What is a "Kind"?

[Jerry Smith]

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).

How is it obvious, though? I mean, do differences in the morphology in current populations mean that the ancestors of those populations could not interbreed? How is this obvious division between cats and dogs empirically verifiable? If you have no empirical basis for showing that dogs and cats MUST belong to the same kind, then you cannot say that you are really doing "scientific research" to find out which species belongs with which kind, can you?

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

That is a fine definition. It is the one most often used. However, there is a problem: how can you empirically verify whether or not there was ever any interbreeding between the "cat" group and the "dog" group? Just assuming that they never interbred isn't really scientific. Without that assumption, how do you sort them into separate kinds?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

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

Are you talking about the word "evolution" or the scientific theory for the origin of species by the same name?

Christianity deals with Christ Jesus.

Islam deals with Muhammad.

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

Ding ding!  Correct.  Just like there is a major difference between stellar evolution, "chemical evolution" (your words) and biological evolution.

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

Then there's not a natual cause for abiogenesis.  That has no bearing whatsoever on evolution.

Yes, it did. How is the question. 

I've already answered that.  We don't know.  There are some tantalizing clues, but nothing conclusive.  It is pretty clear, though, that there so far appears to be no significant barrier that would have prevented life from arising naturally.

 

 

[RufusAtticus]

Chase,

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.

As long as baraminology holds (their interpretation of) scripture to be the primary evidence, it is not science.  It's theology/apologetics.  In other words, according to baraminology it doesn't matter what the data says, if the Bible says other wise.  That is not how one conducts responsible science.

If the Bible talks of science and we don't believe it, why should we believe it when it talks about salvation?

Because the Bible is not intended to be a work of science.  As long as you don’t lift it up as one, spiritual lessons won’t be affected

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

So the flood must have happened as Ken Ham interprets or Jesus’ gifts don’t exist.  I think that is a very constrained view of salvation.  Furthermore, geological and biological evidence is incompatible with a total world wide flood, occurring in the last 6000 years.

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.

Creation “Science” is not science, it is a religious belief.  Humprey’s is a great example of how creationists work.  Assume a certain interpretation of Bible is true.  Stretch facts to fit this interpretation.  Publish without bothering to go through scientific peer review.  That’s not the way science it done.

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.

But he never took is work to scientific peer review to assure that he is using them correctly.

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.

Baraminology is not a science because it uses unscientific reasons for assuming that evolution is not true, i.e. a specific interpretation of scripture.  This same reason even prevents them from considering evolution even if that’s what the data points too.  The accuracy of science cannot be determined by religion, philosophy, emotion, or politics, but that is exactly what baraminology is trying to do.  As I pointed out earlier, “kinds” requires that novelty not occur but that is exactly what we see in nature.

 

[RufusAtticus]

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 origins of the universe. I challenge you to find a scientific reference that claims differently.

Abiogenesis is about the origins of life/ I challenge you to find a scientific reference that claims differently.

Evolutionary Biology is about the diversity of life, which includes the origins of species. I challenge you to find a scientific reference that claims differently.

At what point in history did the universe, life, and species come to refer to the same thing? Unless they do, your objection is worthless.

 

[randman]

In a sense "kind" like "species" from a scientific perpective is theoritical, but in no sense is the study of "kinds" less scientific as the study of species regardless of what Rufus or anyone else states.

Rufus and many other evolutionists are just plain quite illogical. I suppose the guy that discovered Troy was not actually engaging in archealogy because he used human testimony as a starting point, at least that is what Rufus states. Heck, if you conduct any research based on written accounts, it can't be science according to Rufus. All written accounts must be totally ignored, and btw, any data that we don't like as evolutionists.
Gimme a break!

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Sheep

Did you not read the dictionary explanation for the word vestigial? Vestage = a trace or remnant. NOWHERE in the explanation does it say that vestigial organs have no purpose. In fact, in most cases vestigial organs do indeed have some purpose or function. They are still vestigial.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
In a sense "kind" like "species" from a scientific perpective is theoritical, but in no sense is the study of "kinds" less scientific as the study of species regardless of what Rufus or anyone else states.

