Define "Kind"

Yes I know you don't believe it, but the Bible IS factual so there is no twisting going on.But I'll take back the thanks because you got rude about it.

I really didn't think I was being rude. I certainly had no intent to. Trust me, I know how to be rude when I want to, particularly regarding this topic. My conclusion is that either missed the winkie icon in my topic or didn't appreciate the significance of it, or you have incredibly thin skin. Either way, I won't lose any sleep over it.The "twisting" I was talking about wasn't the bible, but the physical universe. Creos take incredibly compelling evidence of evolution (I'll mention just Archaeopteryx as an example) and either ignore it, ignore the obvious implications of it, or bend it so far out of shape that one can't even identify what they are talking about.Have a nice day. ;-)

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

It is where the Biblical Creationist begins and ends. It is certainly neither ligitimate or scientific. In fact it is the antithesis of science.Kinds will never be anything more than a joke, a sad and bankrupt perversion of both Christianity and Science. To support Biblical Creationism and the concept of kinds is only to embrace ignorance and an abdication of the gifts given by the Creator.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sorry if I misread you. I was in a rush at the time.There is no twisting going on. The Bible is the foundation and that's that. Archaeopteryx can't challenge the Bible. Your position is that the Bible can't challenge archaeopteryx. We disagree. Archaeopteryx is obviously a creature that lived before the Flood. Nothing to distort. Evolution does the distorting. The evidence is NOT compelling. Those who are convinced are just used to thinking within its parameters and can't even imagine how to think outside them.

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)

quote:

---

[Kind is] the limited classifcation of animals based on what people 3 thousand years ago understood, which our current classifications overwrite....

---

No, I think there's more to it than that.There can be different species of cats, dogs, birds, horses, etc. And, through descent with modification, new species of any animals can arise. But cats only beget cats, dogs only beget dogs, birds only beget birds......Creos seem to argue that, since we've never actually see one "kind" of animal evolve into another "kind," "microevolution" can be taken as an accepted fact, but there's no evidence of "macroevolution."Science tries to speak in terms with very specific and clear meanings. Sometimes these meanings change over time. "Planet" used to refer to certain heavenly bodies that were believed to revolve around the earth. If you were to try to explain that the Earth is a planet, your words would be nonsensical. When the concept of the heliocentric system was accepted, "planet" came to mean certain bodies revolving around the sun.In every day language, we use the word "kind" all the time without there being a single, clearly-defined meaning. If someone were to ask you, "What kind of pet do you have?" you would have no trouble understanding what they are asking, and could easily answer, "I have a dog."The reason that creos' use of the word "kind" without giving a precise definition is a problem is because creos are notoriously slippery. They ask for transitional animals, we give them Archie. That isn't good enough for them, because Archie had fully developed feathers. "Where is the transition from no feathers to full feathers?" Why, we didn't provide a transitional animal, we've merely doubled our trouble, because now there are two gaps to fill.Perhaps the attack on the creo term "kind" should be two-fold: continue to demand a specific definition, but at the same time, provide examples of clear transitional series between different species that are obviously a different "kind," no matter how that term is defined.I know full well that we will never convince creos like Faith that evolution is a fact. She has made it clear that, for her, all answers begin and end in the bible as she interprets it. And that's fine. She's entitled to live her life as she chooses, no skin off my nose. But the fact of the matter is that most people in this country do not look at the world that way. The percentage of people who reject evolution outright because of biblical literalism is quite small. The battle, instead, is directed to those who want science taught in school, even if it does (seem to) conflict with stories from the bible.Americans love to be "fair," to let all sides be heard. What we need to do it make it clear that, based on the evidence we have at our disposal right now, there really is only one side to this question, from a scientific point of view.

---

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

To be kind SubIE I think one might consider when discussing what a "kind" is in the history of creation and evolution that one also think of how the term "fact" might have changed or changed only legally. Bertrand Russell clearly connotes the use of 'facts' in a newer sense than that actually denoted when the claim is made that evolution is fact. I can read fairly effortlessly that Mayr uses the sense of "fact" in this way even if Simpson might not have been but the defintion after the facts found in genetics that spur on the mild form of kinds in creationism depends not on a mixing of the popular notion of a "fact" of evolution and some more refined philosophy after the kind of discussion that ensues since the 60s but instead actually requires that we be clear about the domain these "facts" syntactically remain behind in, whether legal or not.As a KIND is to be "after" the microevolved kinda like kind biology it is not a perfect form in this newer fact to criticise the slipperyness as this would disappear if the fact actually appeared. The same fact standard should apply to both philosophy as theology and theology as philosophy no matter the number that is within that fact.

