| Creation & Evolution Forum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too. |
 | | 
17th April 2004, 11:58 AM
|  | questions everything
25   
| | Join Date: 26th July 2003 Location: Iceland
Posts: 338
Blessings: 91,093
Reps: 110 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by evolutionbuster Yes....that is what it means
Since only members of the same species can produce fertile offspring you are back where you started. The Kind definition hasn't actually reduced the number of animals Noah had to bring on the Ark.
Hah!
__________________ Ducks. used to care enough to be atheist now he doesn't know what he doesn't believe |
17th April 2004, 12:01 PM
| | Senior Member
46  
| | Join Date: 13th January 2004 Location: From Parts Unknown
Posts: 956
Blessings: 91,599
Reps: 239 (power: 0) | | | evolutionbuster,
are Norwegian rats and Black rats of the rat 'kind'?
They produce offspring that die shortly after birth.
Golden hamsters and Romanian hamsters I believe produce infertile offspring. Are they of different 'kinds'. Is the rat 'kind' the same as the hamster 'kind'?
What about tiger/lion crosses. The females are fertile but the males are infertile. Is this a 'semi-kind'? |
17th April 2004, 12:03 PM
| | Member
 
| | Join Date: 26th March 2004 Location: Big Kinkyland
Posts: 89
Blessings: 90,971
Reps: 24 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by Captain_Jack_Sparrow evolutionbuster,
The females are fertile but the males are infertile. Is this a 'semi-kind'?
oof, thats a bit UN'kind' |
17th April 2004, 12:08 PM
| | Senior Member
46
| | Join Date: 13th January 2004 Location: From Parts Unknown
Posts: 956
Blessings: 91,599
Reps: 239 (power: 0) | | | Goodbye evolutionbuster,
we hardly knew ye!
I am sure he is off on AIG or ICR's website rummaging around for some ammo.
Bring it on! |
17th April 2004, 12:15 PM
| | Senior Member
46
| | Join Date: 13th January 2004 Location: From Parts Unknown
Posts: 956
Blessings: 91,599
Reps: 239 (power: 0) | | | I just found out that I can apply my 'semi-kind' definition to yaks and cows. Females are fertile the males are sterile. |
17th April 2004, 01:44 PM
|  | Contributor
65 
| | Join Date: 4th March 2003
Posts: 6,393
Blessings: 117,788 My Mood 
Reps: 19,183,710,574,649,584 (power: 19,183,710,574,664) | | | I posted this on the Noah's ark and speciation thread but maybe it belongs here. You have to understand the way creationists use "kind". It has two mutually exclusive meanings and they consider both valid.
The first definition of kind is broad enough so that there don't need to be too many animals on the ark so animals with different chromosome numbers such as horses and zebras can definitely be the same kind and especially closely related animals like horses and Prezwalski's horses with different chromosome numbers must be the same "kind".
The second definition of kind is narrow enough so that humans and chimps can't possilby be the same kind, even though we are very close genetically, in part because they have different numbers of chromosomes.
YECs need and use both these definitions together as the definition of "kind". It doesn't bother them one little bit that these two definitions are mutually exclusive. Consistency is not required for creation "science". Two "explanations" can directly contradict each other and still both be accepted as long as neither contradicts the YEC interpretation of scripture. This is an important principle that anyone who attempts to understand creation "science" must grasp.
The frumious Bandersnatch  |
17th April 2004, 01:45 PM
| | Contributor
65
| | Join Date: 4th March 2003
Posts: 6,393
Blessings: 117,788 My Mood
Reps: 19,183,710,574,649,584 (power: 19,183,710,574,664) | | Originally Posted by Captain_Jack_Sparrow I just found out that I can apply my 'semi-kind' definition to yaks and cows. Females are fertile the males are sterile.
I seem to recall that horses and donkeys can produce fertile offspring on rare occasions. Does anyone know for sure?
The frumious Bandersnatch |
17th April 2004, 02:53 PM
| | Senior Member
46
| | Join Date: 13th January 2004 Location: From Parts Unknown
Posts: 956
Blessings: 91,599
Reps: 239 (power: 0) | | | *bump* for evolutionbuster! |
17th April 2004, 03:16 PM
| | Senior Member
46
| | Join Date: 13th January 2004 Location: From Parts Unknown
Posts: 956
Blessings: 91,599
Reps: 239 (power: 0) | | | *bump* |
17th April 2004, 04:15 PM
|  | Soldier of Knowledge
28    
 | | Join Date: 18th January 2004 Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,720
Blessings: 59,512
Reps: 18,604,695,596,698 (power: 18,604,695,606) | | | What a shame, we didn't even get to go into the observed instances of new "kinds" evolving!
Is it just me, or is the latest batch of YECs here even less interested in a real debate than the ones we've had here before? Normally I'd expect a YEC to start shifting his goalposts at this point, but it looks like evolutionbuster doesn't even want to do that.
All I want is one intelligent, educated, and reasonable creationist to debate with about the origin of birds. Is that really so much to ask?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
| | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
