Define "Kind"

That is correct.It is truly the word of God.But it is also correct that sometimes what is taken for factual information by science is not at all factual information, and a Bible believer can see this though scientists cannot see it. It's strange but true. Although I will certainly cling to the Bible when I can't see a flaw in the science, I also do recognize flaws, only I can't get anyone else to see them. I think some of them are glaring. I've knocked myself out making what I consider to be excellent objective points that are ridiculed although they are quite sound. I still think my arguments about the geological timetable ought to overthrow the dang thing. I do. I'm sure all the creationists feel the same way about their observations.

Well, I disagree. The scientific word "species" was coined by creationists to describe exactly the concept that creationists are talking about, here - the seperation of organisms we observe in nature.Now, of course that seperation is entirely consistent with evolution, and we've observed that it isn't all so seperate anyway. Creationists now wish a word to describe the seperation that would have to exist if evolution were false, but they have a major problem in that they're trying deperately to coin a word to describe something that objectively doesn't exist. There are no "kinds", so small wonder that creationists are unable to detect them, and indeed, are barely able to articulate any meaning of the word whatsoever.

No, what was and is being called speciation is not speciation in the sense evolutionists use the term, and that's why the term became a problem. Creationists can easily affirm that kind of event that is called speciation but since it isn't what evolutionists mean by it we need new terminology. Finally we just accepted the term, but we have to qualify it all the time. It is merely a more extreme form of variation within a kind that includes the loss of reproductive ability with the former population -- AND it often describes a condition of reduced genetic diversity that is certainly not in keeping with the evolutionist viewpoint.

See my previous post to Ned. The origin of the term is not the point as it came to mean something within the evolutionist framework that creationists disagree with. What is called speciation is not macroevolution, it is merely variation, but the term is tendentious.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-21-2006 06:15 PM

But that's nonsense, Faith. Your "objections" were that it seemed unreasonable that dirt would stay in any one place for any length of time, but it's like you refuse to look outside at dirt, or something; because if you did you'd see that just about anywhere you stand you're standing on 10-20 feet of dirt that's going absolutely nowhere anytime soon. I can't for the life of me understand how an otherwise intelligent person would mistake your ridiculous "objections" for something compelling. One need not even reach for scientific tools or esoteric data to prove you wrong; one merely needs to look outside at dirt to refute your "objections."The only thing "glaring" is that you'll clutch at any percieved weakness in geology, when the only weakness is your stubborn refusal to observe the world around you.

Not in neat flat layers of a particular kind of sediment that is SHARPLY differentiated from another COMPLETELY DIFFERENT particular kind of sediment and on and on. The idea is preposterous that such a formation represents millions of years of gradual buildup. PREPOSTEROUS.

But it still means exactly what creationists originally coined it to mean. It still refers to the seperation of groups of living things. All the other taxa are bookkeeping stuff; they don't reflect physical reality.The word "species" means essentially the same thing now as it did then; it still refers to the way that organisms are seperated from each other. We learned about that seperation as science progressed, and so the functional definition of species has changed; but the word still means essentially what creationists defined it to mean.Species has always refered to the seperation of organisms in the natural world.

Well, we covered this. They're not flat, they're not neat, and they're not so sharpy differentiated from "completely different" sediment.Again, it would suffice for you to go outside once in a while and actually look at a place where you can see geologic layers. By virtue of living in a hilly part of Missouri I have the advantage of being able to do this via a 2-minute car drive; I don't know what your problem is but presumably there's a big hole in the Earth somewhere nearby which would allow you to see the actual layers you're referring to.The layers you're talking about couldn't possibly exist, and they don't. But the layers you're talking about bear absolutely no relationship to the geologic column that exists under your very feet. Assert that the sky is green all you like; the ridiculousness of your position is amply demonstrated anytime someone actually walks outside to see for themselves.

Within the ToE it refers to a constantly changing separation of organisms which creationists consider variations within a Kind. Stop treating me like an imbecile and think about what I'm saying. You've recognized I'm not an imbecile so try to consider that it might really be true that I'm not.

Well, we observed that the only observable seperation in the natural world changes sometimes; causes new seperations.Creationists have yet to show observations of any other levels of seperation. There's one level of clear seperation in the natural world and that's the species level. Everything else, as I've said, is bookkeeping for biologists. You're not an imbecile. You're just ill-informed. One way to solve this would be for you to actually go outside and observe the natural world you're so certain you know everything about.

Oh well, I guess you don't think all that is treating me like an imbecile.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-21-2006 07:56 PM

I was given to the impression that the emerging sciences of Geology and Paleontology had already shown Biblical literalism to be wrong before Origin Of Species was published.

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

All they had was these wild imaginative explanatory systems, no evidence. That's all they have now too, but when Darwin came along and appeared to establish the idea that all life evolved from the primordial ooze, it acquired the reputation of Scientific Fact. Historically I believe that is the case. Perhaps among some scientists it was felt that the Bible had been effectively debunked before Darwin, but it took Darwin to make it a worldwide belief of the general public.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-21-2006 08:27 PM

I think the reason Biblical literalists act like this is because without realising it they have become idolators. The idol they worship - blindly and without question - is their particular interpretation of the Bible.Ultimately there is probably neither reasoning nor argument to be had with such people.Faith - I suspect you will be offended by being called an idolator, and if so I apologise for that. I do however, maintain it is true.

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

thats one of the reasons i ask why people think its ok to limit god in that fashion, I mean how do they know that thier impression of god is right? Its because they have been told its right but they never bother to dig deeper than the surffice on why they are taught this, and why they get offended by being questioned, it easily shakes their beliefs well they don't want to be argued with they want people to agree that they are right without question, because they are taught to not question thier leaders