Original Research--join In

[SkyWriting]

Is 'fish' a kind?

"Kind" means category or "similar to".

"Kind" is not a category itself.

The words use had not changed. There are different KINDS of fish.
"each according to their own kind" is the same as
"each according to their own category."

 

[EternalDragon]

Is 'fish' a kind?

Are fish a genus?

But with naming something you run into the same
species problem. So stop asking about "kind" already
when scientists can't even nail down species.

Species problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JacksBratt]

Religion tells us the world was created in six days, about six thousand years ago, based on certain writings that come to us from the bronze age.

Religion tells us nothing. The "writings from the bronze age" tell us something as do all historical records.

The Religions are man made belief systems and methods to worship each of its gods.

Science is a systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.


Usually these observations are tested to see if they can be repeated.

 

[SkyWriting]

How many assumptions are you making when you say that one gene used for pancreatic purposes "evolved" into another gene used for anti-freeze purposes?

Science cannot see into the past. Only imagination can do that.
Or faith in written history. Lots of faith.

 

[lasthero]

Are fish a genus?

But with naming something you run into the same
species problem. So stop asking about "kind" already
when scientists can't even nail down species.

Species problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Completely irrelevant. You're comparing a term with a fuzzy definition to a term with NO definition. No scientist, for instance, would say that housecats and tigers are the same species, but I have met creationists who make that claim for kinds. I've met creationists who claim that all spiders are one kind. I've met creationists who claim that birds are all one kind. I've met creationists who claim that all bacteria are one kind, and don't get me started on how insane that is.

The definition of species is fuzzy because life is vast and complex - it's hard to get a solid definition that's going to apply to all the organisms on this planet. That being the case, just because a term is fuzzy doesn't mean it's useless. There's no set number for how many beans are in a 'heap of beans', but you wouldn't say it's impossible to have a heap of beans for that reason. You know a heap when you see one. The same applies to species. Though there are different definitions, they fall within a range.

With 'kind', however, there's nothing that even comes close. It's just whatever the creationist at the time wants it to be.

 

[justlookinla]

Completely irrelevant. You're comparing a term with a fuzzy definition to a term with NO definition. No scientist, for instance, would say that housecats and tigers are the same species, but I have met creationists who make that claim for kinds. I've met creationists who claim that all spiders are one kind. I've met creationists who claim that birds are all one kind. I've met creationists who claim that all bacteria are one kind, and don't get me started on how insane that is.

Birds are birds are birds. Bacteria are bacteria are bacteria. Neither are pine trees or tulips.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Birds are birds are birds. Bacteria are bacteria are bacteria. Neither are pine trees or tulips.

There is more genetic similarity between a human and a chimpanzee than between most bird species. There is no means by which to say all birds are the same kind or all fish are the same kind without placing humans, chimps, gorillas, etc as the same kind.

 

[justlookinla]

There is more genetic similarity between a human and a chimpanzee than between most bird species. There is no means by which to say all birds are the same kind or all fish are the same kind without placing humans, chimps, gorillas, etc as the same kind.

There's genetic similarity between us and a banana too. I've never been confused for a banana...or a chimp for that matter either.

 

[PsychoSarah]

There's genetic similarity between us and a banana too. I've never been confused for a banana...or a chimp for that matter either.

I also don't see people mistake pigeons for penguins, yet you would have them in the same kind.

 

[sfs]

Birds are birds are birds. Bacteria are bacteria are bacteria. Neither are pine trees or tulips.

Mammals are mammals are mammals.

 

[justlookinla]

I also don't see people mistake pigeons for penguins, yet you would have them in the same kind.

.

Yes, both are birds. Humans are one of a kind. Humans are humans, apes are apes, birds are birds and a rose is a rose.

 

[PsychoSarah]

.

Yes, both are birds. Humans are one of a kind. Humans are humans, apes are apes, birds are birds and a rose is a rose.

There are far more genetic and just general physical similarities between a human and a chimpanzee than there are between penguins and pigeons. To purposely separate humans from that consideration just to say they are "one of a kind" without some legitimate reason for it is pure bias.

 

[justlookinla]

There are far more genetic and just general physical similarities between a human and a chimpanzee than there are between penguins and pigeons. To purposely separate humans from that consideration just to say they are "one of a kind" without some legitimate reason for it is pure bias.

If you can point to another life form which has the self-awareness, creativity and production capabilities of a human I'd be interesting in seeing it.

 

[JacksBratt]

Completely irrelevant. You're comparing a term with a fuzzy definition to a term with NO definition. No scientist, for instance, would say that housecats and tigers are the same species, but I have met creationists who make that claim for kinds. I've met creationists who claim that all spiders are one kind. I've met creationists who claim that birds are all one kind. I've met creationists who claim that all bacteria are one kind, and don't get me started on how insane that is.

