Creationists: Do the terms 'mammal', 'reptil...

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Why are there Classes? The Kinds were independently created right? Why would there be another set of groupings that grouped some Kinds together and excluded others?

Good question... Man's biological classification has placed animals within Classes - to the Creationist perspective, there is no need for classes, the creatures could all be classified by their kind. I was just using Classes (a modern, understandable taxanomical classification) to give you my perspective on kinds...

Originally posted by RatX
Good question... Man's biological classification has placed animals within Classes - to the Creationist perspective, there is no need for classes, the creatures could all be classified by their kind. I was just using Classes (a modern, understandable taxanomical classification) to give you my perspective on kinds...

So you with to use modern taxonomy to explain the "science" of creationism , or not ? If it is truely solid science , it should use accepted scientific terminology , shouldn't it ?

If so , there is no scientific term for "kind" in taxonomy / cladistics . It goes like this (in order): Kingdom , Phylum , Class , Order , Family , Genus , Species . Are you substituting "kind" for one of these terms ? Or are you rejecting the whole system entirely ? Is this a position ID "scientists" and "creation science" holds (that the whole system of accepted classification of living things should be summarily chucked out)? Do you find it inconsistant that something claiming to be solid science would reject everything accepted by the disciple it seeks to be accepted by ?

Originally posted by Moldy Crow
So you with to use modern taxonomy to explain the "science" of creationism , or not ? If it is truely solid science , it should use accepted scientific terminology , shouldn't it ?

If so , there is no scientific term for "kind" in taxonomy / cladistics . It goes like this (in order): Kingdom , Phylum , Class , Order , Family , Genus , Species . A ...[text shortened]... to be solid science would reject everything accepted by the disciple it seeks to be accepted by?

So you with to use modern taxonomy to explain the "science" of creationism , or not ? If it is truely solid science , it should use accepted scientific terminology , shouldn't it ?

With? Do you have a lisp? j/k

Ok, does "solid science" rely on terminology? It should be other way... Should Creationists try to adapt their theories according to the modern accepted terminology (overrun by evolutionary theory)?

I am not rejecting the whole system, it's a great way to get my kids to learn about the orders of nature and classify creatures according to their characteristics. The current system is not perfect, though. The great white shark has been re-classified numerous times (is it warm-blooded or not?! Darn, not another re-print...)

And something to consider: Science is not the solid Pillar of Hercules - it changes with the emergence of new information and evidence (a lot of yesterday's science is a joke. I suppose, soon will a lot of today's) The more we find out, the more we realise how little we know.

Originally posted by RatX
[b]So you with to use modern taxonomy to explain the "science" of creationism , or not ? If it is truely solid science , it should use accepted scientific terminology , shouldn't it ?

With? Do you have a lisp? j/k

Ok, does "solid science" rely on terminology? It should be other way... Should Creationists try to adapt their theories according to t ...[text shortened]... pose, soon will a lot of today's) The more we find out, the more we realise how little we know.[/b]

Do you want to trade insults or discuss this topic ? I can do either fvkrf@ce . - Which would you like to do ; drop the childish insults and debate or trade names and barbs?

Science does not come from terminology . The terminology comes from a need to label or classify discoveries science has made . The reference of "solid science" comes from ID and Creationism wanting to be taken seriously as scientific theory equally considered with TOE . It's being advertised as being every bit as serious as TOE , and a credible scientific theory to explain the fossil record , how species origionated , how/why life forms are similar to one another . If it is truely a science which can be of use , it must interface at certain points with other scientific disciplines though it may diverge at a certain point . For example , whether a creationist or darwinist , there would be very simple agreements in talking about a deer that a certain structure is called a "leg" , or an antler . There is also some agreement that this animal is a unique creature ; Odocoileus virginianus in the case of a white tail deer would be recognized as by both creationists and darwinists as a separate species or "kind" of animal from say and elk or moose . As the topics get more complex , such as how or if white tailed deer are related to elk and moose , there may begin to be divergances of opinion . I am trying to pinpoint what you feel is common ground between the two camps . The topic of taxonomy has come up . Do you accept the modern taxonomic classifications of living things "Phylum, Class , Order, Family, Genus , Species" , or do you not accept that system of classification ?

Something to consider for you : Scientists understand that science changes ' lots of yesterday's science has be disproven , and that some of today's science will change in light of new facts . Science is self correcting this way . Dogma is not . When it was proven that the earth orbits the sun , and not the other way around , was this error in scripture corrected ? No it was not . It had stones thrown at it's credibility and it's adherents were persecuted - much the same as you attempt to do with TOE and it's adherents . Yes the more we find out , the less we know . One of the truely wonderful things about science is it opens new worlds and gives us questions which leads to even more new things . Religion does not question and therefore scientifically is a dead end .

Originally posted by Moldy Crow
Do you want to trade insults or discuss this topic ? I can do either fvkrf@ce . - Which would you like to do ; drop the childish insults and debate or trade names and barbs?

Science does not come from terminology . The terminology comes from a need to label or classify discoveries science has made . The reference of "solid science" comes from ID and ...[text shortened]... o even more new things . Religion does not question and therefore scientifically is a dead end .

j/k means just kidding...What I said was simply meant in jest.

You're talking a lot of sense here, but let me clear up what seems to be a point of confusion: I am not a Creation Scientist, I don't represent ID (I could never merit that position).

As far as I know, the classification of living things "Phylum, Class etc" is a pretty comfortable system that explains the groups according to Darwinian Origin of the various creatures. While I do accept the system of classification of the animals according to their genetic and physiological commonalities and differences, I don't accept the re-arranging of the creatures in a classification that is based on the postulated Origin of the species using Darwinian Evolution (as it lacks empirical proof).

So to sum up your question: I fully support a taxanomical classification system that is based on observable science and biology and is not "tainted" by either theory (ID or TOE). The two theories can then come up with their own additional classifications in support of their theories (in the case of ID, kinds).

When it comes to geocentricity, this is an argument on its own and I still have my doubts on it (many scientist and astronomers in particular are still divided about this issue). I am still researching the subject as I don't have an absolute stance on it (yet) - if you have time, check out this site for some perspectives on geocentricity:
http://www.refcm.org/RICDiscussions/Science-Scripture/geocentricity.htm

Cheers, then...

Originally posted by RatX
j/k means just kidding...What I said was simply meant in jest.

When it comes to geocentricity, this is an argument on its own and I still have my doubts on it (many scientist and astronomers in particular are still divided about this issue). I am still researching the subject as I don't have an absolute stance on it (yet) - if you have time, check out this ...[text shortened]... ity:
http://www.refcm.org/RICDiscussions/Science-Scripture/geocentricity.htm

Cheers, then...

Ok , understand the j/k now .

Time doesn't permit me to follow through on the taxonomy discussion at the moment . But are you serious about the geocentricity arguement ? Is this another joke ?

Originally posted by Moldy Crow
Ok , understand the j/k now .

Time doesn't permit me to follow through on the taxonomy discussion at the moment . But are you serious about the geocentricity arguement ? Is this another joke ?

Well, I thought it was cleared up as well, until I stumbled on that site and then a whole lot more in several scientific papers...

As I noted, I'm still sticking to the idea of common science in this area, but I'm reading and trying to figure it out. Wish me luck 😉

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The title got cut short. The question is directed at creationists who believe the Genesis account of the origin of animals.

Do the terms 'mammal' and 'reptile' have a place in biology? How about 'chordate'?

I don`t know.😞