1. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y8wgt7a5
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    27 Feb '08 05:23
    Creationists often speak of "kinds" of life.

    Well, there's only one kind. It's called cellular life.

    Dogs are made of cells. So are cats, frogs, humans, and bacteria. That's it. Just one "kind".

    Comments?
  2. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    27 Feb '08 11:22
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Creationists often speak of "kinds" of life.

    Well, there's only one kind. It's called cellular life.

    Dogs are made of cells. So are cats, frogs, humans, and bacteria. That's it. Just one "kind".

    Comments?
    I believe that the reasons why creationists use the word include:
    1. It was used in some English translation of the Bible when referring to the animals in Noah's ark.
    2. It is a vague term which can be adjusted as necessary when taken to task.
    I am yet to meet a creationist willing to define it rigorously. However, if Kelly were to use the word, we could at least narrow it down to:
    Any animal with a unique set of organs is a different kind
    But then 'organ' is not that rigorously defined either.

    The truth is, that any attempt at categorizing life forms is necessarily vague as every living organism is unique and in many cases, genetically unique so the best one can do is make arbitrary rules about the amount of difference either in a percentage fashion or based on the resulting observable differences in morphology or other resulting factors such as the ability to interbreed.

    Your decision to set the rule as 'being made of cells' is almost ridiculous as the definition of life more or less includes that requirement. I personally would like to call virus' living things in which case you would have two 'kinds'.
  3. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y8wgt7a5
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    27 Feb '08 14:572 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I believe that the reasons why creationists use the word include:
    1. It was used in some English translation of the Bible when referring to the animals in Noah's ark.
    2. It is a vague term which can be adjusted as necessary when taken to task.
    I am yet to meet a creationist willing to define it rigorously. However, if Kelly were to use the word, we cou onally would like to call virus' living things in which case you would have two 'kinds'.
    IF you decide to include viruses as life, then you'd have two kinds. However it's not standard practice to call them alive.

    But even in this case, both are nucleic acid based "life". So how about this - there's only one kind of life; nucleic acid and protein based life. This then evolved into cellular life and non-cellular "life" as the first split in the lineage of this single "kind". This is analogous to how cats diverged into tigers, cheetahs and housecats. The cats themselves diverged from dogs and bears; the carnivora from other branches; the mammals from the reptiles, the reptiles from the amphibians, etc.
  4. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148423
    27 Feb '08 15:55
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Creationists often speak of "kinds" of life.

    Well, there's only one kind. It's called cellular life.

    Dogs are made of cells. So are cats, frogs, humans, and bacteria. That's it. Just one "kind".

    Comments?
    Your point, we should just do away with saying animals and plants?
    Kelly
  5. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y8wgt7a5
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    27 Feb '08 17:06
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Your point, we should just do away with saying animals and plants?
    Kelly
    No more than we should do away with saying tigers and lions. Where did you get THAT idea from?

    My point is that Creationists are wrong about cats and dogs, or chickens and lizards, or humans and apes having no common ancestor.
  6. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148423
    27 Feb '08 17:50
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    No more than we should do away with saying tigers and lions. Where did you get THAT idea from?

    My point is that Creationists are wrong about cats and dogs, or chickens and lizards, or humans and apes having no common ancestor.
    Yea right, it is closer to saying they were all created using the same
    basic design! Bridges all have something in common, cars all have
    things in common that does not mean that they all evolved by
    just turning into the various types of bridges or cars over time without
    any plan, purpose, or design.
    Kelly
  7. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y8wgt7a5
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    28 Feb '08 03:381 edit
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Yea right, it is closer to saying they were all created using the same
    basic design! Bridges all have something in common, cars all have
    things in common that does not mean that they all evolved by
    just turning into the various types of bridges or cars over time without
    any plan, purpose, or [b]design
    .
    Kelly[/b]
    Of course. Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot, Ferdinand Verbiest, or whoever invented the automobile had a master plan written out in which there would be a Big Three in the USA, and Germany and Japan would have powerful automobile industries, etc...It was all part of the design. He had the Volkswagen Beatle planned out. He had Lamborghinis writtn into his plan. He planned for the SUV craze in the US. This was his design.

    You are quite ridiculous sometimes.
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    28 Feb '08 08:041 edit
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    My point is that Creationists are wrong about cats and dogs, or chickens and lizards, or humans and apes having no common ancestor.
    But you did not say that. The word 'kind' in English simply means category and thus can be used for almost any categorization you choose. Although creationists often use it to mean 'common ancestors', you did not specify that that was what you were doing too.

