar the prophet said it. While I wouldn't...Dan- quasar the prophet said it. While I wouldn't characterize this as "lying", your implied equivalence of "making a sow's ear into silk purse" with "evolution" demonstrates a rather faulty knowledge of how evolution works. Do you imagine that believing in evolution gives one license to believe that anything can change into anything else? That's not quite how it works.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-89200945796591766102008-09-02T21:57:00.000-04:002008-09-02T21:57:00.000-04:00Hey look! I'm a prophet!I said:"It is possible to ...Hey look! I'm a prophet!<BR/><BR/><B>I said:</B><BR/><I>"It is possible to phrase something to make it sound more silly than it actually is while not actually lying about it.<BR/><BR/>...<BR/><BR/>[The above] can be done to a certain extent about evolution or atheism, although you come dangerously close to lying when you do."</I><BR/><BR/><B>And then Dan said:</B><BR/><I>"You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear".<BR/>This coming from a man that believes that we came from pond scum or amphibious fish? Um, OK."</I>Quasarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04219765882891909223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-55259634107794877262008-09-02T17:17:00.000-04:002008-09-02T17:17:00.000-04:00Dan- if you cannot begin to ask me to intellectual...Dan- if you cannot begin to ask me to intellectually understand the concepts in the Bible, how <I>do</I> you expect me to understand them? I can't smell them or taste them; any kind of understanding, including God speaking to me, would require the participation of my intellect. Now, perhaps you mean that I should simply try not to think too hard about the meaning, and just groove on the vibes. That works pretty well for some parts (the Song of Songs, for instance) and is not so much fun for others (1 Samuel 15, for instance).<BR/><BR/>Sorry, Dan, I can't suspend reason that easily. And I think I pretty much do understand the Bible intellectually (not in depth: I'm no Bible scholar): it's a fascinating mixture of history and myth, timeless morals and others that civilized people gave up a long time ago, and great and not-so-great poetry. And since it was written so long ago, a lot of the descriptions of how the world works are, not surprisingly, outdated.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-84912717540869825452008-09-02T16:15:00.000-04:002008-09-02T16:15:00.000-04:00Zilch,"Stan- yes, there's no way to make a believa...Zilch,<BR/><BR/><I>"Stan- yes, there's no way to make a believable story out of Noah's Ark. I've heard lots of apologists try, but you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, as they say."</I><BR/><BR/>I cannot even begin to ask you to intellectually understand the concepts in the Bible. This reminds me of a <A HREF="http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2008/07/you-just-claim-that-jesus-christ-is.html" REL="nofollow">past post</A> though.<BR/><BR/>"You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear" This coming from a man that believes that we came from pond scum or amphibious fish? Um, OK.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-75080133278794249512008-09-02T10:51:00.000-04:002008-09-02T10:51:00.000-04:00"To reject one paradigm without substituting anoth..."To reject one paradigm without substituting another is to reject science itself."<BR/><BR/>Patently false.<BR/><BR/>Science NEVER desires an explanation enough to ignore the iterative process of <B>hypothesis - experiment - theory - review</B>. if one explanation doesn't work, the search for a valid explanation continues. There's no substitution (unless physical evidence suggests the likelihood of the substitute being valid).<BR/><BR/>In any case, there's never been enough contrary evidence to disprove the theory of evolution. On the whole, the ToE actually changes over time, and absorbs new information to make more accurate predictions.<BR/><BR/>Intelligent Design makes no predictions, is not testable, and is not science.<BR/><BR/>Christians are the one trying to substitute their dogma for real science. It's the pot calling the kettle black.Whatevermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14458601080799278850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-22143153657151690572008-09-02T04:42:00.000-04:002008-09-02T04:42:00.000-04:00Stan- yes, there's no way to make a believable sto...Stan- yes, there's no way to make a believable story out of Noah's Ark. I've heard lots of apologists try, but you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, as they say.<BR/><BR/>Quasar: yes, after I wrote that last comment, I realized that I was guilty of what I accused Dan of doing: setting up a straw man with my hot-footed penguins. But there is a difference: while the explanations that science offers for, say, how penguins got to Antarctica, are not complete and are subject to revision, the Biblical explanation for the same thing is <I>nonexistent</I>. And given that the Biblical account is incomplete, contradictory to both facts and itself within the Bible (two or seven of each "kind"?), and not subject to revision (are more books of the Bible being discovered and accepted?), then there's no reason to claim that my hot-footed penguin account is any less likely (according to the Bible) than any other.