Creationists Cannot Define "Kind".

Is creationism scientific? Let's find out.Creationists have been favored by having the subject of evolution conveniently reduced for them, from the complex and over-arching science that it is to unnaturally small pieces, which is where creationists love to work - isolate and contaminate.Attempts to cover serious ground have been overwhelmed with a rush to brevity, yet even given this advantage, creationists still don't even seem to be able to make any scientific headway. So let us go boldly onto creationist turf.Here is a tiny, minuscule piece of the problem. It belongs entirely to the creationists. Without a resolution to this problem, without a scientific answer, creationism is dead. It's a very simple problem and I would dearly love to get a real answer instead of more excuses and evasions.If creation were truly a science, these questions ought to be easily answered. All I want in this thread is for any creationist to answer two questions, which are at the very root of creationism and are inextricably entwined:1. What is the definition of "kind" as used in the Biblical creation and flood stories? What is the scientific support for your answer? Give detailed examples of these "kinds".My contention is that there is no creationist who can scientifically define "kind" and there is no consensus among creationists on any sort of definition.2. What is the mechanism which prevents one "kind" from varying into another "kind"?My contention is that there is no such mechanism and creationists cannot even point to a serious candidate.Simple, isn't it?Please note that counter questions or charges (such as "Evolutionists cannot define species") will not be entertained. To begin with, evolutionists can define species, but this thread is not about what evolutionists can or cannot establish, but about what creationists can establish as a foundation for their supposed "science".Budikka

Phillip -It's not me who needs the help, it's the creationists!You said that "Cladistic barriers of biology at present seem to me to correspond well with the kinds of the Bible." but this is precisely what is at issue. What are the "kinds" of the Bible? Who has defined them in modern terms, and where? Where is the creationist science that they claim they have?If God made kinds distinct, separate, and immutable, it ought to be the easiest thing in the world to define what they are and specify a mechanism which keeps them apart.It ought to be the evolutionists who have a hard time defining their groupings, precisely because evolution is real and therefore over history, there are no barriers between "kinds".My point is that creationists cannot answer these questions, and this is where their so-called science falls apart.You said that "Seeing that kinds is a dynamic term to begin with..." but this is exactly what it is not. The term "kind" denotes a fixed classification of organisms. This is what the creationists themselves insist upon, yet they cannot define it nor can they define a mechanism which makes it so.Until and unless they can, creationism is going nowhere.Budikka

Andya -The point of this discussion was to see if any creationist on these boards can answer the two questions. No one (but the creationists) is disputing that the evolutionists have done their homework.Creationists cannot even agree among themselves as to what a "kind" is! See Lenny Flank's excellent article:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/kinds.htmIf creationists go along with evolution's definition of species (for sexual organisms, this is roughly that two groups of organisms which do not normally interbreed in nature are considered to be separate species or sub-species), they lose. They cannot fit two of every "kind" on the ark, and their immutability of "kinds" fails, because speciation has been repeatedly observed.If they retreat to a higher classification such as family, then they lose, because there is greater genetic variation within, say, the "dog kind" than there is between humans and chimpanzees!Budikka

