Science of Theological Taxonomy

[Neandertal Ned]

Biological taxonomy assumes and is designed to show so-called evolutionary relationships. Theological taxonomy neither assumes nor is designed to show so-called evolutionary relationships, yet all living things can be categorized and classified within a system of theological taxonomy.

The Science of Theological Taxonomy

The Kingdom of God on earth (Spirit and Science of Life) contains and consists of all of the kingdoms listed below.

The Kingdom of Man (Living Souls)
contains and consists of all of the kingdoms listed below.

The Kingdom of Animals (Humans excluded)
contains and consists of all of the kingdoms listed below.

The Kingdom of Plants
contains and consists of all of the kingdoms listed below.

The Kingdom of Fungi
contains and consists of all of the kingdoms listed below.

The Kingdom of Bacteria
contains and consists of all of the kingdoms listed below.

The Kingdom of Minerals
contains and consists of all of the kingdoms listed below.

The Kingdom of Molecules
contains and consists of all of the kingdoms listed below.

The Kingdom of Atoms
contains and consists of all of the kingdoms listed below.


What do you think of the spirit and science of theological taxonomy?

In which kingdom do you belong?

Do you think that taxonomy is a science?

Can you find anything wrong with the spirit and science of theological taxonomy?

[Bust Nak]

Government has a say in science when it allows medical doctors to drug schoolkids and to abort teenage pregnancies. Government has a say in science when The FDA either appoves or bans the use of drugs, No scientific endeavor, experiment or research is conducted without the consent of government. Government has a say in science when it investigates fraudulent claims by scientists and exposes unsafe scientific practices and bans harmful scientific products.

That's just scientist having a say in science, and government having a say in politics.

Scientists lobby Congress and government agencies all the time in efforts to influence the coercive power of legislation either in favor of or in opposition to some scientific endeavor of one kind or another.

They want government funding, sure. How is that coercive power?

Separation of science and state would put a quick end to the manipulation of politicians, legislators and judges by scientists.

But politicians, legislators and judges don't want to do away with science.

Are you saying that scientists cannot bring the benefits of science to market without subsidies from the state?...

No, I am not.

Ok. Should anyone be mocked, disparaged or put down for neither believing in nor having faith in whatever evidence scientists claim for their pet theories?

Depends on what you mean by pet theories. If you are referring to evolution then yes, you should be mocked.

Some scientists believe in life in outer space or global warming. That doesn't mean that there actually is life in outer space or that global warming is occurring, does it?

No, nor does it mean there is no life in outer space or that global warming is not occurring.

Likewise, if some scientists believe they and everyone else are apes, it doesn't necessarily mean that they really are apes, does it?

Actually, it does, when the scientists in question are taxonomist. Life in outer space and global warming are not matters of classification/definition.

Why should scientists have a say in how society operates if religionist don't and scientists are opposed to religionists having a say in how society operates?

But religionists do have a say in how society operates.

Do scientists think they are superior to religionists?

I am guessing most do think that.

You are wasting your time emphasizing your claim that ALL humans are apes since no one in history has claimed to be an ape until a few "scientists" decided to categorize themselves and other men as apes.

What does this got to do with what I said? Why does it matter when these few scientist started to categorize human as apes?

No self-respecting human or scientist would ever categorize themself as an ape let alone any other person as an ape.

False by counter-example. I have lots of self-respect and I categorize myself and others as apes.

It is disrespectful to call the great men of history apes. Those who show no respect for others cannot expect to be respected by others.

Your permise is false, leading to a false conclusion.

How can you be so naive? Who hasn't heard of fossils?

Exactly my point. Everybody have heard of fossils yet many say there is no evidence. There is a huge difference between no evidence and not finding the evidence presented convincing.

Apes are subhuman animals.

Generalization fallacy. Some apes are subhuman animals.

Darwinists say that you "evolved" from subhuman, ape-like creatures in Africa once upon a time. You even claim to be closely related to subhuman apes like chimpanzees. So what makes you think that you are any better or different than a subhuman ape now?

