What is a "Kind"?

[Morat]

  So you're saying "kinds" is arbitrary? Doesn't sound very scientific.

    Linnean taxonomy has problems with "species" (most are easy, using the general "two life forms are of the same species if they will, in the wild, mate and bear fertile offspring) especially with such things as ring species.

 
   Pattern systematics was created to offer a better method for classifying life forms.

  But neither works with something so vague and useless as "I'll know it when I see it".

 

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Morat
So you're saying "kinds" is arbitrary?

No, I'm saying that "kinds" as used in scripture simply states that God created different creatures. It wasn't arbitrary for God, but it would be arbitrary for us. I can see why you might be curious, but why would it be crucial for us to know what criteria God used to differentiate kinds?

Originally posted by Morat
Doesn't sound very scientific.

And that's bad...because?

Originally posted by Morat
Pattern systematics was created to offer a better method for classifying life forms.

Whoopie.

 

[Morat]

  So, you're admitting that sense "kinds" is a subjective decision, there is no way for any observer to say which is of what kind, thus the statement "There is no evolution between kinds" is untestable?

  Thought so.

 

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Morat
So, you're admitting that sense "kinds" is a subjective decision

I didn't know I was being interrogated for a crime. I didn't ADMIT anything. God created kinds, so I think it's safe to assume He used His subjective criteria for creating them. Perhaps He WAS objective in selecting His criteria. I don't know. But is there a problem with God being subjective? Can you explain to me how God would have created kinds objectively, and why that would have been a better approach? And if you really want to know, when you meet Him, you can ask Him face to face or yell across the chasm, depending on where you end up.

Originally posted by Morat
there is no way for any observer to say which is of what kind

I don't know that for sure, but I don't see why it matters.

Originally posted by Morat
thus the statement "There is no evolution between kinds" is untestable?

Since evolution is a fantasy, why would anyone want to test to see if it doesn't happen between kinds?

Originally posted by Morat
Thought so.

Enjoy your victory party.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by franklin
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".     

Great.  Well, then, what "kind" is this:

or this:

or this:

 

 

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie


Great.  Well, then, what "kind" is this:

The dead kind.

Some kind of model (plastic? clay?) of what some creative person imagined this creature looked like, inspired by a few incomplete fossils.

It looks like some kind of fossil of what evolutionists imagine belong in a mythical phylogenic tree that connects dinosaurs to birds.

 

[Jerry Smith]

This is the "incomplete fossi" you mentioned for acanthostega (the fishy with paddle-fins)

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley


The dead kind.

Some kind of model (plastic? clay?) of what some creative person imagined this creature looked like, inspired by a few incomplete fossils.

It looks like some kind of fossil of what evolutionists imagine belong in a mythical phylogenic tree that connects dinosaurs to birds.

npetreley, the master of the content-free post.

 

[franklin]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Great.  Well, then, what "kind" is this:

It looks like the skull of a dead human where some evolutionistic artist tried to make it look like the skull of an ape! I agree with N... it's DEAD!  next question!

or this:

 or this:

I must have to say, there are certainly plenty of artists with extremely wonderful imagination and talent!  That is not one of God's creations after it's "kind" !  That is part of the fairy tale for adults!

 [/B]

to sum this all up, what is your point in all this anyway?  This looks it could be a dead frog or whatever!  You atheists are just looking for one excuse after another to deny the almighty creator God!  

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Let me be perfectly clear

Ape kind or human kind?  How can you tell?

(FYI: This is an actual fossil skull, not an artist's rendering)

 

Fish kind or amphibian kind? How can you tell?

Dinosaur kind or bird kind?  How can you tell?

You atheists are just looking for one excuse after another to deny the almighty creator God!

I'm not denying God at all.  I just deny that the fairy story in Genesis is or was ever intended to be literally true.

 

[franklin]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
I'm not denying God at all.  I just deny that the fairy story in Genesis is or was ever intended to be literally true.

 

It sounds like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth!  On the one hand your saying you are not denying God and on the other hand you deny His word by calling it a fairy tale? You sound like a hypicrite!  You need to make up your mind who's side you are on!  You are either for Him or you are against Him!  Everything spelled out in the scripture points to the fact that evolution is something that was created by the imaginations of men and not God!  It's like saying someone can make a scientific theory out of Jack and the beanstalk!  