Joralex wrote: "I must begin by saying that I've been following the 'exploits' of Budikka for some time now - ever since I heard of his run-in with my brother in Christ, Kent Hovind ( a sad episode)."Very sad for Hovind, aka The Cowardly Liar", that's for sure, but what does this have to do with the topic? I'll tell you later.Joralex wrote: "I've never bothered to enter into any debate with Budikka and it is not my intention to do so here or anywhere else for that matter."Begs the question, why are you responding to this? I'll tell you later.The whole purpose of this thread is to debate, so if you are not up to it, do not waste my time with flatulent bravado. If you cannot answer either of the questions and cannot refute the material you claim to have read, you have no place addressing me.Shallow and unsophisticated is a fine description of Hovind's position. I at least had the wherewithal to respond to it point-by-point and face it head on. This is more than we can say for someone who lurks in the shadows, parroting the beliefs of others, yet who cannot support these beliefs by answering two simple questions.
Joralex wrote: "Budikka asks that certain "simple" questions be answered by creationists. I regard his questions as anything but "simple"."I am sorry they are too complex for you, but they really are very simple questions. Even the answers would be simple if the creationists had any science to back their mythology, but they clearly do not. If you cannot answer them, please do not waste people's time by post anything further in this thread.Joralex wrote: "Undoubtedly my response here will be taken by some of you as a sign of evasion. Be my guest.'"Anything that takes cheap shots and fails to deal with the topic is a sign either of cowardice or of evasion. Be *my* guest. You claim to be a brother in Christ, yet here you are, failing to turn the other cheek and attacking some one who has done nothing to you. Some brother in Christ you are.Joralex wrote: "In any event, the direction that I wish to take is a bit different. Here goes :"Please, *don't*. The two questions are the topics of this thread. I do not know how to make that any more explicit to you. I am not interested in your turning watered down excuses into whine, so if you have sour grapes to purvey, this is the wrong venue. If you wish to debate other issues, open your own thread. If there is any way I can make this any simpler for you to grasp, please do ask.(Totally irrelevant, evasive, pull-the-wool-over-the-evolutionist's-eyes blather deleted.)Joralex wrote: "Therefore, let's get really "simple", shall we? What exactly is matter, time and space?"Totally irrelevant. This has nothing whatsoever to do even with evolution, let alone the two simple questions I asked, both of which relate at their simplest level to base pairs. What could be simpler than that? And why ask you, since you are quite clearly out of your depth and have not a single clue as to how to answer either of the two questions that are the sole purpose of this thread.Talk about unsophisticated. Here you are trying to do a snow job and all you have is a flurry that's easily blown away.(Totally irrelevant trash-talk deleted. Please refer to the rules for posting on these boards.)Joralex wrote: "After we get past these "simple" ones we can then move into more complex ones such as 'life' and 'consciousness'"Also Ran Zarathustra. When you can re-post with actual answers to the two questions which are the purpose of this thread, then please do so. Until and unless you can, please do not post. Your blather is mindless and meaningless and will not be entertained. Especially since, by your own admission, you do not even have the wherewithal to support your position.BTW, I am still awaiting Kent Hovind accepting my offer of a debate. One of the last offers I made to him (before his unfortunate series of run-ins with the law) was to meet him for a live debate before the audience of his choice, at the venue of his choice, on the topic of his choice, under the rules of his choice provided that he answer the very two questions which you have so gauchely avoided. He made a cowardly retreat, too. I guess you two really are brothers.Budikka

I began this thread on April 2nd. The last response was by me on April 4th, and since then, nothing.Despite the simplicity and limited scope of this thread, despite the massive vociferousness of creationists on these boards, despite the fact that creationists repeatedly insist that evolution is dying and creationism is the only solution, not a single one of them could find a solution to the two easy questions posed here.Instead we got what we always get from creationists - evasion and an overwhelming inability to offer any "kind" of science whatsoever to support their religious beliefs posing as science.Creationists do insist that there is a scientific "kind". They even invented a name for it "Baramin". Yet not a one of them can define what "kind" is scientifically, and even more damning, not a single one of them can articluate any mechanism whatsoever that would prevent one "kind" from transforming into another "kind". In other words, they can offer nothing to refute the fundamental tenet of evolution, and their empty pretence that they can is hereby exposed.This failure is catastrophic for creationism, which, as a refutation of evolution is inextricably rooted in the absolute necessity of having fixed "kinds". Since they themselves cannot fix these kinds, how can any of them pretend to have a science which can take on evolution?Clearly we see once again how misnamed the creationists are. They cannot even create an answer to simple and essential questions.I move that this thread be closed and locked, another testimony to the absolute sterility of creationism.Budikka

