Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Define "Kind"
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 256 of 300 (291858)
03-03-2006 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by docpotato
03-03-2006 2:24 PM


The problem of defining Kinds
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by docpotato, posted 03-03-2006 2:24 PM docpotato has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by nator, posted 03-04-2006 7:02 AM Faith has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 257 of 300 (291861)
03-03-2006 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by ramoss
03-03-2006 8:17 AM


confusion of Bible "kind" and 'natural kind'
I will assert that at least part of the POPular difficulty with a phrase such as "kind with kind" has to do with the very close nature of the understanding on "logical saint" and "arbitrary organism" sited below
In” Problems of Knowledge and Freedom” THE RUSSELL LECTURES, Noam Chomsky wrote, published in 1971,
quote:
“A further residue of empiricist speculation appears in Russell’s analysis of proper names. He suggests, to begin with, that a “proper name is a word designating any continuous portion of space-time which sufficiently interests us,”16(Human Knowledge, p89) but then adds that spatiotemporal continuity is not required. Again, it is an empirical problem to determine what are the criteria for “nameability,” not by an arbitrary organism, or what Russell sometimes calls a “logical saint,” but by a biologically given human mind.
In 1987 Boyd
(see for example-http://EvC Forum: Is science a religion? -->EvC Forum: Is science a religion?)
called my parents saying I was “becoming religious” on him but what was actually happening was that I was rejecting his thought that the difference between this logical saint and any given organism was a Kripke natural kind. Not only had Boyd gone beyond the facts of the organization of whatever this organism could have been in calling a biologically given human mind, mine, “idealistic”, he confused in his mind confusing my parents’ the similarities between some logical saint and a creature named by Adam. This was not hard because my parents do not carry as much skeptical baggage about Christ as I do and Boyd disbelieved, perhaps from the same reasoning as Russell.
I was never ill in any sense but I can not change anyone’s elses mind about this but the changes in Creationism fully support this scheme as a current illegality needed to be corrected in the US Legal System.
Cornell made a contract with me, they did not abide by their end of the deal(an attorney in Albany told me I have a case but who wants to try to win a lawsuit without a lot of $ to allege with), I had walked away but this did not stop a third party from attempting to rent my abode by turning my walk away into a sperm donation. Strange psychology indeed, and one I eventually fell prey to and very hard to inscribe even if the description is clear in ones’ own flesh if not blood. This was about what Chomsky called “arbitrary organism” and still it is not over for me. I don’t doubt that there are others to whom this is happening or has happened to.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-03-2006 03:22 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by ramoss, posted 03-03-2006 8:17 AM ramoss has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 258 of 300 (291862)
03-03-2006 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by docpotato
03-03-2006 2:24 PM


Further muddification
From dictionary.com:
kind2 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (knd)
n.
1. A group of individuals linked by traits held in common.
2. A particular variety; a sort: What kind of soap do you like best?
3. Fundamental, underlying character as a determinant of the class to which a thing belongs; nature or essence.
4. A doubtful or borderline member of a given category: fashioned a kind of shelter; a kind of bluish color.
5. Archaic. Manner.
Idioms:
all kinds of Informal
Plenty of; ample: We have all kinds of time to finish the job.
in kind
1. With produce or commodities rather than with money: pay in kind.
2. In the same manner or with an equivalent: returned the slight in kind.
kind of Informal
Rather; somewhat: I'm kind of hungry.
of a kind
Of the same kind; alike: My father and my uncle are two of a kind.
kind1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (knd)
adj. kind·er, kind·est
1. Of a friendly, generous, or warm-hearted nature.
2. Showing sympathy or understanding; charitable: a kind word.
3. Humane; considerate: kind to animals.
4. Forbearing; tolerant: Our neighbor was very kind about the window we broke.
5. Generous; liberal: kind words of praise.
6. Agreeable; beneficial: a dry climate kind to asthmatics.
kind
adj 1: having or showing a tender and considerate and helpful nature; used especially of persons and their behavior; "kind to sick patients"; "a kind master"; "kind words showing understanding and sympathy"; "thanked her for her kind letter" [ant: unkind] 2: liberal; "kind words of praise" 3: conducive to comfort; beneficial; "the genial sunshine"; "a kind climate"; "hot summer pavements are anything but kind to the feet" [syn: genial] 4: expressing sympathy 5: characterized by mercy, and compassion; "compassionate toward disadvantaged people"; "kind to animals"; "a humane judge" [syn: merciful] 6: agreeable; "a dry climate kind to asthmatics" 7: helpful to other people; "helping an old lady with her bundles was his kind deed for the day" 8: tolerant and forgiving under provocation; "our neighbor was very kind about the window our son broke" [syn: tolerant] 9: showing consideration and anticipation of needs; "it was thoughtful of you to bring flowers"; "a neighbor showed thoughtful attention" [syn: thoughtful] 10: generously responsive; "good-hearted but inept efforts to help"; "take a kindly interest"; "a kindly gentleman"; "an openhearted gift to charity" [syn: good-hearted, kindly, openhearted] n : a category of things distinguished by some common characteristic or quality; "sculpture is a form of art"; "what kinds of desserts are there?" [syn: sort, form, variety]

