Define "Kind"

I'm starting to think that "kinds" is nothing more than what the people back then thought everything was, there arn't classified "kinds", theres the limited understanding of animals, such as: dog,cat,cow,wolf,bear,etc
being that we understand life much better than people back then we can split them into more uniform groups that have more meaning.As for people using "kinds" as some sort of classifier, its a meaningless gesture of someone trying to deny that science is correct. i mean if you can't define what "kinds" are why should you beable to use it to define other things?I think people use it to obscure things and change the subject so they have something to argue when they really don't, if a word you use has no definition to be checked then you shouldn't be able to use it

thats one of the reasons i ask why people think its ok to limit god in that fashion, I mean how do they know that thier impression of god is right? Its because they have been told its right but they never bother to dig deeper than the surffice on why they are taught this, and why they get offended by being questioned, it easily shakes their beliefs well they don't want to be argued with they want people to agree that they are right without question, because they are taught to not question thier leaders

so you don't reinterprate the OT?, you don't infer that its talking about jesus?, you don't insert prophecies that the jewish writers didn't write? you don't argue the bible trumps what people have found in nature? you don't say the bible is always right and when science says it is the science is wrong? come on faith to me that seems rather like saying the bible is the imbodyment of the truth when in reality its just a book written by people who have no clue about how things work, to tie this to the topic, just like kinds are only meaningful to people who have a limited understanding of lifeforms uh huh, arn't you the one who said the bible is the only authority? arn't you being a bit disigenious? all of the YEC's deny things if they don't agree with thier view point, even to the point of willful ignorence.
So do you disagree with your preacher when he talks about things? Why take his word on things over thinking for yourself?
the thing is i wasn't really talking about you truthfully just mostly those people who come here and preach and expect people to agree with them.
personally i'd love to know how you could calim you are right, you have no authority or evidence that your views are the right path. the fact is people should come to you about something like this not have people come preach at them.
ok if you can get assent from people i think i'll start preaching the wonders of satan to every christian i meet {aBe:as i said before, the created kinds is a useless classification and should not be allowed to be used until the person defines it, until that happens i vote we disallow creatonists to be able to use it, though i figure i'll lose that argument since its the only defense some people have}This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 02-22-2006 02:43 AM

this just shows why scientists don't take creationists seriously faith, the fact that you are coming from the stand point that are kinds to begin with, this not science it is fiting things to your belief to validate a dogma.
evo scientists don't validate something that only works if you ignore facts and give vague definitions

i guess if you ignore evidence that has been shown to you hundreds of times, it could appear to be a fantasy it is pretty easy if you read whats there and do not add things that did not happen, like a fall that left everyone screwed? what is laughable? if you read history from between the fall of rome and the enlightenment it is all dominated by ignorance and religious dogma, people who studied any form of science or mediceine or even writing outside what the church wanted was burned at the stake as a witchThis message has been edited by ReverendDG, 02-25-2006 11:10 PM

what about england and france and germany and ireland and scotland?, they where not heathen by then, and yes the church did keep the people illiterate. the church would kill people who wrote it in any other language but latin. So now you are condemming something you know very little about and is irrelevent to what i said? I was talking about really science like studing anatomy not herbs no they were not, Galen - who set the standards for medicine for at least a thousand years was a pagan some of them, those they liked and they edited them to reflect poorly on the subjects, read any non-christian religious writtings, everything they didn't find worthy they burned its odd that you are defending the church before, yet you are saying that they are apostate, which wouldn't be true if they are the church up till thenThis message has been edited by AdminNosy, 02-26-2006 12:05 AM

Odd that we have 190 messages and not a single shred of factual information, but they are a fact faith?
how do you know they are a fact without any difinition of "kind"?
we are coming full circle with the result of a claimThis message has been edited by ReverendDG, 02-26-2006 10:28 AM

it is inline with the thread, if you can't define what a kind is you can't know its a fact there are no dumb questions and you are making claims you can't back up whats a kind then? i guess germs don't exist or paracites or other small lifeforms so its a meaningless term it in no way is factual unless you can set definitions and explain how we tell what goes where

you know you can believe it as long as you want but, belief doesn't render it true sorry but really faith grow some thicker skin, he wasn't being rude

the foundation of what? of your belief? of reality what? i would deny its the foundation of reality. how can the bible challenge anything? its a book, now if you were to say does archaeopteryx challenge the ideas in the book then yes they do, but only a literal genesis which hasn't been shown to be true. wow faith that is ironic, considering none of the creationists have shown any compelling evidence eather, and i could say the same of you about not thinking outside your parameters as well.
but what does this have to do with the topic? so far there has been nothing to define or clarify what a kind is, other than what a few of the evos came up with, which was they are the limited classifcation of animals based on what people 3 thousand years ago understood, which our current classifications overwrite (or at least thats my understanding)

I agree that some people are using kind as some sort of objection to evolution, its easy when the word doesn't have a set meaning, i guess classification is wrong. kind to the writers of the torah thought that was what animals were. they had no concept of animals that had features that they would equate with another animal, such as say a bat verses say a bird well both fly but one is furred and one has feathers.but they would have problems placing what kind a bat is - i mean what kind would it fall under? bat kind? but they are rodents as well. what about platipusses? what kind are they? bird kind? mammal kind?
all kind seems to be is a stop-gap to attack science with.if we want to be truthful and not dodge the definition, all we can say is there is 16 million kinds - and we might as well use the science term

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 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.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 sciencecreos 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! 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

so you mean that broken C gene is in there by design? what a crappy designer. It's strange that you are the only one who can see this so called "design" faith how about you explain it sometime? why is it sciences job to pin down a term creationists can't? why should creos be allowed to use a term they can't even define honestly?but faith why should the genome be used that way if you don't even trust the people working on it now - oh yes i forgot the only time it is true is if it reflects your beliefs, how silly of me.
if it was easy to grasp as you say it is you could explain it to us and we could stop asking about it, but guess what no one can it seems who says i was speaking of you?, i'm talking about those people who are trying to get religion in schools by using sciencey names to hide the religious nature of thier snake oil no its used to deflect from the fact that the creo doesn't want to use science terms so they take a non-defined word from the bible claiming its right over the current science term. Even though the writers of the bible didn't have a clue about how to classify animals

even though this is OT: Faith go read about how floods work, you seem like you have never read anything about floods and how to detect flood evidence no it is not, it is a horrible explanation, the fact that it doesn't explain sediments alone shows its wrong no, this only shows you want to believe it because it works with your beliefs not because its true, why would the flood be better than plate tectonics? since we know it happens? or that we have evidence of low seas in some areas and not others? what is laughable is how you ignore how floods work!, go read anything on floods, they are not calm things that happen slowly they jumble everything up they do not leave things in the way the column looks thats why science has come to the conclusion they did faith oh come on faith, do you think they happened all at once?, the fact is a flood like the bibles wouldn't do what you think it would the ice age shows why most life-forms went extinct better than your impossible flood and we can find evidence of that maybe in your fantasy world where physics do crazy things that would be impossible in the real one "Evo fantasy"? try physic, geological, biology and all the rest of the sciences from the last 200 years faith, no one has yet come up with anything remotely validating the fantasy flood
{aBE:sorry but i think we have worn this topic out, there doesn't seem to be any definition of kind that is remotely useful}This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 03-03-2006 10:19 PMThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 03-03-2006 09:23 PM