- Oct 16, 2015
- 15,035
- 7,402
- 31
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
Except that it's not. It's an attempt to apply the term Kind post hoc to the use of the terms of genus, family and species.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I was just pointing out that there are some attempts at defining Kind out there (genus, family, etc), whether you agree or not... no different from the situation with some taxonomy nomeclature, I'm sure.
The issue is that scientific definitions are of flexible and changeable categories.I was just pointing out that there are some attempts at defining Kind out there (genus, family, etc), whether you agree or not... no different from the situation with some taxonomy nomeclature, I'm sure.
The problem of "kind" is one that refutes creationism. If there was such a thing as a basal kind the creationists should be able to properly define it and find examples of it. This is essentially Aron Ra's phylogeny challenge. They never have been able to do that. Meanwhile there is a similar problem for evolution. We do not have one consistent definition of "species". But for evolution that is not a problem. In fact it confirms the theory of evolution. The theory predicts that we will not be able to come up with a sharp line of which members of a population belong to a species or not. An inability to say "this was the first man" is not a problem at all for evolution. In fact it is an impossibility for evolution.I was just pointing out that there are some attempts at defining Kind out there (genus, family, etc), whether you agree or not... no different from the situation with some taxonomy nomeclature, I'm sure.
The problems with species (struggles with definitions, etc.) also refutes evolution then... just double standard stuff.The problem of "kind" is one that refutes creationism.
Really... well maybe creationists should speculate more about it like evolutionists do. Oh, I forgot, that's unscientific, ignorant, crazy, silly, whatever if creationists do it. More double standard.If there was such a thing as a basal kind the creationists should be able to properly define it and find examples of it. This is essentially Aron Ra's phylogeny challenge. They never have been able to do that.
Of course.Meanwhile there is a similar problem for evolution. We do not have one consistent definition of "species". But for evolution that is not a problem. In fact it confirms the theory of evolution.
Not a problem for creationists. The bible is quite clear about it.The theory predicts that we will not be able to come up with a sharp line of which members of a population belong to a species or not. An inability to say "this was the first man" is not a problem at all for evolution. In fact it is an impossibility for evolution.
Creationistss can't confirm by default.This is just a reminder that when you cannot properly define kind you are confirming the theory of evolution.
The problems with species (struggles with definitions, etc.) also refutes evolution then... just double standard stuff.
Not a problem for creationists. The bible is quite clear about it.
It's not really a question of whether I agree or not, it's a question of whether the definition reasonably fits what we observe in the world. If 'kind' means 'genus', then its usage should be consistent with that meaning. Unfortunately, the biblical usage (and its interpretations) doesn't appear to be consistent with any scientific definition, nor with what we know about real creatures.I was just pointing out that there are some attempts at defining Kind out there (genus, family, etc), whether you agree or not... no different from the situation with some taxonomy nomeclature, I'm sure.
Subduction Zone said: ↑An example of which is...?
But, its ok for evolutionists to speculate?The Bible is clear but there is no evidence for its claims.
Meanwhile there is a similar problem for evolution. We do not have one consistent definition of "species".
But, its ok for evolutionists to speculate?
I'd also say that that while having our terms clear is important for clear communication, the theory of evolution doesn't hinge on whatever definition is settled. (This is very unlike YEC's equivocation on "kind".)And that's a true statement, that is accepted by biologists and is being worked on. However, when Creationists use Kind, they use it to mean whatever they want whenever they want.
Speculation is a might bit better than just going "The Bible says it, that's final" without any actual evidence.
You are just regurgitating your literal interpretation of Genesis. The majority of Christians do not believe in a literal interpretation.
Perhaps that is what you believe you see when you look in the mirror. When I look in the mirror I see a combination of my parents genes plus the results of the mutations they passed on to me.
If you are a cladist: yes.No. It's a biblical term. We aren't talking about biblical definitions. We are discussing science. So is something that is air breathing, walks on land and climbs trees a fish?
Water kind?The water kind according to Genesis 1:21
Who has made such a claim?
No, it is not a double standard. I explained that. Your beliefs predict that there should be a clear definition of "kinds", yet creationists always fail at that. The theory of evolution predicts that due to the nature of evolution that there will be no hard definition of species. We observe the prediction of evolution, not the prediction of creationism. That is a fail on the part of creationism only.The problems with species (struggles with definitions, etc.) also refutes evolution then... just double standard stuff.
Really... well maybe creationists should speculate more about it like evolutionists do. Oh, I forgot, that's unscientific, ignorant, crazy, silly, whatever if creationists do it. More double standard.
Of course.
Not a problem for creationists. The bible is quite clear about it.
Creationistss can't confirm by default.
A shark sushi roll?Water kind?
Are dolphins, whales, crabs, lobsters, eels, cod, herring (not the red ones) all water kind? Can they bring forth?
Have you seen a sea cucumber mate with a shark? What was the offspring?
Subduction Zone said: ↑
Meanwhile there is a similar problem for evolution. We do not have one consistent definition of "species".
But, its ok for evolutionists to speculate?
No, presupposition is the sin of creationists. It is not allowed in the sciences. If you do not understand how a date was determined it is perfectly acceptable to ask how that was done. But when you claim it was "presupposition" that is both a personal attack on others and it puts a burden of proof upon you. It is not a wise debating technique if you cannot prove the presupposition.Genetic analysis suggests there may have been a long period of cross-breeding between early ancestors of the humans and chimpanzees, before they finally split into the Homo and Pan (chimp) genera around six million years ago.
Not facts ... is what l I'm saying .... and six million years ... is pre-supposed as well.
a lot of ... if's ... and's and but's within the theory(s).
Now with that being said ... it is wonderful that we have people that dedicate themselves into the matters of genetics and other science disciplines because in doing so many things are discovered that benefit humanity.
Life forms are very complex .... and science comes up with possibilities in an attempt to explain it ... that's a good thing .... but there are many many non observable and non testable ideas that come into play and it will always be that way in regard to the various life forms.
a lot of "could be's" aren't facts.
That was just me responding generally, He appears to make differences... don't you think? Genesis 1:21Water kind?
Are dolphins, whales, crabs, lobsters, eels, cod, herring (not the red ones) all water kind? Can they bring forth?
Have you seen a sea cucumber mate with a shark? What was the offspring?
That was just me responding generally, He appears to make differences... don't you think? Genesis 1:21
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?