What in [insert preferred deity’s name here]’s name is a kind?

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Again, and in my opinion, the taxonomic class known as "kind" went extinct long before taxonomy, as a science, was ever invented.

Only Adam to Job could have classified these animals; and whatever they were, they're long-gone.

If the "kind" is gone and the word "kind" had no coherent definition then would you agree that the the concept of "kind" is unuseful and has no value?

 

[atrijez]

Apparently not, as he seemed to be classifying 'kind' with the Family taxonomic level.
Bats are, of course, Order Chiroptera, with several Families within that Order.
Now, Im willing to grant that perhaps some Creationists (if they adhere to a similar paradigm as AV1611VET) may state that there are varying bat 'kinds'......but I seriously doubt it

the problem is, while i completely agree that the term "kind" doesn't seem to make any sense, i don't think we can obligate a creationist to use the word to the exact same to degree of specificity in all groups. indeed, even words like "family" and "order" are pretty useless as the most recent common ancestor of a specific family might in fact have lived longer ago than the most recent common ancestor of another specific order. the entire so called CLASS of mammals is contained within the ORDER of therapsids. now, how can an order contain a class?? it doesn't make much sense. so these words are already very meaningless on a cladistic level.

and when we consider the creationist claim that a "kind" is defined as consisting of all the members of a group descended from a single ancestor, then we must admit that one "kind" might be much more diversified than another "kind". so we can't really apply our taxonomic ideas (even if they weren't already so ambiguous) to their claims.

i think many people would sooner glump together all bats (which is an order), than they would glump together buffalo with gazelles (which are in the same family) for example. so i can't really say for sure where any given creationist is going to stand on the issue. and indeed, each creationist might differ from one another. that's why i'm trying hoping AV will answer my questions.

 

[AV1611VET]

If the "kind" is gone and the word "kind" had no coherent definition then would you agree that the the concept of "kind" is unuseful and has no value?

No --- it's a powerful exegetic tool --- observe:

[bible]Genesis 1:24[/bible]
[bible]Genesis 6:20[/bible]

Now let's try that with "Family":

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his Family, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his Family: and it was so.

Of fowls after their Family, and of cattle after their Family, of every creeping thing of the earth after his Family, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

Which Ark is not overcrowded?

 

[AV1611VET]

...that's why i'm trying hoping AV will answer my questions.

I hate to disappoint you, but all I did was give my definition of what I thought a "kind" was, and I've been trying ever since to convince people here I'm not an expert.

Your questions are way over my head.

p.s. I'm one of those "types", Atrijez, that all I have to do is show up and say "boo", and I'll tie a thread up for hours.

 

[atrijez]

I hate to disappoint you, but all I did was give my definition of what I thought a "kind" was, and I've been trying ever since to convince people here I'm not an expert.

Your questions are way over my head.

p.s. I'm one of those "types", Atrijez, that all I have to do is show up and say "boo", and I'll tie a thread up for hours.

so wait,, are you saying that you're a troll? i don't understand what you mean by your postscript. is it your goal to tie up threads for hours?

i'm not asking you anything difficult. i'm simply asking you which other animals you BELIEVE descended from coyotes. there's no wrong answer. all you have to do is state your position. --- it seems pretty obvious to me though that you're purposely trying to avoid answering the question because you can tell beforehand that by answering one way (i.e. including most of those animals into the group descended from coyotes) that you have a lot of evolutionary explaining to do, but by answering the other way (i.e. excluding things like bush dogs and foxes) that you can't justify why the "coyote kind" would have been designed so needlessly similar to the "fox kind". so instead of answering yes or no, you instead just don't answer.

you're like a chess player who thinks that by not moving, that you'll somehow keep from losing. essentially, you're filibustering. what a highly low thing to do. here's what it comes down to though. if you can not assign any of your own meaning to the word "kind", then it is completely meaningless for you to use the word "kind". if in any other thread, you try to justify microevolution but rule out macroevolution by use of the meaningless word "kind", then i will post a link to this thread, invalidating your argument.

