Debate between Dan Cardinale and Kent Hovind

[AV1611VET]

Kent was unable to define where microevolution for kinds ends.

I believe he said it ends at sterility.

I too have been asked that question before, and I said it could end at sterility, extinction, or just plain end.

If God has a quota on their generations, I'm sure at some point it would hit a "brick wall."

After all, God told Adam to replenish the earth, and had sin and death not entered into the picture, then eventually I think we would be overcrowded.

Besides fumbling to define kinds ...

I don't think he fumbled to define kinds. I think he straight-up said kinds was at the "family" level.

If you look at the etymology of "kind," it says "family." If you look at the etymology for "genus," it says "kind."

Personally, I think kind = genus.

... he claimed over and over that macroevolution is in your dreams ...

I'm known for saying it is only on paper.

... never once attempted to debunk Dan's evidence for macroevolution happening today.

Dan used some animal that lays three eggs, then gives a placental birth. This aligns with the Leviathan in the Bible: a lizard that has a navel. So if Leviathans do it, I'm sure there are other such animals that do it to.

I genuinely felt embarrassed for him.

I'm sorry you feel that way; but to each his own, I guess.

 

[AV1611VET]

Unfortunately for Kent, a hand or an ear is not a common ancestor, nor is a dog a common ancestor for dogs. Genes for a hand and ear will be found in somewhere in a now extinct ancestor of the present day species. The common ancestor for evolution of dogs and wolfs are a now-extinct wolf population.

For the record, I think Kent was using the ear, hand, and foot facetiously to make his point.

And for another record, wolves are dogs.

 

[AV1611VET]

He has an overactive imagination.

That's what makes him a cool dude.

 

[AV1611VET]

Who is the "you" he is referring to? Kent is simply displaying willful ignorance of evolution.

I disagree.

He may not be as knowledgeable as those who invest their lives learning it, but he knows enough to know it is wrong.

And the "you" he was referring to was Dan.

 

[AV1611VET]

I haven't arab phoned any word in the bible. The bait and switch is entirely yours - the etymology of "kind" is swapped for the etymology of "genus" because the real etymology of kind is inconvenient, eh?

I'm going to look more into this and see what I can come up with.

Maybe "kind" does equal "family"?

I'll have to check it out.

 

[pitabread]

Maybe "kind" does equal "family"?

Why equate it with Linnaean taxonomic ranks in the first place though? It makes no sense to do so.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why equate it with Linnaean taxonomic ranks in the first place though? It makes no sense to do so.

It breaks the DNA concatenation that evolution relies on, and shows that, when God created animals "after their kind," that God created them as separate species (or families).

In other words, He created cats, dogs, giraffes, elephants, and so on according to their distinct characteristics.

 

[pitabread]

It breaks the DNA concatenation

I don't know what that is supposed to mean.

that evolution relies on, and shows that, when God created animals "after their kind," that God created them as separate species (or families).

In other words, He created cats, dogs, giraffes, elephants, and so on according to their distinct characteristics.

But you're not showing that. Taxonomic ranks are arbitrary human classifications. By equating them, all you're doing is showing that "kind" classifications are equally arbitrary.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

cats

Well, not all cats, amiright?

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know what that is supposed to mean.

Isn't our DNA supposed to be linked all the way back to abiogenesis?

But you're not showing that. Taxonomic ranks are arbitrary human classifications. By equating them, all you're doing is showing that "kind" classifications are equally arbitrary.

If it's confusing you, then simply drop Linnaeus from the picture and use the term "kinds" then.

I get these goofy conversations all the time.

Linus: How did the Ark house all those animals? there are 339 breeds of domestic dogs alone!
AV: There were no domestic dogs on the Ark, just their kinds.
Linus: What's a "kind".
AV: Kind = Genus (or Family)
Linus: Genus/Family is just an artificial category, can you be more specific?
AV: Dogs got on the Ark.
Linus: You just said there were no dogs on the Ark.
AV: Ai-yi-yi. Wolves got on the Ark. Later they sired what became our domestic dogs.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, not all cats, amiright?

LOL -- here we go.

QV my last post please.

 

[pitabread]

Isn't our DNA supposed to be linked all the way back to abiogenesis?

In a manner of speaking. But it wasn't clear that was what you mean by the term "DNA concatenation".

If it's confusing you, then simply drop Linnaeus from the picture and use the term "kinds" then.

