Define "Kind"

And we of the Coragyps Kind are just proud to be there!

The way I see it, according to Creationists, the creation was arbitrary. God didn't say, 'hmm I need to make sure there is an objective method for defining the way I create these things, just so Adam's descendents don't get confused.So here are some Kinds the way I see them:Grass Family
Herbs ?
Fruit trees (genesis 1:11-12) ? All angiosperms that are trees? That's massively broad
Whales (genesis 1:21) Order Cetacea
Cattle (genesis 1: 24) Genus Bos
Fowls (Gen 6:20) Order Galliformes
Vulture family Cathartidae/family Accipitridae
Kite family Accipitridae
Owl Order Strigiformes
Nite Hawk genus Chordeiles
Hawk order Falconiformes
Cuckoo family Cuculidae
stork family Ciconiidae
Heron family Ardeidae
Lapwing genus Vanellus
bat (Lev 11:14-19) order Chiroptera
locust family Acrididae/family Locustidae
bald locust ?
beetle order Coleoptera
Grasshopper (Lev 11:22) family Locustidae/Acrididae
Weasel genus Mustela
Mouse family Muridae/Cricetidae
Tortoise (lev 11:29) family Testudinidae
Human species Homo Sapiens

---

The classification system we use is flawed: God does not bow to our definitions. I contend that when God created Kinds he didn't do it so that we would have an easy time classifying them. We could give them names easily enough, but finding some way of putting them into some sort of 'Kinds' using objective criteria is doomed to failure.Using our system we can conclude that Kinds generally falls in the area of Order and Family though sometimes they are as specific as genus. Humans are a special case.One thing therefore can be said with a good amount of certainty. Evolution cannot occur at the level of kingdom, phylum, class or order.

That is not what is going on with evolutionism. It is all an imaginative scenario to explain what is supposed to have happened in the past. The factual observations done by everyday science just get sucked up into this scenario.Once such a scenario is in place and the data made to fit it, as it is in all the disciplines, there is no motivation to look for an alternative scenario, and in fact hostility to such a scenario, so it is only going to be the few creationists who will be trying to test such ideas. The Bible IS the only way to know about God simply because science deceives itself.God does not contradict himself, and what we see in the creation is often colored over by prejudice which is what the ToE and the geo timetable are. This refrain here about how the creation speaks for God is unbelievably naive -- the creation has to be interpreted for heaven's sake. It took millennia before humanity had the slightest grip on what is going on in God's creation. Don't tell me the rocks have the kind of information that God has given in His word. Nonsense. Flapdoodle.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-25-2006 12:45 PM

No, creationists would prefer not to use the term "speciation" as it confuses things. I was trying to explain how the evolutionist definition of speciation, which rests on the loss of reproductive ability, is not really speciation in the sense of a step beyond the parent species, but merely a variation on the parent species, the way any new breed of anything whatever is made. Loss of ability to breed with the parent population, from a creationist point of view, is merely one feature of the processes that select for variations of a Kind. It is also usually accompanied by a reduction in genetic diversity which is not conducive to the idea of opennended evolution.abe: It's a definitional thing. Evos simply define the loss of ability to breed with the parent population as "speciation." Creationists -- or at least I -- think this loss is meaningless as far as the ToE goes.I hope that's clear.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-25-2006 12:47 PM

How does this work, when you imagine this going on?Let's suppose I have a hypothesis that a certain enzyme prevents cancer, and I devise a test where I give doses of the enzyme to rats with a genetic propensity to cancer (these cancer rats were genetically engineered back in the 80's with a human oncogene that makes them susceptable to cancer), and also I rear a population of the same rats who I don't dose with an enzyme.Now, after the trial I count the number of rats who did get cancer in each group, and what I see is that there's no statistical difference between incidence of cancer in rats who did get the treatment versus those who did not.How is it going to be possible for me to "suck up" these observations into a scenario where that enzyme does prevent cancer? Didn't I just disprove my hypothesis? As a scientist, how could I possibly argue that the enzyme prevents cancer from this data?It would be impossible. I'd be a laughingstock if I tried, regardless of how many scientists believed this enzyme prevented cancer. Especially if I did the trials over and over and got the same results.There is no way that the observations we make of the natural world could be made to support evolution unless evolution were largely accuate. Even when we've had to alter the theory of evolution, it's only ever been in response to new observations. It's never been a function of sucking up observations that don't fit and making them fit.If they don't fit, they don't fit. There's no way to turn disconfirming evidence around so that it confirms. What you suggest happens is impossible. Ah, but the Bible reads itself, does it?

