Freethought & Rationalism Archive

randman · 06-05-2002, 12:20 PM

"So where do we draw the line? If these various lines of evidence show that a, b, and c are related, why do they also suggest that d, e, and f are related in turn? Please show me where we evolutionary biologists are making the mistake."

Well, I am not a creationist scientist, but for starters I would just be more case specific instead of trying to interject "kind" into the lineage system across the board.

For instance, with dolphins which includes killer whales, I think from what I have read that the interbreeding capacity is highly suggestive that this whole family descends from a single kind, but there may well be other cases, where a kind has only produces a genus, and perhaps others where the original "kind" has remained intact, and there is only a single species represented by that kind.

"Kind" by definition is a term that denotes an original species that could interbreed so that is the starter point. Anything that can interbreed is of the same kind, and then one has to try and consider what species, or their forefathers, used to be able to interbreed, and obviously, that is an underataking for scientists, not myself.

hezekiah jones · 06-05-2002, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
But I don't see common descent in the data.

You do; they're staring you in the face and you don't even realize it. Witness your own comments concerning the purported boundaries of individual species being "arbitrary." Why do you think that is? And why can't you effectively describe the boundaries delineated by "kind"?

That's right: common descent. Good work.

MrDarwin · 06-05-2002, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
All the translations I have read say the essentialy the same thing in terms of the creation from water on the 5th day, and Genesis 2. Do you know what translation states something else?

First, a reminder of randman's original claim:

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
In response to one poster, the Bible refers to 2 types of flying creatures, one made before man, thus prehistoric, and made "from water" and another made in the same era as man, "from the ground." How did the writer of Genesis know of dinosaur "birds"?

Followed up with,

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Sure, I can back that up.

Genesis 1, though not written in chapter and verse, states.

"And God said, 'Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that has life, and fowl that may fly..."
Genesis 1:20

Note the Hebrew word translated "fowl" here includes all creatures that fly, and are not insects basically, including bats.

Also, we can get into the word "day" if you want to, but take note of this scripture which summarizes all 7 days as 1 day, and thus indicates that 'day' here is not meant to be a 24 hour period, at least from our perspective.

"These are the generations [once again impying a very long period of time not one 24 hour period] of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.."
Genesis 2:4

Then, go over and read Genesis 2:19.

"And out of the ground [not the waters] the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air..."

The scriptures here obviously speak of 2 different kinds of flying creatures, one made from water, and one from the ground.
By the way, there even appears to be a difference in the creative mode. "Let the waters bring forth" sounds very much like theistic evolution, and God "forming", how ever it occurred, suggests more detailed effort. You get into all sorts of theological issues when talking about the scripures and God. For instance, the Bible speaks of God knowing all things before they happen, and also being surprised, and the skeptic just writes it off, but the true purpose is to give one a glimpse of something about God, and these true paradoxes actually help illustrate the nature and things of God, but only to the believer since the unbeleiver cannot grasp what is being said often.

Nonetheless, you can see here 2 creations of "fowl" and one from the waters bringing forth, and another more specifically crafted by God from the ground.

Also, Genesis 1 and 2 basically don't conflict with theistic evolution except in the creation of man, and even then in the 1800s, some extremely conservative and prominent theologians had no problem with theistic evolution. I think the hyper-Calvinist guy at Princeton who bragged they hadn't had an original idea taught in 150 years, referring to theology, wrote a prominent piece endorsing theistic evolution.

It sure seems like a bit of a stretch, but randman seems to be claiming here that the Genesis story is scientifically accurate (even as he argues elsewhere that we shouldn't expect scientific accuracy from the original Hebrew!). Of course, randman's argument depends on both the original text and the accuracy of the translation he's using. I can't read the original text but let's go look at some of the translations, starting with the one randman is using:

KJV: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

KJ21: And God said, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."

NKJV: Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens."

NIV: And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."

NASB: Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens."

AMP: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly and swarm with living creatures, and let birds fly over the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.

NLT: And God said, "Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind."

ASV: And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven

YLT: And God saith, `Let the waters teem with the teeming living creature, and fowl let fly on the earth on the face of the expanse of the heavens.'

Darby: And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living souls, and let fowl fly above the earth in the expanse of the heavens.

Aside from the first two translations there certainly seems to be a consensus that the birds were not created from water. So I really have to wonder if randman is making up an elaborate argument out of thin air--or from a shaky translation--just to prove his point? Randman, are you really grasping at straws, as when you swallowed Harun Yahya's "walking whales" article hook, line and sinker?

MrDarwin · 06-05-2002, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
"Kind" by definition is a term that denotes an original species that could interbreed so that is the starter point. Anything that can interbreed is of the same kind, and then one has to try and consider what species, or their forefathers, used to be able to interbreed, and obviously, that is an underataking for scientists, not myself.