Lets start with these: I am better than a chimp in terms of reasoning abilities. I am larger than a chimp. I live longer than a chimp.

Why is it not mad to think oneself to be an ape?

Because it's logical conclusion. Besides, even if you do think I am mad, I am still not a scientist, which would still make your previous statement false by counter example.

Just following the example of Darwinists.

Tu quoque fallacy. This is like the third time already. Do you understand what that fallacy means? In short: two wrongs doesn't make a right, even if you were just following the example of Darwinists, it wouldn't have made your reasoning valid.

Who said anything about chimps and monkeys thinking?

That would be you. When you claimed chimps and monkeys were laughing at humans.

Saying that Muslims and Prophet Muhammed are apes would make you a blasphemous infidel.

Ok, then I am a blasphemous infidel according to your definition of blasphemous.

Why should scientists fear being targeted by Islamists if they are just telling the scientific truth about them and their Prophet Muhammed?

Because Islamists aren't known for being rational thinkers.

Aren't scientists duty-bound to tell the truth despite religious opposition to it? Galileo and Bruno did. Aren't scientists today as brave as Galileo and Bruno were?

Duty-bound, maybe, today's scientists aren't as brave as Galileo and Bruno.

What is wrong with changing perception?

There is nothing wrong with changing perception in itself, the point is, and have always been, changing perception doesn't change the nature of the perceived: i.e. feeling offended doesn't make a statement an insult.

Wouldn't you like me to change my perception of the "evidence" which you claim is proof of evolution?

Evidence of evolution, not proof. But yes, I do want you to change your perception.

So you finally admit that calling people apes "could" offend people whether it was your intention to offend them or not.

There is no "finally admit" since I never disputed it in the first place. Right from the get go I talked about people feeling offended and how it doesn't make classification an insult.

[LiamOS]

Moderator Comment

Science cannot provide evidence in support of theological claims.

These are religious claims and of no relevence to the so-called "scientific method" of obtaining and verifying knowledge.

Read the rules for posting on the forum.

If science is not capable of defending such claims, do not make them in this subforum. This subforum, as the title suggests, pertains to science and religion. Further, as I have commented before, do not make claims you are unwilling to support, as it is against rule 5 of the Rules.
Finally, please do not misrepresent the rules.

These are your claims Ned. Back them up or retract them, quit being such a coward.

Please do not call other debaters cowards, as it is uncivil to do so.

Please review the Rules.
______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 135:

That would be impossible since the sole purpose of science is to unravel the mysteries of how an Omniscient God created the laws of physics by which He both created and governs His Universe.

Naw, that'd be your "theological taxonomy".

Most scientists don't assume there's an "omniscient god" that "created" a universe that must run according to, or be governed by, the laws of an "omniscient god".

[Neandertal Ned]

I am better than a chimp in terms of reasoning abilities. I am larger than a chimp. I live longer than a chimp.

Yet you claim to be as much of an ape as a dumb chimp is. How does that show any better reasoning abilities than those of a dumb chimp?

Besides, even if you do think I am mad, I am still not a scientist, which would still make your previous statement false by counter example.

As a non-scientist though wouldn't you be mad to believe what a mad scientist tells you?

Do you understand what that fallacy means?

Of course. Believing that you are an ape is a fallacy.

That would be you. When you claimed chimps and monkeys were laughing at humans.

Do chimps and monkeys think humans are funny?

Ok, then I am a blasphemous infidel according to your definition of blasphemous.

Well, you are only an ape according to your definitions of apes.
Do you think that your definitions are better than mine?

Because Islamists aren't known for being rational thinkers.

Really? This is the perspective of someone who think they are an ape?

Duty-bound, maybe, today's scientists aren't as brave as Galileo and Bruno.

Is it because scientists have discovered that they are apes since the days of Galileo and Bruno? Did Galileo, Bruno and Copernicus think they were apes?

There is nothing wrong with changing perception in itself, the point is, and have always been, changing perception doesn't change the nature of the perceived: i.e. feeling offended doesn't make a statement an insult.

