|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Define "Kind" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But many sciences begin with somewhat vague terms that attempt to describe an observed phenomenon, with the specifics of the term fleshed out more fully as the science develops. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
She has begun NOT with observation, but with a vague, inprecise term and a vague description made by prescientific people several thousand years ago, and then attempts to shoehorn nature into them, 200 years of useful, productive science be damned. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Since there is no definition of "kind", do you agree that unless and until one is proposed such that it is possible to tell the difference between one "kind" from another, the term is meaningless and should not be used in scientific discussions, particularly involving claims that "kinds" are immutable? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
quote: quote: What do you do if I tell you that I know that the Bible is not the word of God? And that allowing you to insist that this "Kind" you speak of comes from God means allowing you to impose your own preconceptions? Do you offer me the same the courtesy? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But going further: from what I'm reading from everyone else, it seems to me that the problem (as far as Kinds go) is that unless it is properly defined, us evos can't dismiss, accept, or engage with your premises because no one knows exactly what these premises are. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The point is that Faith was saying that 'Kind' it the word that god used. However, the original was not in English, and therefore 'Kind'is merely a translation. I don't believe that the words chosen were dictacted to man word for word for ward either. Faith implys that. Faith also implys that it was dictated in ENglish with her phrasology. I am merely pointing out that her assumptions about the word 'kind' being god given is incorrect. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
oh come on faith, are you just going to ignore all the work done on the human genome and comparisons with the chimp genome?. denying it because a three thousand year-old book says nothing about it is just willfully ignoring things. I bet none of the writers had ever come in contact with an ape in thier lives. if the bible isn't in the business of science then stop arguing using kinds then, since it isn't science 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.
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. we complain because creos use kinds and when asked what a kind is, they dodge or obscure its meaning or just flat out just say they don't know, but keep using kinds as if it means something. 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 you know why we won't let you use kinds? because you use it as if its a term to be used in a scientific debate, but in a debate with science you have to follow some sort of rules - which happen to be science based or its a theological debate and not science Do tell.
creos want to be included in the brotherhood of science but they do not want to follow how science works, which includes defining what things mean! 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.
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.
guess what if you can't define it, people outside creos will ignore the useage or keep asking what a kind is. Or as i see it it shouldn't be used in debate since its meaningless till defined It comes up necessarily in certain contexts, mostly to clarify the creationist position against the evolutionist position more than to use it in debate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Hi Faith: Faith writes: Kind is not fully definable, jar, but since the concept derives from the BIble we know that apes and humans are not genetically related. Let me be right up front about this; I cannot compete with you on knowing many, if not all, of the relevant passages of the Bible...but let me ask you this. Does it specifically say anywhere in the Bible that man is not genetically related to apes? I'd be surprised if it did, which to me basically means that you really can't make such a claim...seeing as how you take the Bible as the literal word of God. And if he didn't actually say it, then why do you assume it to be true? The following may be the most direct statement:
1Corinthians 15:39 All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds. There's also:
Psalm 49:20 Man [that is] in honour, and understandeth not, is like the beasts [that] perish. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
While I do think it's important to press creos on a definition of "kind," I think it's more important to keep in mind the evidence we have that shows the dramatic changes in organisms that evolution has produced. 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.
For example, archeopteryx is a transition between reptiles and birds. For the creo position that "kinds" are fixed to hold water, they will need a definition that includes birds and reptiles as the same kind. 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.
The ability to define terms is crucial for intelligent discourse to take place. But don't let's lose sight of the fact that, whatever definition of "kind" the creos come up with, assuming they do, the fossil record alone is replete with evidence showing that organisms have evolved across species, genus, family, and order lines. That is the real point. 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 PM This message has been edited by Faith, 03-03-2006 07:32 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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. I It'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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Variety of a kind, I said.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024