Why yes, it is. And in fact they work on this kind of thing all the time. But you don't like the answers they come up with. And when you come and tell us that the scientists are all wrong, we really would like you to provide a bit more to back it up with than your opinion.

randman · 06-05-2002, 01:07 PM

Unlike most of you, I can admit to a mistake as was the case of one point in the article you mentioned.

However, I can assure that my comments on the Genesis narrative are accurate, and I am puzzled by your confusion, and wonder if you are being honest here. Even the translations you mentioned, which some translations are better than others, basically agree with my point. There are 2 creation events for "fowl", a Hebrew word which means flying animals, that includes birds and bats, and thus translating it "birds" is not entirely accurate.
The context is pretty clear as well that the 5th day creations came from the water. I doubt even the translators of the versions you mentioned intended for anyone to read it otherwise.

The 6th day creations were created from the ground (earth)in the next verse, and Genesis 2 talks about fowl being formed from the earth, obviously not a 5th day creation.

If you want to state this isn't clear since some translators see it another way, then no big deal since you don't believe any of it anyway, but I think the way the KJV here reads is an accurate translation of this verse.

[ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]

hyzer · 06-05-2002, 01:31 PM

So, let’s follow the creationist a priori view – first God created the earth. Later God inspired the Bible, but the Word of God was written by man.

And I think we can agree that the Word of God has been subjected to various translations, and is subject to interpretation.

On one hand we have scientists who study the earth (which was directly created by God, according to the creationists).

On the other hand we have the creationists, who look to the Bible (which was written by fallible men, has been translated and needs interpretation) for their answers.

So I ask Randman, who is closer to the finding the truth about the earth and all its creatures?

tgamble · 06-05-2002, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Sci-girl, this is where you are wrong. Creationists may start out with biblical ideas as a model, just like someone may imagine a new hypothesis from their mind, but the process of researching it is still scientific.

No it's not. Their conclusions are predetermined and can't change regardless of any data. Read the AIG statement of faith sometime.

randman · 06-05-2002, 01:44 PM

Same as evolutionists. Either camp has its presuppositions, and anyone is free to leave the camp. Obviously, some of the IDers are not in the creationist camp.

hezekiah jones · 06-05-2002, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Obviously, some of the IDers are not in the creationist camp.

They claim special creation, they're creationists. Whether the special creation was fixed "kinds" or e coli. organelles, what's the difference.

Coragyps · 06-05-2002, 02:06 PM

Randman wrote:

Quote:

Rufos, since you are familiar with AIG and other scientific research on this,

but Coragyps doesn't think that the "other" is appropriate in that sentence.

06-05-2002, 01:07 PM	#105
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Unlike most of you, I can admit to a mistake as was the case of one point in the article you mentioned. However, I can assure that my comments on the Genesis narrative are accurate, and I am puzzled by your confusion, and wonder if you are being honest here. Even the translations you mentioned, which some translations are better than others, basically agree with my point. There are 2 creation events for "fowl", a Hebrew word which means flying animals, that includes birds and bats, and thus translating it "birds" is not entirely accurate. The context is pretty clear as well that the 5th day creations came from the water. I doubt even the translators of the versions you mentioned intended for anyone to read it otherwise. The 6th day creations were created from the ground (earth)in the next verse, and Genesis 2 talks about fowl being formed from the earth, obviously not a 5th day creation. If you want to state this isn't clear since some translators see it another way, then no big deal since you don't believe any of it anyway, but I think the way the KJV here reads is an accurate translation of this verse. [ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-05-2002, 12:20 PM	#101
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	"So where do we draw the line? If these various lines of evidence show that a, b, and c are related, why do they also suggest that d, e, and f are related in turn? Please show me where we evolutionary biologists are making the mistake." Well, I am not a creationist scientist, but for starters I would just be more case specific instead of trying to interject "kind" into the lineage system across the board. For instance, with dolphins which includes killer whales, I think from what I have read that the interbreeding capacity is highly suggestive that this whole family descends from a single kind, but there may well be other cases, where a kind has only produces a genus, and perhaps others where the original "kind" has remained intact, and there is only a single species represented by that kind. "Kind" by definition is a term that denotes an original species that could interbreed so that is the starter point. Anything that can interbreed is of the same kind, and then one has to try and consider what species, or their forefathers, used to be able to interbreed, and obviously, that is an underataking for scientists, not myself.

06-05-2002, 01:31 PM	#106
hyzer Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: philadelphia Posts: 1,844	So, let’s follow the creationist a priori view – first God created the earth. Later God inspired the Bible, but the Word of God was written by man. And I think we can agree that the Word of God has been subjected to various translations, and is subject to interpretation. On one hand we have scientists who study the earth (which was directly created by God, according to the creationists). On the other hand we have the creationists, who look to the Bible (which was written by fallible men, has been translated and needs interpretation) for their answers. So I ask Randman, who is closer to the finding the truth about the earth and all its creatures?

06-05-2002, 01:44 PM	#108
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Same as evolutionists. Either camp has its presuppositions, and anyone is free to leave the camp. Obviously, some of the IDers are not in the creationist camp.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.