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?

[Nilloc James]

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?

How about speciation based on food types in flies? Or speciation by due to polyploidy in plants? Even if you reject bacterial examples of evolution (arbritary), there are still other examples of speciation.

[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?

How about speciation based on food types in flies? Or speciation by due to polyploidy in plants? Even if you reject bacterial examples of evolution (arbritary), there are still other examples of speciation.

I am not overly concerned since I can neither confirm nor disprove it. Just let me know when you notice some member of your family speciating.

[Bust Nak]

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?

No, these are all humandefined terms.

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?

Equivocation fallacy, plus a non-sequitur fallacy. Me and my family don't nest, non-human apes do. What you said here makes no sense.

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?

That depends on the context.

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.

I am well aware of that.

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.

So you are saying whether a statement is an insult is completely subjective? Well then in my opinion calling you a great ape is not an insult.

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...

That's backwards: The intention of the person using the term is not determined by the person claiming to be offended.

I consider that remark to be highly offensive and insulting. Please don't call me an ape again.

Request denied.

Members of my family do not nest with apes and I consider it an ad honimen attack to personally call me an ape.

Well it isn't.

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

Unfortunately for you, no, it hasn't happened - such a thing would disprove evolution. While bacteria may evolve into something that have very little common with the source bacteria, they cannot ever evolved into something other than a new strains of bacteria according to evolution. Someone who understand nested hierarchy would understand that.

[Neandertal Ned]

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?

No, these are all humandefined terms.

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? Who other than this tiny minority of biologists has to classify and think of themselves as animals? Is there any law requiring people to subscribe to biological taxons which they find offensive? 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? 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?

Me and my family don't nest, non-human apes do. What you said here makes no sense.

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

f 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?

That depends on the context.

Who decides what the context is - you or the person you have offended and insulted?

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.

I am well aware of that.

Let's keep it in mind, then. People can take offense to being called 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.

So you are saying whether a statement is an insult is completely subjective?

Subjective or objective, whether or not an offense has been committed is completely decided by those who feel insulted by the offense.

Well then in my opinion calling you a great ape is not an insult.

Wrong. Your "opinion" is not the deciding factor in whether or not I feel offended. Your "opinion" may even be determined to be the cause of the offense. The fact that you choose not to feel offended or insulted by being called an ape is proof that an offense and insult is decided and determined by the person on the receiving end of the remark.

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...

That's backwards: The intention of the person using the term is not determined by the person claiming to be offended.

It is in your case, even though you denied being offended or insulted. You say that it is the person's intention which determines the offense.

I consider that remark to be highly offensive and insulting. Please don't call me an ape again.

Request denied.

Would you mind being called a monkey or a donkey?

Members of my family do not nest with apes and I consider it an ad hominen attack to personally call me an ape.

Well it isn't.

You don't get to decide that. The offended party does. 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?

[Atrax Robustus]

Ned

I'm fascinated by your ongoing campaign against the notion that humans are currently classified as members of the Hominidae (Great Apes) family and we are all therefore, albeit distant, cousins of today's modern apes.

While your case is presented from the perspective that this widely accepted taxonomical classification causes offence to various people - predominantly those who are pious followers of the Abrahamic religions, I have to admit that I am unconvinced by your display of empathy. Your crusade appears to be a far more personal one.

Please bear with me here - I am not trying to be confrontational . . . I am trying to gain an understanding of the basis of your dislike of the taxonomic classifications. I find it difficult to have a meaningful discussion with someone if I haven't taken the time to gain a clear understanding of the other person's point of view.

So . . . and please refrain from raising your concern regarding the offence that some people take from the notion - I'm aware of your position . . . would you mind explaining why you personally reject the taxonomical classification that places man as a member of the Great Apes family?

Thanks for your time.

[Neandertal Ned]

Ned

I'm fascinated by your ongoing campaign against the notion that humans are currently classified as members of the Hominidae (Great Apes) family and we are all therefore, albeit distant, cousins of today's modern apes.

While your case is presented from the perspective that this widely accepted taxonomical classification causes offence to various people - predominantly those who are pious followers of the Abrahamic religions, I have to admit that I am unconvinced by your display of empathy. Your crusade appears to be a far more personal one.

Please bear with me here - I am not trying to be confrontational . . . I am trying to gain an understanding of the basis of your dislike of the taxonomic classifications. I find it difficult to have a meaningful discussion with someone if I haven't taken the time to gain a clear understanding of the other person's point of view.

So . . . and please refrain from raising your concern regarding the offence that some people take from the notion - I'm aware of your position . . . would you mind explaining why you personally reject the taxonomical classification that places man as a member of the Great Apes family?

Thanks for your time.

It simply serves no purpose, does no good and makes no contribution to the welfare, happiness and prosperity of Christians, Jews and Muslims to include themselves in your Great Ape Family. It contradicts their claim to be the descendents of Noah and his family.

You can include everyone else who doesn't object to being called an ape though.

[McCulloch]

It simply serves no purpose, does no good and makes no contribution to the welfare, happiness and prosperity of Christians, Jews and Muslims to include themselves in your Great Ape Family. It contradicts their claim to be the descendents of Noah and his family.

You can include everyone else who doesn't object to being called an ape though.

The truth of a scientific proposition is not determined by whether it contributes to the welfare, happiness or prosperity of specific groups. That humans are one branch of the great apes is a biological truth, whether or not you object or accept it. Furthermore, it does not even contradict anyone's claim to be a descendent of Noah. If Noah was a human and did actually exist, then he, along with all the other humans are one of the apes. You have to move you objection back several generations. It contradicts their claim to be literal descendents of Adam, created directly by God from dust.

