is creation outside of science's scope?

[Assyrian]

No it is it is nothing to do with the biblical use of the word kind, it the creationist interpretation of kinds as separately created types of unrelated animal which reproduce within that kind, that creationists cannot define.

Seeing as this meaning of kind is a non definition of 'creation science', it tells us that so called 'creation science' is outside the scope of science, and that creation is outside the scope of creation science. Creation science can either give us a scientific definition of kind, or explain what kind is in the bible. That has to be a bit of a problem for them.

 

[archaeologist]

let's see you post links to secular science's ability to define the word 'kind' and keep in within the biblical sense of the word. i would like to see links proving your accusations as well from creation science's websites.

accusing the creation scientists without providing any proof of such just means you are making false accusations, doing a personal attack against them, mis-representing their work and so on.

all of which points to your lack of credibility and character.

 

[KerrMetric]

let's see you post links to secular science's ability to define the word 'kind' and keep in within the biblical sense of the word.

You are the first person I have ever seen ask someone to define Biblical kind scientifically. The problem is that kind is not defined scientifically in the Bible. That is why Creationists have danced around for years when asked to define it. They have given answers anywhere from species level to Kingdom level because it's not amenable to a rigorous definition.

 

[archaeologist]

You are the first person I have ever seen as someone to define Biblical kind scientifically.

sorry but i do not follow what you are trying to say here. i have made no definitions yet. though i would venture that 'kinds' are just simply categories or as we used to say years ago, 'families'. i.e. the dog family, the cat family etc.

i am looking to see if you can do it and provide credible links to back up what you say.

 

[KerrMetric]

sorry but i do not follow what you are trying to say here. i have made no definitions yet. though i would venture that 'kinds' are just simply categories or as we used to say years ago, 'families'. i.e. the dog family, the cat family etc.

i am looking to see if you can do it and provide credible links to back up what you say.

I had a typo in my post.

You are the first creationist I have ever seen ASK non-Creationists to define the Biblical "kind"

It cannot be done since the Bible's use of "kind" is not scientific.

Creationists have had myriad problems defining kind since when they pick one it gets shot down.

 

[Assyrian]

accusing the creation scientists without providing any proof of such just means you are making false accusations, doing a personal attack against them, mis-representing their work and so on.

all of which points to your lack of credibility and character.

Personal attacks aside, if you want to show I am wrong about creation scientists never coming up with any sort of definition of kind, all you have to do is show me where they have. I have read a lot of creationist literature and never found more than a vague description of what should be the fundamental division of life on earth - if they are right. But they have not come up with any sort of definition that will tell you where one kind ends and another begins. But who knows. Maybe I have missed it.

let's see you post links to secular science's ability to define the word 'kind' and keep in within the biblical sense of the word. i would like to see links proving your accusations as well from creation science's websites.

It is not up to science to define Hebrew. Science does describe the different forms of life on earth, any book on biology will describe that. Now if you want to show that the 'biblical sense of kind' is different from the scientific description of all the species genera and families, go ahead.

 

[archaeologist]

It cannot be done since the Bible's use of "kind" is not scientific.

Creationists have had myriad problems defining kind since when they pick one it gets shot down.

how is it 'not scientific'? it is a category of animals thus science should be able to discover the boundaries and if not how can scientists shoot down creationists then?

you are goingto have to write more to make your point. right now you are just avoiding providing any details. still waiting for those links.

 

[archaeologist]

Personal attacks aside, if you want to show I am wrong about creation scientists never coming up with any sort of definition of kind, all you have to do is show me where they have. I have read a lot of creationist literature and never found more than a vague description of what should be the fundamental division of life on earth - if they are right. But they have not come up with any sort of definition that will tell you where one kind ends and another begins. But who knows. Maybe I have missed it.

your unwillingness to back up your statements and desire to have other people do your work for you makes my observational statement true and not a personal attack.

please cite such literature because i do not take your word for anything. you have provento me incapable of supporting your own viewpoint.

It is not up to science to define Hebrew

really?! they seem to be able to do that with other parts of the same passage; 'and the earth brought forth...'

Now if you want to show that the 'biblical sense of kind' is different from the scientific description of all the species genera and families, go ahead

you made the statements, it is on you. please do your own work.

 

[notto]

how is it 'not scientific'? it is a category of animals thus science should be able to discover the boundaries and if not how can scientists shoot down creationists then?

Can you define the category of animals? What characteristics will we use to tell one kind from another?

