[BroJoeK]

from post #460
Kalamata: " It is a certainty that Linnaeus used the terms found in the Vulgate, but they were corrupted from the original meaning.
Linnaeus simply used them to identify two of the lowest classification levels, as I explained in earlier posts:"

Right, according to your own posts, Linnaeus simply borrowed words from what you tell is a mistranslation of the Bible and used those words for his own arbitrary classifications.
In other words, there's nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- from Linnaeus which provides any kind of authoritative scientific definition of the Bible's word "kind".

Kalamata quoting Linnaeus on variations: "...but always ones that are similar to themselves."

Right, which is exactly what evolution theory also says.
Even hybrids, which can be quite different from their parents, they are also still similar.
So far as we know, no parents of the same species ever produced viable offspring of a different species.

What happens instead is that two isolated populations of the same species can sometimes drift apart genetically until over geological time periods they cannot or won't interbreed.

Kalamata: "The Latin Vulgate erroneously translated the created kind as either species or genus.
When Linnaeus adopted his classification scheme, he included both words, with the genus rank just above the species:""

Right, meaning there's no direct connection between Linnaeus' terms and the Biblical word "kinds".

Kalamata: "In this statement, Linnaeus seems to be saying there can be multiple genera within a single kind, distinguishable by their "essential character"."

And yet Linnaeus' "kind" is not the Vulgate Bible's mistranslations of the Hebrew word for "kind", instead, it's simply equivalent to our word, for example, "type", meaning no specific definition.
Anyway, let's see if I "get" your point here -- you're saying that evolution (or some similar term) operates "below" the "kind" level, which in Linnaeus's scheme of things works out to our taxonomic "family" level?

I'd have no serious problem with that, except that then you fantasize some kind of "barrier" which somehow prevents evolution in higher taxonomic orders, right?
And yet there are many higher orders all of which branch & radiate just as do the lower families, genera, species & breeds.
There's no sign of a "barrier" to prevent evolution at any level, only increasingly long time-periods required for major natural changes.

Kalamata: "The bottom line is, there is a genetic barrier at the family, e.g., "kind" level, which has been known for some time.
That is exactly what the Bible predicts.
No species can stray outside its own family."

And that is another flat-out lie, since, to cite just one example: fossils & DNA analyses suggest the Great Ape family began the "stray" outside it's Primate Order about 40 million years ago.
See my post #585 on this.

Kalamata: "Speciation occurs only within the family.
Whether species within a family can interbreed, or not, is irrelevant.
The genetic barrier is at the family level.
There have been no transitions from one family to another, nor into a new family."

Those are absolute lies, from beginning to end.
The real truth is there are many thousands of taxonomic families, of which 156 are mammal families.
And every one, without exception, can be shown from fossils and DNA to have evolved within earlier taxonomic orders, classes & phyla.

Kalamata: "Joey hears what he wants to hear, and denies the rest."

All lies & jest, claims our master liar-denier Danny-good-eyes Kalamata.

Kalamata: "The truth is, papers by secular researchers routinely support the creation model.
The evolutionism orthodoxy is scared silly that they are losing their power over the minds of the people and their "right" to continually feed at the taxpayer trough.
Worse, they must rely on corrupt federal judges to keep opposing viewpoints out of the classrooms.
Science can stand on its own, but not evolutionism."

The truth is those are total lies which tell us, among other things, there's nothing honest going on in Kalamata's mind.

Denier Rule #13 among others.

Kalamata: "Evolutionism cannot be falsified because it is not science. "

More lies, Denier Rules #2 & #5 especially.

Kalamata: "However, it would become instantly accepted by everyone if there was even a shred of evidence for common descent.
Without that evidence, the living and the fossil records better fits the creation model."

Danny Sgt. Schultz Kalamata:

And yet again, just like the most despicable of Holocaust deniers, Kalamata looks straight at the evidence and sees...

Kalamata: "There is no need to get all hysterical on us, Joey?
I was simply exposing Hubble as an anti-God bigot."

"Anti-God bigot" is it?
And who else was called "anti-God"?
Wasn't that Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler?
And who called them that, was it other scientists?
No, it was theologians like Kalamata who condemned scientists for reporting on things contrary to their own unique Bible interpretations.