Rufus and many other evolutionists are just plain quite illogical. I suppose the guy that discovered Troy was not actually engaging in archealogy because he used human testimony as a starting point, at least that is what Rufus states. Heck, if you conduct any research based on written accounts, it can't be science according to Rufus. All written accounts must be totally ignored, and btw, any data that we don't like as evolutionists.
Gimme a break!

Please read the discussion between Chase and I to see what the requisite methodology for considering Baraminology scientific would be.

It is ok in science to guide hypotheses by written records (although it isn't always the best starting point). It isn't OK in science to make historical or religious documents the evidentiary standard.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by randman
Heck, if you conduct any research based on written accounts, it can't be science according to Rufus. All written accounts must be totally ignored, and btw, any data that we don't like as evolutionists.

 

I never said that.  Try reading my posts again.  Baraminology is not a science because a specific interpretation of a written text as more important than data.  Not because it uses written texts at all.  If immutable kinds truely existed, then baraminology should be able to determine without appealing to Genesis.  As far as I can tell, the only reasons to even use scripture is so they can claim that humans and chimps are not members of the same kind. 

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by 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.

(snipped)

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

OK smarty.  What "kind" of animal is this?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie


OK smarty.  What "kind" of animal is this?

 

A dead one.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie


OK smarty.  What "kind" of animal is this?

Oh, and let me guess...that white part of the picture is the actual skull fragment and the rest is a a scientist's conception of what the whole skull would look like, right? 

 

 

[RufusAtticus]

Yes Nick. But is it clean or unclean?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Yes Nick. But is it clean or unclean?

IIRC, if it's dead, it's unclean.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
Oh, and let me guess...that white part of the picture is the actual skull fragment and the rest is a a scientist's conception of what the whole skull would look like, right?   

Of course.  All scientists are liars.

 

 

[franklin]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Which is it?  Does "kind" refer to a family or to a species? 

Read the rest of my post starting with where you left off! 

 

[npetreley]

Of course. All scientists are liars.

Possible Employer: "It says here on your application that you're an evolutionary biologist. Very good. Now, you have your age listed as 2 and your race (which we only use for statistical purposes) as donkey. You know, it's not good enough just to lie. You need to be able to support your claims."

Applicant: "Well, I can't offer you direct evidence, but I am immature and I ack like a jackass, and so far the conclusion that I'm a 2 year old donkey is the best theory to fit the evidence. If you can come up with a better theory I'd be willing to listen."

Employer: "When can you start?"

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by franklin


Read the rest of my post starting with where you left off! 

In one sentence you refer to "family".  In the next you refer to "species".  Pardon me if I'm a little confused.

No need to get all snippy.  Is a "kind" the same as a "family" or a "species"?  A one word answer will do.

 

 

[franklin]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
In one sentence you refer to "family".  In the next you refer to "species".  Pardon me if I'm a little confused. No need to get all snippy.  Is a "kind" the same as a "family" or a "species"?  A one word answer will do. 

Each created family was to produce only its own kind. This is the statement I was referring to, let me see if the following explains it...  Take note that God did not say there could be no changes within the family.  For example, he did not create all the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, etc. in the very beginning. The beginning of His creation. There was only a male and female of each species, and many changes have since occurred to produce a wide assortment of varieties within the family. But please keep it straight in your mind that cats have always remained cats, dogs are still dogs, and men are still men and women still women. Selective breeding has also brought tremendous improvements such as hornless cattle, white turkeys, and seedless oranges, but all the organisms continue to reproduce exactly as God decreed at Creation - after its kind.  God never intended to create something of one kind to be turned into some other different kind, i.e.  a cat turning into a dog, a monkey into a man, etc... as is so commonly taught with evolution!  That is someone's wild imagination! I hope this helps.  Sorry if I appeared "snippy".    

 

 

[Morat]

  We're looking for some way of telling, empiracly, which is which. If I look at two species, X and Y, how do I tell if they're part of the same kind or not?

 

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Morat
  We're looking for some way of telling, empiracly, which is which. If I look at two species, X and Y, how do I tell if they're part of the same kind or not?

 

Why does it matter if we can tell one kind from another? If we made a mistake, would that mean the kinds are or aren't different?