How to choose between creation and evolution.

[inquiring mind]

Insofar as claiming lack of evidence, even if that were true (it's not) that doesn't mean it's logical to believe something else. Especially since the perceived lack of evidence on your part seems to be little more than personal incredulity. And that's an emotional argument at its core.

Doesn't seem like your choice is based on logic.

Since when do 'science types' know about common sense... I thought everything had to be according to the scientific method?

 

[pitabread]

In what way?

It's right there is the AiG article you referenced. You did read it didn't you?

Creation scientists use the word baramin to refer to created kinds (Hebrew: bara = created, min = kind). Because none of the original ancestors survive today, creationists have been trying to figure out what descendants belong to each baramin in their varied forms. Baramin is commonly believed to be at the level of family and possibly order for some plants/animals (according to the common classification scheme of kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species). On rare occasions, a kind may be equivalent to the genus or species levels.
​

What Are “Kinds” in Genesis?

 

[pitabread]

Since when do 'science types' know about common sense...

Appeals to "common sense" are typically again an emotional form of reasoning, not logical.

So it sounds like your beliefs are not based on logic as you claimed they were.

 

[inquiring mind]

On rare occasions, a kind may be equivalent to the genus or species levels.

Okay, is he wrong to say kind = genus? Maybe he didn’t want to expound on it. Ask him.

 

[Speedwell]

Okay, is he wrong to say kind = genus? Maybe he didn’t want to expound on it. Ask him.

Av and AiG could both be wrong; there's no way of telling. Interpreting the "kinds" of the Bible as an immutable divine taxonomy is merely an ad hoc argument against the theory of evolution.

 

[pitabread]

Okay, is he wrong to say kind = genus? Maybe he didn’t want to expound on it. Ask him.

His definition of the word appears to be just based on the English-language dictionary and specifically synonyms for the English word genus. IIRC, he's quoted the dictionary in the past to support his definition. Whereas AIG is basing their claim on something entirely different.

Point is you can't adhere to two contradictory definitions.

 

[inquiring mind]

Point is you can't adhere to two contradictory definitions.

No, the point of the AIG article is that prior to the scientific classification system it was understood that species or genus meant "Kind," but not afterwards, so as a Creationist I agree with the expression "fixity of the created kinds." I have said this over and over in my comments.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, the point of the AIG article is that prior to the scientific classification system it was understood that species or genus meant "Kind," but not afterwards, so as a Creationist I agree with the expression "fixity of the created kinds." I have said this over and over in my comments.

Some of the problems with the word "kind". First off it is never properly defined. At least not that I have seen. There is no working definition of the word. To be a working definition there would have to be a way to tell if two different populations were the same "kind" or not.

When this is pointed out creationists will ironically complain about the "species problem". In biology there is no overarching definition of "species" but that is not a problem for evolution. The theory of evolution predicts that problem. The fact that the concept of species is fuzzy, no hard borders, supports the theory of evolution. Creationism predicts hard borders that are not to be found.


Another problem with the word "kind" is that creationists seem to think that there is a "change of kind" in evolution. That is not the case. Change of kind is a creationist strawman. Evolution works on cladistics. For example we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees. That ancestor was an ape, we are still apes. There was no change of kind. That can go all the way back to the first single cell eukaryotes when the Tree of Life was actually a terribly tangled bush.

Species, genus, family, etc. are a bit of a hangover from Linnaean classification. It is still of use but one needs to remember that it is a bit misleading at times.

Enough for now.

 

[inquiring mind]

Some of the problems with the word "kind". First off it is never properly defined. At least not that I have seen. There is no working definition of the word. To be a working definition there would have to be a way to tell if two different populations were the same "kind" or not.

Generally speaking, the same kinds can breed. I understand there are exceptions to this, and I don’t pretend to have an answer in that regard. I get your point, and, yes, the word “species” has problems, fuzzy or not.

Another problem with the word "kind" is that creationists seem to think that there is a "change of kind" in evolution.

The change of kind (imo) is referring to division, different types you could say, the result of migration and selection, at the microevolution level, but still the same kind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Generally speaking, the same kinds can breed. I understand there are exceptions to this, and I don’t pretend to have an answer in that regard. I get your point, and, yes, the word “species” has problems, fuzzy or not.


The change of kind (imo) is referring to division, different types you could say, the result of migration and selection, at the microevolution level, but still the same kind.

I know that the breeding definition fails for "kind" as shown by ring species. But that sort of observation is what we expect if evolution is correct.

And if we look at our own history, if we keep going backwards in time we find us members of larger and larger groups, but at no time is there a "change in kind". That is why I object when creationist use that term. They demand to see a change in kind when such an observation would actually refute the theory of evolution. That is what also makes it a creationist strawman.

The problem we have with defining species supports evolution. The inability of creationists to define "kind" effectively is a huge problem for them. On a related note have you ever heard of Aron Ra's phylogenetic challenge?

 

[Speedwell]

Here's how you do it: Take evolution's phylogenetic tree and draw a line across it at 4004 BC. The species it crosses represent the biblical "kinds."

 

[inquiring mind]

Here's how you do it: Take evolution's phylogenetic tree and draw a line across it at 4004 BC. The species it crosses represent the biblical "kinds."

I believe in an old earth creation, possibly including gap... who can define God’s physics? All kinds appeared at varying points in time according to God’s determining, not transforming gradually through macroevolution, but rapidly and fully formed, with no universal descent. From those points forward microevolution happens. If I can believe in Creation, I can also believe the flood and ark story. I don’t know how it was done, but because I can’t understand it is not grounds for my disbelief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe in an old earth creation, possibly including gap... who can define God’s physics? All kinds appeared at varying points in time according to God’s determining, not transforming gradually through macroevolution, but rapidly and fully formed, with no universal descent. From those points forward microevolution happens. If I can believe in Creation, I can also believe the flood and ark story. I don’t know how it was done, but because I can’t understand it is not grounds for my disbelief.

That is a bit of an Ostrich Defense. Keeping oneself uneducated is not a very good reason to believe something. I would rather believe demonstrably true things.

 

[inquiring mind]

That is a bit of an Ostrich Defense. Keeping oneself uneducated is not a very good reason to believe something. I would rather believe demonstrably true things.

Little or much education has nothing to do with it… it’s whether you have faith in the Bible, or not.

 

[pitabread]

No, the point of the AIG article is that prior to the scientific classification system it was understood that species or genus meant "Kind," but not afterwards, so as a Creationist I agree with the expression "fixity of the created kinds."

Perhaps you and AV1611VET should discuss it then, since he is the one who keeps saying equating kind with genus.

And regardless, there is still no biological validity to the AiG definition.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Little or much education has nothing to do with it… it’s whether you have faith in the Bible, or not.

Faith is not a pathway to the truth. One could be a Muslim, Hindu, or Christian on faith.

 

[inquiring mind]

Perhaps you and AV1611VET should discuss it then, since he is the one who keeps saying equating kind with genus.

And regardless, there is still no biological validity to the AiG definition.

Well, it’s probably of no consequence whatsoever to you then.

 

[pitabread]

Well, it’s probably of no consequence whatsoever to you then.

Not really, no. It's just fascinating to me that there is so much disparity in creationist beliefs.

 

[inquiring mind]

Faith is not a pathway to the truth.

But education is?

 

[inquiring mind]

Not really, no. It's just fascinating to me that there is so much disparity in creationist beliefs.

Well, we got something in common with the science community, I guess.