Who determines the true nature of what is perceived though? Have you never heard of a paradigm shift in science?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Struct ... evolutions

But yes, I do want you to change your perception.

Why?

There is no "finally admit" since I never disputed it in the first place. Right from the get go I talked about people feeling offended and how it doesn't make classification an insult.

You also said that "People refrain from saying things that could offend people all the time." You wouldn't go out on a limb of your evolutionary tree and tell Islamists that it is not your intention to insult or offend them but you consider them and Prophet Muhammed to be apes, would you?

[Jzyehoshua]

I see the following core parent species or kingdoms in Genesis 1. Mentioned in parentheses are the Hebrew words used in Genesis 1 for them:

PLANTS
-Seed-Sowing Vegetables ('eseb zara' zera'), Genesis 1:11-12.
-Fruit Trees (priy 'ets), Genesis 1:11-12

OTHER LIFE
-Swarms of Souls with Life (sherets nephesh chay), Genesis 1:20
-Birds ('owph), Genesis 1:20-22.
-Great Dragons (gadowl tanniyn), Genesis 1:21.
-Mammals (bhemah), Genesis 1:24-25.
-Reptiles (remes), Genesis 1:24-25.
-Man ('adam), Genesis 1:26-27.

All living creatures, apart from man (who rules them) appear to fall into 3 categories according to Genesis 1, "fish of the seas" (dagah yam), "the birds of Heaven" ('owph shamayim), and "life moving on Earth" (chay ramas 'erets).

Genesis 1:28 Elohiym <h0430> blessed, <h01288> and Elohiym <h0430> spoke, <h0559> "Flourish <h06509>, increase, <h07235> and fill <h04390> Earth; <h0776> subjugate <h03533> and rule <h07287> the fish <h01710> of the seas, <h03220> the birds <h05775> of Heaven, <h08064> and life <h02416> moving <h07430> on Earth." <h0776>

The following is the Hebrew interlinear for the key verses cited, Genesis 1:11-12 and 24-27.

Genesis 1:11 And God <'elohiym> said, <'amar> Let the earth <'erets> bring forth <dasha> grass, <deshe'> the herb <eseb> yielding <zara> seed, <zera> and the fruit <priy> tree <ets> yielding <asah> fruit <priy> after his kind, <miyn> whose <'aher> seed <zera> is in itself, upon the earth: <'erets> and it was so.
12 And the earth <'erets> brought forth <yatsa'> grass, <deshe'> and herb <eseb> yielding <zara> seed <zera> after his kind, <miyn> and the tree <ets> yielding <asah> fruit, <priy> whose seed <zera> was in itself, after his kind: <miyn> and God <'elohiym> saw <ra'ah> that it was good. <towb>

Genesis 1:20 And God <'elohiym> said, <'amar> Let the waters <mayim> bring forth abundantly <sharats> the moving creature <sherets> that hath <nephesh> life, <chay> and fowl <owph> that may fly <uwph> above <al> the earth <'erets> in the open <paniym> firmament <raqiya> of heaven. <shamayim>
21 And God <'elohiym> created <bara'> great <gadowl> whales, <tanniyn> and every living <chay> creature <nephesh> that moveth, <ramas> which the waters <mayim> brought forth abundantly, <sharats> after their kind, <miyn> and every winged <kanaph> fowl <owph> after his kind: <miyn> and God <'elohiym> saw <ra'ah> that it was good. <towb>
22 And God <'elohiym> blessed <barak> them, saying, <'amar> Be fruitful, <parah> and multiply, <rabah> and fill <male'> the waters <mayim> in the seas, <yam> and let fowl <owph> multiply <rabah> in the earth. <'erets>
23 And the evening <ereb> and the morning <boqer> were the fifth <chamiyshiy> day. <yowm>
24 And God <'elohiym> said, <'amar> Let the earth <'erets> bring forth <yatsa'> the living <chay> creature <nephesh> after his kind, <miyn> cattle, <bhemah> and creeping thing, <remes> and beast <chay> of the earth <'erets> after his kind: <miyn> and it was so.
25 And God <'elohiym> made <asah> the beast <chay> of the earth <'erets> after his kind, <miyn> and cattle <bhemah> after their kind, <miyn> and every thing that creepeth <remes> upon the earth <'adamah> after his kind: <miyn> and God <'elohiym> saw <ra'ah> that it was good. <towb>
26 And God <'elohiym> said, <'amar> Let us make <asah> man <'adam> in our image, <tselem> after our likeness: <dmuwth> and let them have dominion <radah> over the fish <dagah> of the sea, <yam> and over the fowl <owph> of the air, <shamayim> and over the cattle, <bhemah> and over all the earth, <'erets> and over every creeping thing <remes> that creepeth <ramas> upon the earth. <'erets>
27 So God <'elohiym> created <bara'> man <'adam> in his own image, <tselem> in the image <tselem> of God <'elohiym> created <bara'> he him; male <zakar> and female <nqebah> created <bara'> he them.

