Define "Kind"

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

So far the Creationists have NEVER presented anything but their ultimatum. Perhaps if they EVER do any science and come up with anything that can stand up to even a cursory examination, they may be able to take part in the discussion. So far though they have been able to contribute nothing and only whine that they are being dissed.Biblical Creationists have never defined KIND because they are unwilling to admit that all of the evidence says that humans are just another primate, an ape. They simply can't come up with a definition of kind that is supported by any evidence.They are just WRONG!!!!!!!!!!

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.

Yup, you do. And that is why you will never make any progress. You start from the answer and work backwwards. You deny GOD and what he has given us.To quote from the Clergy Project: The modern Biblical Creationist deliberately embraces scientific ignorance and transmits such ignorance to our children.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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

Dear Faith,
What I think the "opponents" could acknowledge is that depending on whether humanity really thinks that Dawkins changed the way "we" think, IC might be true as cashing IN some difference of Bertrand Russell's use of logical and physical atomism. I tend to doubt that philosophical limits such exist for irreducibility but if such were delimited this could release the defintion of "kind" from the limbo it is presently in. There is also an empirical possibility as well, and it is the invocation of this, that probably ruffles more feathers than the bird itself has, namely, that IC might be limited opperationally to be falsified on an on-going basis where physical atoms REPLACE prior 'logical atoms' of the definitive form to have been or is being tested.This resolution for the public does not recall God but the private origin of it undoubtedly would have and did, if the evidence was out.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-03-2006 07:21 AM

quote:

---

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.

---

Are you then suggesting that we just disregard all the rules of science?

If 'Kind' is not fully definable, then , from a scientific point of view, the use of the term is meaningless.I remember seeing an interview from this guy in Kentucky that was cheering on a principles decision not to allow interracial dating at the school prom (this was in the early 90's, so it wasn't all that long ago). His justification?? "Kind must be with kind", and quoted the bible. Rather poor use of the word 'kind', don't you think? If you can't get a specific definition for 'kind' then it is worthless to use to define something.

quote:

---

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.

---

So, do you therefore concede that, at this time, "kind", being not fully defineable, is not a scientific term and cannot therefore be used in scientific discussions?

quote:

---

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.

---

It is not at all an unreasonable expectation that terms be defined if one wants one's terms to be discussed in a scientific context, Faith.Particularly when one is making positive claims regarding the term.

There was earlier Religious documents that also mentioned about Christians and the natural world. How about Saint Augustine?? This message has been edited by ramoss, 03-03-2006 08:22 AM

Yes, which is why I brought up the Modern Biblical Creationist. They believe that the Bible is the actual words of GOD, but to do so they have to apply the same wilfull ignorance to the book that they apply to the evidence of the world. They read Genesis 1 & Genesis 2 and then simply will away the fact that there is not one creation myth in the Bible but two mutually exclusive stories.KIND is a word that would please the Reverend Charles Lutwidge Dodgson and may well be the exact one he had in mind when he penned this exchange.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hi Faith: 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?

Yeah, I've been wondering about the possibility of this debate myself, lately. Has everything to do with how the two sides use language in completely different ways, I think.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.This message has been edited by docpotato, 03-03-2006 12:25 PM

---

"In Heaven, everything is fine."
The Lady in the Radiator
Eraserhead
One Movie a Day/Week/Whenever

As my first Moderator action, I have to tackle my most recent pet peeve.If things are made any clearer, Percy is going to have a transparant thread to deal with. Can everyone check their subtitles for the next 50 messages or so. I know it probably won't make much difference now, so how about this, just for fun how about we try and use the most original and witty subtitles we can muster for the next couple of pages.Just so you have some perspective, this subtitle began life in Message 17, and wasn't particularly good even then.

---