[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bart007:
"Kinds" (i.e. Baramins) is well defined. Its' meaning is identical to the evolutionists term "phylogenetic tree." If you understand the meaning of "phylogenetic tree", then you know what "baramin" means. The difference between evolutionists and creationists is that evolutionists believe there is just one phylogenetic tree ( i.e. a sole baramin, so to speak), Creationists believe there is a forest of these trees, i.e. many Baramins.
However, I am not aware of any satisfactory non-vague or determinate definition for "species", do you?[/B][/QUOTE]
Speaking of Orwellian...
Sorry, Bart, no matter how many times you want to say it, 'kinds' is not well defined. In fact, it is not defined at all. At best, you can get a creationist to say that it is somewhere around the same thing as a Linnaean Family.
"Kinds" has no bearing whatsoever on the term "Phylogentic tree."
I suggest that you read up on actual creation 'science' before you try to 'teach' others about it, in the usual creationist condescending way.
I will gladly discuss baraminology with you. It is one of the big creationist shams and a clear indication of the shoddy 'science' getting churned out by religious fanatics.
As for a definition of species, does it not stand to reason that if there were discreet created 'kinds' that such a definiton should be self-evident?
The fact that such a definition is elusive is in itself supportive of evolution!
™ Version 4.2