Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes. It seems clear to me that the Genesis story is just going on the human commonsense basis. a horse is different from a cow so you have two kinds. is an ass a different kind from a horse? probably. Is an ox a different kind from a cow? Maybe. A raven is evidently different from a dove. This 'kinds' definition really isn't defined enough and what i saw in the explanatatory posts was trying to define it in terms of ability to interbreed.But there, all that is happening is Kinds aligning roughly with species and therefore it makes no real difference whether you call it species or kinds. To then say that evolution is invalid and species should be replaced with "Kinds" as referred to in Genesis is pointless and absurd.
Many thanks to expatCA for illustrating so clearly the irrationality and ignorance rampant among religious fundamentalist.
Expat certainly has the same guts as Eusebius when it comes to debate. he will recall the anger and contempt I showed for one of his colleagues who ran off screaming "I win" rather than stay and debate. Expat does and so I treat him with the most respect I can to someone who has it explained that Macro is the same as Micro but a lot more of it and just keeps saying that they are different because of something (species interbreeding) that we already agree is nothing to do with evolution.
And he is great at allowing us to explain that.
What is a bit puzzling is why they keep on. Accepting that evolution is at least as good an explanation as goddunnit should make no difference to being a Christian. You can fit in God wherever you like. Eusebius made the point that Jesus quoted Genesis. That is not a problem at all. Either he knew it wasn't true and was just talking in terms his audience would understand (he must aslo have known that disease is not caused by evil spirits) or it was something that God was keeping from him - as seems to happen several times during the story.
And that may be the point. That is explaining away the evidence of the Gospels and insisting on something that has been refuted by the gospel story itself in order to keep this idea going that Jesus is affirming the literal truth of Genesis. There is some kind of adherence to faith in a particular shibboleth of doctrine (1) and that has to be defended to the death even if it means dismissing what is in the Bible itself.
Fascinating, captain. truly fascinating.
(1) Genesis is History; Darwinism is satanic lies.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-23-2015 at 10:57 AM..
Expat certainly has the same guts as Eusebius when it comes to debate. he will recall the anger and contempt I showed for one of his colleagues who ran off screaming "I win" rather than stay and debate. Expat does and so I treat him with the most respect I can to someone who has it explained that Macro is the same as Micro but a lot more of it and just keeps saying that they are different because of something (species interbreeding) that we already agree is nothing to do with evolution.
And he is great at allowing us to explain that.
What is a bit puzzling is why they keep on. Accepting that evolution is at least as good an explanation as goddunnit should make no difference to being a Christian. You can fit in God wherever you like. Eusebius made the point that Jesus quoted Genesis. That is not a problem at all. Either he knew it wasn't true and was just talking in terms his audience would understand (he must aslo have known that disease is not caused by evil spirits) or it was something that God was keeping from him - as seems to happen several times during the story.
And that may be the point. That is explaining away the evidence of the Gospels and insisting on something that has been refuted by the gospel story itself in order to keep this idea going that Jesus is affirming the literal truth of Genesis. There is some kind of adherence to faith in a particular shibboleth of doctrine (1) and that has to be defended to the death even if it means dismissing what is in the Bible itself.
Fascinating, captain. truly fascinating.
(1) Genesis is History; Darwinism is satanic lies.
And the bolded above is the correct answer for Christ followers--just not for bible worshipers.
The word Kind predates them and is the Biblical term used to identify biological families.
Science supports that reality as every test and observation shows the limits are to within a Kind.
Your claim was
Originally Posted by expatCA Here is where the problem is.
False argument when speaking to me or anyone using the Bible as the word "Kind" is as a group that reproduces within itself. That is it. I posted the scriptures. Biology uses the terms it likes and mainly to promote the theory of Evolution with no real basis in observable or reproducible evidence. They have only shown buy observation and have only reproduced changes within a Kind as I have shown repeatedly. Never any evidence of crossing that barrier.
You were wrong in claiming that biology uses biological terms to promote the theory of evolution. Those terms predate evolutionary theory, the first use of a binomial nomecature was by a religious taxonomist and there is no scientific definition of kind. You are using it for families others for class or genera hence in scientific communications it is a useless term.
This has nothing to do with evolution but has to do with being truthful or honest. If one scientist wrote kind what would other scientists understand him to be talking about: families or genera and it makes a huge difference in the discussion? And all sciences use the terms of their disclipine so that communications is precise and consise. Kind is not even in a biology dictionary. Sounds from below that kind is any classification that could be a roadblock against evolution. Especially when all the examples they state would DISPROVE evolution.
I can apreaciate that you believe in Genesis and not evolution however that should not give you license to make false statements. Biology uses species, genera, families, orders etc for communications purposes much like we use parents, in-laws, empolyers or a host of other terms that each of us should understand, Kinds has no meaning because it could mean many things. That is the so what, you did make a claim about why biology uses the terms they do and you are wrong on that. Those terms would be used evolution or no evolution just as they were prior to Darwin.