You're a speech writer for President Dumbya, right?

---

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

Brad,Don't mean to offend, but could you please be a little more generous with your use of punctuation? your sentances appear to just run into one another.I was going to quote your post and perform my own edit but I guess that would just be rude.

To be kind SubIE, I think one might consider (when) discussing what a "kind" is, which is in the history of creation and evolution (that we do discuss on EVC) that one (should)also think of how the term "fact" might have changed or has only changed legally in the same duration.Bertrand Russell clearly connotes the use of 'facts' in a newer sense (citation available on request) than that actually denoted when the claim is made that evolution is fact.I take we all know how to search EVC for subdiscussions of this more original state of the organism of EVCs'fair fare affair.I can read fairly effortlessly that Mayr uses the sense of "fact" in this way, (see in particular his chapter on FINALITY in Towards a New Philosophy of Biology) even if Simpson might not have been (especially obvious to the reader of his classification of mammals) but the defintion after the facts found in genetics (you name the history of genome science however one likes, I dont care at this point in the thread) that spur on the mild form of kinds (in the history of creationism since the 60s to be more general once written for the duration) in creationism, depends not on a mixing of the popular notion of a "fact" of evolution (what we connote whenever we talk on evc uncritically) and some more refined philosophy (you name the the elite biology likewise propositionally as I dont also care at this place in the thread's development) after the kind of discussion that ensues since the 60s (I take it that the creation /evolution debates of the 70s are a given, at least rhetorically) but instead actually requires that we be clear about the domain these "facts" syntactically remain behind in, whether legal or not.That they remain "in a sentence" is unlikely.So from the above verbal tongue lashing I sort of wished to comment to Subbie that:as a KIND is to be "after" the microevolved(insert current EVC feedback), kinda like kind biology ,it is not a perfect form in this newer fact (see added paragraph below) to criticise the slipperyness as this would disappear if the fact actually appeared. The same fact standard should apply to both philosophy as theology and theology as philosophy no matter the number that is within that fact.I do not know if there really are two verbs or not. There really is a logical issue while moderns have used the word "principle" when they really mean future data such that phonograms and ideograms do not rely on the same histories. Given that I tend to write off the top rather crudely I am never offended by further calls for clarification or even if you chose to reword it for yourself. I think Chomsky is mistaken when refering to Russell and Wittgenstein together, about verbal occurances vs defintions of words. Deconstruction at least opened the ideogram to the breadth that biological diversity swims in, no matter the actual terrain ascended.

Since you concede that there is no, and can be no, definition of "kind", do you agree that it is a meaningless term and should not be used in scientific discussions?Do you also agree that it is a theological term and should only be used in those discussion?

You're jumping the gun on Faith. She didn't concede there can be no definition. If you look at her message 209 in this thread, she seems to be adopting my devil's advocate position that there is something to the idea of "kind" not changing, but the exact parameters are something that have not yet been determined.Care to take a stab at the question I posed at the end of question 208?What kind of pet do you have, schrafinator?

---

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

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

The idea of a kind as discussed in the creation literature DID provide me with a wider envisionable notion of FORM that I was not getting out of standard texts on evolution and interaction with actual herpetologists, that deprecated herpetology to a nonstandard division of biological thought or personalized it to particulars smaller than I had considered.I attempted to show some of the larger invariant "parameters" of this kind of dividable form in the thread

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a spin off from the Education forum:
Brad McFall states his ideas on a science education curricula based on the idea of baramins (created kinds):

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

It can not be this as this is where I was at when you called for not tabling the point. I didnt know that Nosy an Me really do want the same thing. The work is in progress but is a bit too bslogical so if I could have the mammy razor please... Well something out of this raw short hand WILL be available to be taught onse I get my nose out of its way and work out the remaining techinical issues AND THEN FIGURE OUT the best language to introduce the teaching on an easier to comprehend basis but meanwhile it would be something like this-

Creation Biology: Towards a Unification of Baraminology and Mendelism
Google took off a paper by Dr.Kurt P.Wise from DOTankerbergDOTcom which contained a couple of sentences:
"Baraminology is a new field of science. It is the science of baramins- the study of created kinds. Baraminology will ultimately include the identifying, the classifying, and the naming of baramins. At this ponit it is concentrating on how to identify baramins.

---

quote:

---

http://EvC Forum: Distinguishing Baramins -->EvC Forum: Distinguishing Baramins

---

but since, I have reached a more critical cognition of the content involved in what seems to be causing failure to properly divide the case(again ,I know that I can respond to Percy if I wish).Identification can proceed provisionally while final determinability remains as slippery as water is wet.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-02-2006 06:59 AM