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-31031944549255095212008-09-01T19:29:00.000-04:002008-09-01T19:29:00.000-04:00However, to be fair, it is possible to phrase some...However, to be fair, it is possible to phrase something to make it sound more silly than it actually is while not actually lying about it. For example, I don't find modern christianity 'silly', but I recently found the following rather amusing definition which does a pretty good job of making it appear so.<BR/><BR/>Dan: I apologise in advance for what may be considered blasphemy, but in my defence this isn't <I>my</I> definition or opinion, and I'm merely using it to illustrate a point.<BR/><BR/><B>Christianity</B><BR/><I>The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. </I><BR/>— Author unknown<BR/><BR/>The same thing can be done to a certain extent about evolution or atheism, although you come dangerously close to lying when you do.Quasarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04219765882891909223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-52495469695218864972008-09-01T15:16:00.000-04:002008-09-01T15:16:00.000-04:00At some point, you have to simply say, "this is ju...<I>At some point, you have to simply say, "this is just too silly to be true".</I><BR/><BR/>Preach it, brother.<BR/><BR/>I wanted to poke extra fun at the notion of infant and/or "young" representatives of the "kinds" of animals -- considering that most often a species' young require more nutrition then they do when they are older. Of course, the fanciful hypothesis ignores completely that the Genesis account of the flood indicates that the event lasted over a year. How many "adolescent" animals grow to full adulthood in the span of a year?<BR/><BR/>No, I apologize -- I'm being too facetious. It's absolutely possible for eight iron-age ancients to survive over a year confined to a floating zoo, while managing the care and maintenance of the same zoo. It's too bad god didn't show Noah how to harness electricity, refrigeration, hydroponics, and any number of other helpful technologies to ease his efforts...<BR/><BR/>Yeah, I guess a big wooden boat with anywhere from a few thousand [later rapidly evolving] species to a few hundred million -- two and/or seven of each -- with the most advanced available technology being fire or a rudimentary sea-rudder, is the best an omniscient, omnipotent being could do.<BR/><BR/>Wait -- what was it Zilch said?<BR/><BR/><I>At some point, you have to simply say, "this is just too silly to be true".</I><BR/><BR/>Oh yeah. Now I remember.<BR/><BR/>--<BR/>StanStan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-36396223215461022892008-09-01T09:18:00.000-04:002008-09-01T09:18:00.000-04:00Just as a point of interest, here is a list of spe...Just as a point of interest, here is a list of species in <I>Canidae</I>, the dog family (extinct species are marked with a "†"):<BR/><BR/>Side-striped Jackal, Canis adustus<BR/>Golden Jackal, Canis aureus<BR/>Coyote, Canis latrans (also called Prairie Wolf)<BR/>Gray Wolf, Canis lupus (2.723 Ma to present)<BR/>Red Wolf, Canis lupus rufus (3 Ma to present)<BR/>Domestic Dog, Canis lupus familiaris<BR/>Dingo, most often classified as Canis lupus dingo<BR/>New Guinea Singing Dog, Canis lupus hallstromi<BR/>many other proposed subspecies<BR/>Black-backed Jackal, Canis mesomelas<BR/>Ethiopian Wolf, Canis simensis (also called Abyssinian Wolf, Simien Fox and Simien Jackal)<BR/>Genus Cynotherium †<BR/>Sardinian Dhole, Cynotherium sardous †<BR/>Genus Cuon<BR/>Dhole, Cuon alpinus or Canis alpinus (also called Asian Wild Dog)<BR/>Genus Lycaon<BR/>African Wild Dog, Lycaon pictus (also called African Hunting Dog)<BR/>Genus Indocyon†<BR/>Indian Mute Dog, Indocyon caribensis † (also called Caribbean Dog)<BR/>Genus Cubacyon<BR/>Cuban Dhole, Cubacyon transversidens †<BR/>Genus Atelocynus<BR/>Short-eared Dog, Atelocynus microtis<BR/>Genus Cerdocyon<BR/>Crab-eating Fox, Cerdocyon thous<BR/>Genus Dasycyon † ?<BR/>Hagenbeck Wolf, Dasycyon hagenbecki † ?<BR/>Genus Dusicyon †<BR/>Falkland Island Fox, Dusicyon australis †<BR/>Genus Pseudalopex<BR/>Culpeo, Pseudalopex culpaeus<BR/>Darwin's Fox, Pseudalopex fulvipes<BR/>Argentine Grey Fox, Pseudalopex griseus<BR/>Pampas Fox, Pseudalopex gymnocercus<BR/>Sechura Fox, Pseudalopex sechurae<BR/>Hoary Fox, Pseudalopex vetulus<BR/>Genus Chrysocyon<BR/>Maned Wolf, Chrysocyon brachyurus<BR/>Genus Speothos<BR/>Bush Dog, Speothos venaticus<BR/>unnamed bush dog species, Speothos pacivorus †<BR/>True foxes - Tribe Vulpini<BR/>Genus Vulpes<BR/>Arctic Fox, Vulpes lagopus<BR/>Red Fox, Vulpes vulpes (1 Ma to present)<BR/>Swift Fox, Vulpes velox<BR/>Kit Fox, Vulpes macrotis<BR/>Corsac Fox, Vulpes corsac<BR/>Cape Fox, Vulpes chama<BR/>Pale Fox, Vulpes pallida<BR/>Bengal Fox, Vulpes bengalensis<BR/>Tibetan Sand Fox, Vulpes ferrilata<BR/>Blanford's Fox, Vulpes cana<BR/>Rüppell's Fox, Vulpes rueppelli<BR/>Fennec Fox, Vulpes zerda<BR/>Genus Urocyon (2 Ma to present)<BR/>Gray Fox, U. cinereoargenteus<BR/>Island Fox, U. littoralis<BR/>Cozumel Fox, U. sp.