Do you agree with these statements?

[AV1611VET]

We are not claiming that the terms are synonymous, but so what?

"So what" is that you end up confusing yourselves.

By refusing to accept a word as a synonym for another word, you do yourself an unnecessary injustice.

You can assert that "kinds" = species or genera or whatever you want, but what good does that do you?

It lifts a fog and clears the air.

 

[pitabread]

It lifts a fog and clears the air.

Not really. It only further muddies the waters because it's yet another example of lack of consistency among creationists on the subject.

If you really want to believe that "kind = genus", fine, but then you're accepting it's an inherently artificial category with no true biological reality. Which is of course contrary to what most creationists try to claim.

Ya'll need to clean up your own pool before peeing in everyone else's.

 

[pitabread]

This confuses me.

The "claim" is that two words are synonymous.

Most creationists don't agree with you. And therein lies the issue.

Ask 10 creationists what a "kind" is and you'll get 12 different answers. Even inquiring mind has referred to about three different versions of "kinds". There is no consistency among creationists on this subject.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not really. It only further muddies the waters because it's yet another example of lack of consistency among creationists on the subject.

Like the Pluto controversy? like how we got our moon? those sorts of things?

If you really want to believe that "kind = genus", fine, but then you're accepting it's an inherently artificial category with no true biological reality.

Which came first? the artificial, or the real?

As I pointed out, "kind" came first.

Then it got plutoed to "genus".

And "genus," as you know, has a myriad of choices to choose from.

Here they are again:

From the online etymology dictionary:

genus (n.)
(Latin plural genera), 1550s as a term of logic, "kind or class of things" (biological sense dates from c. 1600), from Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin," from suffixed form of PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.

Look at your choices:

1. race
2. stock
3. kind
4. family
5. birth
6. descent
7. origin

Thanks, Latin, now you know why I'm KJVO, don't you?

Which is of course contrary to what most creationists try to claim.

Well it seems to me like people are trying very hard to keep that claim intact, since it muddies the waters so badly.

I'm sure academia would hate to see the term localized to just one word: "kind".

But then, even if 100% of the Christian population would agree that kind = genus, that wouldn't mean a thing, would it?

After all, there is 100% agreement among Christians that, "In the beginning, God ...", and it doesn't mean a thing.

Ya'll need to clean up your own pool before peeing in everyone else's.

"My pool" has the correct word from the get-go.

Until academia came along, Latinized it, giving it six other choices to choose from, and now claims the original term is ... how did you put it?

"Inherently artificial category with no true biological reality."

Academia doing what it does best: diluting the word of God.

 

[AV1611VET]

Most creationists don't agree with you.

Well imagine that!

Most creationists don't agree with me!

I think I'll go kill myself!

And therein lies the issue.

What issue?

That we don't have 100% agreement on this issue?

Do you really think that's going to mean anything?

Ask 10 creationists what a "kind" is and you'll get 12 different answers.

And ask 10 evolutionists and you'll get seven different answers (see my list of them in my previous post).

How about I ask 10 astronomers how we got our moon?

Then we'll see if "theory" is an "inherently artificial category with no true [astronomical] reality."

Even inquiring mind has referred to about three different versions of "kinds".

And even academia refers to eight different theories as to how we got our moon.

There is no consistency among creationists on this subject.

Well that just breaks me up.

 

[HitchSlap]

Well imagine that!

Most creationists don't agree with me!

I think I'll go kill myself!


What issue?

That we don't have 100% agreement on this issue?

Do you really think that's going to mean anything?



And ask 10 evolutionists and you'll get seven different answers (see my list of them in my previous post).

How about I ask 10 astronomers how we got our moon?

Then we'll see if "theory" is an "inherently artificial category with no true [astronomical] reality."



And even academia refers to eight different theories as to how we got our moon.


Well that just breaks me up.

You're back, I see.

 

[pitabread]

Do you really think that's going to mean anything?

I should have known better than to try to engage you on this subject. :/

At any rate, the attempts at deflection and "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I"-style rebuttals is part of the problem in these discussions.

I find that most creationists seem completely unable to understand the underlying issue here and such conversations just go in circles.

And so it goes...

 

[AV1611VET]

You're back, I see.

Quit complaining!

 

[AV1611VET]

I should have known better than to try to engage you on this subject. :/

Care to discuss the OP with me then?

I've answered YES to all seven questions.

 

[pitabread]

Care to discuss the OP with me then?

I've answered YES to all seven questions.

No, that would be a complete waste of everyone's time.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, that would be a complete waste of everyone's time.

Fair enough.

 

[HitchSlap]

Care to discuss the OP with me then?

I've answered YES to all seven questions.

If you answered "YES" to all seven questions, I hate to break it to ya', but you accept ToE... unequivocally.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you answered "YES" to all seven questions, I hate to break it to ya', but you accept ToE... unequivocally.

QV post 485 please.

They're still zebras.

 

[pitabread]

Fair enough.

Btw, "science can take a hike" is a fitting tagline for the state of the U.S. and the current administration's views of the pandemic.

Maybe it's a low blow, but I think we're seeing in real-time the consequences of the failures of science education in the U.S. It's not something I'd be proud of parading around these days.

 

[HitchSlap]

QV post 485 please.

They're still zebras.

They're still animals... you, me, we... are animals.

 

[pitabread]

If you answered "YES" to all seven questions, I hate to break it to ya', but you accept ToE... unequivocally.

Creationists are the biggest evolutionists even if most don't realize it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Btw, "science can take a hike" is a fitting tagline for the state of the U.S. and the current administration's views of the pandemic.

Maybe it's a low blow, but I think we're seeing in real-time the consequences of the failures of science education in the U.S. It's not something I'd be particularly proud of parading around these days.

What do science standards have to do with the pandemic?

If other countries are so smart, why haven't THEY found the cure?

Don't just blame U.S.

And for the record, thanks to one lady telling science to take a hike (back to the drawing board), we were spared a few Thalidomide births.

 

[HitchSlap]

Creationists are the biggest evolutionists even if most don't realize it.

Oh the irony. He's an "evocreo."

 

[AV1611VET]

They're still animals...

They still zebras too, ain't they?

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationists are the biggest evolutionists even if most don't realize it.

Well it's like you said, most of them don't agree with me.

So I take this as a DOES NOT APPLY.