The definition of species is fuzzy because life is vast and complex - it's hard to get a solid definition that's going to apply to all the organisms on this planet. That being the case, just because a term is fuzzy doesn't mean it's useless. There's no set number for how many beans are in a 'heap of beans', but you wouldn't say it's impossible to have a heap of beans for that reason. You know a heap when you see one. The same applies to species. Though there are different definitions, they fall within a range.

With 'kind', however, there's nothing that even comes close. It's just whatever the creationist at the time wants it to be.

"KIND" the debate goes on.

Why are people so hung up on this simple little word?

In the end, does it really matter what you think "kind" means or I think "kind" means?

Remember, Genesis is just a "myth" according to many here on this forum. If I look at any fairy tail out there, do I get all worried about the definition of a word in the Lord of the Rings? Of course not.

So, why is this little word so bothersome to some? Why is it debated so much and demanded that I or someone else post "our definition"?

I'll tell you why. IF the word is taken at par in the story of creation it emphatically states that God created each animal as that animal. It takes away any argument that God used evolution to arrive at the different animals, plants, birds and ocean creatures because HE created them each in their own kind. He made a cow, then a horse, then a rat, then a robin, then a perch etc. It dissasembles evolutionary fabels.

Again, I really don't understand the brew ha ha as Genesis states that God formed Adam with His hands and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, then made Eve from his rib and this little gem of scripture deters no theistic evolutionist.

IF that scripture fazes no one then why would the word "kind" be such a show stopper.

 

[PsychoSarah]

If you can point to another life form which has the self-awareness, creativity and production capabilities of a human I'd be interesting in seeing it.

If you can point to another life form which has the resilience of a water bear, I would love to see that. There used to be other species which were arguably about as intelligent as humans; we killed them/they went extinct. The niche our species occupies cannot be shared, any species around us that had those traits ended up competing with our species for resources. We just happened to be more violent and organized.

 

[EternalDragon]

If you can point to another life form which has the resilience of a water bear, I would love to see that. There used to be other species which were arguably about as intelligent as humans; we killed them/they went extinct. The niche our species occupies cannot be shared, any species around us that had those traits ended up competing with our species for resources. We just happened to be more violent and organized.

How do you know?

 

[PsychoSarah]

How do you know?

Fossil record, and we even have evaluated the DNA of Neanderthals, lucky us.

 

[lasthero]

"KIND" the debate goes on.

Why are people so hung up on this simple little word?

In the end, does it really matter what you think "kind" means or I think "kind" means?

Remember, Genesis is just a "myth" according to many here on this forum. If I look at any fairy tail out there, do I get all worried about the definition of a word in the Lord of the Rings? Of course not.

So, why is this little word so bothersome to some? Why is it debated so much and demanded that I or someone else post "our definition"?

I'll tell you why. IF the word is taken at par in the story of creation it emphatically states that God created each animal as that animal. It takes away any argument that God used evolution to arrive at the different animals, plants, birds and ocean creatures because HE created them each in their own kind. He made a cow, then a horse, then a rat, then a robin, then a perch etc. It dissasembles evolutionary fabels.

Again, I really don't understand the brew ha ha as Genesis states that God formed Adam with His hands and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, then made Eve from his rib and this little gem of scripture deters no theistic evolutionist.

IF that scripture fazes no one then why would the word "kind" be such a show stopper.

If creationists would stop using the word, I wouldn't care one bit. But you don't. You use it repeatedly, but never establish what the word actually means.

The argument is, typically, that evolution cannot produce a change in kinds. That's what creationists tend to stand behind. Fine. But if that's what you're going to do, you need to define what the word actually means in the context your' using it in. Otherwise, it's a license to shift the goalposts indefinitely. No matter what examples are shown, a creationist can always dismiss them and say they're not an example of one 'kind' changing to another, and since the word has no definition, you can dismiss ANY evidence. A kind is just the thing that evolution can't produce. Whatever that is.

In a formal debate, ambiguity like this is unacceptable. How can you seriously expect to have a rational discussion with someone where you use words that you won't even define when asked? You really don't see why that's a problem for reasonable discourse?

It's extremely telling that, in all the time creationism has been going, there's been no serious attempt to create a list of kinds or nail what a kind actually is. Complain about the species problem, but at least scientists are actively working with it and have come to some consensus. If you ask two scientists what a species is, you'll likely get similar answers. If you ask two creationists, they'll differ wildly. Why do you think that is?

 

[EternalDragon]

Fossil record, and we even have evaluated the DNA of Neanderthals, lucky us.

I am asking how you know how intelligent they were and who they
were killed by.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I am asking how you know how intelligent they were and who they
were killed by.

When these species go extinct almost immediately after we chronologically start finding signs of the activity of our predecessors, it gets pretty obvious why these other bipedal apes went extinct. Intelligence shown by tool use on a similar level to humans.