Unless it is defined in an objective way, it is not scientific.

Scientists already have a way to categorize animals that works. It is creationists who stick to the nebulous and undefined kinds.

You are a great creationist. Can't you define a 'kind'?

If you are claiming it has been defined then it is up to you to show us how.

 

[Assyrian]

your unwillingness to back up your statements and desire to have other people do your work for you makes my observational statement true and not a personal attack.

please cite such literature because i do not take your word for anything. you have provento me incapable of supporting your own viewpoint.

You claim I am wrong, show me. I have never seen one on all my time on the CrEvo debate. If creation science really has come up with a definition of kind that can tell one kind from another, it should be very easy to show that I am wrong.

It is not up to science to define Hebrew

really?! they seem to be able to do that with other parts of the same passage; 'and the earth brought forth...'

When has science done that?

Now if you want to show that the 'biblical sense of kind' is different from the scientific description of all the species genera and families, go ahead.

you made the statements, it is on you. please do your own work.

I see, you can't define a biblical kind either.

I have told you what the scientific view is. If you think they have got it wrong and that their understanding of species and genera is different from biblical kinds, then you go ahead and show us. I suggest you start by telling us what you understand by the biblical sense of kind. But fell free to take any other approach you like.

 

[archaeologist]

Scientists already have a way to categorize animals that works. It is creationists who stick to the nebulous and undefined kinds

still no credible links to show what you say is credible or true. when you do that then i may be interested in what you have to say.

Unless it is defined in an objective way, it is not scientific.

oh pleeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaassssssssssseeeeeeeeeee,

we all know that even science isn't objective. read the book 'Battle of Beginnings' by Dr. Ratzsch. he did a very good job in showing how unobjective science is.

that is just an excuse for secular people to hide behind when they do not want to consider options by their christian counterparts.

You are a great creationist. Can't you define a 'kind'?

an atiest i debated for over a year repeatedly told me that creationists are not out there looking, investigating and soon. i agree with him in that sense as i am often frustrated by the books produced by them since the lack of depth and investigation is appalling.

it is as if they are afraid to dig too deeply in for fear of offending God in some manner or if the question too much then they feel they are damagingtheir faith.

i tend to look at it that we need to do such things as people need to be properly infomed, taught and shown that God means what He says when he says to get knowledge.

at the moment the best definition i can give is what i have already offered, categories/families. i would have to do much more research into the word and see how its boundaries shape up.

we do know that hybrids have to be of the same kind for their offspring to be able to reproduce ut that isn't enough in my eyes.

here is one link i have found that even comes close to defining the word:

http://www.nwcreation.net/biblicalkinds.html

The Biblical kinds are not well defined, but there are a number of Biblical references that enable us to know in many cases whether a group with a common characteristic, such as the hoofed animals, represents many creations or just one.

If you are claiming it has been defined then it is up to you to show us how.

why? as kerrmatic said, many attempts are made and shot down, which shows that secular scientists have no interest in accepting what creationists say.

so the ball is in your court.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

... an atiest i debated for over a year repeatedly told me that creationists are not out there looking, investigating and soon. i agree with him in that sense as i am often frustrated by the books produced by them since the lack of depth and investigation is appalling.

...

Many might agree with you.

Well done.

 

[random_guy]

still no credible links to show what you say is credible or true. when you do that then i may be interested in what you have to say.

Well, science has cladistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics), and it works very well. It's used to determine which species to look for in order to find certain proteins, genes, etc...

Click on this link (http://www.tolweb.org/tree/) and you can see an example of how well defined the system is.

here is one link i have found that even comes close to defining the word:

http://www.nwcreation.net/biblicalkinds.html

According to the link, if kind is the family level of taxonomy, then hyper-evolution occurred to result in dogs, wolves, and foxes, all in less than several thousand years. It sure seems like you would have to accept evolution. If you don't think it's that big of a change between dog and wolf, why is it such a big change between human and Neanderthal? Second, according to that link, humans and chimps and gorillas are all of the same kind. So are you sure that link is all that great of a source to use?

This is why kind has never been defined. It's too hard to define kind that makes it so humans and chimps are in separate groups, but at the same time, make dogs and wolves be in the same group.

why? as kerrmatic said, many attempts are made and shot down, which shows that secular scientists have no interest in accepting what creationists say.

so the ball is in your court.