 

 

[tycho]

Originally posted by Morat
Doesn't sound very scientific.

Originally posted by npetreley
And that's bad...because?

Because this is a science board. Because this is a scientific discussion.

Why is it you're here again Nick? It's obvious you're not here to expose the truth to anyone. It's obvious you're not here to learn anything. So, I'm guessing it's to prevent others from learning a thing or two & to give yourself a twisted sense of power.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by franklin
 

It sounds like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth!  On the one hand your saying you are not denying God and on the other hand you deny His word by calling it a fairy tale?  

 

Did you ever consider that maybe I have a different concept of God than you do?  In particular, one where his "word" need not be interpreted literally in order to have spiritual value.

Oh, and how about answering the questions I asked.  What "kind" is each of the creatures I presented?  How can you tell? For such an ardent defender of the concept of "kind", this should be easy for you.

 

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by tycho

Because this is a science board. Because this is a scientific discussion.

So something that isn't scientific must be treated as though it is scientific because we're discussing it on a science board?

Sorry, but I simply don't understand that attitude. The Bible doesn't explain its definition of "kinds," it just says that God created kinds. So trying to derive a scientific definition from the Bible is futile. You can make up your own definition and say that's what the Bible means, but that's not at all scientific, either. So what's your point?

Originally posted by tycho

Why is it you're here again Nick? It's obvious you're not here to expose the truth to anyone.

I'm having fun. And I'm having fun exposing lies. The two may sometimes overlap. You got a problem with that?

Originally posted by tycho

It's obvious you're not here to learn anything. So, I'm guessing it's to prevent others from learning a thing or two & to give yourself a twisted sense of power.

Making guesses like that probably explains why you believe in evolution.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie

Did you ever consider that maybe I have a different concept of God than you do?

You make it sound as if what you believe about God makes it true. Is this the "everyone has their own reality" thing from the '70s?

Before that knee jerks, I know perfectly well that the truth about God is what it is regardless of what I believe.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley

So something that isn't scientific must be treated as though it is scientific because we're discussing it on a science board?

Chase started out discussing whether or not baraminology was scientific and why or why not.

Sorry, but I simply don't understand that attitude. The Bible doesn't explain its definition of "kinds," it just says that God created kinds. So trying to derive a scientific definition from the Bible is futile.

Kind of our point.

You can make up your own definition and say that's what the Bible means, but that's not at all scientific, either. So what's your point?

Ask Chase - it is his idea..

I'm having fun. And I'm having fun exposing lies. The two may sometimes overlap. You got a problem with that?

You have yet to expose a lie. You have been caught in some mistakes or lies (its hard to tell which). You have railed and ranted that evolution has no evidence and it isn't true and it is imaginary, but you still haven't exposed a lie. When do you plan to start?? 

 

[franklin]

  Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Did you ever consider that maybe I have a different concept of God than you do?

 

Oh without a doubt you have a different concept of God!  It's not biblical if thats what you mean! 

  In particular, one where his "word" need not be interpreted literally in order to have spiritual value. [/B]

I think we agree here, believe it or not!  Yes there are phrases and biblical texts that are to be interpreted spiritually, figuratively and symbolically in order to convey the message that God wants to make clear certain truths i.e. prophecy etc, however, when it comes to the creation message and scripture speaks on its own one can see it is a literal message and interpretation..... the bible doesn't contradict itself.  We are not to interpret the scripture to fit into our own preconceived ideas. What does inspiration mean to you?

Oh, and how about answering the questions I asked.  What "kind" is each of the creatures I presented?  How can you tell? For such an ardent defender of the concept of "kind", this should be easy for you. [/B]

Let me ask you a question Livefree, how difficult is it to understand the word "kind"?  Don't you think a little five year old can tell you what "kind" means?  How much is 2+2?  Do you need to ask, but why is it 2? Why does it equal 4?  2+2=4 because those are the laws of mathematics!  God gave us an account of His creation and how He set things in motion because He is sovereign and He is the one who set the laws and rules and for a very good reason!  If He didn't want to create a monkey so that eventually it would turn into some other being, then He had a very good reason for it!!  Its so simple!  But all you utopian evolutionary defenders are always attempting to make everything more complicated then what it really is! 

