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]

So a tiny minority of humans (biologists) define humans as apes on the superficial basis of a few physiological similarities and everyone else in the word has to agree with them?

No.

Who other than this tiny minority of biologists has to classify and think of themselves as animals?

No one, not even biologists has to classify human as animals.

Is there any law requiring people to subscribe to biological taxons which they find offensive?

No.

Am I forced to be a member of your Homo sapiens species or can I just remain a member of the human race as a human being and a Man?

Your question doesn't make sense since homo sapien sapien is simply another term for human.

The question makes sense from the point of view of a human being who objects to being called a Homo sapiens by you or anyone else. Homo sapiens is a derogatory term invented by biologists to associatie human beings with African apes.

All men and women are human beings, not apes.

I don't consent to being labeled as a Homo sapiens by you or anyone else. Do you and biologists have no respect for the wishes and choices of anyone but yourselves when it comes to defining themselves?

No enought respect to suspend science for your sake.

Then you have no respect for anyone else who objects to being called an ape by you.

Incorrect conclusion from a false permise. Some apes don't nest.

All apes nest. You define yourself as an ape. Therefore, you nest amongst an hierarchy of apes.

Nobody decides what the context is.

I disagree. We are equally entitled to decide what the context is. You do believe in equal rights, don't you?

That's what makes it better than your suggestion - It's objective.

Who decides it is objective? I say it is subjective.

Well then I find everything you said to be one massive insult.

There you go. Believing yourself to have been insulted you are the one to make the claim and it is up to me to apologize.

Incorrect. Nobody gets to decide that. Whether it is an insult or not depends on the context.

No, it doesn't. It depends on whether the person feels offended and insulted. You originally said that you were not offended by my calling you an ape but are now insulted by "everything" I said. In both cases, the person on the receiving end of the remark is the one to claim being offended or not.

Calling someone something that they find offensive and insulting is a personal ad hominem attack. Calling someone a rat or a pig would be considered to be offensive and a personal insult, wouldn't it?

It depents solely on the context.

The context is someone calling you a rat or a pig.

I'm not going to call you a rat or a pig because it would be an ad hominem affront just like calling someone an ape is an ad hominem affront.

There is no other context.

[Neandertal Ned]

I have seen this behavior before.
Ned, are you married to or dating a person of African descent? It's irrelevant as far as evidence goes here, but it could help us to further understand motive.

Is race now a matter of concern to psychobiologists?

I thought race was a social construct and not scientifically classifiable or subject to motivational research by psychobiologists. Another evolutionary myth?

[McCulloch]

The question makes sense from the point of view of a human being who objects to being called a Homo sapiens by you or anyone else. Homo sapiens is a derogatory term invented by biologists to associate human beings with African apes.

Nonsense! From Dictionary.com:

Homo sapiens
1802, in William Turton's translation of Linnus, coined in Mod.L. from L. homo "man" (technically "male human," but in logical and scholastic writing "human being") + sapiens, prp. of sapere "be wise." Used since in various L. or pseudo-L. combinations intended to emphasize some aspect of humanity,
cf. Henri Bergson's Homo faber "man the tool-maker," in "L'Evolution Cratrice" (1907). Homo as a genus of the order Primates is first recorded 1797.

The term Homo sapiens predates evolutionary theory. It is simply a biological classification of human beings. Homo simply is Latin for man. Sapiens refers to our intelligence. This is not a derogatory term, but quite the opposite.

All men and women are human beings, not apes.

That is like saying that Castor canadensis is a beaver not a rodent. Humans are one of the apes. Apes are one group of the primates. Primates are one group within the mammals. Mammals are vertebrates. Vertebrates are animals. Animals are eukaryotic life.

[Neandertal Ned]

The question makes sense from the point of view of a human being who objects to being called a Homo sapiens by you or anyone else. Homo sapiens is a derogatory term invented by biologists to associate human beings with African apes.

Nonsense! From Dictionary.com:

Homo sapiens
1802, in William Turton's translation of Linnus, coined in Mod.L. from L. homo "man" (technically "male human," but in logical and scholastic writing "human being") + sapiens, prp. of sapere "be wise." Used since in various L. or pseudo-L. combinations intended to emphasize some aspect of humanity,
cf. Henri Bergson's Homo faber "man the tool-maker," in "L'Evolution Cratrice" (1907). Homo as a genus of the order Primates is first recorded 1797.

