Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
282 online now:
AZPaul3, Faith, jar, PaulK, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (6 members, 276 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,580 Year: 20,616/19,786 Month: 1,013/2,023 Week: 521/392 Day: 65/72 Hour: 6/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Kind"ly Creationism
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 1247 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 1 of 3 (93895)
03-22-2004 4:29 PM


Okay, here is a new thread on the Creationist definition of "kinds". My hope is that any YEC's out there can help with this, the definition as I have seen it is always slippery and changes to fit any presented evidence.

Taxonomically I have seen the term fit to species (dog kind [including all breeds of dogs], human kind [modern man and some extinct variants]), family (horse kind [donkeys, horses, zebras], cat kind


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Lithodid-Man, posted 03-22-2004 4:31 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 1247 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 2 of 3 (93897)
03-22-2004 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Lithodid-Man
03-22-2004 4:29 PM


(post continued)
It is truly a bullet-proof argument, provided that "kind" is never shackled with a consistant definition. I lieu of above, I propose the following defintiion for the YEC "kind"

Kind (n): Any taxonomic category from species to kingdom for which there is available fossil, biochemical, embryonic, or morphological evidence of transition between members of the next lowest ranking taxonomic category.

Please, any YEC's out there who have a better definition please reply. I have attempted on several occassions to pin down this definition to no avail. As I mentioned in another post, I have a correspondence with Kent Hovind that states that hermit crabs and Alaskan king crabs are a single kind, and that ALL mollusks represent a single kind (I sent him a detailed narrative of mollusk evolution based upon transitional fossils that derives modern scaphopods, bivalves, gastropods, and cephalopods from monoplacophoran ancestors with all of the transitions known). If the mollusks (a phyla) represent a kind, then it is clear that the Creator only needed to create about 33 kinds of animals. Adam was probably a lancelet or acorn worm of some type.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Lithodid-Man, posted 03-22-2004 4:29 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3908
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 3 of 3 (93920)
03-22-2004 5:59 PM


Thread copied to the www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=12&t=261&p=12">"Kind"ly Creationism thread in the Miscellaneous Topics in Creation/Evolution forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019