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by docpotato, posted 03-03-2006 2:24 PM docpotato has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 259 of 300 (291863)
03-03-2006 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by ramoss
03-02-2006 1:44 PM


Re: Further clarification
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by ramoss, posted 03-02-2006 1:44 PM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by nator, posted 03-04-2006 7:10 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 260 of 300 (291871)
03-03-2006 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by ReverendDG
03-03-2006 3:00 AM


Re: Further clarification
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by ReverendDG, posted 03-03-2006 3:00 AM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by ReverendDG, posted 03-03-2006 10:02 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 277 by nator, posted 03-04-2006 7:12 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 278 by nator, posted 03-04-2006 7:17 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 261 of 300 (291873)
03-03-2006 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by FliesOnly
03-03-2006 1:49 PM


Re: Further clarification
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by FliesOnly, posted 03-03-2006 1:49 PM FliesOnly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by subbie, posted 03-03-2006 4:03 PM Faith has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 262 of 300 (291880)
03-03-2006 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Faith
03-03-2006 3:46 PM


Kind of a red herring
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.
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.
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.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Faith, posted 03-03-2006 3:46 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 03-03-2006 7:30 PM subbie has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 263 of 300 (291921)
03-03-2006 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by subbie
03-03-2006 4:03 PM


Re: Kind of a red herring
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by subbie, posted 03-03-2006 4:03 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by mark24, posted 03-03-2006 7:53 PM Faith has replied
 Message 265 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-03-2006 9:35 PM Faith has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 264 of 300 (291924)
03-03-2006 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Faith
03-03-2006 7:30 PM


Re: Kind of a red herring
Faith,
The Flood goes a long way to explaining it a lot better than that piece of fantasy.
There is no evidence of a global flood. There is a great deal of contradicting evidence. Therefore even magic green elves explains it better than the flood, at least they aren't contradicted by evidence.
But science explains it even better.
It's all an imaginative leap and nothing more than that.
Indeed, the flood is exactly that.
Nobody knows what Archaeopteryx is.
The funny thing is, when you guys ask for fossil forms between taxa as predicted by evolution & get them, you then have to hand-wave away the evidence you yourselves asked for rather than honestly accept that what you said didn't exist, does.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 03-03-2006 7:30 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Faith, posted 03-03-2006 9:53 PM mark24 has replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 265 of 300 (291937)
03-03-2006 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Faith
03-03-2006 7:30 PM


um. sorry.
everything mark said... and
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.
why is it that yecs keep insisting that things went extinct in the flood. and you professing that a whole KIND went extinct in the flood is even worse. at worst, noah was supposed to have taken two to five to seven of every KIND of animal. thus, no single KIND would have conceivably gone extinct in the flood. your own arguments have defeated you.
and that's assuming that KIND means CLASSIFICATION (biologists read: family) and not specific species and thus two to five or seven of EVERY SINGLE ANIMAL IN EXISTANCE being on the ark.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Faith, posted 03-03-2006 7:30 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Faith, posted 03-03-2006 9:54 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 266 of 300 (291941)
03-03-2006 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by mark24
03-03-2006 7:53 PM


Re: Kind of a red herring
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by mark24, posted 03-03-2006 7:53 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by ReverendDG, posted 03-03-2006 10:17 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 271 by sidelined, posted 03-04-2006 2:34 AM Faith has replied
 Message 274 by mark24, posted 03-04-2006 4:21 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 279 by nator, posted 03-04-2006 7:19 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 282 by Jaderis, posted 06-18-2006 8:42 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 267 of 300 (291942)
03-03-2006 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by macaroniandcheese
03-03-2006 9:35 PM


Re: um. sorry.
Variety of a kind, I said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-03-2006 9:35 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-03-2006 9:59 PM Faith has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 268 of 300 (291944)
03-03-2006 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Faith
03-03-2006 9:54 PM


Re: um. sorry.
of what kind? see. to say variety of a kind, you have to define the kind. you can't just make random claims that you have no intention of describing or reinforcing. the onus is on you since you made the proclamation. like a poker bluff, i'm calling you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Faith, posted 03-03-2006 9:54 PM Faith has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4111 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 269 of 300 (291945)
03-03-2006 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Faith
03-03-2006 3:36 PM


around we go in circles
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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
It comes up necessarily in certain contexts, mostly to clarify the creationist position against the evolutionist position more than to use it in debate.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Faith, posted 03-03-2006 3:36 PM Faith has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4111 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 270 of 300 (291948)
03-03-2006 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Faith
03-03-2006 9:53 PM


Re: Kind of a red herring



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
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.
no it is not, it is a horrible explanation, the fact that it doesn't explain sediments alone shows its wrong
The existence of marine fossils in mountains and deserts is also great evidence for a worldwide flood
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?
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.
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
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.
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 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.
the ice age shows why most life-forms went extinct better than your impossible flood and we can find evidence of that
It's all consistent with the Flood story.
maybe in your fantasy world where physics do crazy things that would be impossible in the real one
But people seem to prefer the evo fantasy, which has no evidence whatever to support it. It's all a made-up fiction.
"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 PM
This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 03-03-2006 09:23 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Faith, posted 03-03-2006 9:53 PM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024