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?

[Neandertal Ned]

That's what I want to know. Who in their right mind would call themself an ape? It's not normal.

Who in their right mind... let's think about this.
You seem to look at the people on this planet as all different and possibly not all equal. You see Christians, Muslims, Jews, Blacks, Mexicans, Indians, Asians ect...

I am a realist.

Us, on the other hand.
We see that we are all equal and members of the great ape family together.

Sounds like a new religious vision of a united humanity to me. Do you accept donations or are your doctrines supported by the government?

Who's in there right mind here?

Good question. How would you know that you are in your right mind?

Who's view is more accepting of our fellow humans and promotes acceptance of our fellow humans?

Certainly not someone like Dawkins. Do you accept your fellow humans as they are or do they all have to become apes like you in order to be gathered into the fold?

Which view is more likely to cause dissension between people of other religions and races?

One thing is for sure. Your view causes dissention between people no matter their race or religion.

Which view does not require belief in a bronze age religious book that cannot be shown to be true?

Your view. It only requires belief in stone age humans and apes becoming humans once upon a time in Africa long before your mythical bronze age.

And you ask us about who is in their right mind.

I did. And your answer is?

I have to ask - which sciences do you agree with Ned? Has science acheived anything or should we go back to small farming villages with a ducking stool for witches in the local pond?

Real science consists of mathematics, equations, formulas, laws, experiments, physical tests, demonstrations and observable technological results in the physical world. Darwinist assumptions and speculations are not science.

[Brian Of Nazareth]

So would I be correct in thinking you believe enough of physics to know that a kettle can boil; that we have a pretty good idea how much water vapour can be supported in air before it precipitates, that atmospheric and water pressure increases by depth and so on?

[Neandertal Ned]

So would I be correct in thinking you believe enough of physics to know that a kettle can boil; that we have a pretty good idea how much water vapour can be supported in air before it precipitates, that atmospheric and water pressure increases by depth and so on?

Yes, I learned that water boiled before I knew the first thing about physics.

I also discovered gravity when I was just a tot learning to walk and only later did I discover that Newton had discovered it long before I learned to walk.

[Brian Of Nazareth]

So would I be correct in thinking you believe enough of physics to know that a kettle can boil; that we have a pretty good idea how much water vapour can be supported in air before it precipitates, that atmospheric and water pressure increases by depth and so on?

Yes, I learned that water boiled before I knew the first thing about physics.

I also discovered gravity when I was just a tot learning to walk and only later did I discover that Newton had discovered it long before I learned to walk.

Yet gravity cannot be directly observed, the mechanism isn't understood and is an incomplete theory - we can only see the effects of gravity and make predictions. Are you stating gravity is self-evident from the evidence presented?

Gravity has less scientific evidence than evolution. Should we therefore reject it as both a law and a theory?

[Jzyehoshua]

So would I be correct in thinking you believe enough of physics to know that a kettle can boil; that we have a pretty good idea how much water vapour can be supported in air before it precipitates, that atmospheric and water pressure increases by depth and so on?

Yes, I learned that water boiled before I knew the first thing about physics.

I also discovered gravity when I was just a tot learning to walk and only later did I discover that Newton had discovered it long before I learned to walk.

Yet gravity cannot be directly observed, the mechanism isn't understood and is an incomplete theory - we can only see the effects of gravity and make predictions. Are you stating gravity is self-evident from the evidence presented?

Gravity has less scientific evidence than evolution. Should we therefore reject it as both a law and a theory?

Well, gravity can be observed though, it can be tested in the lab. Macroevolution on the other hand has never been "observed while it's happening" (Richard Dawkins) and cannot be seen or tested occurring today. So I'd argue gravity is subject to the scientific method today whereas macroevolution is not. We can see microevolution occurring, moths adapting as moths on trees, bacteria adapting as bacteria, and finches adapting as different kinds of finches. However, they never deviate outside their core designs. So far as I'm concerned macroevolution is not a testable, observable science but a theory based entirely upon speculation and faith.

[Neandertal Ned]

So would I be correct in thinking you believe enough of physics to know that a kettle can boil; that we have a pretty good idea how much water vapour can be supported in air before it precipitates, that atmospheric and water pressure increases by depth and so on?

Yes, I learned that water boiled before I knew the first thing about physics.

I also discovered gravity when I was just a tot learning to walk and only later did I discover that Newton had discovered it long before I learned to walk.

Yet gravity cannot be directly observed, the mechanism isn't understood and is an incomplete theory - we can only see the effects of gravity and make predictions. Are you stating gravity is self-evident from the evidence presented?

