[__ Science __ ] Noahs Flood explained and Evolution refuted.

[Barbarian]

s the group of all animals without backbones a group of animals? Yes or No?

In the sense that "animals with wings" is a group of animals. A taxonomic group is a group of genetically-related animals with a common ancestor. There are polyphyletic groups, which is another issue, if you'd like to learn about that.

This is the cause of some confusion for creationists, who mistake animals grouped by some characteristic with taxonomic groups. The Bible, for example, classifies animals by function, while taxonomic groups are classified by descent. Hence the Bible classifies bats as birds, because they are animals with wings.

So, some invertebrates are non-humans.

You're confused again. Remember that invertebrates lack a backbone. Can you figure out what that means with regard to humans?

Is the group of all animals without backbones a group of animals? Yes or No?

In the sense that the group of all animals with wings is a group. Which is what the Bible does when it classifies bats as birds.

Remember that taxonomic groups are grouped by ancestry.

Is a taxonomic group a group of animals?

Can be. But often not. Gymnosperms, for example, is a taxonomic group that is not a group of animals. I realize that for someone unfamiliar with biology, this can be confusing. But don't give up yet.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

While vertebrates do comprise a taxonomic group, "invertebrates" do not

 

[Barbarian]

So, when you divide the group of all animals into two subgroups of animals, one of the two subgroups of animals is a group of animals, but the other one of the two subgroups of animals is not a group of animals!?

In the case of vertebrates, (for example) that's a taxonomic group. "Invertebrates" is not a taxonomic group. It's an umbrella term describing animals that never have a vertebral column. It is a paraphyletic group that includes all animals except the chordate subphylum Vertebrata, i.e. vertebrates.

Yet another glaring Darwinistspeak stupidity that advertises the fact that what Darwinists term "taxonomy" is just another aspect of their war against truth and logic.

I'm sure it's confusing for those who never took biology courses. But it's a very sensible and effective classification system, first used by Carol Linnaeus in the 1700s.

And, what's with your sneer quotes around your word, "invertebrates"?

If you want to discuss a word, phrase, or letter in writing without using its intended meaning, set it apart with quotation marks. Depending on the styling format, some writers alternatively use italics, without quotation marks, for this purpose:
The “p” in “pterodactyl” is actually silent.

Quotation Marks: Rules and Examples

Quotation marks are a type of punctuation used to show direct quotes, dialogue, and certain titles or otherwise to set aside words in…

www.grammarly.com

It's probably not the best-known grammatical rule, and if it bothers you, I suppose I could try to remember to use italics instead. Problem is, italics in formal scientific writing are used to denote titles of articles.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Is the group of all animals without backbones a group of animals? Yes or No?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

Outrageous! In your futile but dogged struggle for damage control on behalf of your Darwinistspeak language game, you even refuse to answer that extremely easy, Yes/No question!

In the sense that the group of all animals with wings is a group.

Your addiction to self-owning is prodigious, man!

In what (if any) "sense" would you say the group of all animals without backbones is not a group of animals?

In what (if any) "sense" would you say the group of all animals with wings is not a group of animals?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

If you want to discuss a word, phrase, or letter in writing without using its intended meaning, set it apart with quotation marks.

IOW, whenever you play this little shtick:

The reason you aren't going to define "human" is more than a confusion about logic.

you're saying you want to discuss the word, "human", instead of discussing what is/is not a human?

 

[Barbarian]

you're saying you want to discuss the word, "human", instead of discussing what is/is not a human?

Nope. BTW, have you figured out what you want the definition of "human" to be, yet?

 

[Barbarian]

Your addiction to self-owning is prodigious, man!

Take a victory lap; I doubt if anyone would mind.

In what (if any) "sense" would you say the group of all animals without backbones is not a group of animals?

In a taxonomic sense. Like the group of all animals with wings. Polyphyletic groups like those are not taxonomic groups. It's slow, but we're making progress.

And I'm a very patient guy.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

In the case of vertebrates, (for example) that's a taxonomic group.

It's true, y'know!

"Invertebrates" is not a taxonomic group.

The group of all invertebrates is indeed, also a taxonomic group. The group of all invertebrates is not a taxonomic group only in the sense that the group of all vertebrates is not a taxonomic group.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

In what (if any) "sense" would you say the group of all animals without backbones is not a group of animals?

In a taxonomic sense.

So, according to you, the group of all animals without backbones is both 1) a group of animals, and 2) not a group of animals!

Or, in other words, according to your "logic", the group of all animals without backbones is not the group of animals that it is!

 

[Barbarian]

So, according to you, the group of all animals without backbones is both 1) a group of animals, and 2) not a group of animals!

No. One is a phyletic taxonomic group and one a paraphletic group. Go back and read it again, carefully.

Or, in other words, according to your "logic", the group of all animals without backbones

...is paraphyletic and composed if different taxa, while animals with backbones are all in the subphylum vertebrata.