I guess this thread was only sleeping, but booboocruise made a booboo.If you cannot read and understand the opening thread, please do not attempt a response. You will only embarrass yourself and dig a deeper hole for creationism than it is already in (and note that this thread is an attempt to draw some science out of the creationist camp. The bankruptcy of their position is already glaringly obvious, as the lack of creationist response to this thread has demonstrated).There are two questions, both intimately related, yet you sought to address only one, and you apparently could not even understand that.Let me reiterate question 1 for you:
"1. What is the definition of "kind" as used in the Biblical creation and flood stories? What is the scientific support for your answer? Give detailed examples of these "kinds"."As in all of my posts on the topic of evolution/creation, I was looking for some science from the creationist camp, and yet again, I failed to find any.Your response offered no scientific definition, but a Bible reference. You offered zero scientific support for your position. You offered no examples. The transparency of your pretence that these "kinds" eternally reproduce only after their kind is demonstrated by the fact that you could not offer any scientific mechanism which prevents one of these biblical "kinds" from varying so much that it becomes another "kind".Your response flies in the face of other creationist attempts to answer the "kind" question by vaguely waving their hands towards such nebulous entities as "The Dog Kind" and "The Cat Kind", etc. How do you reconcile your position with theirs?If these kinds you claim were purposefully created by an intelligence and designed to remain separate, where is the evidence of this?What you have done is simply to define species, as though species remain and have remained, unchanged, but this is demonstrably not so. Speciation has been observed, and is evident in the fossil record and in DNA, so clearly your definition of kind fails.And if your definition had not failed, then the ark story is a lie, because all of the species that have obviously lived on Earth could never have fit on the ark, let alone be cared for. If you wish to trim your definition to some level higher than species, then where is your scientific basis for this?Humans and mice have about the same size DNA package and the same number of genes. We have 300 genes that mice do not have and they have 300 that we do not have. In other words, from some common ancestor living some 60 million years ago, the mice have developed their 300 specialised genes and we have developed ours. That's 300 genes in 60 million years.A gene, so creationists tell me, has 100,000 base pairs on average, meaning those 300 genes are roughly 30,000,000 base pairs. Assuming a worst case scenario (necessitating us changing every base pair on each of those 300 genes), that means we had to switch out a minuscule one base pair every two years over the last 60 million years.Given the breeding rate of small mammals, this is nothing. It is insignificant. Where is your creationist evidence that this is impossible? That these intervening "kinds" could never have done this, turning our common ancestor with mice into us on one branch and mice on another? Where is your argument that they could not have adjusted their "kind" in such small increments that each set of parents and immediate offspring were of the same "kind", but succeeding generations departed ever further from it?Once again the creationist falls short of the glory of God.Budikka

Harsh and insulting?Is it now harsh and insulting to take a contrary position to a creationist in a thread requesting some straight answers and getting none?I posted a simple pair of questions asking for a supported answer. All I got in response to the first question was essentially a Bible quote which did nothing to address the creationist problem. The second question was not even attempted.I pointed this out to the poster and supported my argument. What was harsh and insulting about that?Do you not think it insulting that creationists honestly believe they can purvey their lies as truth and their non-science nonsense to children in our schools?I do. All I am asking them to do is put their science where their mouth is and quite clearly, despite their virulence vociferousness, they are obviously not up to it. So much for creation.Budikka

Your adolescent drivel is as meaningless aas it is useless. Please take it into another thread. It has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread, which is directed at **creationist inability to define "kind"*.I'm so sorry if you couldn't grasp that. Do let me know if I can make it any simpler for you.Budikka

So you basically want the evolutionists to lay down, roll over and let creationists continue to have it all their own way in debate, being able to blather endless, unsupported inanities without being challenged? This is what will happen if they are not challenged, and this is what will happen if we idly stand by and let them get away with avoiding the issues while pretending it is the scientists who are doing that. Pussy footing around their failures is exactly what they want us to do.I'm not on that band wagon. Creationists are demanding equal time and they are in-your-face. Just look at web sites like Kent Hovind's and Fred Williams'. I don't see any empathy and fairness there. I don't see a good attitude there.I didn't start out this way. I was forced to get down into the trenches by the creationists' own tactics. They are the ones who insisted upon this battlefield, not me.The very existence of creationism is an insult to the real hardworking scientists who have spent the last 140 years carefully building the framework of what we enjoy in the sciences of cosmology and biology.It looks like the four quotes you offered were all from my response to Joralex - who you may have noted has completely failed to not only answer the two questions, but even to address them. I note that you did not respond to Joralex and discuss his attitude.If he had actually *attempted* an honest answer to the question, he would have got a completely different response from me. He would have been taken seriously and debated with, but I will not countenance garbage spewed out by creationists in place of intelligent and supported argument. Nor will I resect a creationist who comes into a thread that has been set up for one purpose and tries to usurp it as a pulpit for his own purposes.NN: "That might be almost all of them. It seems to me that they may well all be true. And I understand how annoying these people are. But it just feels bad. I think it also drives some of the more sensitive ones of them away and that's no fun.'Well since not a single creationist has actually attempted to seriously address the two questions (not here or in the two to three years I have been asking these same questions on the Internet), we will never know. My purpose is to get them answered and to keep this topic as free as possible of the inevitable garbage with which creationists addictively lard up these threads. (Case in point, Joralex's attempt to pervert this thread. Another classic example (although who knows if he is a creationist or not) is the mindless pretentious adolescent babble of Brad McFall, which offers nothing of value whatsoever with regard to the two questions upon which this thread is founded).NN: "The committed creationists probably don't have the courage (and in many cases the intellect) to really ever grapple with these topics."That goes without saying! But it is amply supported by the lack of competent responses even to questions as simple as the ones posed here.NN: "Others may have some chance of learning something but not if you piss them off."They're not going to learn a thing if their side offers no competent argument. The opportunity for learning comes from discussion, not from avoiding an exchange.First of all, Joralex was completely off topic. I am not going to allow this thread to be derailed. Secondly, his approach was insulting. He offered no means of learning anything about the topic.His whole approach was typical of the cowardly stance creationists take. They never directly respond to evolutionist challenges. Instead, they side-step them and throw out a barrage of supposedly unanswered questions, then pretend the pretence that these questions are unanswered means that evolution is dead.Fred Williams was a classic example of this in the debate I had with him on his own web site. Kent Hovind is another classic example in that he doesn't even dare debate me on the Internet.Creationists are the ultimate in freeloading. They want to do no work of their own, but incestuously steal each other's material (which they rarely attribute), and then misquote and misappropriate the work of evolutionists, and lie about evolution. They want to avoid, like the plague, actually grappling with the serious challenges they face. Instead they wallow in negativism, constantly whining that evolution doesn't get it done in complete oblivion that their own "science" never could get it done and doesn't even pretend to do so."Remember they have their entire world view, life (eternal even) and everything all tied up in this. It is understandable that they should be more emotional. You don't have to let it be that important."It *is* that important, because if they are allowed to go their way unchallenged, we will be teaching creation in science classes and our entire world, not just our world view, but our entire world, will be back in the dark ages.Now I am not going to pursue this any further or respond to Brad Mcfall's drivel because it is once again getting away from the creationist inability to answer two simple questions which are fundamental to establishing their belief system as a science.Whilst this thread was moribund, it stood as mute testimony to creationist impotence. Now it is getting bloated with irrelevancies, the creationists can blindly pretend that the topic is being addressed. Well, let them enjoy their dream for a while. They will wake up with a shock before so very long.Budikka