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by franklin
when it comes to the creation message and scripture speaks on its own one can see it is a literal message and interpretation

I simply disagree.

Let me ask you a question Livefree, how difficult is it to understand the word "kind"?  Don't you think a little five year old can tell you what "kind" means?  How much is 2+2?  Do you need to ask, but why is it 2? Why does it equal 4?  2+2=4 because those are the laws of mathematics!  God gave us an account of His creation and how He set things in motion because He is sovereign and He is the one who set the laws and rules and for a very good reason!  If He didn't want to create a monkey so that eventually it would turn into some other being, then He had a very good reason for it!!  Its so simple!  But all you utopian evolutionary defenders are always attempting to make everything more complicated then what it really is! 

If it's so darn simple, then why can't you answer my questions?

Picture 1: ape kind or human kind?  How can you tell?

Picture 2: fish kind or amphibian kind?  How can you tell?

Picture 3: dinosaur kind or bird kind?  How can you tell?

The problem is not that evolutionists make the world more complicated, it's that the real world is much more complicated than the Bible makes it out to be.  I'm sorry that is difficult for you, but those are the facts you have to live with.

 

 

[franklin]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
I simply disagree.

That tells me you have your own private interpretation!  So believe what you want, even though it's not biblical, that isn't how I chose to live according to God's word.  And now to move on to your questions below.....

  If it's so darn simple, then why can't you answer my questions? [/B]

OK, LiveFreeorDie, I'll play your silly game and at the end I will re-post what I said recently on page 8 of this thread in which I thought I made very clear and simple for you. 

  Picture 1: ape kind or human kind?  How can you tell?[/B]

Well, Pilgrim, it could be an ape, it could be a human, Ooooor! it could have been a human who had an odd shaped head! So what's your point?  It still looks like something of its own kind!  Get it!

 
Picture 2: fish kind or amphibian kind?  How can you tell? [/b]

I gave you my answer on this one already, it looks like a fake!  It looks like something someone created just like all the art work of the ape men that look part human, i.e. Peking man etc.....

 
Picture 3: dinosaur kind or bird kind?  How can you tell? [/B]

to be honest, from what I remember (don't have the picture in front of me) it looked like something with skinny legs, it could have been a frog, it could have been a dead lizard, what's your point again?  It looked like some "kind" of something! 

  The problem is not that evolutionists the world more complicated, it's that the real world much more complicated than the Bible makes it out to be.  I'm sorry that is difficult for you, but those are the facts you have to live with. [/B]

It's man that makes everything so complicated by trying to convince everyone that evolution is some scientific theory, it's  not God or the Bible that is making everything complicated!  Sorry if THAT is so difficult for you to understand! As for facts that I have to live with, evolution is not fact, it is fiction!

Now I would suggest that you review post #78, I'm not going to repost it here.....  Have a nice day.....

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by franklin
Well, Pilgrim, it could be an ape, it could be a human, Ooooor! it could have been a human who had an odd shaped head! So what's your point?  It still looks like something of its own kind!  Get it!

I gave you my answer on this one already, it looks like a fake!  It looks like something someone created just like all the art work of the ape men that look part human, i.e. Peking man etc.....

to be honest, from what I remember (don't have the picture in front of me) it looked like something with skinny legs, it could have been a frog, it could have been a dead lizard, what's your point again?  It looked like some "kind" of something! 

Great.  OK, with that out of the way, it appears that you equate a "kind" with a species.

This definition of "kind" seems to pose a particular problem for the biblical account of Noah's ark.  You see, there are on the order of 10 million terrestrial species on the Earth.  If Noah had to take two of each species (or seven of each "clean" species), he would have had to build an ark capable of holding tens of millions of animals plus all of their food.  If this is what the Bible means by "kind" then this clearly seems to conflict with the Bible's own account of Noah's ark.

Also, if "kind" is the same as a species, then the biblical claim that a "kind" cannot give rise to a different "kind" has been unequivocally refuted by science.  The talk.origins archive has an FAQ that describes several observed instances of speciation.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

So, franklin, if your interpretation of the word "kind" is correct, then the Bible clearly contradicts itself.  Noah's ark would have been impossible, and kinds clearly do give rise to new kinds.