Gravity has less scientific evidence than evolution. Should we therefore reject it as both a law and a theory?

The thing that inexorably convinced me about the force of gravity was the fact that every time I fell off my bicycle I always ended up on the ground and had scrapes and bruises as evidence. Can't say that I have ever experienced evolution though or have seen any evidence of it. Kids still fall off of bicycles and a friend of mine fell down the stairs last week.

[Neandertal Ned]

So chimpanzees, gorrillas, orangutans and bonobos might also think that they are human since you think that you are one of them. Interesting.

what I had in mind was chimpanzees etc, may think of humans as chimpanzees etc. as opposed to thinking themselves as humans.

Do chimpanzees know that they are chimpanzees and classify themselves as Pan troglodytes in your family of apes? Might not they mistake you for a Neandertal or a Homo erectus since all of these so-called "species" of apes are so closely related?

Because it implies my family and I are less than human. We don't nest, only non-human apes do.

But you and your family are nested in your hierarchical system of ape classification. Are you now saying that you and your familiy belong in the Kingdom and Man along with me an my family instead of being mistaken for apes nesting together?

No, I didn't say people cannot feel offended if no insult was intended. I said it's irrational to feel offended if non was intended.
I also said that feeling offended doesn't make a statement an insult.

If you have been advised and forewarned that a certain group finds something to be offensive and insulting, even though you don't intend to insult them, would it not then be irrational to offend and insult them by doing or saying the very thing that you have been told will offend and insult them?

I don't believe that it is your intentention to insult anyone by labeling and calling them an ape. I am only saying that many people may find it offensive and take it as a personal offense and insult if you call them an ape to their face or on the Internet. Many people will find it offensive and insulting if you tell them that Prophet Muhammed was an ape even though you do not intend it as an insult. They will tell you that no matter your intention, calling either them or Prophet Muhammed an ape is an offensive insult! What they say or do about being so insulted is another matter. The point is that the person being insulted is the one who determines the insult, not the person who insulted them.

I am insinuating that your intention was to insult me

In your case then, the insult is only established by being totally dependent on the intention of the person whom you claim is insulting you. It is not so much the term that you find offensive and insulting but the intention of the person using the term. In this case also, the criteria for establishing the offense and insult is solely determined by the person claiming to be offended and insulted. So in both cases, it is the person claiming to be insulted and offended who determines that an offense has been committed. The offending party must apologize for offending and insulting the offended party whether the offender intended the remark to be offensive and insulting or not! All you have to say is that you are sorry and that you did not intend to insult me and promise not to do it again in the future.

I can't - you ARE a real ape.

I consider that remark to be highly offensive and insulting. Please don't call me an ape again. Members of my family do not nest with apes and I consider it an ad honimen attack to personally call me an ape.

[Goat]

Well, gravity can be observed though, it can be tested in the lab. Macroevolution on the other hand has never been "observed while it's happening" (Richard Dawkins) and cannot be seen or tested occurring today. So I'd argue gravity is subject to the scientific method today whereas macroevolution is not. We can see microevolution occurring, moths adapting as moths on trees, bacteria adapting as bacteria, and finches adapting as different kinds of finches. However, they never deviate outside their core designs. So far as I'm concerned macroevolution is not a testable, observable science but a theory based entirely upon speculation and faith.

Of course, We Have indeed observed macro evolution in the lab

[Neandertal Ned]

Well, gravity can be observed though, it can be tested in the lab. Macroevolution on the other hand has never been "observed while it's happening" (Richard Dawkins) and cannot be seen or tested occurring today. So I'd argue gravity is subject to the scientific method today whereas macroevolution is not. We can see microevolution occurring, moths adapting as moths on trees, bacteria adapting as bacteria, and finches adapting as different kinds of finches. However, they never deviate outside their core designs. So far as I'm concerned macroevolution is not a testable, observable science but a theory based entirely upon speculation and faith.

Of course, We Have indeed observed macro evolution in the lab

Oh no. Not more bacterial evolution, please. Has bacteria finally "evolved" into something other than a new strain of bacteria?

[Neandertal Ned]

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?

Really good, Thanks.

Except that neurology has gone a long way to show that the human mind is really a product of the human brain. Nothing supernatural about it at all. Must we accept Lesson One by faith?

The problem with the idea of the mind being a product of the brain is that any product intelligently designed by using your brain would have to be a product of an intelligently designed brain, would it not? A computer or a software program that was not intelligently designed would not be able to produce any intelligent results, would it?