I'm not the one equating Linnaean taxonomy with "kinds" though.

AV: There were no domestic dogs on the Ark, just their kinds.
Linus: What's a "kind".
AV: Kind = Genus (or Family)
Linus: Genus/Family is just an artificial category, can you be more specific?
AV: Dogs got on the Ark.
Linus: You just said there were no dogs on the Ark.
AV: Ai-yi-yi. Wolves got on the Ark. Later they sired what became our domestic dogs.

All you're doing is reinforcing how utterly arbitrary all this is. That you don't have an independent, qualifiable way of defining "kind" insofar as actual biology is the whole point.

Which is basically Dan's point in the debate: creationists don't have an actual "cut off" for where microevolution ends and macroevolution begins.

What creationists need to do is demonstrate biological discontinuities in nature. They've thus far failed to do so.

(Also worth noting is that "dog" is typically just shorthand for a subspecies, Canis lupus familiaris, not a genus. You're not even being consistent in your own example.)

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

LOL -- here we go.

QV my last post please.

You never explained how those examples I gave weren't related or how you could even possibly determine that. They are both clearly "cats", as Hovind would say, "a 2nd grader could tell you they were both cats!", yet they belong to different genera and are, therefore, according to your definition, different kinds.

And you ignored the kiwi/ostrich example entirely. Are they both bird kinds or what?

None of it makes any sense.

 

[pitabread]

None of it makes any sense.

Creationism in a nutshell.

 

[AV1611VET]

All you're doing is reinforcing how utterly arbitrary all this is. That you don't have an independent, qualifiable way of defining "kind" insofar as actual biology is the whole point.

What's this Catch-22 stuff?

If I define "kinds", I'm giving it an artificial synonym -- and if I don't define "kinds," I don't have an independent, qualifiable way of defining "kind."

LOL

Which is basically Dan's point in the debate: creationists don't have an actual "cut off" for where microevolution ends and macroevolution begins.

That's because there isn't any.

At the outer edge of an animal's "kind," it either goes sterile, goes extinct, or just quits reproducing.

There is no changeover from a cow to a horse.

And before you say anything, there is no alternate route from a cow to a horse either.

What creationists need to do is demonstrate biological discontinuities in nature.

No, they don't.

Creation ended 29 October 4004 BC.

 

[pitabread]

What's this Catch-22 stuff?

If I define "kinds", I'm giving it an artificial synonym -- and if I don't define "kinds," I don't have an independent, qualifiable way of defining "kind."

It's not a catch-22. When you define "kind" in relation to an arbitrary classification system, you're the one reinforcing the arbitrariness of it.

Nobody is forcing creationists to equate "kind" with Linnaean taxonomic ranks. You're doing that on your own.

That you can't seem to think about this in any other way speaks to how banal this whole exercise is.

That's because there isn't any.

At the outer edge of an animal's "kind," it either goes sterile, goes extinct, or just quits reproducing.

There is no changeover from a cow to a horse.

And before you say anything, there is no alternate route from a cow to a horse either.

After all this time on this forum, you really need to resort to strawman misrepresentations of evolution like this?

No, they don't.

Yes they do, if they want to claim that "kinds" represent independently created organisms that have a demonstrable biological reality.

By claiming they don't you're just undermining the entire creationist position on created kinds.

 

[AV1611VET]

You never explained how those examples I gave weren't related or how you could even possibly determine that. They are both clearly "cats", as Hovind would say, "a 2nd grader could tell you they were both cats!", yet they belong to different genera and are, therefore, according to your definition, different kinds.

And you ignored the kiwi/ostrich example entirely. Are they both bird kinds or what?

None of it makes any sense.

Well if it helps any, and puts me further into a Catch-22, I'm thinking about reconsidering the definition of "kinds" from "genus" to "family."

So you can start harping on that.

 

[pitabread]

Well if it helps any, and puts me further into a Catch-22, I'm thinking about reconsidering the definition of "kinds" from "genus" to "family."

So you can start harping on that.

Why rely on Linnaean taxonomy in the first place?

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationism in a nutshell.

That's because you guys talk yourselves out of believing it.

That kind of bologna is what gave us the Challenger disaster.

 

[AV1611VET]

By claiming they don't you're just undermining the entire creationist position on created kinds.

Fair enough.

I'm sure as long as you can talk yourself out of understanding, and make it look like it's the explainer's fault, you've done your job.

And you're a credit to your education, as far as I'm concerned.