[Bust Nak]

Yet you claim to be as much of an ape as a dumb chimp is. How does that show any better reasoning abilities than those of a dumb chimp?

Well it shows that I understand nested hierarchy, whether that is better than a chimp's ability depends on if chimps understand nested hierarchy or not. They may well do.

As a non-scientist though wouldn't you be mad to believe what a mad scientist tells you?

Yes. That's why I don't believe mad scientists. But what does this have to do with your claim being proven false by counter-example?

Of course. Believing that you are an ape is a fallacy.

Well your response doesn't show that you do understand.

Do chimps and monkeys think humans are funny?

I don't know, you made the claim, you tell me how you know.

Well, you are only an ape according to your definitions of apes.

Where did the "only" an ape come from? I am a lot more than an ape.

Do you think that your definitions are better than mine?

Yes I do.

Really? This is the perspective of someone who think they are an ape?

Yep.

Is it because scientists have discovered that they are apes since the days of Galileo and Bruno?

No.

Did Galileo, Bruno and Copernicus think they were apes?

Galileo and Bruno possibly. Copernicus probably not, modern taxnomoy was after his time.

Who determines the true nature of what is perceived though?

It doesn't matter who determines it, because they way to determind it is objective.

Have you never heard of a paradigm shift in science?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Struct ... evolutions

What does this have to do with what I've said?

Why?

Because you have a say in how society operates.

You also said that "People refrain from saying things that could offend people all the time." You wouldn't go out on a limb of your evolutionary tree and tell Islamists that it is not your intention to insult or offend them but you consider them and Prophet Muhammed to be apes, would you?

Maybe online anonymously, but not directly to Islamists. I don't trust them to listen.

[Neandertal Ned]

Yet you claim to be as much of an ape as a dumb chimp is. How does that show any better reasoning abilities than those of a dumb chimp?

Well it shows that I understand nested hierarchy, whether that is better than a chimp's ability depends on if chimps understand nested hierarchy or not. They may well do.

Understanding nested hierarchies would indicate an ability to think on the part of chimpanzees, would it not? In saying that chimps "may well" understand nested hierarchies, you seem to believe that chimps may as well think like humans.

That's why I don't believe mad scientists.

Scientists who think they are apes may be classified as mad though.

Do chimps and monkeys think humans are funny?

I don't know, you made the claim, you tell me how you know.

I only said that chimps laughed at "people who think they are apes," but in saying that chimps "may well" understand nested hierarchies, you lead me to believe that chimps may as well think like humans.

Where did the "only" an ape come from? I am a lot more than an ape.

If you are more that an ape, why call yourself an ape? According to biotaxons you are just another species of apes. Do you think there is something special about you that distinguishes you from apes?

It doesn't matter who determines it, because they way to determind it is objective.

How can you be objective about yourself when you are the subject? How do you differentiate between the object and the subject when you are both the object and subject yourself at the same time?

Maybe online anonymously, but not directly to Islamists. I don't trust them to listen.

