Evolution's Brick Wall

[Job 33:6]

'Couldn't' is according to biology and its terminology, which changed the meaning of species and genus with the modern classification system. Prior to that they had both been referred to as (and meant) Created Kind (with variations) by nearly, if not all, bible interpreters. Again, there is no evidence at all of a Created Kind evolving into another Created kind. Yet another way for evolutionists to mix things up and gain a foothold.

What is your definition of species?

You're just contradicting yourself and the words of other young earthers.

Inquiring mind:"Created Kind= one species w/variations"

All im saying, is that other young earthers suggest that created kinds are more on the "family" level of taxonomic classification, because if it we're closer to the species level, then they would have to explain how 2 million species fit on the ark.

And even if we were to attempt to equate "kind" with genus, we would still have hundreds of thousands of animals in which they couldn't fit on the ark.

So really a "kind" would probably have to be more along the lines of a family, but even then there wouldn't be enough space on the ark, not by a long shot if we included extinct families. But at least perhaps an ark could fit some larger percentage of families on the ark if they forewent things like storage for food or water.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Deflecting.

Lol!!!??

So, it is "deflecting" to ask you to define the terms you use, so that we can all understand what exactly you are talking about???

Owkay then!!

I'm gonna provisionally take this to mean that you can't properly define the term, and therefor it is useless and every and all objections you raise to the science of evolution using argument that use that term, to be invalid.

Note that it is provisionally. Whenever you are ready to share with us all a usefull definition of the term "kind", I'll be here for you to honestly evaluate it.

Well, you may need to seek a different perspective... even online encyclopedias say that a definition of species is problematic.

Yes. As I acknowledgde. I also followed it up with giving you the two most common definitions. But you didn't bother to quote and comment on that.

Another tell of how intellectually honest you are (not).

 

[inquiring mind]

A biological species is a population of individuals which are interfertile but cannot interbreed with other populations. Pretty simple and straightforward.

Yes it is, and isn't that what Genesis 8:17 says about Created Kinds.

On the other hand there is no evidence whatever, either biblical or scientific, that the use of the relative qualifier "kinds" in Genesis was meant to establish an immutable divine taxonomy.

So you don't agree with Basil, the great Jerome, Calvin, Matthew Henry, and others.

 

[inquiring mind]

You're just contradicting yourself and the words of other young earthers.

Inquiring mind:"Created Kind= one species w/variations"

All im saying, is that other young earthers suggest that created kinds are more on the "family" level of taxonomic classification, because if it we're closer to the species level, then they would have to explain how 2 million species fit on the ark.

And even if we were to attempt to equate "kind" with genus, we would still have hundreds of thousands of animals in which they couldn't fit on the ark.

So really a "kind" would probably have to be more along the lines of a family, but even then there wouldn't be enough space on the ark, not by a long shot if we included extinct families. But at least perhaps an ark could fit some larger percentage of families on the ark if they forewent things like storage for food or water.

Nope, you're still using your definition (whatever it is?) here for species.

 

[AV1611VET]

But there was plenty of room for Created Kinds.

I don't know how old you are, but remember how college kids used to think it was cool to see how many of themselves they could cram into a telephone booth?

That mindset still exists today.

They think Noah's ark must have looked like that.

That's because, while they're accusing us of not "thinking outside of the box," they're trapped in a self-imposed physical reality consisting of only three-dimensions of space.

This ends up backfiring on their cant-wait-for-that-diploma minds when God shows up and opens a fourth dimension of space to work a miracle.

Hoist by their own petard.

 

[inquiring mind]

So, it is "deflecting" to ask you to define the terms you use, so that we can all understand what exactly you are talking about???

You can read, can't you? Post#1709

Yes. As I acknowledgde. I also followed it up with giving you the two most common definitions. But you didn't bother to quote and comment on that.

Population that can't interbreed (and produce fertile off spring), are definatly different species.
Population that can interbreed, but naturally don't, can also be seen as different species.

That seems to be the same definition I gave for Created Kinds (w/variations), which biology just changed to species (w/different kinds). Other than that, what's to comment on... by all accounts your altered definition of species is lacking.

Another tell of how intellectually honest you are (not).

Now, you're not trying to call me a liar, are you?

 

[Job 33:6]

Nope, you're still using your definition (whatever it is?) here for species.

I quoted you, so I don't know why you think I'm using anyone's definition of kind but your own.

You didn't even respond to my post.

 

[Job 33:6]

'Couldn't' is according to biology and its terminology, which changed the meaning of species and genus with the modern classification system. Prior to that they had both been referred to as (and meant) Created Kind (with variations) by nearly, if not all, bible interpreters. Again, there is no evidence at all of a Created Kind evolving into another Created kind. Yet another way for evolutionists to mix things up and gain a foothold.

What is your definition of species?

And you just don't know what you're talking about.

What I said was that a "kind" couldn't be on the species level because speciation, which is evolution from one species to another, has been observed. So a kind must be something beyond what we common refer to as species.

And if kind were to be at what we commonly refer to as a genus, we would still end up with 30 or more cats on the ark. In which this is just one "kind" and we have 30 animals. Add in kinds for every other animal and you're looking at hundreds of thousands of animals that also couldn't fit on the ark.