Kalamata: "Did you not bother to even read what Hubble wrote?"

I read that Hubble was raised a Christian and later in life had doubts.

"One morning, while driving north with Grace after the failed eclipse expedition of 1923, he broached Whitehead's idea of a God who might have chosen from a great many possibilities to make a different universe, but He made this one.
By contemplating the universe, one might approximate some idea of its Creator.
As time passed, however, he seemed even less certain: 'We do not know why we are born into the world, but we can try to find out what sort of a world it is — at least in its physical aspects.'
His life was dedicated to science and the objective world of phenomena.
The world of pure values is one which science cannot enter, and science is unconcerned with the transcendent, however, compelling a private revelation or individual moment of ecstasy.
He pulled no punches when a deeply depressed friend asked him about his belief: 'The whole thing is so much bigger than I am, and I can't understand it, so I just trust myself to it, and forget about it.' "

I wouldn't call that "anti-God" or "bigotry".

Kalamata: "I see that astrophysics is not one of your strong suits.
The last thing the big bang theory would predict would be deep space, fully mature, galactic clusters, like the Hubble scope found. "

And I see that you lie about astronomy just as you lie about everything else.
In this particular case, the further out in space you look, the further back in time you see and so you would expect to see galaxies clustered closer together than they are now.

Kalamata: "The space telescope bearing Hubble's name proved him wrong."

Today Hubble is credited with contributing to the Big Bang theory -- i.e., Hubble's Law -- but it seems he also held contrary views, at least earlier in life.

Kalamata: "I feel like I am debating a child."

Naw, you're trying to debate an honest man by throwing lies & insults at him.
It'll never work.

Kalamata: "That is evolutionism window dressing.
There is no evidence that any species has speciated out of one family and into another."

Wrong again, because the fossil & DNA evidence shows that all species, without exception, evolved from earlier species in different taxonomic categories.
For example, the Family of Great Apes evolved through many intermediate steps, from the Order of Primates.

Kalamata: "Is that a red herring or a straw man?"

Neither, since you were trying to weaponize Biblical "kinds" against Linnaean taxonomic categories.

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata: "It is a certainty that Linnaeus used the terms found in the Vulgate, but they were corrupted from the original meaning. Linnaeus simply used them to identify two of the lowest classification levels, as I explained in earlier posts:"
>>Joey wrote: "Right, according to your own posts, Linnaeus simply borrowed words from what you tell is a mistranslation of the Bible and used those words for his own arbitrary classifications. In other words, there's nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- from Linnaeus which provides any kind of authoritative scientific definition of the Bible's word "kind"."

There is, but you can't see it because you don't want to see it.

This was my statement from #196, which demonstrates that the ancient Hebrew Bible has a single Hebrew word for "kind", while the Latin Vulgate translates it to two words, "genus" and "species," thus corrupting the original text with modern words:

"The Hebrew word "miyn" is used ONLY to classify plants and animals (Gen 1:11-12, 1:21, 1:24, 6:20, 7:14; Lev 11:14, 11:19, 11:22, 11:29; Deu 14:13, 14:18; Eze 47:10), and for nothing else. The word was translated to "kind" in the English versions. Linnaeus used the Latin Vulgate translation of genus and species, the meaning of which has been corrupted."

Linnaeus was also a creationist, so he recognized the created "kind" as the category containing the genus (which is typically, but not allways the "family" in modern times.) In my quote from #243, Linnaeus specifically indicates the "kind" in question -- the succulents -- has multiple genera, as follows:

"The succulent plants are worthy of distinction; so are the largest genera e.g. Euphorbia. The chief of this kind are: Haller’s Allium Our Musa, etc. . . . By its unique pattern, the essential character distinguishes a genus from those of the same kind included in the same natural order.” [Freer, Stephen, Translator, “Linnaeus’ Philosophia Botanica." Oxford University Press, 2005, p.19, 142]

The Linnaeus classification system doesn't contain a "family" rank. The next rank above the genus is the "order," which includes the primates. However, he considered the genus and species as the "natural order," and the higher classifications (order and class) as arbitrary. His lumping together the multiple genera as a "kind" was what he considered to be the natural order.