<BR/>Basal Caninae<BR/>Genus Otocyon (probably a vulpine close to Urocyon)<BR/>Bat-eared Fox, Otocyon megalotis<BR/>Genus Nyctereutes<BR/>Raccoon Dog, Nyctereutes procyonoides<BR/><BR/>While a few of these are known to be cross-fertile, for instance wolves with coyotes, most are not. That means the Ark must have been bigger on the inside than the outside, if all of these "kinds" were aboard, along with the more than 5000 other mammal species, not to mention the teenage dinosaurs and the bugs, crocs, frogs, and birds, etc.<BR/><BR/>And how did kangaroos get to Australia from Mt. Ararat? Did they swim, using their powerful tails as propellers, and did the mama kangaroo carry the koalas in her pouch, and the papa kangaroo carry the duck-billed platypuses on his back? How did the penguins get across the Sahara? Did they just run very quickly across the hot sand, saying "ow ow ow" in Penguinish? At some point, you have to simply say, "this is just too silly to be true".zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-16556736434862311612008-08-31T19:57:00.000-04:002008-08-31T19:57:00.000-04:00NO, Ray asks people if they ever lied. If they adm...<I>NO, Ray asks people if they ever lied. If they admit they have then "by their own admission" they are a lair.</I><BR/><BR/>I see. Then what exactly has so offended you, since you have admitted previously to being a liar?<BR/><BR/><I>Why? Just because you say so? You have given no evidence to back up your claim just ad hominems.</I><BR/><BR/>First, you have demonstrated multiple times now that you are completely incapable of accurately identifying an <I>ad hominem</I> fallacy, despite your willingness to accuse any of your opponents of using one.<BR/><BR/>Second, I showed you the Hebrew words used, and the ways in which they were used, including providing Strong's reference numbers. Your unwillingness to review my supplied research into the subject is not my problem.<BR/><BR/>The fact is that the term "kinds" -- the one used in the Genesis creation account(s), is also used to identify various "kinds" of cattle.<BR/><BR/><I>Calling me a liar isn't quoting some '50s TV show no matter how you spin it, stay on subject.</I><BR/><BR/>I am tempted to think otherwise, but I shall assume for the moment that this is merely a misunderstanding. I said "Golly, gee, Wally", and you accused me of blasphemy. If you were not accusing that phrase of being blasphemy, then we do indeed have a misunderstanding, <B><I>but</I></B> I should think it noteworthy that you find "geez" to be blasphemous, but not "golly, gee".<BR/><BR/>As I have mentioned to you before, with which you agreed, base profanity and so-called "blasphemous" speech are in fact more appropriate than pseudo-euphemisms like "golly". Substituting an inoffensive word for an offensive one is condescending, and therefore <I><B>more</B></I> offensive than the word or phrase it is replacing. If you prefer, however, I shall from now on use "frack", "shizno", "Jesse", and "gob" for the words you find so offensive... but only if you give me leave.<BR/><BR/><I>Treat others how you would treat your own mother or even better, treat me like a stranger because people are more likely to be curious and polite to strangers.</I><BR/><BR/>The problem here, Dan, is that you are not a stranger, <I>per se</I>. We have a rapport through online dialogue, and as with anyone with whom I had such a dialogue, if you constantly misrepresent the facts and my statements, and if you likewise constantly change the rules when defending your apparent heroes, I will call you out. When I said, "learn to read", it was because of your blatant disregard for what I had said. You basically ignored my statement(s) and trucked on as though nothing had happened.<BR/><BR/>So, I understand that you took it as insulting, but rather than merely cry that I'm being a big meanie, perhaps you should also reevaluate your own actions, which prompted my statement in the first place. For what it's worth, I shall refrain from such obviously offensive speech in the future, but I expect a reciprocal commitment on your part -- to stop pretending my points have no impact, or to at least address them in such a manner that you explain why you feel they are able to be ignored.<BR/><BR/>I had said:<BR/><BR/><B>As with most wannabe apologists, you...</B><BR/><BR/>To which you replied:<BR/><BR/><I>Again? it's your tone, dude.</I><BR/><BR/>Now you're just taking offense to everything. Are you not a wannabe apologist, inasmuch as I am a wannabe anti-apologist? Or do you consider yourself more credentialed because you started a blog? This was not mocking, it was matter-of-fact.<BR/><BR/>I later quoted Zilch, who had said:<BR/><BR/><B>I would not be surprised if the "kinds" mentioned in Genesis were pretty close to "species". But so what?</B><BR/><BR/>Which you misrepresented as having been my own statement, when you asked:<BR/><BR/><I>So then we agree that I didn't lie?</I><BR/><BR/>How many times must I assume that these misrepresentations are accidental or otherwise innocent?