Problems of a different "Kind"

How do you know the Hyracotherium evolved first? Did you conclude that by the scientific method?Hyracotherium doesn't look like a horse at all, maybe a deformed dwarf horse, or maybe not a horse at all. How many of these have they found? Maybe you should explain this better. How could you reconstruct anything with the information that isn't there? And furthermore expect it to be robust?
The whole argument seems circular. Because of other animals interbreeding I don't think this reconciles the case for common descent on a timeline larger than 6k years. Darwin saw how fast finches could be changed through breeding, I don't see how all the variations couldn't have been relatively recent.I think the question is where is the line between what variated from what and what the definition of biblical kinds are.It is obvious creationists have no clue. *If* the world is 6k years old, which I believe, and money was alloted to research these variations within this time frame, I would suspect the findings would be sufficient to propose an answer. At this time I am unaware of any scientific research for finding the limits of the variations in a biblical time frame.I would go so far as to classify apes with humans, however I think anyone can see the vast differences in the two. For the sake of arguing a model of similarities the ape and human would need to be classified together for the obvious reasons. This wouldn't preclude that they share a common ancestor or that some type of living ape variety is the ancestor.

I did woman, learn to speak less and listen more.btw, by speak I mean type and by listen I mean stfu. jk.I'll stick with it, until it doesn't suit my argument. Then I'll use something else. Satisfied? Why wouldn't I? I wouldn't put humans in that category, if your trying to trap me with your viperious tongue. fact is, if you don't have millions or billions or octillions of years you can't have banana to man type evolution. Thus it would relevant for this to be brought up in any and all threads that pertain to utilize the theory of millions of years. The labeling of kinds is only contradictory to biblical scripture when it goes beyond the 6k year mark.
So labeling kinds for phylogeny purposes only promotes an idea of this time frame so how you think it isn't relevant to explain my view of your religion astounds me.

Thanks dad, I appreciate the reply.I had no idea I was so stupid. This is gonna be fun.I have to disagree with the uniformitarianism model of stratigraphy. I think the layer could have more easily happened by a flood through particle placement of water swells.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/rapid-formation-coal.htmFossils prove only that something died. Can't tell if they had any kids. Anyways wasn't this horse evolution proven wrong a long time ago?
http://www.bible.ca/...k-fraud-dawn-horse-eohippus.htm#fraudI was unaware of heterosis, I will look into this. Thanks for the info dad. It should be noted that no one has done it yet, and it certainly doesn't mean there isn't another way to classify organisms in a creation model. Commonality speaks of design not of random chance.

i don't go to church but nice try.

What are you dense? Or is that the red tape I have to jump through? I thought this was a debate forum not a p.c. whine fest. Moreover, are you a mod or admin? If not stfu befo' you get smacked-tfu, bish! yeah, well you quoted me earlier and then commented how funny you thought that it was. I thought that was my definition, but I'll humor you and the rest of the gang.If it looks like a bird, its a bird. If looks like an cat, its a cat. If it looks like an ape, its not an black guy. Do you see where I'm going with this? To me, because I see design, I don't need to go into depth with this one has yellow hair and that has pink hair so that fucked that and out plopped that...etc. What about the shit I took this morning? Who cares? They're apes not black people. And also isn't this off topic?Edited by Vashgun, : i left out a good point

Back at you. How about a link to your "evidence"? I disagree, I don't think that you can know this. Period.
I'll paraphrase from Hovind's class.
Imagine a candle in a room. Your a scientist, so you want to know how long the candle has been burning and also how tall or large the candle was. So the empirical evidence suggests that the candle is x number of inches and the rate of burning has been x number of centimeters per one hour of observation. How many assumptions would you have to make to come up with a hypothesis of how tall the candle was and when it was lit?Basically, I disagree with this idea of uniformitarianism. There was a flood around 4400 years ago, and before that it was paradise. So, again I disagree until you can show me empirical evidence for billions of years. Really? Perhaps you should have put on your glasses.

I was talking about uniformitarianism. Just like an evolutionist to raise a straw man. I see Hovind as extremely well informed. Also, when he doesn't understand something about his theory he admits it, instead of lying. Cheat and Fraud? I'll wager against that. I've read on both sides, and I don't think it's an exact enough "science" to be dogmatically preaching it as truth. This also falls into the ice ring dating methods as well. How can you know, empirically?

