Creationists Cannot Define "Kind".

I regret not being able to respond to Brad McFall's postings in detail, because while he seems to be widely learned, his postings simply do not make sense. It's as if his mind is some sort of random-sentence generator.

yes its right

I have been asking for a definition of kind for over 20 years, and, as with this thread, I have yet to get one.I guess it means that there is none. It doesn't make any real difference. Every genome sequence confirms some evolutionary relationship. There is no Creation "Scientist" with sufficient background and knowledge to define "kind" in a way that will hold up to scientific data.That's the way it is in the Big City.

You forgot one thing beyond a background and knowledge, namely a commitment to the truth.Edited by anglagard, : clarity

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Even worse, they don't understand the magnitude of the task before them. Even the fact that the biological definition of species (with which "kind" is, in their eyes, in competition) is fraught with ambiguity doesn't seem to raise their awareness.Creationist arguments based upon the "kind" concept are very persistent because they are both very convincing and very easy to understand. Creationists will never give them up, both because their mindset prevents them from considering the issues in sufficient detail to understand how they're wrong, and because even those who do know they're wrong understand that they are extremely effective.This is all part of a more encompassing general law that holds that effective flim-flam never goes away. This explains homeopathy, faith healing, crying statues, Jesus pizza, magnetic bracelets, chiropractics, and creationist arguments based upon "kinds".--PercyPS - Please, no posts about how a chiropractor healed your uncle's back after years of visiting the charlatans who call themselves physicians, or how your arthritis completely disappeared after wearing magnetic bracelets for just one week. Everyone knows that all you need is Geritol!

If creationists can't define what kind is, let's take a different route.How many kinds of animals were on noah's ark? May be we can start from there?Added by edit.I guess what I'm trying to get at is perhaps we could get an idea of what kind is rather than the exact definition of it. For example, is a horse and donkey the same kind? Is an elephant and rhino the same kind? What about a duck and eagle? If we could get an idea of what kind is, perhaps we could even solve the overcrowding problem on noah's ark?Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

The problem with that is that it allows creationists to be as evasive as they want. They will mean "kind" to be whatever they want depending on the situation.

I don't see a problem there. Just step back and give them a little room.

Bumping for our friends. I'm giving creationists the opportunity to give us a general idea of what kind is. No need for a specific definition. About how many kinds were on the ark?