<BR/><BR/>First, I said you had distorted the truth, in an effort to avoid calling you a liar, since you took such great offense -- even though calling you a liar would be <I>no different</I> than what Ray and friends have done every episode. You have, after all, admitted to being a liar.<BR/><BR/>Second, as noted, this was <I>not my quote</I>. I quoted Zilch to show that a) I recognize that my position is not exclusive, and b) that it doesn't affect my argument. Please don't make me explicitly state every little thing to make sure you have no excuses for misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting my statements.<BR/><BR/><I>Please back up this claim [that there was not enough room on the ark for all the "kinds" of creatures].<BR/><BR/>Instead of having lions, tigers, cougars, mountain lions, cheetahs, Bobcats and Mountain lions and house cats all on the ark you would only have to have just two m/f of one kind so the number would be drastically reduced.</I><BR/><BR/>Except, as I pointed out -- with links -- the term "kinds", that is, the Hebrew term, was used to identify various "kinds" of cattle, sheep, and other creatures. Besides that, you continue to try to have your cake and eat it, too, when you insist that one "kind" of large cat could rapidly mutate into the many species of large cats we find today, over only a few thousand years, yet you simultaneously insist that bats were part of the birds "kind".<BR/><BR/>The bare truth is that the term "kind" as you choose to use it was not used until <I>after</I> the flood, and then only <I>once</I>, to describe groups of animals. Every other time the term is used, it refers to humans. <I>Prior</I> to the flood -- that is, during the story, but before the rain started -- the term was used to identify types of oxen, cattle, sheep, etc. -- such that my claim regarding the finite space on the ark is justified.<BR/><BR/>The standard AiG response that "young" representative animals, and broad "kinds" of animals, might have been used, is just another example of tailoring the interpretation to fit with what we now know. Clearly, the author of the Noah account was unfamiliar with the veritable plethora of exotic species -- even various unknown <I>local</I> species -- else the fantastic story of Noah assembling all these creatures might have been more credible.<BR/><BR/>I have shown you that the term "kinds" does not conform to your convenient interpretation. I here leave it to you to refute what I have said, to adjust your theory to compensate, or to abandon it altogether.<BR/><BR/>You continuously deny that your interpretations of biblical accounts are dynamic in nature, but I, and many others, have shown you how this is untrue, at least in certain examples. This "kinds" argument is one such example.<BR/><BR/>--<BR/>StanStan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-23437004339627910452008-08-30T17:36:00.000-04:002008-08-30T17:36:00.000-04:00The accusatory tone was not unnecessary. Changes i...The accusatory tone was not unnecessary. Changes in meaning do occur fit creationists agendas.<BR/><BR/>G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-19069137347104715222008-08-30T17:34:00.000-04:002008-08-30T17:34:00.000-04:00Dan,"They, and every beast after his kind, and all...Dan,<BR/><BR/><I>"They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort."</I><BR/><BR/>Please observe that this does not mean that all creeping things are a "single kind." That would not be logical. I can't believe I am <B>defending the Bible</B>. It starts with semi-generic (cattle), and goes into very generic (creeping thing), but not to mean that every creeping thing is a single "species," but so as to try and cover everything in a single paragraph.<BR/><BR/><I>You will never find a flying cow.</I><BR/><BR/>Where did this come from?<BR/><BR/><I>Why would His Word specifically mention cattle if it were general classification?</I><BR/><BR/>Because we do this in general speech! We can mention something very specific, then apply the same principle to big groups. If the meanign were as you suggest, then the passage would be saying that "every beast" is a single species. <B>It is obvious that this is not "defining" kind. It is assuming we know what "kind" means, and just tells us that each "kind" (probably species) does whatever it is that this passage is talking about.</B><BR/><BR/>I hope this is clear.<BR/><BR/>And you keep forgetting that you accept foxes and wolves, but not humans and chimps despite we are closer to chimps than foxes to wolves.<BR/><BR/>G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-58519567509038739182008-08-30T16:25:00.000-04:002008-08-30T16:25:00.000-04:00Zilch,"But you also claim that the "kinds" mention...Zilch,<BR/><BR/><I>"But you also claim that the "kinds" mentioned in Genesis are, by definition, all those animals that can successfully breed together. So can bats breed with birds?"</I><BR/><BR/>A valid point. The "One sure fire test" was my own concoction though, not the Bibles. <BR/><BR/>GE,<BR/><BR/><I>"To me it makes more sense that when the bible says "each bird to its kind" it means each particular kind of bird, not that all birds are a single kind."</I><BR/><BR/>I disagree these animals are made after their own kind. <BR/><BR/>"They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort."<BR/><BR/>You will never find a flying cow.<BR/><BR/>Why would His Word specifically mention cattle if it were general classification?<BR/><BR/><I>"But you guys change and reinterpret to fit your particular goal of the day. Sure you read anything Dan? Or are there more than one Dan here? If you pretend to debunk atheists you should listen to them."</I><BR/><BR/>Totally unnecessary accusatory tone. These type of personal attacks need to be stopped even if I have to be the one to stop it. You are in threat level charlie please don't raise it to delta.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-9042280350563046242008-08-30T15:23:00.000-04:002008-08-30T15:23:00.000-04:00And remember, all started with our criticism of Ra...And remember, all started with our criticism of Ray's definition of species, which you then claimed was not his, but the Bible's!<BR/><BR/>G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-29183121524835909152008-08-30T15:22:00.000-04:002008-08-30T15:22:00.000-04:00Stan proved you wrong nicely. You interpret the wh...Stan proved you wrong nicely. You interpret the whole thing as "ad hominem" but he did prove you wrong and biased. You did say "families" before Dan.<BR/><BR/>You agreed with Ray's broad definition, and that is not "species", but varies in grade and scope from species to genera, to families, to very very broad. Canidae are not a sigle species, and I have insisted that if they are then logically we and the chimps are the same species too. You just ignore us. I doubt the bible uses such a broad definition of "kind." To me it makes more sense that when the bible says "each bird to its kind" it means each particular kind of bird, not that all birds are a single kind. But you guys change and reinterpret to fit your particular goal of the day.<BR/><BR/>Sure you read anything Dan? Or are there more than one Dan here? If you pretend to debunk atheists you should listen to them.<BR/><BR/>G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-25247206103731658292008-08-30T14:25:00.000-04:002008-08-30T14:25:00.000-04:00Stan,"Anyway, doesn't Ray Comfort call people liar...Stan,<BR/><BR/><I>"Anyway, doesn't Ray Comfort call people liars, adulterers, and thieves on each of his shows?"</I><BR/><BR/>NO, Ray asks people if they ever lied. If they admit they have then <B>"by their own admission"</B> they are a lair. You may owe Ray an apology also.<BR/><BR/><I>'Species', in the Bible is described as 'kinds' or 'families'<BR/><BR/>...which is a distortion of the truth.</I><BR/><BR/>Why? Just because you say so? You have given no evidence to back up your claim just ad hominems. <BR/><BR/>Prove me wrong. I claim "after their kind" as the modern description of "species" prove that to be a lie or apologize.<BR/><BR/>Calling me a liar isn't quoting some '50s TV show no matter how you spin it, stay on subject.<BR/><BR/><I>"No, Dan, learn to read."</I><BR/><BR/>You just love to push that envelope, it's not your points it's your tone that I am getting fed up with. Treat others how you would treat your own mother or even better, treat me like a stranger because people are more likely to be curious and polite to strangers. You are being obnoxious, please please with sugar, stop and be kind when talking to people. <BR/><BR/><I>"As with most wannabe apologists, you,"</I><BR/><BR/>Again? it's your tone, dude. I am being as patient as I can be but I suspect you insist on being martyred for some reason. Stop being mean and be lighthearted and fun. <BR/><BR/><I>I would not be surprised if the "kinds" mentioned in Genesis were pretty close to "species". But so what?</I><BR/><BR/>So then we agree that I didn't lie?<BR/><BR/><I>"there could not have been room on his ark for all of those "kinds" of animals."</I><BR/><BR/>Please back up this claim.<BR/><BR/>Instead of having lions, tigers, cougars, mountain lions, cheetahs, Bobcats and Mountain lions and house cats all on the ark you would only have to have just two m/f of one kind so the number would be drastically reduced. Plus another very important possibility you may have overlooked is that these animals didn't <B>have</B> to be full grown adults. Two cub lions is all that was needed to accomplish the task. They are smaller and eat less. That would be my most logical approach to the situation. <BR/><BR/>I look forward though to your data to prove your "no room" hypothesis otherwise you owe even Noah an apology also. <BR/><BR/>I am giving you all the room to right the wrongs Stan. I am being as patiently as possible, I like you, but if you refuse to do the right thing then you will give me no choice to lovingly rebuke you. That is the best thing I can do for you. Please, please be friendly or go away.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-36548888048103373582008-08-30T13:40:00.000-04:002008-08-30T13:40:00.000-04:00So now quoting Leave it to Beaver counts as blasph...So now quoting <I>Leave it to Beaver</I> counts as blasphemy in your Kangaroo Court?<BR/><BR/>Pshaw.<BR/><BR/>Tell you what -- provide me a list of every word and/or phrase that is offensive to you in some way so that I can reference them when I consider typing something. If even typing these phrases is an offensive notion for you, feel free to omit a character with a symbol -- I'm sure I can figure it out.