By the way, all of the Jews that I know accept the truth of evolution, so you are probably in error to include them in the list of those who might object to humans being classified as one of the great apes.

[Bust Nak]

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.

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.

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

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

Who decides what the context is - you or the person you have offended and insulted?

Nobody decides what the context is. That's what makes it better than your suggestion - It's objective.

Let's keep it in mind, then. People can take offense to being called an ape even though you do not intend it as an insult.

Ok.

Subjective or objective, whether or not an offense has been committed is completely decided by those who feel insulted by the offense.

Which would make it completely subjective, and simply a matter of opinion.

Wrong. Your "opinion" is not the deciding factor in whether or not I feel offended. Your "opinion" may even be determined to be the cause of the offense. The fact that you choose not to feel offended or insulted by being called an ape is proof that an offense and insult is decided and determined by the person on the receiving end of the remark.

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

It is in your case, even though you denied being offended or insulted. You say that it is the person's intention which determines the offense.

Yeah, which makes it not dependent on anyone's perception. i.e. objective.

Would you mind being called a monkey or a donkey?

I would.

You don't get to decide that. The offended party does.

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

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.

[Neandertal Ned]

quote="McCulloch"]

It simply serves no purpose, does no good and makes no contribution to the welfare, happiness and prosperity of Christians, Jews and Muslims to include themselves in your Great Ape Family. It contradicts their claim to be the descendents of Noah and his family.

You can include everyone else who doesn't object to being called an ape though.

The truth of a scientific proposition is not determined by whether it contributes to the welfare, happiness or prosperity of specific groups.

It certainly is when the "truth" of it is questioned by Christians, Muslims and Jews. You cannot claim anything is "'scientific" without consent and agreement by Christians, Muslims and Jews. Truth is a religious concept and scientists don't get to establish "truth" for Christians, Muslims and Jews without their agreement and consent. Too much harm and damage has been done to Christans, Muslims and Jews by the atheistic advocates of "scientific materialism" in the 20th Century.

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

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/ ... commu.html

http://patriotsandliberty.com/?p=17227

That humans are one branch of the great apes is a biological truth, whether or not you object or accept it.

No, it's not a truth at all. There is no truth before the truth of God. We don't live under a biological dictatorship and you can no more tell Christians, Muslims and Jews what truth is than any other atheist can. God is truth, and there is no truth in atheism or scientific materialism.

Furthermore, it does not even contradict anyone's claim to be a descendent of Noah.

I said that it does. You are contradicting Christians, Muslims and Jews who claim to be descended from the family of Noah, not your family of apes.

If Noah was a human and did actually exist, then he, along with all the other humans are one of the apes.

That is impossible to prove or demonstrate scientifically. You and your biological buddies are just making things up. Do you expect Christians, Muslims and Jews to believe you? Why should they?

You have to move you objection back several generations.

No, I don't have to move anything anywhere. You have to apologize to Christians, Muslims and Jews for calling them apes.

It contradicts their claim to be literal descendents of Adam, created directly by God from dust.

That goes without saying since Noah and his family were all descendents of Adam and Eve. We don't have to go back that far to trace the origins of all Jews, Muslims and Christians.

By the way, all of the Jews that I know accept the truth of evolution, so you are probably in error to include them in the list of those who might object to humans being classified as one of the great apes.

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

[Clownboat]

quote="McCulloch"]

It simply serves no purpose, does no good and makes no contribution to the welfare, happiness and prosperity of Christians, Jews and Muslims to include themselves in your Great Ape Family. It contradicts their claim to be the descendents of Noah and his family.

You can include everyone else who doesn't object to being called an ape though.

The truth of a scientific proposition is not determined by whether it contributes to the welfare, happiness or prosperity of specific groups.

It certainly is when the "truth" of it is questioned by Christians, Muslims and Jews. You cannot claim anything is "'scientific" without consent and agreement by Christians, Muslims and Jews. Truth is a religious concept and scientists don't get to establish "truth" for Christians, Muslims and Jews without their agreement and consent. Too much harm and damage has been done to Christans, Muslims and Jews by the atheistic advocates of "scientific materialism" in the 20th Century.

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

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/ ... commu.html

http://patriotsandliberty.com/?p=17227

That humans are one branch of the great apes is a biological truth, whether or not you object or accept it.

No, it's not a truth at all. There is no truth before the truth of God. We don't live under a biological dictatorship and you can no more tell Christians, Muslims and Jews what truth is than any other atheist can. God is truth, and there is no truth in atheism or scientific materialism.

Furthermore, it does not even contradict anyone's claim to be a descendent of Noah.

I said that it does. You are contradicting Christians, Muslims and Jews who claim to be descended from the family of Noah, not your family of apes.

If Noah was a human and did actually exist, then he, along with all the other humans are one of the apes.

That is impossible to prove or demonstrate scientifically. You and your biological buddies are just making things up. Do you expect Christians, Muslims and Jews to believe you? Why should they?

You have to move you objection back several generations.

No, I don't have to move anything anywhere. You have to apologize to Christians, Muslims and Jews for calling them apes.

It contradicts their claim to be literal descendents of Adam, created directly by God from dust.

That goes without saying since Noah and his family were all descendents of Adam and Eve. We don't have to go back that far to trace the origins of all Jews, Muslims and Christians.

By the way, all of the Jews that I know accept the truth of evolution, so you are probably in error to include them in the list of those who might object to humans being classified as one of the great apes.

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

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.