Creationists: give a coherent definition of "kind"

[Haven]

In last week's debate between young-earth creationist (YEC) Ken Ham and science advocate Bill Nye, the former tried to get around the problem of too many animals on the Ark by saying that Noah didn't bring two of each species, but two of each kind of animal. Among YECs, Ham is hardly alone in using this term as a stand-in for actual biological taxonomy, and, like other YECs, he didn't offer a scientifically rigorous or even logically coherent definition of the term (he said it was 'like a family,' but made an exception for the family Hominidae, which includes both humans and the other great apes).

Can our resident creationists do better?

Debate questions: What, in biological terms, is a 'kind?' How does this term relate to biological categories, like 'species,' 'genus,' or 'family?' How many 'kinds' are there? What scientific justification do you have for using this term instead of well-established biological taxonomy?

Lastly, if you can't provide a coherent definition, will you agree to stop using the word 'kind' in debates about biology?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 1 by Haven

Kind:

A logical fallacy and loophole creationists use to get out of the fact that there are to many species of animal to evolve in a 4000 year window from what could have possibly fit and survived on a wooden boat for a year.

[The Me's]

In last week's t̶r̶a̶i̶n̶w̶r̶e̶c̶k̶ debate between young-earth creationist (YEC) Ken Ham and science advocate Bill Nye, the former tried to get around the problem of too many animals on the Ark by saying that Noah didn't bring two of each species, but two of each kind of animal. Among YECs, Ham is hardly alone in using this term as a stand-in for actual biological taxonomy, and, like other YECs, he didn't offer a scientifically rigorous or even logically coherent definition of the term (he said it was 'like a family,' but made an exception for the family Hominidae, which includes both humans and the other great apes).

Can our resident creationists do better?

Debate questions: What, in biological terms, is a 'kind?' How does this term relate to biological categories, like 'species,' 'genus,' or 'family?' How many 'kinds' are there? What scientific justification do you have for using this term instead of well-established biological taxonomy?

Lastly, if you can't provide a coherent definition, will you agree to stop using the word 'kind' in debates about biology?

No, I will not stop using "kind" in debates. That is an unwarranted request.

That word comes from Genesis 1, and to define it, all you have to do is ask yourself "what did the writer of Genesis 1 mean?"

Obviously the writer was archaic, likely born before 3000 BC. They made an unsophisticated visual judgment of what varieties of life existed in his or her day, and "kind" was intended to indicate differentiation between them.

[Haven]

No, I will not stop using "kind" in debates. That is an unwarranted request.

It is warranted if you can't provide a scientifically coherent definition for it.

That word comes from Genesis 1, and to define it, all you have to do is ask yourself "what did the writer of Genesis 1 mean?"

Ancient literature is not biology.

Obviously the writer was archaic, likely born before 3000 BC. They made an unsophisticated visual judgment of what varieties of life existed in his or her day, and "kind" was intended to indicate differentiation between them.

Then how is this word relevant or even meaningful today? Why not come up with an estimation based on species, genera, or other scientific categories?

Also, I thought the Christian god was supposed to be the author of the Bible? The human writers may have been unsophisticated, but the one who allegedly created life certainly is not.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 3 by The Me's]

How would you define kind?

How can you use the term in a meaningful or practical sense if it has no apparent definition?

How many kinds are there?

How do you differentiate groups of species into kinds?

Is there a taxonomic system to kinds?

[McCulloch]

No, I will not stop using "kind" in debates. That is an unwarranted request.

.

If you can't provide a coherent definition, will you agree to stop using the word 'kind' in debates about biology? This is certainly a reasonable request. Words without coherent definitions cannot be used in meaningful debate. Debates about biology should use proper biological terms.

[The Me's]

No, I will not stop using "kind" in debates. That is an unwarranted request.

It is warranted if you can't provide a scientifically coherent definition for it.

That word comes from Genesis 1, and to define it, all you have to do is ask yourself "what did the writer of Genesis 1 mean?"

Ancient literature is not biology.

Obviously the writer was archaic, likely born before 3000 BC. They made an unsophisticated visual judgment of what varieties of life existed in his or her day, and "kind" was intended to indicate differentiation between them.

Then how is this word relevant or even meaningful today? Why not come up with an estimation based on species, genera, or other scientific categories?