<BR/><BR/>Calling you a liar may have hurt, but sometimes the truth does, yes?<BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><BR/><I>'Species', in the Bible is described as 'kinds' or 'families'</I><BR/><BR/>...which is a distortion of the truth.<BR/><BR/>If you would like to be described as something other than a liar, you had the opportunity to explain your statement in your "response" to my post. Rather, you chose to threaten me with banishment for stating the truth and for quoting a wholesome '50s TV show. Perhaps your next "response" will be more effective in this aim. Anyway, doesn't Ray Comfort call people liars, adulterers, and thieves on each of his shows?<BR/><BR/><I>You have imposed upon the ancient text a modern system of categorization and then say that the Bible is wrong?</I><BR/><BR/>No, Dan, learn to read. <B><I>You</I></B> imposed the modern system on the ancient text, which I have already requoted in this reply, in case you had forgotten what you had written.<BR/><BR/>As with most wannabe apologists, you, Ray Comfort, Ken Ham, <I>et al</I> have implemented a sliding scale for use with your convenient interpretations -- when you need a tight interpretation, "kinds" mean "species", but when you need a loose interpretation, "kinds" mean "baramins". When even these fail, you bust out "but the bible is not scientific..."<BR/><BR/>Zilch, clear as always, had this to say:<BR/><BR/><I>I would not be surprised if the "kinds" mentioned in Genesis were pretty close to "species". But so what? ... Simply playing around with the definition of "kind" so that it corresponds to the modern idea of "species", or genera, or families, or whatever, has zero information content.</I><BR/><BR/>(Note: the omitted portion of this quote is also relevant, but my point in this case leads us elsewhere)<BR/><BR/>In point of fact, Dan's concept of "kind" (or "kinds", depending on the translation), is based on the sliding scale of convenient definition/interpretation YECs use. The actual word used in the Hebrew (Strong's 04327) is the same in Genesis 1 <B><I>and</I></B> in Genesis 6, as well as various other areas. What this means to Dan is that he cannot argue both positions: that "kinds" was focused as in <I>species</I>, and that elsewhere it was broad as in "baramins".<BR/><BR/>[You have ignored my statement regarding the fact that bats and birds are obviously different to even a blind Hebrew could tell the difference, but as Zilch says, "so what?" You cannot have it both ways.]<BR/><BR/>If "kinds" is the strict definition implied in the Noah account, then your hypothesis fails regarding the "dog" kind, or the "bird" kind, etc. -- there could not have been room on his ark for all of those "kinds" of animals. If it is loose, which is a possible interpretation of the creation account, then you must first explain the difference in use, and second explain the use of Strong's 04940, which is <B><I>also</I></B> used in the Noah account (Genesis 8:19, to describe groups of animals), as well as to describe <B><I>humans</I></B>, as in Genesis 10, and <B><I>everywhere else</I></B> that Hebrew term is used.<BR/><BR/>Curiously, this seems to imply that independent species (read: not able to inter-breed) <I>entered</I> the ark, while a broader taxonomic category of organism (read: able to inter-breed) <I>exited</I> -- just what sort of genetic manipulations was Noah performing on that ark, anyway?<BR/><BR/>So, your sliding scale of convenient interpretation shows us that the bible is anything but clear regarding the lines drawn between taxonomic organizations. In some senses, it seems to match well with our current notion of <I>species</I>, whereas in others, it matches more closely with our notion of <I>race</I>, or <I>breed</I>.<BR/><BR/>It's almost as if the authors didn't know, which almost suggests that we shouldn't draw such rigid conclusions from their writings...<BR/><BR/>--<BR/>StanStan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-54448332144250687012008-08-30T12:33:00.000-04:002008-08-30T12:33:00.000-04:00Dan,You did not answer the question whatsoever: Wh...Dan,<BR/><BR/>You did not answer the question whatsoever: Why foxes and wolves yes, humans and chimps no, despite all science shows that humans and chimps are closer than foxes and wolves (there seems to be several species of wolves and foxes, but let us keep it that way for now).<BR/><BR/>I was not calling names to those who twist the bible to look scientific. Just a proper description.<BR/><BR/>G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-77012554483411049522008-08-30T02:59:00.000-04:002008-08-30T02:59:00.000-04:00Stan- I must hasten to point out that I am not a b...Stan- I must hasten to point out that I am not a biologist. In my third year at UC Berkeley I decided to major in music, not biology or paleontology. I did get a pretty good upper-division science education there, and I have tried to keep up with current developments as much as possible. But I am merely a wannabe, and an amateur biologist, not a real one.