The Linnaean hierarchy was far more authoritative than Joey realizes:

"A century after Linnaeus supplied what became the foundation of zoological nomenclature, Darwin (1859) proposed that the diversity of life had arisen through evolutionary processes, a hypothesis that was thoroughly tested and corroborated in the following century. Organisms are related to one another and can be arranged in a genealogy of life, as humans can he arranged in family trees. Darwin himself produced a treelike diagram of the relations among some hypothetical species (fig. 1.1), and Haeckel (1866) produced a number of trees of lift, many complete with bark and gnarled branches (fig. 1.2). Once it was accepted that we owe the diversity of life to evolution, the Linnean hierarchy became a way of expressing relatedness as well as morphological similarity per se. Today it is accepted that each taxon should be monophyletic—that it contains only species that have a common ancestor that is the founding member of that taxon (fig. 1.3). Despite the acceptance of a tree of life, svstematists continued to employ the Linnean hierarchy. Until the second half of the twentieth century, phyla were nearly always regarded as composing a hierarchical rank that represented a principal subdivision of the animal kingdom, whether or not they were represented in a tree." [James W. Valentine, "On the Origin of Phyla." University of Chicago Press, 2004, p.8]

Gould wrote this about him:

"The name of our species, using both parts of the binomial designation, is Homo sapiens, not sapiens. We regard the 1758 version of Systema Naturae as the founding document of modern animal taxonomy because in this edition and for the first time, Linnaeus used the binomial system in complete consistency and without exception. (Previous editions had delineated some species binomially and others by a genus name followed by several descriptive words.)" [Stephen Jay Gould, "Linnaeus's Luck?". Natural History, September, 2000, p.22]

"I will advocate a position between these two extremes of exemplary observational skill in an objective world and pure good luck in a world structured by theoretical preferences. Linnaeus was, no doubt, both the premier observer and one of the smartest scientists of his (or any) age. But following my central claim that taxonomies must be judged for their intrinsic mixture of accurate observation and fruitful theory, I will argue that Linnaeus has endured because he combined the best observational skills of his time with a theoretical conception of organic relationships that happens to mirror--but not by pure accident--the topology of evolutionary systems, even though Linnaeus himself interpreted his organizing principle in creationist terms." [Ibid. p.23]

Perhaps Linnaeus got it right because his eyes were open.

************

>>Kalamata quoting Linnaeus on variations: "...but always ones that are similar to themselves."
>>Joey wrote: "Right, which is exactly what evolution theory also says. Even hybrids, which can be quite different from their parents, they are also still similar. So far as we know, no parents of the same species ever produced viable offspring of a different species."

Assuming evolution actually occurred, somewhere along the line a species had to cross the genetic barrier from one kind to another. There is no evidence of that.

************

>>Joey wrote: "What happens instead is that two isolated populations of the same species can sometimes drift apart genetically until over geological time periods they cannot or won't interbreed."

They are still the same kind, regardless of whether they can still breed with other members of the kind, or not. Isolation also causes devolution, which renders them more genetically "brittle."

************

>>Kalamata: "The Latin Vulgate erroneously translated the created kind as either species or genus. When Linnaeus adopted his classification scheme, he included both words, with the genus rank just above the species:"
>>Joey wrote: "Right, meaning there's no direct connection between Linnaeus' terms and the Biblical word "kinds".

Yes there is. Explained above.

************

Kalamata: "In this statement, Linnaeus seems to be saying there can be multiple genera within a single kind, distinguishable by their "essential character"."
>>Joey wrote: "And yet Linnaeus' "kind" is not the Vulgate Bible's mistranslations of the Hebrew word for "kind", instead, it's simply equivalent to our word, for example, "type", meaning no specific definition."

Linnaeus knew exactly what the biblical word "kind" meant, and he used it appropriately.

************

>>Joey wrote: "Anyway, let's see if I "get" your point here -- you're saying that evolution (or some similar term) operates "below" the "kind" level, which in Linnaeus's scheme of things works out to our taxonomic "family" level?"

