Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 9:37 AM
34 online now:
AlexCaledin, AZPaul3, JonF, Larni, Percy (Admin), Tangle, vimesey (7 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,811 Year: 8,847/19,786 Month: 1,269/2,119 Week: 29/576 Day: 29/50 Hour: 5/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
Author Topic:   Creationists Cannot Define "Kind".
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 69 (38544)
05-01-2003 4:33 AM


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.
  
RaghuDac
Junior Member (Idle past 3649 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 03-20-2009


Message 62 of 69 (503653)
03-20-2009 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Budikka
04-02-2003 10:45 PM


I agree
yes its right
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Budikka, posted 04-02-2003 10:45 PM Budikka has not yet responded

    
Sarawak
Member (Idle past 3640 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-07-2009


Message 63 of 69 (504012)
03-24-2009 12:26 AM


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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by anglagard, posted 03-24-2009 2:39 AM Sarawak has not yet responded
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 03-24-2009 9:38 AM Sarawak has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2189
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 64 of 69 (504024)
03-24-2009 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Sarawak
03-24-2009 12:26 AM


Sarawak writes:

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.

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 Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Sarawak, posted 03-24-2009 12:26 AM Sarawak has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18473
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 65 of 69 (504052)
03-24-2009 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Sarawak
03-24-2009 12:26 AM


Sarawak writes:

I have been asking for a definition of kind for over 20 years, and, as with this thread, I have yet to get one.

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".

--Percy

PS - 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! :D


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Sarawak, posted 03-24-2009 12:26 AM Sarawak has not yet responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 1454 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 66 of 69 (504056)
03-24-2009 10:56 AM


forget the definition of kind!
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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Son, posted 03-24-2009 12:00 PM Taz has responded

  
Son
Member (Idle past 1992 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 67 of 69 (504064)
03-24-2009 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Taz
03-24-2009 10:56 AM


Re: forget the definition of kind!
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Taz, posted 03-24-2009 10:56 AM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Taz, posted 03-25-2009 12:26 AM Son has not yet responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 1454 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 68 of 69 (504182)
03-25-2009 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Son
03-24-2009 12:00 PM


Re: forget the definition of kind!
I don't see a problem there. Just step back and give them a little room.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Son, posted 03-24-2009 12:00 PM Son has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1454 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 69 of 69 (504272)
03-26-2009 6:20 AM


Bump
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?
  
Prev1234
5
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019