And so a kind must be, at least analogous to what we have commonly identified as "families" in taxonomy.

 

[tas8831]

realy? so from what the globin evolved from and how many mutations we need to this transition?

Do you have a computer with a search engine, like Google on it?

You can go to Google Scholar, and search away.

79000+ returns. I'm sure that you can find what you don't want to find in there somewhere.

Funny thing - when a creationist mentions something that supposedly supports YECism, I generally look it up on my own to see if it has any merit.

To date, nothing has, but the point is, I do not simply demand that creationists search for me.

Because I am not lazy, desperate, and ignorant, I guess.

 

[pitabread]

Add in kinds for every other animal and you're looking at hundreds of thousands of animals that also couldn't fit on the ark.

Except the Ark was actually a space ship and the animals were kept in stasis pods. Also, per AV, the Ark acted like a TARDIS where the interior was bigger than the exterior.

See, all this stuff has a perfectly logical explanation if you just think about it.

 

[AV1611VET]

See, all this stuff has a perfectly logical explanation if you just think about it.

You mean "theological"?

 

[inquiring mind]

And you just don't know what you're talking about.

Feelings are mutual.

What I said was that a "kind" couldn't be on the species level because speciation, which is evolution from one species to another, has been observed. So a kind must be something beyond what we common refer to as species.

Like I said, this is your definition of species (whatever it is -- you don't seem to want to attempt it, except vaguely, and encyclopedias don't even seem to want to try to clarify it); and you don't seem to understand that it's only variation.

And if kind were to be at what we commonly refer to as a genus, we would still end up with 30 or more cats on the ark. In which this is just one "kind" and we have 30 animals.

Only one set of each Created Kind on the ark... with 30 variations later. Plenty of room.

 

[Job 33:6]

Feelings are mutual.


Like I said, this is your definition of species (whatever it is -- you don't seem to want to attempt it, except vaguely, and encyclopedias don't even seem to want to try to clarify it); and you don't seem to understand that it's only variation.


Only one set of each Created Kind on the ark... with 30 variations later. Plenty of room.

Well that's why I'm a scientist and you're...who knows...

The truth is, your ideas are contradictory and don't make any sense. Which is probably scientists worldwide, including myself, reject them.

 

[inquiring mind]

The truth is, your ideas are contradictory and don't make any sense.

Well, that can be your little secret.

 

[Job 33:6]

Except the Ark was actually a space ship and the animals were kept in stasis pods. Also, per AV, the Ark acted like a TARDIS where the interior was bigger than the exterior.

See, all this stuff has a perfectly logical explanation if you just think about it.

Exactly. Seriously though, he actually describes things just like this.

I remember him saying that when the flood was over, God literally teleported animals to their respective environments, ie teleported koalas to Australia and galapogos tortoises to their individual island's and animals specific to isolated island's, to their respective island's.

He also suggested that many of these animals, reptiles in particular, were still in their eggs to help them fit on the ark. As if these eggs just rolled in from around the planet so that Noah could put them on the ark.

Some of the things these people say are just crazy.

Meanwhile we have a trail of marsupial fossils going down South America, across Antarctica and into Australia showing us exactly how the koalas got to Australia.

So they're ignoring evidence, in exchange for ideas of teleportation and cross country rolling eggs.

 

[AV1611VET]

Exactly. Seriously though, he actually describes things just like this.

I remember him saying that when the flood was over, God literally teleported animals to their respective environments, ie teleported koalas to Australia and galapogos tortoises to their individual island's and animals specific to isolated island's, to their respective island's.

Correct.

He also suggested that many of these animals, reptiles in particular, were still in their eggs to help them fit on the ark.

Not.

 

[pitabread]

and you don't seem to understand that it's only variation.

Er, that is what evolution is: variation of gene pools over time.

Does this mean you agree with the process of biological evolution?

 

[inquiring mind]

Er, that is what evolution is: variation of gene pools over time.
Does this mean you agree with the process of biological evolution?

If you're a real scientist, quit throwing 'hail Mary's.' You should know better than that. You actually add a lot to that representation... like 'that result in change from one kind to another kind.' Wrong!

 

[Job 33:6]

Feelings are mutual.


Like I said, this is your definition of species (whatever it is -- you don't seem to want to attempt it, except vaguely, and encyclopedias don't even seem to want to try to clarify it); and you don't seem to understand that it's only variation.


Only one set of each Created Kind on the ark... with 30 variations later. Plenty of room.

You're just demonstrating your inability to understand what is being said.

 

[pitabread]

If you're a real scientist, quit throwing 'hail Mary's.' You should know better than that. You actually add a lot to that representation... like 'that result in change from one kind to another kind.' Wrong!

Sure, it includes the diversification of populations into multiple reproductively isolated populations (i.e. speciation). If you're okay with that, then you've effectively accepted the process of evolution.

Now if you are trying to argue for something beyond that then you need to explicitly define what you mean with respect to biology. Thus far your argument about evolution of 'kinds' just seems like another way of describing speciation.