Define "Kind"

Thank you. This situation the creationist is in IS a legitimate place to be in science. It does happen. The objections to it here are ridiculous.You can start with what you know to be a fact, however ill defined, however vague, and work from that fact. I don't care that people here deny that the Bible is factual, that is where the Biblical creationist starts, and it is a perfectly legitimate and perfectly scientific place to start.

Yes I know you don't believe it, but the Bible IS factual so there is no twisting going on.But I'll take back the thanks because you got rude about it.

Sorry if I misread you. I was in a rush at the time.There is no twisting going on. The Bible is the foundation and that's that. Archaeopteryx can't challenge the Bible. Your position is that the Bible can't challenge archaeopteryx. We disagree. Archaeopteryx is obviously a creature that lived before the Flood. Nothing to distort. Evolution does the distorting. The evidence is NOT compelling. Those who are convinced are just used to thinking within its parameters and can't even imagine how to think outside them.

Sure, if you spin it THAT way...The "vague imprecise term" is certainly that, I agree, and that is a big handicap for creationism, which we acknowledge. But its source is not "prescientific people" but God Himself. Whether you agree or not, it would behoove the opponents of creationism to acknowledge this much, that we are not acting irrationally when we do this, as God trumps it all. Your imposing YOUR interpretation of the source of our terminology as people rather than God is unfair argument.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-02-2006 08:19 AM

Of course I don't agree. I think when you are engaged in a debate between creationism and evolutionism you have to accept whatever terms and limitations most accurately define the conflict. You can't impose your own preconceptions on the creationist, defining the creationist position as "meaningless," or you make a sham of the whole thing.The concept of "kind" is in fact vague and undefined and to this point undefinable. Its source is the Bible, meaning God. That's where the creationist starts. You want to insist we start somewhere else. That's stacking the deck against us.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-02-2006 08:42 AM

You don't have to give anything any weight whatever. But if you care about having a discussion with creationists then you have to accept a few things from our side. If you just want to win the debate, that's easy, just define our concerns out of the picture.

That's nothing but the usual evo position. The debate is weighted either to one side or the other apparently. It may in fact not be possible at all as I've argued here before. But it certainly isn't possible on the usual terms here where the creationist's premises are dismissed up front.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-02-2006 11:47 PM

Kind is not fully definable, jar, but since the concept derives from the BIble we know that apes and humans are not genetically related. That much we can say from the getgo and a few other things, but beyond that we don't have a definition because the Bible is not in the business of science. That's just the way it is for now.If the evos weren't always complaining about how there is no sharp definition, which is conceded, there might be more of a discussion possible -- might I say, I don't know how far it could go -- but the discussion always stays stalled at this same-old-same-old with the evos saying we can't have our Kinds because they don't suit evo preconceptions.Well, we start from the Kinds, that's the way it is, and it only makes sense to deal with it as you find it, it seems to me.

If it were really just a matter of not being able to engage with the premises we could agree at least on that much, but the evos continue to berate us for our inability to define the Kinds better than the Bible does. There's Schraf up there now as usual demanding that I submit to her criteria. Ho hum. No discussion is possible that way.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-03-2006 03:16 PM

Good grief you are making a complicated mess out of a simple point. Sheesh. "Kind" is the only word science leaves us. We need a word to distinguish our position from all the interpretive baggage that adheres to the term "species." That is ALL. It's a completely practical matter. It has no implications whatever for how the Bible was written or translated.I just got through saying on the new thread about literalism that I DON'T believe in the word-for-word inerrancy of the Bible except in the original languages, and even there that's not the point. The MEANING is the point, not the words.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-03-2006 03:25 PM

As I've said many times, the similarities in the genomes do not prove descent. Merely similarities of design, which are apparent enough to the naked eye. Because it does, but there's no dodge, the concept is simply hard to pin down. I expect it will be eventually defined scientifically, perhaps through population genetics as I've many times argued, or the genome somehow or other. But it isn't all that hard to grasp the position we're in with this term at this point, only our opponents are obstinate and ungenerous to creationists. Do tell. I'm not interested in being included in the "brotherhood of science" I'm just interested in exploring the implications of these different models of the world. I don't even think the scientific creationists care all that much. They understand what they are up against and just keep working at their work. It comes up necessarily in certain contexts, mostly to clarify the creationist position against the evolutionist position more than to use it in debate.

The following may be the most direct statement: There's also: Mostly it's a matter of clear implications rather than direct statements. Man was given dominion over the beasts for instance. Always the beasts are described as a completely separate category of creation. The main indication is the first chapters of Genesis which show Adam and Eve completely alone, without ancestors, and also show that death entered after the Fall and not before, thus eliminating the very possibility of evolution which wantonly makes and discards life forms.

Those changes, even very extreme variations, are all explained quite nicely by normal reproductive variation, especially in combination with some form of selection such as domestic breeding programs illustrate nicely. Nobody knows what Archaeopteryx is. It could represent an entire variation of a kind that became extinct in the Flood, and our friend A could simply be the only discovered preserved fossil from the clan. There is no need whatever to assume descent. Design covers it all just fine. Whatever it is it was designed to be. What a bizarre idea that a collection of fossilized dead things could tell you anything at all about their genetic relationships. Biggest hoax anybody has ever fallen for. It's all an imaginative leap and nothing more than that. The Flood goes a long way to explaining it a lot better than that piece of fantasy.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-03-2006 07:31 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 03-03-2006 07:32 PM

There is so much evidence for a global flood it's staggering. It has to be a very strange blindness that keeps people from acknowledging it. Not even agreeing with it, just acknowledging that the amount of evidence is enormous. Just another case of flat out denial.The existence of fossils all over the earth in the great abundance they are found, everywhere, is fantastic evidence for a worldwide flood. Anyone in their right mind ought to concede this point. The conditions caused by such a flood well explain the fossilization of bazillions of dead things.Sure you can figure out how to explain this some other way if you have a mind to. But so what? The flood explanation is obviously adequate.The existence of marine fossils in mountains and deserts is also great evidence for a worldwide flood.And again, sure you can find other explanations, but the Flood is a far more "elegant" and obvious explanation.The existence of the stratifications called the geological column, also found all over the world, is terrific evidence for a worldwide flood. The alternation of different kinds of sediments with different fossil contents is just not at all compatible with the notion of deposition over millions of years, but water certainly can explain it, as some of the scenarios evos concoct even end up conceding. It's laughable. Maybe someday you'll all wake up and see it.The amount of disturbance of the surface of the planet that occurs in a few years is a strong clue that given millions of years not one of those strata could have survived intact.The presence of extinct forms of life in the fossil record is a clue to the enormous variety of life that inhabited the pre-Flood world. IIt's all consistent with the Flood story.But people seem to prefer the evo fantasy, which has no evidence whatever to support it. It's all a made-up fiction.

Variety of a kind, I said.