This thread is aimed at creationists. There were two questions. Here they are:1. What is the definition of "kind" as used in the Biblical creation and flood stories? What is the scientific support for your answer? Give detailed examples of these "kinds".My contention is that there is no creationist who can scientifically define "kind" and there is no consensus among creationists on any sort of definition.2. What is the mechanism which prevents one "kind" from varying into another "kind"?If you are not a creationist responding to these two challenges, nor responding to a creationist's attempt at answering (neither of which you are), then you need to find your own thread to blather in.Please refer to the rules for posting on these boards before you blunder into any more threads.Can I make it any more clear than this?Budikka

Yet more randomly generated noise from the Internet's most clueless poster. If you ever have anything else to say, *don't*. And once again I specifically request of you that you either directly address the topics posted or CEASE POSTING IN THIS THREAD.If you want to generate reams of useless, pointless, clueless, mindless babble, do it elsewhere.And do please let me know if there is any way I can make this oft repeated request any simpler such that even the most addled adolescent brain can comprehend it?Budikka

If you ask an evolutionist for a simple definition of species, the chances are you will get (at least for sexual species) something along these lines: if two groups of organisms do not normally breed in nature then they are separate species.Clearly there is more to it than that, but why is it that not a single creationist can offer something along those lines for their "kind"?The problem with your response is that the creationists specifically do *not* look into these things. They do little or no research, and, ironically, they "create" nothing!Virtually every one of them has a different idea as to what "kind" is, but not a one of them (as this thread and endless other requests have pretty much conclusively proven), can offer a simple definition of what "kind" is. Much less can they articulate any sort of mechanism, even in theory, which would prevent one of these (undefined!) "kinds" from eventually transforming into another "kind".That's all this thread was designed to evoke, and once again the creationists have been found wanting. All they can offer, as is to be expected in any thread offering them a serious challenge, is the thread clown, a role willingly assumed in this particular thread by Brad McFall, causing some of us to wonder if he might be considering changing his name shortly to Brad McDownfall.Budikka

So your definition of "kind" equates to the scientific definition of species.If this truly is what "kind" is supposed to be (and other creationists would vehemently disagree with you), then creationism fails. Speciation has been observed both in the laboratory and in nature. This destroys the myth of the immutability of "kinds" using your deinfition. Therefore you either have to accept that evolution has occurred, or you have to come up with some means of accommodating the millions of species that have ever lived, on that tiny ark.Plus you have still not identified any sort of mechanism which would prevent one "kind" from transforming into another "kind".Budikka

Brad McFail said; "... but I already have said most of what I can and wanted at this time to say..."This is indeed good news, but the bare fact remains that when we blow off all the chaff, you actually haven't said anything....Budikka