 

[AV1611VET]

so wait,, are you saying that you're a troll? i don't understand what you mean by your postscript. is it your goal to tie up threads for hours?

i'm not asking you anything difficult. i'm simply asking you which other animals you BELIEVE descended from coyotes. there's no wrong answer. all you have to do is state your position. --- it seems pretty obvious to me though that you're purposely trying to avoid answering the question because you can tell beforehand that by answering one way (i.e. including most of those animals into the group descended from coyotes) that you have a lot of evolutionary explaining to do, but by answering the other way (i.e. excluding things like bush dogs and foxes) that you can't justify why the "coyote kind" would have been designed so needlessly similar to the "fox kind". so instead of answering yes or no, you instead just don't answer.

you're like a chess player who thinks that by not moving, that you'll somehow keep from losing. essentially, you're filibustering. what a highly low thing to do. here's what it comes down to though. if you can not assign any of your own meaning to the word "kind", then it is completely meaningless for you to use the word "kind". if in any other thread, you try to justify microevolution but rule out macroevolution by use of the meaningless word "kind", then i will post a link to this thread, invalidating your argument.

And you have a good day, too ---

 

[corvus_corax]

I hate to disappoint you, but all I did was give my definition of what I thought a "kind" was, and I've been trying ever since to convince people here I'm not an expert.

Credit where credit is due
AV1611VET did say on page 1 of this thread-

it's just off the top of my head...

AV1611VET never claimed to be able to to give a scientifically accurate definition of "kind", or even a reasonable definition
His idea of 'kinds' was off the top of his head, nothing more
The main problem was that he attempted to use scientific terms without any idea of what those terms mean

Your questions are way over my head.

I actually find this refreshing
A biblical literalist YEC creationist who admits that certain argument are beyond him.
And no, this isn't some scathing remark on my part. I genuinely find this mindset to be refreshing

p.s. I'm one of those "types", Atrijez, that all I have to do is show up and say "boo", and I'll tie a thread up for hours.

For reasons that have already been explained ad nauseum

 

[AV1611VET]

I actually find this refreshing
A biblical literalist YEC creationist who admits that certain argument are beyond him. And no, this isn't some scathing remark on my part. I genuinely find this mindset to be refreshing

Thank you, Corvus - (but I'm not a YEC).

 

[atrijez]

I actually find this refreshing
A biblical literalist YEC creationist who admits that certain argument are beyond him.
And no, this isn't some scathing remark on my part. I genuinely find this mindset to be refreshing

i do too. but i just want to make sure that he's not saying it to get off the hook for the time being, but is planning on using the word "kind" later to nullify someone else's argument. i mean, we can all agree that if someone doesn't even know what they themselves mean by a particular word, that they shouldn't be allowed to use that word to argue against points they don't understand, right?

so essentially then, this debate is a victory for the evolutionists. only one creationist even tried to debate, and by his own admission, he didn't even know what he was talking about.

good job, AnEmpiricalAgnostic for asking such a well articulated question.

 

[[serious]]

Well, I'll give a good creationist definition even though I'm not creationist. A kind is:
The type of group God made
the type of group Noah took on the ark
The lowest level of classification that evolution hasn't demonstrated
"If you don't know I can't tell you"

I like circles, don't you?

 

[atrijez]

Well, I'll give a good creationist definition even though I'm not creationist. A kind is:
The type of group God made
the type of group Noah took on the ark
The lowest level of classification that evolution hasn't demonstrated
"If you don't know I can't tell you"

I like circles, don't you?

yeah, you're right. "kind" is already defined. what i'd like to know though is what all of the different "kinds" are and which animals are in them. kent hovind says things like, "even a child can tell that a dog and a wolf are the same kind", and i think a lot of creationists would agree with that. like,, "it's so obvious that a wolf is related to a dog but that a cat isn't". but then,, if it's so obvious, then why aren't we getting any straight answers on whether or not foxes and raccoon dogs are in the "dog kind"? the only thing i can think of is that most creationists can see in advance that any answer they give will come back to haunt them, and so they think that if they say "i don't know" that it suffices as an answer but doesn't obligate them to either side. it's really wormy when you think about it. it's like, the only way they can keep their "science" intact is by declaring complete ignorance and avoiding questions and what not.

 

[RedAndy]

The CreationWiki says:

Thus the created kind corresponds roughly to the family level of taxonomic classification, and possibly even the order with the notable exception of humanity/

All sounds a little ad hoc to me.

 

[FishFace]

The CreationWiki says:


All sounds a little ad hoc to me.

Naturally. There can be no consistent definition of kind that excludes evolution between kinds, that does not place humanity in the same kind as other hominids, and that will fit everything on an ark.