<BR/><BR/>Dan- you say that the Bible classified bats as birds because both fly. Fair enough. But you also claim that the "kinds" mentioned in Genesis are, by definition, all those animals that can successfully breed together. So can bats breed with birds? Or does the Bible make a distinction between different categorical schemes for animals? Not that I know of.<BR/><BR/>More to the point: people all over the world classify animals and plants, and the classifications of even Stone Age tribes are usually amazingly accurate: they correspond almost one-to-one with the species classifications of modern science. This is not really surprising, if you think about it: people depend critically on their knowledge of the world and its living things, and they are very good observers.<BR/><BR/>Thus, I would not be surprised if the "kinds" mentioned in Genesis were pretty close to "species". But so what? The point is, it is now known that species can evolve to the point that they become new species, incapable of breeding with the old species, and this was not known to the authors of Genesis. Simply playing around with the definition of "kind" so that it corresponds to the modern idea of "species", or genera, or families, or whatever, has zero information content.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-21426896109147427522008-08-30T00:28:00.000-04:002008-08-30T00:28:00.000-04:00Stanx3"The term species is not mentioned in the bi...Stanx3<BR/><BR/><I>"The term species is not mentioned in the bible in any of the KJV, YLT, NIV, or NLT translations. Not once."</I><BR/><BR/>Neither is computer, sauerkraut and internet so what, what's your point?<BR/><BR/>Dinosaurs aren't either but there they are in Job 40.<BR/><BR/>Read Genesis 1:21-25<BR/><BR/>"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, <B>after their kind</B>, and every winged fowl <B>after his kind</B>:..." <BR/><BR/>The Bible makes generic categorizations.<BR/><BR/><I>"It is incorrect because it categorizes bats, as you have noted, with birds, despite the fact that a cursory inspection by even the most zoologically illiterate peasant will discover that the only similarity between bats and birds is the fact they each fly."</I><BR/><BR/>Come on now you must be aware that it is modern science that has a different classification system than ancient times. <BR/><BR/>I have <A HREF="http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2008/08/logic-says-bible-is-supernatural_15.html?showComment=1219177440000#c2089414921656389972" REL="nofollow">addressed this</A> in the past but let me repeat it:<BR/><BR/>The Bible is not meant to be a scientific description of modern biological categories. Instead, it is often written from the perspective of what we see. In other words, it makes generic categorizations. In this case, the bat is categorized as a bird because like birds, it flies and is similar in size to most birds. If we did not know that it was a mammal, it would be natural to call it a bird. To the Hebrew of ancient times, calling it a bird was perfectly logical. But, in modern times with our science of being able to categorize animal species, we know that the bat is actually a mammal and not a bird.<BR/><BR/>Also, we must be aware that it is modern science that has a different classification system than ancient times. To the ancients, creatures such as a bat were considered birds since they categorized all flying animals as birds. If that is the category that they used, then they were correct. It is not an error. It is a difference of categorization procedures. You have imposed upon the ancient text a modern system of categorization and then say that the Bible is wrong?<BR/><BR/>Stan, man to man, you are close to never being allowed a voice here again. Maybe that is your goal but you calling me a lair coupled with the blasphemy is unacceptable behavior. You will apologize or go away, your choice. <BR/><BR/>GE<BR/><BR/><I>"Hopefully you can also explain me why you would accept the evolution of wolves and foxes from a common ancestor"</I><BR/><BR/>Actually I don't know but if a Great Dane and a chiwawa can then I would believe that wolves and foxes can. One sure fire test would be that if Wolves and Foxes can interbreed. If they can then they are of the same "kind" otherwise then they are not. Anyone know the answer if they can?<BR/><BR/>And please GE don't call anyone names we are all adults we can discuss ting civilly.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-70169767726815922562008-08-29T20:32:00.000-04:002008-08-29T20:32:00.000-04:00Dan,Please show me a passage of the Bible stating ...Dan,<BR/><BR/>Please show me a passage of the Bible stating that foxes and wolves are the same kind ... and of course all the other kinds "defined" not by Ray of Ham, or whomever, but by the Bible ...<BR/><BR/>Hopefully you can also explain me why you would accept the evolution of wolves and foxes from a common ancestor, but not for humans and chimps given that science very clearly shows that they are even less related to each other than humans and chimps.<BR/><BR/>G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-89498673040659323482008-08-29T19:53:00.000-04:002008-08-29T19:53:00.000-04:00Dan, Dan, Dan...'Species', in the Bible is describ...Dan, Dan, Dan...