That is what we observe: in the fossil record, in real life, and now in the genome. The biblical kinds are "fixed." They never evolve (nor does anything else.)

************

>>Joey wrote: "I'd have no serious problem with that, except that then you fantasize some kind of "barrier" which somehow prevents evolution in higher taxonomic orders, right?"

You have it backwards, Joey. I used to fantasize that evolution was true; but now I know the truth -- that it is a fantasy. However, I must admit I was pleasantly surprised that the ENCODE project and subsequent research have mostly 'confirmed' the "fixity of the species" in my lifetime.

************

>>Joey wrote: "And yet there are many higher orders all of which branch & radiate just as do the lower families, genera, species & breeds."

The higher-orders are man-imagined (Linnaeus: "artificial") constructs. Every organism on earth is a species. Apparently that is a misunderstood concept because Erwin, Valentine and Sepkoski made a point of emphasizing it in this peer-reviewed paper:

"The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, and orders before that of families. This is not to say that higher taxa originated before species (each phylum, class, or order contained at least one species, genus, family, etc. upon appearance), but the higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa. Instead, the lower taxa appear to be exploiting the potentialities of the novel body plans recognized as higher taxa in the relatively empty adaptive space of the Early Cambrian." [Erwin et al, "A Comparative Study Of Diversification Events: The Early Paleozoic Versus The Mesozoic." Evolution, Vol.41, Iss.6; November, 1987, p.1183]

************

>>Joey wrote: "There's no sign of a "barrier" to prevent evolution at any level, only increasingly long time-periods required for major natural changes."

There is no evidence of that, nor is it mathematically possible.

************

>>Kalamata: "The bottom line is, there is a genetic barrier at the family, e.g., "kind" level, which has been known for some time. That is exactly what the Bible predicts. No species can stray outside its own family."
>>Joey wrote: "And that is another flat-out lie, since, to cite just one example: fossils & DNA analyses suggest the Great Ape family began the "stray" outside it's Primate Order about 40 million years ago. See my post #585 on this."

LOL! You have been conned. So was I.

************

>>Kalamata: "Speciation occurs only within the family. Whether species within a family can interbreed, or not, is irrelevant. The genetic barrier is at the family level. There have been no transitions from one family to another, nor into a new family."
>>Joey wrote: "Those are absolute lies, from beginning to end. The real truth is there are many thousands of taxonomic families, of which 156 are mammal families. And every one, without exception, can be shown from fossils and DNA to have evolved within earlier taxonomic orders, classes & phyla."

Baloney. I will agree there are many mammalian families; but they are unrelated except they had a common designer.

************

>>Kalamata: "Joey hears what he wants to hear, and denies the rest."
>>Joey wrote: "All lies & jest, claims our master liar-denier Danny-good-eyes Kalamata."

You gotta start paying attention, Joey, if you ever expect to climb out of that pseudo-science hole you fell into.

************

>>Kalamata: "The truth is, papers by secular researchers routinely support the creation model. The evolutionism orthodoxy is scared silly that they are losing their power over the minds of the people and their "right" to continually feed at the taxpayer trough. Worse, they must rely on corrupt federal judges to keep opposing viewpoints out of the classrooms. Science can stand on its own, but not evolutionism."
>>Joey wrote: "The truth is those are total lies which tell us, among other things, there's nothing honest going on in Kalamata's mind. Denier Rule #13 among others."

LOL! Ignorant Child.

************

>>Kalamata: "Kalamata: "Evolutionism cannot be falsified because it is not science. "
>>Joey wrote: "More lies, Denier Rules #2 & #5 especially.

Linus Joey's silly rules are his security blanket. LOL!

************

>>Kalamata: "However, it would become instantly accepted by everyone if there was even a shred of evidence for common descent. Without that evidence, the living and the fossil records better fits the creation model."
>>Joey wrote: "Danny Sgt. Schultz Kalamata: And yet again, just like the most despicable of Holocaust deniers, Kalamata looks straight at the evidence and sees..."

Joey is one of the most scientifically-challenged people I have debated. He wouldn't know evidence if it whopped him upside the head.