The term Homo sapiens predates evolutionary theory. It is simply a biological classification of human beings. Homo simply is Latin for man. Sapiens refers to our intelligence. This is not a derogatory term, but quite the opposite.

All men and women are human beings, not apes.

That is like saying that Castor canadensis is a beaver not a rodent. Humans are one of the apes. Apes are one group of the primates. Primates are one group within the mammals. Mammals are vertebrates. Vertebrates are animals. Animals are eukaryotic life.

All well and good and no harm done until Darwin comes along and draws evolutionary conclusions. Now Darwinism is taught as fact and Christians, Jews and Muslims are called apes. Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Prophet Mohammad are labeled as apes whose own ancestors are falsely said to have originated from tree-swinging and knuckle-walking African apes. Time for Jews, Christians and Muslims to draw the line and to start calling Darwinists a few choice names in addition to atheists, sinners, blasphemous infidels, corrupters of youth and evil, wicked liars.

[McCulloch]

You cannot claim anything is "'scientific" without consent and agreement by Christians, Muslims and Jews.

Evidently whoever told you this does not understand the foundational principles of science. Science follows the evidence. If the evidence contradicts the teachings of any particular religion, then that is of no importance to a true scientist. In fact, in matters of truth, religions tend now to follow science. Religion once opposed the Copernican model of the universe. Now, even though the proof texts used against it have not changed, the earth is no longer considered to be at the center of the universe. Many religions which once opposed evolution now accept it. Religions which once supported witch burning now generally reject, as unscientific, claims of witchcraft and sorcery.

The biological classification of humans within apes, primates, mammals, vertebrates, animals and life has nothing to do with scientific materialism.

You have to apologize to Christians, Muslims and Jews for calling them apes.

For calling us apes. I am not saying that you are an ape but I am not. We are all apes, just as we are all mammals. There is no insult in that. There is nothing to apologize for.

Ok. I am not a biological totalitarian. If the Jews you know prefer to be called apes, then that is their choice. I will only speak for all the Jews you don't know.

Fair enough. Do you personally know any Jews who reject the current biological classification of humans?

Do you know any Muslims who accept the lie of evolution and are happy to be called apes?

Quite frankly, the topic has never come up with any of my Muslim friends or colleagues. However, Padma Bhushan Syed Zahoor Qasim is a leading Indian marine biologist and a Muslim. Niyaz Ahmed is an Indian professor of microbial sciences, a Muslim and a member of the International Society for Genomic and Evolutionary Microbiology (Italy) and currently serves as its General Secretary. Sohail Asif Qureshi is a Pakistani Muslim molecular biologist, who is the second dean of School of Science and Engineering at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS). He also is a Professor of molecular biology at LUMS, and is currently involved in research linked to Archaeabacteria and Hepatitis C virus. Not all Muslims reject evolution.

[Clownboat]

I have seen this behavior before.
Ned, are you married to or dating a person of African descent? It's irrelevant as far as evidence goes here, but it could help us to further understand motive.

Is race now a matter of concern to psychobiologists?

I thought race was a social construct and not scientifically classifiable or subject to motivational research by psychobiologists. Another evolutionary myth?

Um, Ned. You are the only one here to reference race.
You also failed to answer the question.

[Neandertal Ned]

You cannot claim anything is "'scientific" without consent and agreement by Christians, Muslims and Jews.

Evidently whoever told you this does not understand the foundational principles of science. Science follows the evidence.

Leave science out of it. I am talking about Darwinism. It is an ideology, not science.

Religion once opposed the Copernican model of the universe.

That was the Roman Catholic Church, not religion in general.

Many religions which once opposed evolution now accept it.

Some members of those religions accept it. Others do not.

Religions which once supported witch burning now generally reject, as unscientific, claims of witchcraft and sorcery.

They reject the burning of witches and heretics because there are greater evils in the world these days than witchcraft and heresy.

The biological classification of humans within apes, primates, mammals, vertebrates, animals and life has nothing to do with scientific materialism.

It does when applied to Christians, Muslims and Jews who do not claim to be apes or any other kind of animals and object to be classified as such by scientific materialists.

You have to apologize to Christians, Muslims and Jews for calling them apes.

For calling us apes. I am not saying that you are an ape but I am not. We are all apes, just as we are all mammals. There is no insult in that. There is nothing to apologize for.

