Define "Kind"

quote:

---

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.

---

You know, that's just what the suicide bombers said. This message has been edited by AdminJar, 02-26-2006 10:11 AM

Well yeah Schraf, it makes SO much sense to equate the homicidal Allah with the peace-giving Christ. Identical aren't they. This message has been edited by AdminJar, 02-26-2006 10:14 AM

quote:

---

Wow, a person says over and over and over that there is no way to do this but you all persist in demanding blood from a turnip.

---

Then do you concede that using the word "kind", since there is no way to define it to a useable and testable definition, is therefore a meaningless term?To you also concede that it is useless from a scientific perspective and creationists should not use it when discussion science, but that it is a theological term and may be used in theological discussions?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-26-2006 11:12 AM

We've known this since the start of this thread, gang. Why are we still here?

It doesn't matter the outcome, only the reasoning behind it.You believe you are right with God, and are therefore dangerous.You may not be homicidal, but you would send us back into the Dark Ages regarding science, social progress, equal rights, and medicine. This message has been edited by AdminJar, 02-26-2006 10:16 AM

But you didn't draw such a distinction in your post, remember? You asserted that scientific fraud occurs in every field:

quote:

---

Once such a scenario is in place and the data made to fit it, as it is in all the disciplines

---

As it happens, though, you're 100% incorrect. The hypotheses that underline the theory of evolution are just like the hypothesis I put forward in my post. They're almost absolutely the same.So, again, how does it work? How do you bend the data I presented to support that hypothesis?Answer the question. So flip open your easy-reading Bible and tell us all what a "kind" is defined as. I mean, if it's so simple to read, that should be right in there, right? How could the Bible be easy to read unless it defines the terms that it uses?This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-26-2006 01:35 PM

it is inline with the thread, if you can't define what a kind is you can't know its a fact there are no dumb questions and you are making claims you can't back up whats a kind then? i guess germs don't exist or paracites or other small lifeforms so its a meaningless term it in no way is factual unless you can set definitions and explain how we tell what goes where

I don't call this fraud. Everybody works under the ToE, they aren't in the business of challenging it. If they can make the data appear to fit it then they do. It's not hard since the whole thing is a big fantasy. If you find an interesting bone you just date it according to the "time" period it was supposedly found in, and speculate about what it's related to or evolved from, depending on what animal it supposedly belonged to etc. They cannot be falsified -- or verified -- because they are about the past. Your hypotheses was verifiable. I gave a tiny example above. It's not a matter of BENDING the data, it's a matter of INTERPRETING it to fit the ToE. This is just rude of you, and stupid. Truly. Reaally stupid. I said "a great deal" for one thing, not "all," as some parts are difficult to understand. 'The references to the kinds are, however, easy to understand. Your demanding that you be given a definition is irresponsible.

Then you don't have any experience in science, I guess. Challenging theory is all anybody does, all day long. And how does that work? I've asked you three times now and you haven't been able to show me. Given a scientific theory and data that makes it obvious the theory is wrong, how do you make the data appear to support the theory? But my hypothesis was about something that happened in the past. How is my hypothesis any more verifiable than any other? Even if you were to repeat the experiment, all you've one is prove the outcome of that experiment, not any of the ones in the past. You can't go back and live the past again. But you've been absolutely clear that, given a statement in the Bible or some data, there are some interpretations you just can't make. If I tell you plainly "the sky is blue", there's no legitimate interpretation of that statement that means "the sky is not blue."Words have meaning, Faith; I'm sure you know this. Data has meaning, too. If the data means one thing, there's no way to "interpret" it to mean the opposite.I mean, that's just silly. It doesn't seem possible to me which is why I'm asking you how it's done. You can't seem to tell me. Why is that? It surely couldn't be possible that you would accuse scientists of something you had no reason to believe they had done? Surely not? That would be fairly dishonest, would it not? So, isn't it possible that you've simply misunderstood what the Bible is saying, here? That kinds don't actually represent what you claim they do? Back and forth, Faith. Back and forth. Out of one side of your mouth you assert that the Bible is easy to read when it talks about kinds; on the other, you assert that it's too obscure for you to know what the Bible actually means. Which is it? Whichever serves your purpose at the time, I suppose.

quote:

---

Everybody works under the ToE, they aren't in the business of challenging it.

---

This is just plain wrong.A scientist makes a name for himself by challenging and correcting a flaw in an existing scientific body of thought. The scientific method is all about challenging, testing, and trying to disprove the truth of a particular hypothesis. In fact, it's impossible to prove that any scientific theory is true. The most that can be said is that it is generally accepted as accurate in the scientific community because it has withstood every attempt to challenge and disprove it. And that's why evolution is commonly accepted in the scientific community.

I'm sure this is so, and the greatest part of scientific work is of this nature. There are always hypotheses to be challenged, and hypotheses that are in fact challengeable because they involve specifiable replicable conditions that can be tested. Not so with the ToE. The reason it has withstood such attempts is that it is inherently unfalsifiable, being merely an imaginative scenario about the distant past, most of the evidence for which is long gone.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-26-2006 06:21 PM

quote:

---

I'm sure this is so, and the greatest part of scientific work is of this nature. There are always hypotheses to be challenged, and hypotheses that are in fact challengeable because they involve specifiable replicable conditions that can be tested. Not so with the ToE.

---

So, does this mean that you reject all historical science?

quote:

---

The reason it has withstood such attempts is that it is inherently unfalsifiable, being merely an imaginative scenario about the distant past, most of the evidence for which is long gone.

---

Untrue.As you have been shown many times, there are many, many potential falsifications of the ToE, including the 29+ available for your educational pleasure here.But that's not really the subject of this thread.Since you concede that there is no, and 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?

schrafinator, I'm going to play devil's advocate for a minute.***DISCLAIMER***I do not believe any of the following. I am proposing it in an effort to see what direction the conversation takes. Please do not hold my statement of any of the following ideas against me.There can be no doubt that organisms change from generation to generation. It has been seen in the lab and in the natural world. However, there are limits to the changes that we have seen. Populations of fruit flies can be isolated and change in different ways to the point where the two separate populations no longer interbreed. This is, as I understand it, the definition of speciation. However, they are still fruit flies.There is a limit to how much an organism can change. Nobody has demonstrated, either in a lab or in the natural world, that a dog can change into a cat. Now, I am fully aware that that is not how evolutionary theory says that these particular animals evolved, but I am offering that as an illustration of my point. One kind of organism cannot change to another kind, even though differences can become significant enough to result in speciation.We cannot at this time fully define what is meant by "Kind," but it refers to the observed general tendency of daughter populations to resemble parent populations. We do not yet know exactly what the limits of this change are. That is, as yet, an unsolved question. But many sciences begin with somewhat vague terms that attempt to describe an observed phenomenon, with the specifics of the term fleshed out more fully as the science develops.Can you come up with a real world example where we have observed evolution, either in the natural world or a laboratory setting, where the change from the parent population to the daughter population is so dramatic that it is obvious at first glance that they two popluations are different animals?

Thank you. This situation the creationist is in IS a legitimate place to be in science. It does happen. The objections to it here are ridiculous.You can start with what you know to be a fact, however ill defined, however vague, and work from that fact. I don't care that people here deny that the Bible is factual, that is where the Biblical creationist starts, and it is a perfectly legitimate and perfectly scientific place to start.

Before you thank me, keep in mind that I don't really believe that.Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing scientific about starting from the position that everything in the bible is literally true, then running around and trying to twist all the evidence you see to fit in with that assumption.This message has been edited by subbie, 02-26-2006 07:25 PM