What is a "kind"?

[AV1611VET]

And this is what creationists want - a discussion that uses words that are undefined and cannot be defined. They bring up ideas and change the goal posts. How insincere and dishonest can you get.

Like --- for instance:

• spontaneous generation
• phlogiston
• aether
• alchemy
• Pluto

Those sorts of things?

 

[The Bellman]

Like --- for instance:

• spontaneous generation
• phlogiston
• aether
• alchemy
• Pluto

Those sorts of things?

No.

 

[LittleNipper]

Creationists are ignorant and don't understand that the complex methodology's behind science. they think you can just make junk up, because they have been doing it for quite a while.

Creationists, you will never win against evolution because they don't understand it. To defeat your enemy you must know them better then they know themselves.

its not even like this is a science forum. this is a Christian forum. One would think here of all places, creationists could thrive. Its just sad. pathetically sad, how they cant even answer their definitions to words they themselves make up. This is why you lost at dover creationists. because you have nothing in the way of science. nothing.

Creationists understand that many different areas of science have been influenced to agree with evolution. It will take time to unravel what has been manipulated and accepted as likely for 150 years. A structure must be torn down before a new one maybe built in its place. Remodeling or an addition will not be sufficient. A totally new approach needs to be established in order for creationism to be viewed in a different light. This take time and research without preconceived evolutionary thought bias.

 

[The Bellman]

Creationists understand that many different areas of science have been influenced to agree with evolution.

And there you demonstrate that no, creationists do not understand.

Many areas of science have not been 'influenced' to agree with evolution. It has been discovered that many areas of science are in accord with evolution. Big difference.

It will take time to unravel what has been manipulated and accepted as likely for 150 years. A structure must be torn down before a new one maybe built in its place. Remodeling or an addition will not be sufficient. A totally new approach needs to be established in order for creationism to be viewed in a different light.

I wonder what they'd call it? Obviously not science.

This take time and research without preconceived evolutionary thought bias.

Fortunately, actual scientists will prevent such idiocy from ever happening.

 

[LittleNipper]

Doesn't seem like we missed anything. Calling "Kind" a "type" is hardly helpful. Also, can you tell us why we cannot or should not claim all birds are one "Kind?"

ALL birds cannot be the same kind, because even Noah sent out first a Raven and then a Dove. Clearly, he didn't see them as the same kind.

 

[AV1611VET]

Like --- for instance:

• spontaneous generation
• phlogiston
• aether
• alchemy
• Pluto

Those sorts of things?

No.

Burning bridges now, are we?

 

[LittleNipper]

And there you demonstrate that no, creationists do not understand.

Many areas of science have not been 'influenced' to agree with evolution. It has been discovered that many areas of science are in accord with evolution. Big difference.


I wonder what they'd call it? Obviously not science.


Fortunately, actual scientists will prevent such idiocy from ever happening.

That will be to his (the devout evolutionist scientist) loss, and not to the Creation scientist or at least those who have not become steadfast in their pursuits and opinions to not review and reconsider "uniformitarian" preconceptions....

 

[AV1611VET]

That will be to his (the devout evolutionist scientist) loss, and not to the Creation scientist or at least those who have not become steadfast in their pursuits and opinions to not review and reconsider "uniformitarian" preconceptions....

Indeed --- uniformitarians consistently paint themselves into a corner --- then expect us Christians to bail them out.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Indeed --- uniformitarians consistently paint themselves into a corner --- then expect us Christians to bail them out.

The only "uniformitarism" in science is the uniformity of physical law a postulate well supported by data. This "unifomitarianism" nonsense from YECs is just a desperate attempt to cover up the fact that Young Earth Creationism with its recent creation and even more recent global flood can't begin to explain the physical universe and the earth's geology, paleontology, biodiversity, archeology and biogeography. All they can do is invoke some vague form of "catastrophism" that doesn't actually explain anything and totally falls apart when challenged with any detailed data.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Like --- for instance:

• spontaneous generation

Disproved by scientists without using the Bible.

phlogiston

Disproved by scientists without using the Bible.

aether

Disproved by scientists without using the Bible.

alchemy

Disproved by scientists without using the Bible.

Pluto

Those sorts of things?

