Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,832 Year: 4,089/9,624 Month: 960/974 Week: 287/286 Day: 8/40 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Define "Kind"
ramoss
Member (Idle past 639 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 94 of 300 (289265)
02-21-2006 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Faith
02-21-2006 2:20 PM


Re: Further clarification
I'm sure that's so but I like my intuitive system for the moment. The genetic similarities are really meaningless to me when the differences are so obvious. When some little worm or insect has more genes than a human being, all is not quite as easily interpreted here as is being claimed.
Is there any way for you to 'quantify' the differences, and simularities. Is there a way to show these differences and simularities have to do with being a "kind"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 02-21-2006 2:20 PM Faith has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 639 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 96 of 300 (289275)
02-21-2006 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Faith
02-21-2006 3:16 PM


Re: Further clarification
As I said, the authority for it is God, and scientists don't regard that as any kind of authority. So I don't EXPECT scientists to bother. I was merely stating a fact in explanation of why all the scientific accoutrements to the idea that everybody is demanding are not forthcoming.
Except for some writings that various different people interpret in various different ways, and often disagree if it is from god or not, God has been very silent on the issue of what a 'kind' is.
Now, if God was our creator, and God gave us a brain, then, by golly by gosh, we should USE that brain.
So, based on your observations of the real world, and comparing it to the scriptures, what definition of a Kind that you can use so that we can actually make sense out of the use of the word 'kind', instead of it being this ill defined word that just means about anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Faith, posted 02-21-2006 3:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 02-21-2006 4:51 PM ramoss has not replied
 Message 106 by FliesOnly, posted 02-21-2006 5:10 PM ramoss has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 639 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 192 of 300 (290565)
02-26-2006 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Faith
02-26-2006 2:10 AM


Re: Further clarification
Then, give a good defninition of KIND. What does a 'KIND' mean. Narrow it down to a useable and testable definition.
That is the point. The definition of KIND is so ambigious that the use of the term is meanlingless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Faith, posted 02-26-2006 2:10 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Faith, posted 02-26-2006 10:59 AM ramoss has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 639 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 236 of 300 (291459)
03-02-2006 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Faith
03-02-2006 8:18 AM


Re: Further clarification
Actually, if you are going to claim that it is the word of god directly, you are wrong, it is not 'kind' but

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Faith, posted 03-02-2006 8:18 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by subbie, posted 03-02-2006 11:28 AM ramoss has replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 639 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 238 of 300 (291502)
03-02-2006 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by subbie
03-02-2006 11:28 AM


Re: Further clarification
Depends on the person doing the translation.
The modern JPS translation is 'variety' or 'varieties'
The point is that Faith was saying that 'Kind' it the word that god used. However, the original was not in English, and therefore 'Kind'
is merely a translation.
I don't believe that the words chosen were dictacted to man word for word for ward either. Faith implys that. Faith also implys that it was dictated in ENglish with her phrasology. I am merely pointing out that her assumptions about the word 'kind' being god given is incorrect.
This message has been edited by ramoss, 03-02-2006 01:54 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by subbie, posted 03-02-2006 11:28 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by subbie, posted 03-02-2006 2:11 PM ramoss has not replied
 Message 240 by nator, posted 03-02-2006 7:54 PM ramoss has not replied
 Message 259 by Faith, posted 03-03-2006 3:23 PM ramoss has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 639 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 249 of 300 (291728)
03-03-2006 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Faith
03-03-2006 12:23 AM


Re: Further clarification
If 'Kind' is not fully definable, then , from a scientific point of view, the use of the term is meaningless.
I remember seeing an interview from this guy in Kentucky that was cheering on a principles decision not to allow interracial dating at the school prom (this was in the early 90's, so it wasn't all that long ago). His justification?? "Kind must be with kind", and quoted the bible. Rather poor use of the word 'kind', don't you think? If you can't get a specific definition for 'kind' then it is worthless to use to define something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Faith, posted 03-03-2006 12:23 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Brad McFall, posted 03-03-2006 3:16 PM ramoss has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 639 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 251 of 300 (291730)
03-03-2006 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by jar
03-03-2006 12:31 AM


Re: Further clarification
There was earlier Religious documents that also mentioned about Christians and the natural world. How about Saint Augustine??
Saint Augustine
Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn. (The Literal Meaning of Genesis)
This message has been edited by ramoss, 03-03-2006 08:22 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by jar, posted 03-03-2006 12:31 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by jar, posted 03-03-2006 9:41 AM ramoss 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