Actually, that's the job of science, to shoot down bad theories/pseudoscience. We can't prove things, but we can disprove things. That's why evolution is so well accepted, there hasn't been any evidence to the contrary. If you want kinds to be accepted by science, it's up to the Creationists to come up with a rigorous definition, not some fuzzy definition that waffles on the kinds of chimps and humans.

 

[archaeologist]

[So are you sure that link is all that great of a source to use?/QUOTE]

shows you what information i have to work with if i stay within the creationist sources. i am sure there are better ones, but i do not see any of the creationists here providing any excellant sources to help out.

This is why kind has never been defined. It's too hard to define kind that makes it so humans and chimps are in separate groups, but at the same time, make dogs and wolves be in the same group.

which backs up what i have been saying about how creation is outside the scope of science. God did somethings that we do not comprehend or define.

it sets what He did apart from what evolution could possibly be imagined to do and again points to the fact that only He could create life.

it would be understandable to conclude that this problem would not exist if evolution were responsible.

Actually, that's the job of science, to shoot down bad theories/pseudoscience. We can't prove things, but we can disprove things

do not need science to disprove anything. anyone could do that.

That's why evolution is so well accepted, there hasn't been any evidence to the contrary.

that is where you are wrong. but i won't get into it here

If you want kinds to be accepted by science,

believers do not need science to accept anything. it isn't God nor the final authority, it is a field being used by the evilone to deceive people and lead themaway from God.

when you realize that then we can talk.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

....

shows you what information i have to work with if i stay within the creationist sources. i am sure there are better ones, but i do not see any of the creationists here providing any excellant sources to help out.

...

Well, Archie, you are the creationist and I am sure you can find better links. If not, perhaps there are no better links.

Does not the fact that of all the creationists here you are left alone not give you any message?

 

[KokoTheGorilla2]

That's why evolution is so well accepted, there hasn't been any evidence to the contrary.

that is where you are wrong. but i won't get into it here

That is where Archie wrong, but Koko not getting into here too!

 

[Assyrian]

here is one link i have found that even comes close to defining the word:

http://www.nwcreation.net/biblicalkinds.html

Yet even according to them:

The Bible says that God created many "kinds" of plants and animals. Various plants were created on the third creation day, sea creature and flying birds on the fifth, and land animals and humans on the sixth day. The Biblical kinds are not well defined, but there are a number of Biblical references that enable us to know in many cases whether a group with a common characteristic, such as the hoofed animals, represents many creations or just one.

Though they do list some bible references, not all of which even mention the word 'kind', no attempt is made after that to analyse what the bible actually says about kinds, or what the word means. They simply argue what they think it ought to mean based on their YEC interpretation of a six day creation, but not on biblical use of the word kind.

 

[random_guy]

shows you what information i have to work with if i stay within the creationist sources. i am sure there are better ones, but i do not see any of the creationists here providing any excellant sources to help out.

It might be because science put together a great system that works, and Creationists can't do the same, and for a very good reason. You can't classify life without using a nested hierarchy due to common descent.

which backs up what i have been saying about how creation is outside the scope of science. God did somethings that we do not comprehend or define.

But if that's the case, why does cladistics works so well in finding proteins/genes/sequences/etc... in other species? Why does cladistics predict which ERV sequences will be in Chimps and Humans and only in Chimps and not Humans?

do not need science to disprove anything. anyone could do that.

I think you misunderstand what I said. You can't prove things in science, you disprove things. The best theories have little to no evidence disproving it (but that can quickly change). Also, I don't think anyone can disprove things. I have yet to see a Creationist correctly disprove any science.

believers do not need science to accept anything. it isn't God nor the final authority, it is a field being used by the evilone to deceive people and lead themaway from God.

when you realize that then we can talk.

Well, when we realize that science is from Satan, we really can't talk unless we're right next to each other, seeing how science gave us the internet and computers to chat on these forums. Science is just a tool to investigate the world and God's Creation. I really don't see what's so wrong about that. I guess that's the difference between evolutionists and Creationists. We think knowledge is good.

 

[The Lady Kate]

shows you what information i have to work with if i stay within the creationist sources. i am sure there are better ones, but i do not see any of the creationists here providing any excellant sources to help out.

Perhaps this is a commentary on the quality of Creationist work?

which backs up what i have been saying about how creation is outside the scope of science. God did somethings that we do not comprehend or define.

Except that we can both comprehend and define cladistics quite well. What we can't do is twist it into some kind of form that makes your theories look correct.