    I personally don't think that we have good evidence that there are no non-cellular life forms on the earth. We haven't even come close to documenting the cellular forms, there could easily be millions of different life forms in the deep sea that are not cellular and do not have a common ancestor with us.
    Don't forget other oddities such as prions which also evolve and were only discovered because of their negative effects.

    Much as we like to think that we are special, the truth is that the word 'life' is little more than your word 'kind' ie it means common ancestors. The definition for 'life' is based on cellular life and thus ignores virus' and prions which both evolve and are really only excluded from the club because they aren't our 'kind'.
  9. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y8wgt7a5
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    28 Feb '08 15:021 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    But you did not say that. The word 'kind' in English simply means category and thus can be used for almost any categorization you choose. Although creationists often use it to mean 'common ancestors', you did not specify that that was what you were doing too.

    I personally don't think that we have good evidence that there are no non-cellular life forms olve and are really only excluded from the club because they aren't our 'kind'.
    My very first sentence in the first post was:

    Creationists often speak of "kinds" of life.

    I'd thought you'd be able to understand by context how the word was being used here.

    I think you're using our partial ignorance to posit random things (non-cellular life, for example) without any evidence to back you up. You're like many creationists - "you don't KNOW there is no other life...you can't PROVE it...biology is just a bunch of theories".

    Even if we ignore the cellular part (which is part of most definitions of life), prions do not grow, do not maintain any sort of homeostasis, have no metabolism and do not respond to stimuli. Take a look here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
  10. Standard membereldragonfly
    leperchaun messiah
    thru a glass onion
    Joined
    19 Apr '03
    Moves
    16866
    29 Feb '08 01:40
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I am yet to meet a creationist willing to define it rigorously.
    Irrelevant strawman and/or false dichotomy. 🙄
  11. Australia
    Joined
    16 Jan '04
    Moves
    7826
    29 Feb '08 03:20
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Yea right, it is closer to saying they were all created using the same
    basic design! Bridges all have something in common, cars all have
    things in common that does not mean that they all evolved by
    just turning into the various types of bridges or cars over time without
    any plan, purpose, or [b]design
    .
    Kelly[/b]
    Your examples are not alive.
    Your examples cannot reproduce.
    Your examples components do not show a natural affinity to each other.

    The type of analogy you have used is one of the worst to try and debunk evolution KJ.
  12. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    29 Feb '08 07:50
    Originally posted by eldragonfly
    Irrelevant strawman and/or false dichotomy. 🙄
    In what way? Please explain.
  13. Standard membereldragonfly
    leperchaun messiah
    thru a glass onion
    Joined
    19 Apr '03
    Moves
    16866
    29 Feb '08 20:15
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    In what way? Please explain.
    extremely sloppy argument, but i'll sugar coat it just the same for you. Specifically your egregious lack of knowledge concering the biological sciences, doesn't prove anything, let alone the existence or in this case the 'non-existence' of a supernatural divine entity, one which you have chosen to call god. Foolish illogical meanderings at best, and i don't mean maybe.

    but even worse...

    and yer leaning on the "concept" a bit too much if it's all the same to you that is.

    Das ist Quatsch Geld also macht Verboten und das ist für richtiger Idioten und Zahlenspiel sind sieben absoluter Nullpunkt.
  14. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    01 Mar '08 13:21
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Creationists often speak of "kinds" of life.

    Well, there's only one kind. It's called cellular life.

    Dogs are made of cells. So are cats, frogs, humans, and bacteria. That's it. Just one "kind".

    Comments?
    Ge 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
    Ge 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
    Ge 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
    Ge 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
    Ge 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
    Ge 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
    Ge 7:14 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.
    Le 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
    Le 11:15 Every raven after his kind;
    Le 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
    Le 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
    Le 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
    Le 11:29 These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that creep upon the earth; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after his kind,
    Le 19:19 Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.
    De 14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
    De 14:14 And every raven after his kind,
    De 14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
    De 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
  15. Standard membereldragonfly
    leperchaun messiah
    thru a glass onion
    Joined
    19 Apr '03
    Moves
    16866
    01 Mar '08 18:37
    Originally posted by josephw
    Ge 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
    Ge 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it ...[text shortened]... his kind,
    De 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
    Irrelevant strawman. 🙄
Back to Top