What is a "Kind"?

[RufusAtticus]

Hi Chase.

Baraminology is not science. It is apologetics. No science would use scripture as the primary evidence to determine wheather organisms are related or not. But that is exactly what baraminology does, unless their methods have changed since this was written.

 

[Jerry Smith]

So "creationism" and evolution can be reconciled by postulating one or a very small few holobaramin, and no apobaramin. I think baraminology would not be a bad path for the truly scientific among the creationists to follow.

 

[ChaseNelson]

Rufus,

This science would. LoL. It is a scientific attempt to see if we can figure out exactly what a kind is. For example, wolves, coyotes, and dogs, etc., are all the same kind--but what does it mean? Baraminology is the study of what a kind really is.

I really don't think that you can separate the Bible and science. I think it's John 3:12 that records Jesus as saying: "If I tell you of Earthly things, and you believe not, how shall you believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" If the Bible talks of science and we don't believe it, why should we believe it when it talks about salvation?

Ken Ham gives this picture about Noah's Ark. If there's no science going on, then how does the Flood fit in to real earth history? Noah's Flood was an event with salavation going on inside the boat, biology going on inside the boat, geology going on outside the boat, ride along with God's judgement. They're inseprable. Ham states:

The issues of morality and salvation are dependent on the history in the Bible being true. God does not separate morality and salvation from geology, biology, and astronomy.

Sciences advocated by creationists use the Bible as well as scientific facts as a basis or starting block. For example, take Russell Humprey's new cosmology, which is based on both what the Bible says about the universe expanding, the beginning of creation, and Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Just my thoughts.

Chase

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by ChaseNelson
Sciences advocated by creationists use the Bible as well as scientific facts as a basis or starting block.

And what exactly are those "scientific facts" that creationists use as a basis for their theory?

I was under the impression from previous posts to this board that there aren't any.  Maybe you can enlighten us.

 

 

[Jerry Smith]

This science would. LoL. It is a scientific attempt to see if we can figure out exactly what a kind is. For example, wolves, coyotes, and dogs, etc., are all the same kind--but what does it mean? Baraminology is the study of what a kind really is.

I guess my question is: how does this field of inquiry qualify as science?
a) By employing scientific methodology (Perhaps one finds an explanatory or descriptive hypothesis in the Bible, then tests its merit in the field and the lab using scientific, empircal methodology)
b) By using scientific methods to falsify evolution
c) By making unscientific speculations based on the Bible, and borrowing scientific facts when convenient in order to make the speculations appear more credible
d) By some other means

Honestly, only the first two really qualify as "science." The problem is that those two approaches rarely yield any results.

 

[ChaseNelson]

Maybe I can, LiveFree. If you would have read my post carefully, you would have found an example--Russell Humphreys uses Einstein's equations in his cosmology, for example.

Jerry, it qualifies as science because of the research done to discover what species belong to a single kind. It seems obvious to me. It's an attempt to find out what animals today are descended from the same animal--of course, this assumes evolution is not true. But evolutionary research assumes creation is not true. That doesn't mean that either is unscientific.

Chase

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by randman
This is a losing argument big-time for evolutionists since defining species is hugely problematic.

Why is this a problem for evolution?  Scientists freely acknowledge that an iron-clad definition of species is difficult.

"Kind" has been well-defined, more so than species.

Great.  Please define "kind" for us.

 

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by ChaseNelson
Maybe I can, LiveFree. If you would have read my post carefully, you would have found an example--Russell Humphreys uses Einstein's equations in his cosmology, for example. 

Bzzt.  Even if Humphreys could be taken seriously, cosmology has nothing to do with evolution.

Care to try again?

 

 

[Lanakila]

Cosmology is about origins, why does that have nothing to do with evolution? I know you evolutionists don't like to talk about abiogenesis, but isn't the title of Darwin's book: The Origin of the Species, LOL.

 

[Morat]

  Cosmology is physics, and is about the universe. Evolution is biology, and is about the diversity of life.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by Lanakila
Cosmology is about origins, why does that have nothing to do with evolution? I know you evolutionists don't like to talk about abiogenesis, but isn't the title of Darwin's book: The Origin of the Species, LOL.

Cosmology is about the origin of the Universe.

Abiogenesis is about the origin of life from non-living sources.

Evolution is about the origin of species.

Neither, as scientists define them, is dependent upon the other.