The first thing that needs to be addressed is: “What is a kind?” Often, people are confused into thinking that a “species” is a “kind.” But this isn’t necessarily so. A species is a man-made term used in the modern classification system. And frankly, the word species is difficult to define, whether one is a creationist or not! There is more on this word and its definition and relationship to “kinds” later in this chapter. The Bible uses the term “kind.” The Bible’s first use of this word (Hebrew: min) is found in Genesis 1 when God creates plants and animals “according to their kinds.” It is used again in Genesis 6 and 8 when God instructs Noah to take two of every kind of land-dwelling, air-breathing animal onto the ark and also in God’s command for the animals to reproduce after the Flood. A plain reading of the text infers that plants and animals were created to reproduce within the boundaries of their kind. Evidence to support this concept is clearly seen (or rather not seen) in our world today, as there are no reports of dats (dog + cat) or hows (horse + cow)! So a good rule of thumb is that if two things can breed together, then they are of the same created kind. It is a bit more complicated than this, but for the time being, this is a quick measure of a “kind.”
Yes. As Mensa pointed out above..I think...yep.."Kinds" in the Bible may predate species. It may even be the basis of the idea of species. But it is a commonsense way of thinking -"It looks different, so it is a different "Kind" - which is fair enough and it is even roughly parallel with genetic compatibility - when an evolutionary line diverges the genetics change too, so it is harder for the genetics of a critter that has begun to look rather different to work with those of a diferent diverged line.
A Parallel analogy would be a car design and one line is developed from it as a sporty car and the other as an outdoor car. Eventually, though they had the same origin, you might find you couldn't use the parts from one to repair the other.
That is nothing to do with the line of development from Ford T to a muscle car. Saying you couldn't use the engine in another ford model developed from the same original T does not mean that the development of the type is impossible. It is nothing to do with it.
Once we get past that 'dogs from cats' misconception, understanding that there is no scientific objection to evolution theory - even if it isn't believed - must follow.
We already saw that objections to the possibility of change through mutation fell flat because it is already accepted by creationism that it happens (1). They just deny that it can change so much over time that a new species name has to be given.
Eusebius made a point about the origins of life. It is arguable, sure, but that is quite irrelevant to the process of evolution of species, no matter how life started.
That, I think, rests the case.
Funny. It' like explaining atheism. It is really quite simple but it gets VERY involved because of all the misunderstandings and misrepresentations that get dragged in.
(1) that's funny too, as it is like the objection to evolution of the Giraffe neck. That was used to argue that evolutionary change cannot happen, but when it was shown that it can, it was accepted as 'Micro'. Well, if 'Micro' evolution is accepted anyway, why argue that evolution of the giraffe neck is impossible? It is just like two contradictory ideas in the same head, and they don't seem to realize it.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-23-2015 at 06:43 PM..
11-28-2015, 12:32 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
The first thing that needs to be addressed is: “What is a kind?” Often, people are confused into thinking that a “species” is a “kind.” But this isn’t necessarily so. A species is a man-made term used in the modern classification system. And frankly, the word species is difficult to define, whether one is a creationist or not! There is more on this word and its definition and relationship to “kinds” later in this chapter. The Bible uses the term “kind.” The Bible’s first use of this word (Hebrew: min) is found in Genesis 1 when God creates plants and animals “according to their kinds.” It is used again in Genesis 6 and 8 when God instructs Noah to take two of every kind of land-dwelling, air-breathing animal onto the ark and also in God’s command for the animals to reproduce after the Flood. A plain reading of the text infers that plants and animals were created to reproduce within the boundaries of their kind. Evidence to support this concept is clearly seen (or rather not seen) in our world today, as there are no reports of dats (dog + cat) or hows (horse + cow)! So a good rule of thumb is that if two things can breed together, then they are of the same created kind. It is a bit more complicated than this, but for the time being, this is a quick measure of a “kind.”
[/i]
Problem with that is speciation then disproves this BS. These creationist words games are clear from this video.
By the way, a cross between a donkey and zebra is a Debra!
It's interesting that the horse, donkey and zebra can interbreed. However, they are far enough apart for the offspring (which are hybrids) to be sterile.
There is no such thing as a "Kind" in science. It is the invention of fundies. Even though, like most lies, it gets repeated over and over again, it doesn't make it real.
I remember the first time I ran into this, probably 1980 or so. Can't remember whether it was Gish or Morris, but he was invited to speak to my college's biology students. About 300 of us undergrads and grad students in the department. Whichever it was was barreling along in his standard, canned talk, and when he came to the "kind" terminology, he slapped up a slide that included drawings of examples of "kinds" - a tree, a fish, a feline, an elephant - and a white human face, an asian human face, and a black human face. Guess he was too used to credulous audiences. We were right *on* that.
Out of 300+ plus biology students, approximately 300+ remained singularly unimpressed by Gish/Morris and their snake oil.
The "kind" terminology is very sloppy, and was invented by YE creationists in order to fudge over the fact that evolution occurs. There's no need for the term at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Figure 1. Zonkey and zorse at the Creation Museum
It' like explaining atheism. It is really quite simple but it gets VERY involved because of all the misunderstandings and misrepresentations that get dragged in.