 

[Barbarian]

The group of all invertebrates is indeed, also a taxonomic group.

It's paraphyletic. A number of traditionally accepted taxa turned out to be paraphyletic, and are no longer used.

Many modern systematists, such as advocates of phylogenetic nomenclature, use cladistic methods that require taxa to be monophyletic (all descendants of some ancestor). Their basic unit, therefore, the clade is equivalent to the taxon, assuming that taxa should reflect evolutionary relationships. Similarly, among those contemporary taxonomists working with the traditional Linnean (binomial) nomenclature, few propose taxa they know to be paraphyletic.

Taxon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm sure this is can be confusing, but it's worth learning.

 

[KV-44-v1]

I'm just asking you for a testable definition of "human" so that I can answer the question. If you can't even define what you think a human is, how do you expect to have a conversation about them?

But then HOW can you assert that humans did not evolve from monkeys then? if you dont have a testable def.?

So, since he is asking for testable def. of human, how does **he** know that that "monke into man" is false??


But YEC can know it is false, because they stand on the BIBLE.
even science also proves,, that one kind cannot give rise to another. Hippoes cannot birth pre-whales, etc., monkeys cannot birth to pre-humans or pre-non-monkeys.

This is another example of you letting imagination mislead you.

I see that people actually do believe that man descended from apes/monkeys.
But we both know that 'monke into man' is false. So I'm glad we have an area of agreement.

Evolutionary theory does not say humans evolved from monkeys.

Perhaps not today.

Apes are a separate group of primates. The ancestors of modern monkeys and apes diverged from a common primate ancestor long before there were actual monkeys and apes.

Variation within a kind.
Hint: Do they look similar? If so then they almost certainly belong to the same kind.
Linnaeus died thinking the Biblical kind was at the family level.

 

[KV-44-v1]

The Bible is right. You're wrong.

Wrong where?
I did not contradict the Bible.

6 Now Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of water came upon the earth. 7 Then Noah and his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives with him entered the ark because of the waters of the flood. 8 Of clean animals and animals that are not clean and birds and everything that crawls on the ground,

Note the EVERYTHING.
Why the need for an ark? why not just move to a different area?

Remember the difference between "land" and "the whole world." That's what the Bible says.

Question: DO YOU ACCEPT THINGS SIMILAR TO SAYING "THE WHOLE WORLD"? Yes or No.
Doesn't need to say "the whole world". You can just get that by exegesis.
That word could also mean GROUND.

19The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. 20The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. 21All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; 22of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. 23Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.

biblehub.com/nasb/genesis/7.htm


Why ""should"" "land" be limited to a specific section and not all of the land on earth?? To accomodate for man-made million years, etc!! LOL.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Why not just accept it as God says it happened?

I Do You Dont.
As Shown By The Two-Colored Verses.

 

[KV-44-v1]

You're telling us that whatever is not a human, is not a human.

So whatever isnt a human can be a human in your view.
Evolutionary 'logic' !!

 

[KV-44-v1]

creationists assumed that black people were not human.

quote? which one/s?

Hitler was an evolutionist, no doubt. So were many natzees & kommies.
So much for the belief that "God used evolution"....
(Evo is still not CAFPT or speciation... yawn...)

 

[KV-44-v1]

You're just making up stories now.

This, coming from one who thinks nonhumans can be humans. loool.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Creationists struggle against being forced to define terms,

Demonstrably false. I already gave you the defitiion of the Biblical 'kind', which was the Family taxa.

 

[KV-44-v1]

What you wrote, there, is a fine example of the cognitively meaningless nature of most Darwinistspeak. Not only are you therein failing to express or affirm any truth, but what you are doing therein does not even rise to the level of expressing or affirming falsehood. You are not predicating anything about anything.
Not only are you using your phrase, "H. Erectus", referentlessly (exactly the same as people do with phases like "Hulk" and "Superman", when they say things like "Hulk could kill Superman any day!") but you are presenting neither any subject, nor any predicate.

"Octopus abaculus". Is this darwinspeak?
Taxonomy is not darwinspeak.

I know that to tautologize is to define.

Tautology:
"A Jarangester is not a Herkelmertz"
Did that bring any clarity? No. That just says what it is not.

Definition:
"Jarangester
()noun()
An orange-colored drink that tastes like marmelade."
Another def.:
"Herkelmertz (noun)
A German car model that was produced in 1995 by Volkswagen."

NOW you have the specifics!
Tautologies are not really definitions per se, but rather, are statements.
I think "all def are taut. but not all taut. are def." is a good rule of thum.

 

[KV-44-v1]

assuming that taxa should reflect evolutionary relationships. Similarly, among those contemporary taxonomists working with the traditional Linnean (binomial) nomenclature, few propose taxa they know to be paraphyletic.

So this relies on evo assumptions to be true.
Start at evo, conclude at evo.
Circular reasoning.