EvC Forum: Questions Creationists Never Answer

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Questions Creationists Never Answer

nwr

Member

Posts: 6412

From: Geneva, Illinois

Joined: 08-08-2005

Member Rating: 4.5

Normal Thread Display

Message 51 of 141 (252580)
10-18-2005 1:50 AM

Reply to: Message 50 by randman
10-18-2005 1:09 AM

Re: I'll post it here, since it's on topic for this thread

Hi randman. Glad to see you back.

As a favor, can I ask you to avoid the kind of almost empty post to which I am replying (empty = little or no science in a science forum).

I would prefer to not see you banned again.

Hmm, and this is an almost empty post by me. Sorry about that everyone.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 50 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 1:09 AM		randman has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 52 by randman, posted 10-18-2005 2:02 AM		nwr has not replied

nwr

Member

Posts: 6412

From: Geneva, Illinois

Joined: 08-08-2005

Member Rating: 4.5

Normal Thread Display

Message 83 of 141 (258205)
11-09-2005 5:20 PM

Reply to: Message 65 by Evopeach
11-08-2005 3:34 PM

On kinds

Since you seem to want responses on kinds, I'll comment here.

The bible defines kind rather explicitly as that which contains within its seed the capability to bring forth its own offspring.

Can you provide a reference?

On reading your definition the first time, my reaction was that all creatures are the same kind. That's on the basis of common descent.

On my second reading I tried to read it a little more strictly. Doing that, it seems to me that "kind" refers only to a single family.

Perhaps the definition is just a little too vague if it can lead to such a range of interpretations.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 65 by Evopeach, posted 11-08-2005 3:34 PM		Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 85 by Evopeach, posted 11-09-2005 5:42 PM		nwr has replied

nwr

Member

Posts: 6412

From: Geneva, Illinois

Joined: 08-08-2005

Member Rating: 4.5

Normal Thread Display

Message 90 of 141 (258279)
11-09-2005 8:10 PM

Reply to: Message 85 by Evopeach
11-09-2005 5:42 PM

Re: On kinds

The first few chapters of Genesis specifically refer to the seed within fruit ( and by logic all life) as the source for the new fruit which is kind following kind.

That makes it sound as if kind = species.

Although imperfect I would say Genus was close to original kind.

And now we are at genus.

According to Ken Ham, Noah's ark carried only one or two pairs of dinosaurs, and all the rest of the dinosaur kind evolved from that. So Ken Ham appears to want a much larger idea of "kind" than just genus.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 85 by Evopeach, posted 11-09-2005 5:42 PM		Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 94 by Evopeach, posted 11-10-2005 10:06 AM		nwr has not replied

nwr

Member

Posts: 6412

From: Geneva, Illinois

Joined: 08-08-2005

Member Rating: 4.5

Normal Thread Display

Message 105 of 141 (258674)
11-10-2005 8:01 PM

Reply to: Message 102 by Evopeach
11-10-2005 4:40 PM

Re: On kinds

So since you can prove that every genome can be traced back to the first genome it follows that you can in theory elucidate any particular genome from all those that follow it.

Given the genome of one person, you could not even deduce the genome of that person's mother. Do you think this implies that our theory of birth is wrong, and babies really come from storks?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 102 by Evopeach, posted 11-10-2005 4:40 PM		Evopeach has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

3 online now:	kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,799 Year: 4,056/9,624 Month: 927/974 Week: 254/286 Day: 15/46 Hour: 0/1