Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Species/Kinds (for Peg...and others)
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4432 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 19 of 425 (539554)
12-17-2009 2:43 AM


Didn't we go over this just a wee while ago? See Message 1what is a kind?

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4432 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 48 of 425 (539617)
12-17-2009 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Coyote
12-17-2009 4:00 PM


Re: Kinds
Hi Coyote
I find ICANT's request quite reasonable. How can you claim that all the kinds won't fit onto the ark when obviously you have no idea what a kind is? Even if we explain it to you (which has already been done in the thread "What is a Kind?") then does this mean that therefore we can pull out a conclusive number of the different number of kinds that exist/existed? No, mainly because creationists realize that it is not possible to reconstruct a completly accurate picture of the past. We may give estimates based on different assumptions, but this doesn't mean that they are conclusive, and that is ok, because that is the best we can do. Not every scrap of history is preserved and that's just the way it is.
As for the word kind relating to other classification systems, this is not possible. In some cases a kind may be limited to the genus level, or family level, or subfamily level, etc. It just depends. barminologists do try to work out these bounderies, but this doesn't ever mean that their results are conclusive. They can give us a rough idea which can be helpful, but they are also open to revision.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Coyote, posted 12-17-2009 4:00 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Briterican, posted 12-17-2009 5:07 PM Arphy has not replied
 Message 50 by Coyote, posted 12-17-2009 5:11 PM Arphy has not replied
 Message 53 by Granny Magda, posted 12-17-2009 7:53 PM Arphy has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4432 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 54 of 425 (539644)
12-17-2009 11:06 PM


Hi Guys
The term "kinds" is not quite as plastic as you try to make out. In the discussion of "what is a Kind?" it was pointed out that there are certain criteria that suggest whether or not two creatures are from the same kind or not. The reason why we can not pin down the exact ancestor is because they no longer exist, and we cannot know what sort of potential for variation these original creatures had. So in some cases our baramins may be too narrow. In some cases we may have mistaken some superficial similarity for true similarity. Baraminology is a field that still needs a lot more research, however the results that are coming from this area are good. In future as more progress is made I hope that the picture of this classification system becomes clearer.
However, to be able to place every creature in a distinct kind is not necessary for creation apologetics. What we don't see is
britanican writes:
Every living thing is part of a great branching tree, and if we could line up all the intermediaries between
In fact this is a far too simple explanation even for most modern evolutionists (plenty of articles around in science magazines about the Tree of Life during the last few years).
Also
coyote writes:
But you've only served to make my point: there is no definition of "kind" that can be used in the manner that scientists use terms.
The word "kind" or "baramin" can be used in scientific endeavours. Just because organisms are labeled in the classification system doesn't mean that this is concrete. As with other classification systems organisms may be renamed and relocated depending on new evidence. This is the same with the kind classification system, it is open to revision. It deals with the past and so it is to be expected that we will not always be 100% accurate in our classification of particular organisms. Does this mean that we should throw out the entire classification system? No, otherwise you would have to throw out the linnean system as well because that is also open to revision. The point is that the "kind" or "Baramin" classification system is workable as explained in the "what is a Kind?" thread. It is open to revision, and this is to be expected when dealing with the past, but the overall structure and aim is secure.
I think it is also important to note that especially the linnean system is used to organise organisms by putting labels on animals based on similarities. It doesn't make any direct claims about ancestry. I think that is where for the evolutionists cladistics comes in.

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Coyote, posted 12-17-2009 11:50 PM Arphy has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4432 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 63 of 425 (539688)
12-18-2009 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Dr Jack
12-18-2009 10:08 AM


Re: Sauce for the Goose, etc.
Umm... Thanks Mr Jack for stepping up!
Good post for the most part.
Now that we can hopefully move on from some of the more unnecessary arguments, i guess your increduality at the creationist concept is that this amount of variation could happen in 6000 years or hyperevolution as you call it. Going into this may be beyond the scope of this thread but I think hyperevolution is far better documented than slow and gradual darwinian evolution
Evolutionists have invented a unit called the ‘darwin’ for measuring the speed of change in the form (body size, leg length, etc.) of a species. In the case of the Anolis sagrei lizards, the rate of change ranged up to 2,117 darwinswhereas evolutionists had only ‘measured’ rates of 0.1 to 1.0 darwins over the ‘millions of years in the fossil record’. For the guppies in Trinidad, the rates were even higher: from 3,700 to 45,000 darwins. Artificial selection experiments on laboratory mice show rates of up to 200,000 darwins
Speedy species surprise - creation.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Dr Jack, posted 12-18-2009 10:08 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Dr Jack, posted 12-18-2009 8:50 PM Arphy has not replied
 Message 68 by Granny Magda, posted 12-19-2009 9:34 AM Arphy has not replied
 Message 69 by Modulous, posted 12-19-2009 9:58 AM Arphy has not replied
 Message 215 by jasonlang, posted 12-31-2009 11:11 AM Arphy has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4432 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 423 of 425 (543208)
01-16-2010 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 416 by ICANT
01-15-2010 8:26 PM


Re: KIND
Sorry I haven't really read that many of your posts and therefore not really quite so clued up on your position but just have to say Yikes, you have some really weird theology.
It is the first time I have heard the type of position that you seem to take.
So what do you mean by "called forth"? What happens when God "calls forth" a creature?
There was no seas in the beginning therefore no fish were created then.
I'm really confused now. where did you get this idea from? Did the animals drink water in the beginning? Did plants somehow manage to get by without water in the beginning?
from a somewhat confused and amused Arphy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by ICANT, posted 01-15-2010 8:26 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024