Is there any good reason why Islamists should listen to blasphemous infidels who say that they and Prophet Muhammed are apes?

[McCulloch]

The debater of the OP has admitted that he is not a scientist, yet he proposes a taxonomy which he claims is scientific. Might I suggest that he is out of his depth. The proposed taxonomy has no scientific merit and it has not been demonstrated that it would provide science with any useful insight.

You are so scientifically biased that you can't even recognize theological taxons which are included in a specifically stated system of Theological Taxonomy!

I have studied theology and have found it lacking substance. But that is not relevant. This thread is entitled Science of Theological Taxonomy. I challenge the use of the word science in this context. This taxonomy may be useful to theologists, perhaps. I cannot judge. It is useless as far as I can tell, to scientists.

Might I suggest that you are obviously out of your league when it comes to providing religion with any useful or demonstrable theological insights.

I completely concur. I do not comprehend how religion or theology has any useful or demonstrable insights. Feel free to enlighten me. I am open to learn. I will probably challenge the validity of your claims, but that is the nature of my skepticism.

[Neandertal Ned]

This thread is entitled Science of Theological Taxonomy. I challenge the use of the word science in this context. This taxonomy may be useful to theologists, perhaps. I cannot judge. It is useless as far as I can tell, to scientists.

Depends on the meaning of the words 'science' and 'scientists.' I consider both religion and theology to be soft sciences like social science and political science. Since language is not a science then definitions of such words as 'science' cannot be scientific and are open to interpretation and poetic license. Mathematics is the language of science but cannot be said to be a science, in and of itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Might I suggest that you are obviously out of your league when it comes to providing religion with any useful or demonstrable theological insights.

I completely concur. I do not comprehend how religion or theology has any useful or demonstrable insights. Feel free to enlighten me. I am open to learn. I will probably challenge the validity of your claims, but that is the nature of my skepticism.

Since I don't want to make any claims that cannot be demonstrated to be true how about defining religion as that which can be believed in without having to demonstrate that it is true?

There are so many things that I cannot prove to be true that I simply categorize them as religion. As far as theology goes, one has to accept the possibility and premise that the human mind is not a physical entity and that there is something supernatural about it. There is nothing physical or natural about the human mind and it cannot be observed by physical means. Once you accept your mind as a mental and supernatural aspect of your being then you may take the first step into understanding what religion and theology is all about. How's that for Lesson One?

[Bust Nak]

Understanding nested hierarchies would indicate an ability to think on the part of chimpanzees, would it not?

Yes, it would.

In saying that chimps "may well" understand nested hierarchies, you seem to believe that chimps may as well think like humans.

Yeah, I do believe that chimps may well think like humans. Nested hierarchies aren't exactly complicated.

Scientists who think they are apes may be classified as mad though.

Classified by whom? Any why should I listen to that person?

I only said that chimps laughed at "people who think they are apes,"

Yeah, you did. Back up your claim - How do you know they laughed at us?

but in saying that chimps "may well" understand nested hierarchies, you lead me to believe that chimps may as well think like humans.

Yeah, what is your point? I sense a non-sequitur coming: chimps may well think like humans, therefore chimps think like creationists.

If you are more that an ape, why call yourself an ape?

Because being more than just an ape, doesn't stop you from being an ape. This is basic nested hierarchy. You know like how a vehicle doesn't stop being a vehicle when it's a car.

According to biotaxons you are just another species of apes. Do you think there is something special about you that distinguishes you from apes?

No. There is nothing that distinguishes me from apes, because I am fully an ape. But there is lots that is special about me that distinguishes me from non-human apes (and from other humans too, I understand nested hierarchy for one thing.)

How can you be objective about yourself when you are the subject? How do you differentiate between the object and the subject when you are both the object and subject yourself at the same time?

I am not the subject here - statements percieved to be offensive are the subject.

Is there any good reason why Islamists should listen to blasphemous infidels who say that they and Prophet Muhammed are apes?

Yes, because what this particular blasphemous infidels says is backed up with scientific evidence.