************

>>Kalamata: "There is no need to get all hysterical on us, Joey? I was simply exposing Hubble as an anti-God bigot."
>>Joey wrote: "Anti-God bigot" is it?"

Yep.

************

>>Joey wrote: "And who else was called "anti-God"? Wasn't that Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler? And who called them that, was it other scientists?"

Possibly. But unlike Hubble, they were Christian creationists, not anti-God bigots.

************

>>Joey wrote: "No, it was theologians like Kalamata who condemned scientists for reporting on things contrary to their own unique Bible interpretations."

I haven't condemned anyone, Joey. That is not my role. The words of Christ will judge them, whether they have been good, or whether they have been evil.

************

>>Kalamata: "Did you not bother to even read what Hubble wrote?"
>>Joey wrote: "I read that Hubble was raised a Christian and later in life had doubts."

That is what Darwin's Snake Oil does to people.

************

>>Joey wrote: "His life was dedicated to science and the objective world of phenomena. The world of pure values is one which science cannot enter, and science is unconcerned with the transcendent, however, compelling a private revelation or individual moment of ecstasy."

His anti-God bigotry damaged his scientific reasoning.

************

>>Joey wrote: "He pulled no punches when a deeply depressed friend asked him about his belief: 'The whole thing is so much bigger than I am, and I can't understand it, so I just trust myself to it, and forget about it.' " I wouldn't call that "anti-God" or "bigotry"."

He certainly played the bigot role in that paper I quoted.

************

>>Kalamata: "I see that astrophysics is not one of your strong suits. The last thing the big bang theory would predict would be deep space, fully mature, galactic clusters, like the Hubble scope found."
>>Joey wrote: "And I see that you lie about astronomy just as you lie about everything else. In this particular case, the further out in space you look, the further back in time you see and so you would expect to see galaxies clustered closer together than they are now."

You are being sarcastic, aren't you? You can't be that dumb! LOL!

At least now I know that you don't have a clue abouy how to interpret the Hubble paper I quoted. Let's break it down. This is the first part Hubble's 2nd quote:

"The departures from uniformity are positive; the numbers of nebulae increase faster than the volume of space through which they are scattered. Thus the density of the nebular distribution increases outwards, symmetrically in all directions, leaving the observer in a unique position."

When something explodes, as in the big bang, the number of particles decrease with distance. Hubble observed the opposite, which confounded him, leaving him with the scary realization that our area of the Universe is the center. He couldn't possibly accept the concept of a divine being, even though he saw it with his own eyes. Besides, the big bang theory, like Darwin's theory, is sancrosanct:

"Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory, because the theory postulates homogeneity"

So, to escape the nightmarish thought of a higher power than himself, Hubble did the same thing the evolutionism cultists do -- modify the theory.

"Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape."

That is what passes for science in the godless world of "methodological naturalism." LOL!

It is not rocket science, Joey. Did I tell you I have been an amateur astronomer for over 50 years?

************

>>Kalamata: "The space telescope bearing Hubble's name proved him wrong."
>>Joey wrote: "Today Hubble is credited with contributing to the Big Bang theory -- i.e., Hubble's Law -- but it seems he also held contrary views, at least earlier in life."

He legacy is, he refused to believe his own eyes because of his bigotry. Modern science is revealing that the observer really is in a unique position (the center.)

************

>>Kalamata: "I feel like I am debating a child."
>>Joey wrote: "Naw, you're trying to debate an honest man by throwing lies & insults at him. It'll never work."

If you were honest, you wouldn't lie every time you touch the keyboard.

************

>>Kalamata: "That is evolutionism window dressing. There is no evidence that any species has speciated out of one family and into another."
>>Joey wrote: "Wrong again, because the fossil & DNA evidence shows that all species, without exception, evolved from earlier species in different taxonomic categories. For example, the Family of Great Apes evolved through many intermediate steps, from the Order of Primates."

You have been brainwashed by fairy tales, Joey

************

>>Kalamata: "Is that a red herring or a straw man?"
>>Joey wrote: "Neither, since you were trying to weaponize Biblical "kinds" against Linnaean taxonomic categories.

Where is that translator when you need him?

Mr. Kalamata