<BR/><BR/><I>'Species', in the Bible is described as 'kinds' or 'families'</I><BR/><BR/>That is a lie.<BR/><BR/>The term <I>species</I> is not mentioned in the bible in any of the KJV, YLT, NIV, or NLT translations. Not once.<BR/><BR/>To make a statement such as you have is to add to the bible to suit your own material ends -- namely, to make Cinderella's shoe fit ugly Drizella.<BR/><BR/>Your statement is a lie because no one will believe you didn't already know this. No one will believe that you weren't cavalierly redefining terms in and out of the bible to fit your paradigm.<BR/><BR/>Plainly put, and I welcome the input of actual biologists such as Zilch, the classifications listed in the bible are both ambiguous and incorrect. They are ambiguous because "kinds" is not defined -- most likely because there was nothing remotely approaching zoology, unless you count animal husbandry. It is incorrect because it categorizes bats, as you have noted, with birds, despite the fact that a cursory inspection by even the most zoologically illiterate peasant will discover that the <I>only</I> similarity between bats and birds is the fact they each fly.<BR/><BR/>I suppose, then, that you'd also argue that the bible's magically reorganizing taxonomy would classify a flying squirrel as a bird... What about a Pteranadon (which I assume you believe co-existed with humans)?<BR/><BR/>Are you (gasp!) suggesting that the writers of the bible are simultaneously hopelessly ignorant (especially with regard to biology/zoology) <B><I>and</I></B> incredible geniuses (with respect to geology/cosmology)?<BR/><BR/>...or, maybe they're just completely ignorant to the mechanisms of natural phenomena, and maybe they wrote down their beliefs anyway, and maybe you came along a few thousand years later and claimed it was all absolutely true no matter what...<BR/><BR/>[insert image of Dan covering his ears and screaming, "I'm right, you're wrong, and I can't hear you"]<BR/><BR/>The bible mentions "species" about as often as it mentions "flux capacitors".<BR/><BR/>Oh, it does?<BR/><BR/>Ahem. Apparently, the bible does indeed mention a flux capacitor, in <A HREF="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%201:15-21;&version=31;" REL="nofollow">Ezekiel</A>. It seems that the good Marty McFly, after he accidentally sent himself to Hill Valley on November 5, 1955, found his way to ancient Mesopotamia.<BR/><BR/>I guess you've proven your point. The bible says whatever you want it to say in light of the currently available evidence. You are guilty of reinterpreting the bible to suit your own paradigm, regardless of what the bible actually says, and irrespective of whatever it may actually <I>mean</I>.<BR/><BR/>--<BR/>StanStan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-45611356301115412832008-08-29T15:31:00.000-04:002008-08-29T15:31:00.000-04:00Quasar,"Nobody, not even Answers in Genesis, uses ...Quasar,<BR/><BR/><I>"Nobody, not even Answers in Genesis, uses a definition of "Species" so [ridiculously] broad."</I><BR/><BR/>GE did address it but I wanted to point out that it isn't Ray or Ken or even I that are making this up. The authority of the Bible is what we all follow. 'Species', in the Bible is described as 'kinds' or 'families' so if you have a beef with the classifications take it up with God.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-42097591053177484462008-08-29T12:26:00.000-04:002008-08-29T12:26:00.000-04:00So, ok, AiG uses a ridiculously broad definition o...So, ok, AiG uses a ridiculously broad definition of species, but not as broad as the "birds," or the "bacteria" in Ray's crappy post.<BR/><BR/>G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-12045382422951775932008-08-29T11:50:00.000-04:002008-08-29T11:50:00.000-04:00Hi Quasar,Please check this one out:Two of every k...Hi Quasar,<BR/><BR/>Please check this one out:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/two-of-every-kind" REL="nofollow">Two of every kind</A><BR/><BR/>or this one:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-species.asp" REL="nofollow">"Species" and "Kind"</A><BR/><BR/>Yep, answers in genesis is just as illogical (not that I am surprised).<BR/><BR/>In the first one they include as many Canidae into the same "kind," and accept their evolution without flinching, but ask them about the "ape" kind, or the "Primates" kind, and see if they will accept that we humans come from the same "kind" as the chimps, or the gorillas, or the new world monkeys (all Primates). This would and should be compatible with their definition. So, what is your take Dan?<BR/><BR/>I find it ridiculous especially because the image to the right in the second link is the model of evolution, and its extension to the far past is what makes the relatedness of all life possible. But of course, they have to misrepresent evolution, pretend that creation means that thingie that contains some true understanding of evolution (though limited to their "in kind"), but exclude humans, despite they would obviously belong to the Primates "kind."<BR/><BR/>What an awesome mix of double/triple/multiple standards.<BR/><BR/>G.E.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com