Biologists can believe it but no one else has to. Biologists cannot speak for Christians, Muslims and Jews. Everyone can identify, define and classify themselves as they see fit. We do not live under a totalitarian dictatorship of biologists.

Ok. I am not a biological totalitarian. If the Jews you know prefer to be called apes, then that is their choice. I will only speak for all the Jews you don't know.

Fair enough. Do you personally know any Jews who reject the current biological classification of humans?

No, but I have a long list of Jewish scientists who expressed their opposition to Darwinism during their lifetimes.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ose-darwin

Do you know any Muslims who accept the lie of evolution and are happy to be called apes?

Quite frankly, the topic has never come up with any of my Muslim friends or colleagues. However, Padma Bhushan Syed Zahoor Qasim is a leading Indian marine biologist and a Muslim. Niyaz Ahmed is an Indian professor of microbial sciences, a Muslim and a member of the International Society for Genomic and Evolutionary Microbiology (Italy) and currently serves as its General Secretary. Sohail Asif Qureshi is a Pakistani Muslim molecular biologist, who is the second dean of School of Science and Engineering at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS). He also is a Professor of molecular biology at LUMS, and is currently involved in research linked to Archaeabacteria and Hepatitis C virus. Not all Muslims reject evolution.

I know that. Many do though.

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

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

[Neandertal Ned]

I have seen this behavior before.
Ned, are you married to or dating a person of African descent? It's irrelevant as far as evidence goes here, but it could help us to further understand motive.

Is race now a matter of concern to psychobiologists?

I thought race was a social construct and not scientifically classifiable or subject to motivational research by psychobiologists. Another evolutionary myth?

Um, Ned. You are the only one here to reference race.
You also failed to answer the question.

People of African descent comprise a racial group in the US.

Do you not live in the US?

Besides, your question is an ad hominem and you were already warned about making such remarks by the moderator. Don't you pay attention to moderator comments?

[Nilloc James]

For the record that is not an ad homimem. Pointing out who said what has nothing to do with the logical fallacy:

Person Y said Z
Person Y is stupid/always wrong/uneducated/foolish/etc.
therefore Z is wrong

That is an ad hominem.

[Bust Nak]

The question makes sense from the point of view of a human being who objects to being called a Homo sapiens by you or anyone else. Homo sapiens is a derogatory term invented by biologists to associatie human beings with African apes.

It means wise man. I would take it as a complement, and find it amusing that you think of it as an insult.

All men and women are human beings, not apes.

Let try role reversal: So a tiny minority of humans (creationists) define humans as non apes on the superficial basis of their religion, everyone else in the word has to agree with them? Who other than this tiny minority of creationist has to classify and think of themselves as non-animals? Is there any law requiring people to subscribe to theological taxons which they find offensive? Am I forced to be a member of your non-ape classification or can I just remain a member of the human race as a human being and an ape?

Then you have no respect for anyone else who objects to being called an ape by you.

There is a difference between no respect, and not enough respect to cater to all their wishes. I have enough respect to continue this conversation with you, enough respect to treat you as an adult, for example.

All apes nest. You define yourself as an ape. Therefore, you nest amongst an hierarchy of apes.

Unsound reasoning due to false permise.

I disagree. We are equally entitled to decide what the context is. You do believe in equal rights, don't you?

We do have equal rights, neither of us are entitled to decide what the context is. The context is not a matter of opinion.

Who decides it is objective? I say it is subjective.

Nobody decides, that's the point of objective measument. It's takes human bias out of the picture. Or are you going for the English language is defined by human and is ultamately subjective angle?

There you go. Believing yourself to have been insulted you are the one to make the claim and it is up to me to apologize.

Do are you going to stop insulting me and apologize?

No, it doesn't. It depends on whether the person feels offended and insulted. You originally said that you were not offended by my calling you an ape but are now insulted by "everything" I said. In both cases, the person on the receiving end of the remark is the one to claim being offended or not.

So you accept that everything you said is an insult? Do you have no repect for me?

The context is someone calling you a rat or a pig.

Then clearly according to the context it's an insult.

I'm not going to call you a rat or a pig because it would be an ad hominem affront just like calling someone an ape is an ad hominem affront.

There is no other context.

Yes there is - for example, when I classiying all human as ape the context is biological classification.