We know we are right because we know God. We don't have to understand everything God said, merely know that He doesn't lie. And this we know. Period. This has been made quite clear here. Creationists are looking for the definition of a Kind. That is how science proceeds. You have a theory and you set out to test it. We know there were kinds in the beginning and that life did not start out with one quivering cell of life and evolve to us. We know this. We don't know the particulars, but we know the basic outlines. Filling them in is what the science involves. Evo scientists deny the creationist view and work against it and call us idiots, so creationists have to work alone on it and against all this hostility. And maybe Jesus will come back before they finish their work, but if not, eventually they should have the answers you keep demanding so unfairly of a science in progress. Some on your list are hucksters. Obviously I did not include them in the "we." Try being fair sometime in your answers.

Yes, on the things that matter most, and compared to the "message" of the Creation it is crystal clear.

If you believe that books can be self-reading then this isn't a part of the discussion I want to continue.Could you please instead address the main body of my post? I'd like to know how you believe scientists are able to squish observations into theories they don't support.

Here's a stab at a definition: A kind is a type of living creature that has particular characteristics that are retained through any number of genetic variations even into extreme forms without losing its original characteristics. Humannnes, dogness, catness etc. Great Danes and chihuahuas are both dogs. Cheetahs and tabbies are both cats. Many variations are possible but its varying into something beyond its basic characteristics is impossible. We do not know what the original kinds were because the Bible does not define them, only says that there were these kinds that were created as themselves at one time. This is reality. Science has to start there.The Flood of course wiped out an immense number of creatures, and certainly whole lines of variation, such as for instance, the sabretoothed tiger, the mammoth, the trilobites, archaeopteryx, the dinosaurs, etc etc etc. We know that great numbers have become extinct since then too, even perhaps entire kinds. This makes it difficult to trace it all out.

It took me three days to get back to this thread, so you can just cool it until I get around to you.{abe: More pleasant way to put it: Your post is not an easy one to think through and I would appreciate it very much if you would be patient. I'll get back to you eventually. If I don't, please feel free to remind me in a day or three. Thanks.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-25-2006 09:20 PM

Hi again Faith,I thought I'd have another go at figuring out how we might be able to classify kinds. You mention... Is there anything in the 'kinds' catagory that would be more inclusive for groups of animals such subgroup's of 'bird-kind' or 'mammal-kind'? What animals would be included in those kinds? Would a mammal be outside of 'mammal-kind' if it layed eggs or lacked nipples? I imagine that we can have such a classification such as dogness, but what defines dogness? Skeletal morphology? Genetics? Behavior? Diet? Reproductive strategies?Feel free to answer me as you can. I understand you have a whole gaggle of people vying for your attention.Added to edit: I'm not looking to be combative just looking at collaborating on a definition of 'kind', if possible as a brain exersize.This message has been edited by DBlevins, 02-25-2006 08:31 PM

Deleted duplicate post.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-25-2006 10:26 PM

I don't understand what you are asking here. Your grammar is all confused. Are you asking me about the bird kind or mammal kind or a subgroup of these, or these as a subgroup of a higher group or what? As for dogness and catness I gave my impression in the links in my Message 152 to you. It is mostly their distinctive behaviors that catch my attention. I still think my distinctions are definitive in some way and think the arguments against them on that thread just completely miss the point.You have to take me seriously when I say I simply do not know enough to have ideas about the other things you bring up. Morphology seems important certainly but I am not in a position to define the boundaries. I doubt that SKELETAL morphology is much of a key, however, since that part of many animals has an awful lot in common across all kinds. Genetics has to be important but I don't think enough is yet known to say how. Also, scientists are not looking for what a creationist would be looking for, and are going to consider observations significant or insignificant based on their evolutionist preconceptions, so I take it all with a grain of salt at this point.The creationist idea is that the initial Kinds were created with an enormous capacity for variation, meaning an enormous genetic potential that could produce variations of all sizes and some morphological differences, but to what extent is a big guess. How this would happen genetically I'm not sure. A very complex polyploidy is a possibility -- is that the word I want?Whether such a genetic complement could include in one Kind the capacity for both egg-laying and mammary variations I really can't guess. The problem is we aren't in a position to do this.

There is simply no comparison between the ToE and a hypothesis of the sort you are describing. The ToE is this huge unfalsifiable imaginative fantasy. Your hypothesis is normal science, testable science. There is no comparison.My agreeing with your odd phrasing about the Bible reading itself was no doubt being too cute and losing the possibility of real communication. I simply meant that a great deal of the Bible is easy reading, it is understandable without a great deal of interpretive sophistication. Even where it needs interpretation it is nothing like the opaque mysterious Creation to the fallen mind.The idea that the Creation is readable at all by arrogant fallen human beings, given the history of science -- no science to speak of for millennia, very strange superstitious ideas for great periods of time, real science only very recently and that hardly foolproof -- is just about laughable.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-25-2006 10:37 PM

this just shows why scientists don't take creationists seriously faith, the fact that you are coming from the stand point that are kinds to begin with, this not science it is fiting things to your belief to validate a dogma.
evo scientists don't validate something that only works if you ignore facts and give vague definitions