You obviously don't know squat! Oh how good that feels!
How about you become a real citizen, and study your laws.
http://www.freedomclubusa.com/ucc_strawman
ForbiddenHovind was set up, hook, line and sinker. He didn't do anything wrong or break any laws. I can't speak for him, but I know his position on this topic. He spent along time researching the banking swindle and he is now a product of injustice.

I apologize to Jones. However, Canadian law is roughly identical when it comes to the income tax and the straw man accounts. And again Hovind was convicted of tax fraud but it wasn't constitutional nor was it justifiable under any law in the united States but rather in the District of Columbia. It still stands, you both should become "real" citizens. Check the first link above.

Kind Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Websterit is the fundamental construct of the variations we see today.

On the flip side evolution suggests common ancestry of apes and humans from gross homologous traits which are suspect.
I believe this article sums up most of the speculations on common ancestry.
There They Go Again! Another Missing Link | The Institute for Creation ResearchI don't mind grouping anything together, however suggesting common ancestry through this grouping system is baseless and unscientific.

I propose that the definition for kinds is one that must be stacked or at least long enough to encompass the many schools of thought. I don't see why kinds would be limited to a specific gene pool. Perhaps even apes and humans could interbreed under the right circumstances. The genetic symmetry is apparent and thus should be adapted to encompass all possibilities. The limits are unknown. The assumption arises through lack of what is said in Genesis and not what is said.Genesis 1. The Holy Bible: King James VersionSpecies - WikipediaThe species definition allows a distinction but, IMO, doesn't encompass the scope of originally created kinds. As the original kinds could transcend through the scientific classification scale.Creationist Kinds: Organisms that interbreed yet not limited to specific evolution.Edited by Vashgun, : missing link

One thing I see in creationist dogma is constraint given to the evolution process. I really think it would be awesome if we could breed cats and dogs. Hilarious really. I don't see how originally created kinds couldn't have become something that looks almost entirely different. I am not afraid of evolution, I think it is pretty cool. I don't believe in billions of years so I don't think common ancestry is plausible. But that's for another thread I suppose.Specific evolution would be a creationist way of eluding to variation within the original kinds. And yes, we should have no limitations on evolution however much I believe there are in fact limits. Sure, it is extremely generic but that could be through semantics rather than objective reality. I must point out that a Creator could very well have a different class system than the science specific one. The beauty of the kinds is in the simplistic nature of relating complex information. Not to say that God couldn't have known what he was specifically making. Also, the kinds in genesis seem to be somewhat related to their environment. I believe someone else said something about this.Conclusion, I really don't see a problem with linnean classification system. Speciation has its limits.

By constraint, I meant linguistically. I don't think the limits are yet known how far a species can go. If you have any links or information on this I would love to read it. Genesis 1 Verse 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.If we really look at this I think there are some interesting things to note. "...beast of the earth after his kind,..." and then "...cattle after their kind,..." notice how the beasts are after his kind and the cattle after their kind. I don't think this is a classification system nor was it meant to be.to be continued...

Razd, I have given much thought to the biblical kinds. Here is what I got:A kind infers barriers. common descent infers no barriers.Since it can only be observed that some genetics (which apply) and homologous traits are similar and can be suggested to evolve from one another, this does not rule out an equal theory for creation kinds. Also, it is not fully accepted that macro-evolution (for lack of a better term) has taken place. So it can still be theorized that there are barriers and one shouldn't toss this suggestion aside even if they subscribe to ToE.It is possible that there were original kinds which have evolved into what we see now. Also, what I would like to bring up is the possibility that macro evolution doesn't contradict a creation view. One could look at a chihuahua and a wolf and pretty much conclude macro evolution. The age of the earth or the age of existence would be the only barrier to the allowance of evolution.Variation within a kind suggests rigidity of life. The bible, as far as I know, doesn't state or suggest that there are limits to life through variation. In fact, I believe that change would be a fundamental in True Christianity. Edited by Highestevolvedwhiteguy, : No reason given.