P.S. It's not that evolutionists don't like to talk about abiogenesis, it's that there isn't a whole lot we can definitively say about it.  How much of a conversation can you have if the bulk of the answers are "we don't know"?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by ChaseNelson
Jerry, it qualifies as science because of the research done to discover what species belong to a single kind. It seems obvious to me. It's an attempt to find out what animals today are descended from the same animal--of course, this assumes evolution is not true. But evolutionary research assumes creation is not true. That doesn't mean that either is unscientific.

Chase

First, the matter of "assumptions": You are incorrect to state that evolutionary research assumes creation is not true. I assure you. If it seems that way to you, and you would like to explain why, then I will be glad to offer my objections to the line of reasoning that gives you this idea.

Second, on why baraminology is/is not science: You say that it is science because of the research done to discover what species belong to a single "kind." That is good, but I wonder how it can be accomplished. For instance, if you include 15 species of "cats" in one "kind", how can you demonstrate empirically that numerous dogs don't have the defining properties that would place them inside that "kind"? Remember, this has to be empirical evidence: that means that there has to be a way of empirically determining that dogs have no ancestors that could mate successfully with any ancestors of cats.

On the other hand, if you include dogs and cats within the same baramin, how would you empirically determine whether bears belonged? If you include dogs, cats, and bears, how would you determine whether tapirs, horses and hippo's belonged? How would you then determine whether or not all mammals belonged within the grouping of one baramin? All chordates? All vertebrates? All multicellular life? How do you empirically verify the lines that you draw around the postulated kinds? What is the methodology of the scientific research that is proposed?

A last note about "assumptions". You said baraminology assumes evolution is false. Why must it do so? Why must one start with an assumption about evolution in order to determine the proper groupings by descent of any organisms?

 

 

[franklin]

Ten times in the book of Genesis we read God's decree concerning the reproduction of His creatures - "after its kind." The word "kind" refers to species, or families. Each created family was to produce only its own kind. This forever precludes the drifting, changing process required by organic evolution where one species turns into another. 

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by franklin
The word "kind" refers to species, or families.

Which is it?  Does "kind" refer to a family or to a species?

 (I assume you use those terms in the Linnean sense, e.g. kindom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species)

 

 

[ChaseNelson]

Evolution is evolution. There is stellar evolution, chemical evolution, macroevolution, etc. The origin of life is required in order for evolution to place--after all, if there's not a natural explanation as to how life came into existence in the first place, evolution cannot be natural. If life didn't come into existence, what is there to evolve?

 

[Morat]

  No. The Theory of Evolution is strictly for biology.

  You're conflating Evolution (Big 'E', the Theory) with "evolution" (small 'e'), a word meaning "change over time".

 

 

[ChaseNelson]

LiveFree, you know what the definition of the kind or baramin is, because I just posted it a couple pages ago. Don't attack franklin--you know what he means. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats. When weasels breed with weasels, they produce other weasels just like themselves. (Such a marvelous statement!) A baramin is slightly larger than a genus, and can be determined by the tests included in the quote I cited.

Jerry, a single baramin would never include both cats, dogs, and bears, because they are obviously not the same kind--unless evolution is true. Which is why baraminology rather assumes that evolution is not. It's kind of pointless to find KINDS if we're all decended from the same anscestor (which woiuld mean we're all basically the same thing).

I think a kind, easily defined, means a group of species that can or once could in the past interbreed.

Chase

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by ChaseNelson
Evolution is evolution. There is stellar evolution, chemical evolution, macroevolution, etc.

Religion is religion.  There is the Christian religion, the Muslim religion, the Hindu religion, etc.

The origin of life is required in order for evolution to place

Agreed.

after all, if there's not a natural explanation as to how life came into existence in the first place, evolution cannot be natural.

Why not?  If all God created was the first cell, why could he not have chosen to let life evolve naturally from there?

If life didn't come into existence, what is there to evolve?

This seems a rather pointless question given that life DID come into existence.

 

[ChaseNelson]

Well then, LiveFree, we might as well be discussing the evolution of the Mazda here.

 

[ChaseNelson]

Evolution deals with the naturalistic explanation for what we see today as change over time.

Christianity deals with Christ Jesus.

Islam deals with Muhammad.

There's a major difference, and you know that.

Why not? If all God created was the first cell, why could he not have chosen to let life evolve naturally from there?

He could have, but then there is a God. Unless If God did it, then there's not a natural cause.

This seems a rather pointless question given that life DID come into existence.

Yes, it did. How is the question.

Chase