KIND = GENUS

[AV1611VET]

As for genus, and kind .. I don't know. Not strictly discernible from the text, but could have merit? This we do know, strictly discernible, and it destroys Common Descent before it gets off the ground:

Hi, Philip!

The thing with I refusing to accept that kind=species, is that new species have come into existence since the Creation.

But no new genuses have.

Evolutionists may CLAIM a new genus has come into existence since then, but as is made plain to me, "genus" is just some arbitrary term.

A loose cannon rolling around on the deck, so to speak.

To me, it's the devil's cheap imitation for a Biblical word.

Just what I would expect from Latin, which gave us the Vulgate.

 

[AV1611VET]

And I have shown your claim to be erroneous. Where to now?

To convince me your show applies to your interpretation (i.e., species) over mine (genus).

 

[Bungle_Bear]

To convince me your show applies to your interpretation (i.e., species) over mine (genus).

Did you even read post #8? It includes exactly the same type of evidence you rely on for your claim. You gave a definition where "kind = genus", I gave a definition where "kind = species". You want to throw my evidence out? Yours will go with it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did you even read post #8? It includes exactly the same type of evidence you rely on for your claim. You gave a definition where "kind = genus", I gave a definition where "kind = species". You want to throw my evidence out? Yours will go with it.

The difference is: you're assuming they're all wrong, and I'm assuming one of them is right.

Scotch tape used to be a specific brand of tape; now it's any transparent tape.

Linoleum used to be a specific floor covering; now it's more than that.

These are called "proprietary eponyms."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why?

"Pluto" is the ADS word of the year for 2006.

Because you base that upon a series of false claims of yours. I wonder why you as a Christian seem to see no value in the Ten Commandments.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The difference is: you're assuming they're all wrong, and I'm assuming one of them is right.

Scotch tape used to be a specific brand of tape; now it's any transparent tape.

Linoleum used to be a specific floor covering; now it's more than that.

These are called "proprietary eponyms."

Proprietary eponyms are not allowed in a scientific discussion. Terms must be well and consistently defined. Your inconsistency causes you to lose the argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hi, Philip!

The thing with I refusing to accept that kind=species, is that new species have come into existence since the Creation.

But no new genuses have.

Evolutionists may CLAIM a new genus has come into existence since then, but as is made plain to me, "genus" is just some arbitrary term.

A loose cannon rolling around on the deck, so to speak.

To me, it's the devil's cheap imitation for a Biblical word.

Just what I would expect from Latin, which gave us the Vulgate.

Once again you are confused. It was a creationist that devised our failed classification system. It is wrong because of the fact of evolution. Hat Linaean classification fails is a confirmation of evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Terms must be well and consistently defined.

Like "genus"?

 

[AV1611VET]

It was a creationist that devised our failed classification system.

What's that supposed to show?

Creationists put Jesus to death on the Cross.

Most generally, I disagree with creationists as much as I do evolutionists.

[That] Linaean classification fails is a confirmation of evolution.

That about says it all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like "genus"?

Yes, exactly. That is why scientists only use them as place markers these days. They are not the absolute terms that they used to be. Cladistics is the new and more accurate way of classifying life.

By the way, how are you doing on your homework assignment?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What's that supposed to show?

Creationists put Jesus to death on the Cross.

Most generally, I disagree with creationists as much as I do evolutionists.
That about says it all.

Nope, not at all. The people that did that did not do so because of their belief in creationism. One can only call someone a "creationist" if it affected the behavior being discussed.

 

[AV1611VET]

By the way, how are you doing on your homework assignment?

I already answered that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already answered that.

No, I do not think that you did.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, I do not think that you did.

Meaning you thought my answer was wrong?

Oh, well.

So much for homework.

Gimme an F, if it'll make you feel better.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Meaning you thought my answer was wrong?

Oh, well.

So much for homework.

Gimme an F, if it'll make you feel better.

No, I gave you some homework yesterday and there was no response that I could find to it.

When one debates one is supposed to be honest. When one debates a topic one has a duty to try to understand it. One cannot refute Christianity by claiming it is a religion about nailing someone to a tree. Your weak attempts to refute evolution are on that order.

 

[AV1611VET]

When one debates one is supposed to be honest.

Would you know it, if I was?

if i said Jesus walked on water ... as opposed to saying I think Jesus walked on water ... am I being honest?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Would you know it, if I was?

if i said Jesus walked on water ... as opposed to saying I think Jesus walked on water ... am I being honest?

That would be only slightly dishonest. And I need to remind you, quoting out of context is almost always dishonest. You ignored the meat of the post and used a red herrimng.

You can do better.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The difference is: you're assuming they're all wrong, and I'm assuming one of them is right.

You're not assuming anything, you're asserting it.

Scotch tape used to be a specific brand of tape; now it's any transparent tape.

Linoleum used to be a specific floor covering; now it's more than that.

These are called "proprietary eponyms."

Nice red herring. Assuming you think "kind" is equivalent to a proprietary eponym it's a failed analogy, but I suspect you cannot see why.

 

[Shemjaza]

You're not assuming anything, you're asserting it.


Nice red herring. Assuming you think "kind" is equivalent to a proprietary eponym it's a failed analogy, but I suspect you cannot see why.

Internally to AV's belief system he's right.

In his view the literal text of the Bible in archaic modern English later called the "King James Version" existed in its entirety before the common usage of the English word "kind" happened.

So if it can be defined by his interpretation of its usage in the KJV then that is the official supernaturally authoritative version of the word.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Internally to AV's belief system he's right.

In his view the literal text of the Bible in archaic modern English later called the "King James Version" existed in its entirety before the common usage of the English word "kind" happened.

So if it can be defined by his interpretation of its usage in the KJV then that is the official supernaturally authoritative version of the word.

I am well aware of AV's linguistic proclivities. And I think you have also failed to see why the analogy fails. A proprietary eponym is a word used to represent a group of similar objects or services eg scotch tape (sellotape on the other side of the pond), FedEx etc. Genus and species are not the same thing, and those terms were coined specifically to represent different things. We do not say scotch tape for duct tape. We do not say genus for species. Kind, therefore, fails as a proprietary eponym.