Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Is 'fish' a kind?
Is 'fish' a kind?
Religion tells us the world was created in six days, about six thousand years ago, based on certain writings that come to us from the bronze age.
How many assumptions are you making when you say that one gene used for pancreatic purposes "evolved" into another gene used for anti-freeze purposes?
Are fish a genus?
But with naming something you run into the same
species problem. So stop asking about "kind" already
when scientists can't even nail down species.
Species problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Completely irrelevant. You're comparing a term with a fuzzy definition to a term with NO definition. No scientist, for instance, would say that housecats and tigers are the same species, but I have met creationists who make that claim for kinds. I've met creationists who claim that all spiders are one kind. I've met creationists who claim that birds are all one kind. I've met creationists who claim that all bacteria are one kind, and don't get me started on how insane that is.
Birds are birds are birds. Bacteria are bacteria are bacteria. Neither are pine trees or tulips.
There is more genetic similarity between a human and a chimpanzee than between most bird species. There is no means by which to say all birds are the same kind or all fish are the same kind without placing humans, chimps, gorillas, etc as the same kind.
There's genetic similarity between us and a banana too. I've never been confused for a banana...or a chimp for that matter either.
.I also don't see people mistake pigeons for penguins, yet you would have them in the same kind.
.
Yes, both are birds. Humans are one of a kind. Humans are humans, apes are apes, birds are birds and a rose is a rose.
There are far more genetic and just general physical similarities between a human and a chimpanzee than there are between penguins and pigeons. To purposely separate humans from that consideration just to say they are "one of a kind" without some legitimate reason for it is pure bias.
Completely irrelevant. You're comparing a term with a fuzzy definition to a term with NO definition. No scientist, for instance, would say that housecats and tigers are the same species, but I have met creationists who make that claim for kinds. I've met creationists who claim that all spiders are one kind. I've met creationists who claim that birds are all one kind. I've met creationists who claim that all bacteria are one kind, and don't get me started on how insane that is.
The definition of species is fuzzy because life is vast and complex - it's hard to get a solid definition that's going to apply to all the organisms on this planet. That being the case, just because a term is fuzzy doesn't mean it's useless. There's no set number for how many beans are in a 'heap of beans', but you wouldn't say it's impossible to have a heap of beans for that reason. You know a heap when you see one. The same applies to species. Though there are different definitions, they fall within a range.
With 'kind', however, there's nothing that even comes close. It's just whatever the creationist at the time wants it to be.
If you can point to another life form which has the self-awareness, creativity and production capabilities of a human I'd be interesting in seeing it.
If you can point to another life form which has the resilience of a water bear, I would love to see that. There used to be other species which were arguably about as intelligent as humans; we killed them/they went extinct. The niche our species occupies cannot be shared, any species around us that had those traits ended up competing with our species for resources. We just happened to be more violent and organized.
How do you know?
"KIND" the debate goes on.
Why are people so hung up on this simple little word?
In the end, does it really matter what you think "kind" means or I think "kind" means?
Remember, Genesis is just a "myth" according to many here on this forum. If I look at any fairy tail out there, do I get all worried about the definition of a word in the Lord of the Rings? Of course not.
So, why is this little word so bothersome to some? Why is it debated so much and demanded that I or someone else post "our definition"?
I'll tell you why. IF the word is taken at par in the story of creation it emphatically states that God created each animal as that animal. It takes away any argument that God used evolution to arrive at the different animals, plants, birds and ocean creatures because HE created them each in their own kind. He made a cow, then a horse, then a rat, then a robin, then a perch etc. It dissasembles evolutionary fabels.
Again, I really don't understand the brew ha ha as Genesis states that God formed Adam with His hands and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, then made Eve from his rib and this little gem of scripture deters no theistic evolutionist.
IF that scripture fazes no one then why would the word "kind" be such a show stopper.
Fossil record, and we even have evaluated the DNA of Neanderthals, lucky us.
I am asking how you know how intelligent they were and who they
were killed by.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?