Also, I thought the Christian god was supposed to be the author of the Bible? The human writers may have been unsophisticated, but the one who allegedly created life certainly is not.

Your complaints have been noted and rejected.

--I don't accept your moving of the goal post for definitions (mine was as accurate as you can hope for without studying Sumerian or Hebrew language for context usage)
--I reject your definition of what constitutes evidence (it's far too limited in scope and ignores modern definitions which are entirely arbitrary)
--I reject your attempt to dictate what words I can and can't use (such requests have no place in adult-level discussion; you're going to have to roll with it or leave the conversation)
--The fact that ancient literature is not "biology" is not only misleading, it's also irrelevant (you failed to establish that ancient observations in ancient literature contain biological studies; I'm guessing you didn't even try)
--I reject your terms that only modern words can be used in modern discussion (this complain has no merit)
--I reject your use of modern scientific parameters of species, family, phylum, etc. due to its arbitrary and non-scientific nature (the most accepted definition of a "species" for example is determined by whether two living things are willing to reproduce with each other--I never let animals determine my definitions for me)
--I reject the notion that God sat down at a desk and wrote the Bible (he is therefore not the author, and I don't know of anyone who actually believes this)
--I reject the notion that human writers can accurately reflect the full sophistication of God (you forgot about that, didn't you?)

With these rejections, you seem to be left with just about nothing.

Would you like to try again?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to The Me's]

I think these are pertinent questions care to respond?

How would you define kind?

How can you use the term in a meaningful or practical sense if it has no apparent definition?

How many kinds are there?

How do you differentiate groups of species into kinds?

Is there a taxonomic system to kinds?

[Haven]

Your complaints have been noted and rejected.

My complaints were based on your statement that you would continue to use a term that you know has no meaning, which is an intellectually dishonest tactic. By "rejecting" (not even refuting) them, you've affirmed a commitment to using duplicitous tactics in debate, which is not conducive to rational discussion.

--I don't accept your moving of the goal post for definitions (mine was as accurate as you can hope for without studying Sumerian or Hebrew language for context usage)

You've yet to provide any definition.

--I reject your definition of what constitutes evidence (it's far too limited in scope and ignores modern definitions which are entirely arbitrary)

What is your definition of evidence? What is your epistemological framework?

--I reject your attempt to dictate what words I can and can't use (such requests have no place in adult-level discussion; you're going to have to roll with it or leave the conversation)

Suppose I were to argue against Christianity by saying "God can't be real because fsoingrfjk wouldn't exist if he were." Without defining fsoingrfjk, my argument is meaningless and does nothing to advance atheism. It's the same thing with your use of "kind": it's a meaningless string of letters in the biological context (no more meaningful than fsoingrfjk), which means that using it in debates about the diversity of life is pure absurdity. I'm not telling you that you can't say a word, I'm saying that it is a waste of time to debate a subject without using meaningful, well-defined terms.

--The fact that ancient literature is not "biology" is not only misleading, it's also irrelevant (you failed to establish that ancient observations in ancient literature contain biological studies; I'm guessing you didn't even try)

I'm not sure what you mean. How are comments about ancient literature relevant to a discussion about the diversity of life?

--I reject your terms that only modern words can be used in modern discussion (this complain has no merit)

I said only scientific terms are meaningful in discussion about science, which is a completely different statement than what you've listed above.

--I reject your use of modern scientific parameters of species, family, phylum, etc. due to its arbitrary and non-scientific nature (the most accepted definition of a "species" for example is determined by whether two living things are willing to reproduce with each other

Please provide evidence that modern taxonomy is inaccurate.

Also, that is not the definition of species, this is: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... cies.shtml

--I reject the notion that God sat down at a desk and wrote the Bible (he is therefore not the author, and I don't know of anyone who actually believes this)

Then why do you claim the Bible is the infallible word of God?

--I reject the notion that human writers can accurately reflect the full sophistication of God (you forgot about that, didn't you?)

See above.

[The Me's]

[Replying to post 8 by DanieltheDragon]

My definition was provided in post #3.

I'm not sure why any of the other questions are pertinent, nor will the answers be consistent. Forcing modern science into the text of Genesis 1 is inappropriate, and the only result will be a distortion and confusion of the original meaning.

(If you're seeking to defeat the word "kind" and eradicate it form debate, what, exactly will you get as a reward? I don't get the motivation here.)