Creationists Cannot Define "Kind".

Budikka writes :"If creation were truly a science, these questions ought to be easily answered. All I want in this thread is for any creationist to answer two questions, which are at the very root of creationism and are inextricably entwined:

​

1. What is the definition of "kind" as used in the Biblical creation and flood stories? What is the scientific support for your answer? Give detailed examples of these "kinds".

​

My contention is that there is no creationist who can scientifically define "kind" and there is no consensus among creationists on any sort of definition.

​

2. What is the mechanism which prevents one "kind" from varying into another "kind"?

​

My contention is that there is no such mechanism and creationists cannot even point to a serious candidate.

​

Simple, isn't it?"**********************************************************************I must begin by saying that I've been following the 'exploits' of Budikka for some time now - ever since I heard of his run-in with my brother in Christ, Kent Hovind ( a sad episode).I've read a great deal that Budikka has written (to learn for myself) and I found most of it amateurish and unsophisticated. I've never bothered to enter into any debate with Budikka and it is not my intention to do so here or anywhere else for that matter.I do, however, wish to substantiate my claim of Budikka's shallowness with just one example and then leave it at that. Viewers may feel free to arrive at their own conclusions - it's all the same to me.Budikka asks that certain "simple" questions be answered by creationists. I regard his questions as anything but "simple".Undoubtedly my response here will be taken by some of you as a sign of evasion. Be my guest.In any event, the direction that I wish to take is a bit different. Here goes :The "simplest" possible level is, of course, at a "prime" level. To wit :The concept of 'force' in physics is not a "simple" concept since force has mass, length and time components; i.e., 'force' is a complex/compound concept.What I propose is to get as "simple" as possible and this may only be achieved by getting down into the fundamental units which make up all other (complex) entities.'Mechanisms' and arbitrary definitions (such as 'force' and 'species') are not as "simple" as possible. OTOH, fundamental units, by definition, are irreducible - as "simple" as we can possibly get. Ultimately the naturalist/evolutionist must resort to biology and biology must call on physics/chemistry.Therefore, let's get really "simple", shall we? What exactly is matter, time and space?Hey, this is as basic (i.e., "simple") as it can possibly get, isn't it? Since naturalists state that everything may be explained in terms of these fundamental things, can any naturalist out there educate us poor, ignorant creationists by clearly showing us what these "simple" things are? Any one of the above will do.After we get past these "simple" ones we can then move into more complex ones such as 'life' and 'consciousness'.Thanks in advance. In Christ,
Joralex{Shortened line of *'s - AM}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-13-2003]