Hmmm... perhaps the problem is with your theories?

it sets what He did apart from what evolution could possibly be imagined to do and again points to the fact that only He could create life.

And what is "it" again?

it would be understandable to conclude that this problem would not exist if evolution were responsible.

The problem exists, as far as I can tell, in your interpretations. It would not exist if you accepted evolution.

do not need science to disprove anything. anyone could do that.

Correction then: Science to disprove something well... as in a bit more substantial than shaking one's head and chanting "nope! Ain't so!"

that is where you are wrong. but i won't get into it here

Or anywhere else, I'll wager.

believers do not need science to accept anything. it isn't God nor the final authority, it is a field being used by the evilone to deceive people and lead themaway from God.

when you realize that then we can talk.

So we can't talk until we all accept that you're right. What would the point of that be, exactly?

 

[archaeologist]

random guy:

Well, science has cladistics

well thank you for the link but i won't accept an evolutionary model, as i do not think they are based in reality nor fact.

It might be because science put together a great system that works, and Creationists can't do the same, and for a very good reason. You can't classify life without using a nested hierarchy due to common descent

if you look at the creation account, you will see such classification is not acceptable. i will admit that to define further than i have i would be guilty of speculation.

we do know that God does not provide everything and that there are certain mysteries we still have to invesitgate to see if He will provide an answer for us. OR i just haven't found a good enough website or book that seriusly and honestly researches from a christian perspective.

I have yet to see a Creationist correctly disprove any science.

i guess that depends upon your perspective and definition of correctly. i have shown quite clearly that evlution is inferred or built on minimal evidence (lucy as an example) which denies any probability or possibility of being verified.

it is more about faith than evolutionists give credit (not saying evolution is a religion just that it takes a large amount of faith to accept it)

when we realize that science is from Satan, we really can't talk unless we're right next to each other, seeing how science gave us the internet and computers to chat on these forums

yes and the t.v. has been declared as one of the worst inventions as it splits too many families apart. not all is good that comes from science.

that is the point i have been trying to make. a lot of technology you claim is good, is actually very destructive to God's creation.

sure we use it as Paul says we are free to do a lot but not all things are expedient. though that does not give permission to sin or stop listening to God.

We think knowledge is good.

don't claim justification for following secular views by saying you are for knowledge. God commanded all His followers to get it but He also commanded not to follow the world. the one command does not over rule the other.

Lady:

Perhaps this is a commentary on the quality of Creationist work?

Not all. erwin lutzer is hailed as a great writer in evangelical circles but to me he is one of the most disappointing authors there can be.

he doesn't explore far enough nor provide many reasons why he makes his point and he often jumps to a salvation message in his chapters in lieu of more detailed investigative work which would satisfy readers as to why he is saying what he is saying.

i mentioned this criticism to an old pastor friend from my college days and he was upsetat the fact that i would dare criticize the man.

What we can't do is twist it into some kind of form that makes your theories look correct.

i am not the one doing the twisting, you are using the mystery to provide 'evidence' for an evolutionary model. i am stopping at the word 'categories' and calling for more research into the matter.

pplease do not accuse me of doing what you are doing.

perhaps the problem is with your theories?

not at all. i am not the one requiring millions of years to produce such groupings nor am i presenting such thinking which is unverifiable. you cannot back up what your saying without resortin to inferrence, conjecture, extrapolation, assumptions and so on.

i at least have the opportunity to see my categories with my own eyes.

The problem exists, as far as I can tell, in your interpretations. It would not exist if you accepted evolution

there is nothing wrong with the way i see scripture but this is a typical evolutionist thought which tries to justify their departure from God's word.

Science to disprove something well... as in a bit more substantial than shaking one's head and chanting "nope! Ain't so!"

that is not what i am doing and since i have 6 to 10,000 years of all species acting exactly like they were created to do, you are the ones doing the above.

what did someone say...150 years of scientific experiments. yet not one of those experiments produces results similar to the ones claimed by the adherents of the evolutionary theory.

as an example: i forget but isn't it that birds came from reptiles or vice versa? please produce the experiment that shows that part of the evolutionary tree in action.

i do not accept any other experiment where inferrences, conjecture or extrapolation are used. i want the actual event reproduced to verify it took place. keeping in mind the fact that no such event has been observed throughout human history.

So we can't talk until we all accept that you're right. What would the point of that be, exactly?

there is more than one meaning to the word 'talk'.