You know, even if you were about 14, this behaviour would be considered infantile and deliberately provocative. Since you are, in fact, fifty-three years old and still refuse to retract your most blatant mistakes, even after several people pointed them out to you and explained them in, shall I say, layman's terms, I am beginning to speculate about your state of mind.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Indeed --- uniformitarians consistently paint themselves into a corner --- then expect us Christians to bail them out.

Why is it nothing you say makes any sense? You only oppose uniformitarianism because you've painted yourselves into a corner and need some way to dismiss all the evidence against your young earth nonsense.

 

[Molal]

Like --- for instance:

• spontaneous generation
• phlogiston
• aether
• alchemy
• Pluto

Those sorts of things?

Define 'kind'

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Define 'kind'

When you consider Leviticus it really gets confusing.

11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.

It looks like the locust and the grasshopper are being defined as separate kinds but locusts are the swarming phase of short horned grasshoppers and thus locusts are grasshoppers that are transformed under population pressure. So just what is the definition of Kind?

 

[LittleNipper]

And there you demonstrate that no, creationists do not understand.

Many areas of science have not been 'influenced' to agree with evolution. It has been discovered that many areas of science are in accord with evolution. Big difference.


I wonder what they'd call it? Obviously not science.


Fortunately, actual scientists will prevent such idiocy from ever happening.

The science of Math does not agree with evolution. Scientific observations of life today does not support all life originating with the same ancestors, as it cannot even demonstrate un-natural selection creating a new specie ---- but only variety trait specific breeding..

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The science of Math does not agree with evolution. Scientific observations of life today does not support all life originating with the same ancestors, as it cannot even demonstrate un-natural selection creating a new specie ---- but only variety trait specific breeding..

Math is not exactly a science and it only disagree with evolution in the minds of creationists, but please since you brought up math, do give us a mathematically rigorous definition of "Kind".

 

[AV1611VET]

Like --- for instance:

• spontaneous generation

Disproved by scientists without using the Bible.

Disproven by Scripture first:

[bible]Genesis 1:26[/bible]

Why was it even researched and taught in the first place?

IOW --- you scientots make stuff up (based on "evidence", of course) --- then disprove it yourselves.

Like a self-promoting security guard who is always starting fires, then "discovering fires" and putting them out.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Like --- for instance:

spontaneous generation

Disproved.

phlogiston

disproved by scientific methodlogy.

aether

Talk to RichardT about that one.

alchemy

creationist-style pseudoscience.

Pluto

Redefined, largely (I think) because some scientists didn't want to admit another similar planet named Xena or its moon, Gabrielle.

Those sorts of things?

No, none of that fits what Molal was talking about. He meant how creationists habitually use meaningless undefined nonsense words they made up themselves; words like "kind", "genetic information", "devolution", "baramins", and "mega-evolution".

 

[Molal]

When you consider Leviticus it really gets confusing.

11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.

It looks like the locust and the grasshopper are being defined as separate kinds but locusts are the swarming phase of short horned grasshoppers and thus locusts are grasshoppers that are transformed under population pressure. So just what is the definition of Kind?

It does get confusing for creationists.

But I am still waiting for a definition of kind.

Let's put this to bed........LittleNipper, AV? Definition of kind?

 

[Split Rock]

Like --- for instance:

• spontaneous generation
• phlogiston
• aether
• alchemy
• Pluto

Those sorts of things?

None of these was an undefined term.

1. spontaneous generation: was defined as the spontaneous development of insects, mice, or bacteria from inanimate objects, such as dirty rags or rotting meat.

2. phlogiston: well defined as a substance lost when things burned.

3. aether: was defined as the substance through which light was propagated.

4. alchemy: was never a science, though could be considered one if creationists get their way.

5. Pluto: was always a well-defined particular large body in our solar system. It has now been reclassified because the term "planet" has now been well defined for the first time. Had you mentioned "planet" in your list AVET, you would actually have been partially correct (for once).

By the way, could you give us a definition of a "Kind?"

 

[Split Rock]

Disproven by Scripture first:

[bible]Genesis 1:26[/bible]

Why was it even researched and taught in the first place?

IOW --- you scientots make stuff up (based on "evidence", of course) --- then disprove it yourselves.

Like a self-promoting security guard who is always starting fires, then "discovering fires" and putting them out.

What is a "Kind."