STILL no evidence FOR creation/ID

[Brightmoon]

Circumcision doesn't reduce masturbation, except for in the rare person that ends up with practically no feeling or outright pain from the act. Which are not the most common outcomes from the procedure.


-_- a view that has resulted in children dying because their parents think crystals can heal them and other such nonsense. My fiance's mother tried to have him exorcised, for crying out loud. Despite the fact that parents should be reliable health advocates for their children, this isn't always the case. I would rather not leave children to the mercy of ignorant or insane parents, so rather than trust the parents by default, I would say children above or equal to the age of 12 should have agency when it comes to procedures that are a matter of life and death, and that the default would be the most typical treatment direction taken for children younger than that age whom lack a sane health advocate.

My daughter in law’s mother took her to temple rather than to a doctor for a painful bladder infection . My son pitched a well justified hissy fit about that

 

[AV1611VET]

My daughter in law’s mother took her to temple rather than to a doctor for a painful bladder infection . My son pitched a well justified hissy fit about that

Then let him take her.

 

[Brightmoon]

He did. He’s a biochemist and doesn’t believe in using superstitious nonsense for real life situations so he took his wife to a doctor

 

[AV1611VET]

My daughter in law’s mother took her to temple rather than to a doctor for a painful bladder infection . My son pitched a well justified hissy fit about that.

Then let him take her.

He did.

Okay … um … who took your daughter-in-law where please?

 

[tas8831]

What about circumcision? Its not specifically creation related, but in the bible, God commanded the Israelites to circumcise all boys on the eighth day after birth. You might not believe the bible, but the Jews still practice this ritual on the eighth day today, which is evidence the bible is true in its account.

That is a great example of a non sequitur.

Modern science not only provides evidence for the health benefits of circumcision, but indicates that the eighth day is the ideal day to perform the procedure due to optimal levels of vitamin K. How would an ancient people know not only the benefits of removing the foreskin (from a very sensitive and important organ), but also know when the optimum time to perform the procedure was, in the absence of the Designer who completely understands His creation?

Ummm..... Experience?

 

[tas8831]

Remember the fall? In the beginning, man and woman didn't wear clothes. If wearing clothes, you don't really need excess skin for protection. Circumcision just removes the excess skin, not part of the male genitals.

Same for the hood of the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]? Derived from the same embryonic tissue as the foreskin.

Weird that God wanted foreskins as proof that the Philistines had been killed if the whole reason for circumcision was to prove the covenant and all that.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

. Any polyploid species meets your criteria ( bread wheat) . Kind is not correct or even useful scientific terminology in any meaning of the word.

Kind is more correct scientifically, because the definition of species is too narrow, no matter how many prefer it for philosophical reasons. The wheat is still wheat, and is all it will ever be.

 

[Snappy1]

Kind is more correct scientifically, because the definition of species is too narrow, no matter how many prefer it for philosophical reasons. The wheat is still wheat, and is all it will ever be.

What is a kind? Not an example, a definition.

 

[NBB]

This guy in youtube not even believes in God but has some interesting videos about evolution and intelligent design, he should get more views:
stevebee92653

 

[AV1611VET]

What is a kind? Not an example, a definition.

Kind = Genus

 

[Brightmoon]

Kind is more correct scientifically, because the definition of species is too narrow, no matter how many prefer it for philosophical reasons. The wheat is still wheat, and is all it will ever be.

Wheat is certainly not just wheat . That’s just the common name for several different species some of which are allopolyploids with different chromosome numbers. Macaroni wheat is a doubled chromosome, fertile hybrid ( an allopolyploid) of a goat grass and a triticum species. Goat grasses are in a different genus ( according to your bizarre creationist phylogeny they’re a different kind) . Bread wheat is a doubled chromosome hybrid of macaroni wheat and a second goat grass. This actually happened twice .

 

[pitabread]

Kind is more correct scientifically

"Kind" as used by creationists has no consistent definition, let alone a scientific definition.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Kind" as used by creationists has no consistent definition, let alone a scientific definition.

Either that, or kind = genus.

 

[Brightmoon]

Kind has no scientific definition. It’s a creationist newspeak word.

 

[AV1611VET]

Kind has no scientific definition.

Science can take a hike.

It’s a creationist newspeak word.

It's God's word choice.

Later plutoed to "genus" by dimbulbs.

 

[Speedwell]

Either that, or kind = genus.

yes, but does genus=kind?

"Genus" is a category in a man-made taxonomy with an ad hoc definition. Basically, it's nothing but a name, and names to not pose a barrier to evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

yes, but does genus=kind?

genus:

(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.

SOURCE

 

[Speedwell]

genus:

(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.

SOURCE

Genus. noun, plural: genera. (taxonmy) A taxonomic category ranking used in biological classification that is below a family and above a species level, and includes group(s) of species that are structurally similar or phylogenetically related.

Genus - Biology-Online Dictionary

NB: In your definition, "kind" is being used as a relative rather than a categorical--just as in the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Genus. noun, plural: genera. (taxonmy) A taxonomic category ranking used in biological classification that is below a family and above a species level, and includes group(s) of species that are structurally similar or phylogenetically related.

Genus - Biology-Online Dictionary

NB: In your definition, "kind" is being used as a relative rather than a categorical--just as in the Bible.

If you don't want to understand, that's your prerogative.

Just don't try to convince me I don't.

 

[pitabread]

Either that, or kind = genus.

Yes, I've heard your "kind = genus" argument before based on the fact that you Ctrl-F'd the word "kind" in the dictionary listing for genus.

If you look up "kind" in a thesaurus, you can equate it to a whole bunch of other words too including brand, type, variety, sort, set, order, etc...

Not a particularly useful exercise in trying to determine what the word "kind" means in this context.