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?

[The Me's]

[Replying to post 100 by DanieltheDragon]

Your post is nothing more than anti-religious bigotry.

No one with adult-level education would make the claim that the Bible is fiction in light of the last 300 years of archaeology.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 120 by The Me's]

I fail to see how my post is as you claim. It is against certain aspects of the bible being literal accounts.

Furthermore personal attacks on this site are not tolerated this is not the first time you have insulted my intelligence. Other comments may have been a bit indirect but now you are just directly insulting me.

Address the points in my post stop with your insults.

[The Me's]

[Replying to post 120 by The Me's]

I fail to see how my post is as you claim. It is against certain aspects of the bible being literal accounts.

Furthermore personal attacks on this site are not tolerated this is not the first time you have insulted my intelligence. Other comments may have been a bit indirect but now you are just directly insulting me.

Address the points in my post stop with your insults.

If insulting and ridiculing the Bible is your only skill, don't whine when someone tells you your post is bigoted and lacks indication of any adult level education.

I'll demonstrate using your post:

The bible is a work of fiction should I take the events of the Iliad and Odyssey as true to?

Star wars says in its opening

"A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...."

It's a lie to call the Bible fiction; lying about what the Bible is insults the people who belong to Bible-based religions.

Your post is condescending, as well, and I'm sure that it was designed to be so.

The reason I mentioned your education level is because your ignorance of the last 300 years of archaeology is striking. There have been so many discoveries made that no one with any level of interest could have made the post you made.

You're welcome to have an opinion of the Bible, any opinion you want.

But when you make posts like this, don't whine when someone calls you on it. Take it like a man and learn what you're missing.

I for one will never tolerate bigotry of any kind. So even if you don't understand the topic, you can endeavor to restrict your comments to neutral or positive and avoid direct personal attacks.

[Nickman]

[Replying to post 122 by The Me's]

Saying that the Bible is fiction is an opinion and does not insult a specific person, or any for that matter. It is the same as saying that Mother Goose is fiction. You have not been insulted in anyway.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 122:

The Me's responds to another poster...

If insulting and ridiculing the Bible is your only skill, don't whine when someone tells you your post is bigoted and lacks indication of any adult level education.

Yet here we have a book that insults those who disagree, calling them "fools" and various other slanders.

It's a lie to call the Bible fiction...

Just as it's a lie to say dead folks hop up and stroll about after three days.

Would that you'd hold yourself to your own standards.

lying about what the Bible is insults the people who belong to Bible-based religions.

Yet the Bible lies about non-believers.

The reason I mentioned your education level is because your ignorance of the last 300 years of archaeology is striking.

Please then, show us where in the last 300 years they've found people hoping up after being dead for three days.

...
But when you make posts like this, don't whine when someone calls you on it. Take it like a man and learn what you're missing.

If only we could get you to follow your own advice.

I for one will never tolerate bigotry of any kind.

As you promote a book so full of it.

So even if you don't understand the topic, you can endeavor to restrict your comments to neutral or positive and avoid direct personal attacks.

I don't at all doubt the Christian prefers only positive or neutral comments regarding their book that's so chock full of negative comments regarding anyone who rejects tales told by ancient goat wranglers.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 122 by The Me's]

How is it a lie to call the bible a work of fiction?

lie: is a false statement to a person or group made by another person or group who knows it is not the whole truth, intentionally.

If I am of the opinion gods do not exist. And to the best of my knowledge gods do not exist calling the bible a work of fiction is not a lie.

To maintain your assertion that I am lying you have to prove I believe in the biblical god.

I have a Bachelors Degree just to let you know. So by the standards provided I have completed an adult level of education yet I still maintain that the bible is a work of fiction proving your claim "No one with adult-level education would make the claim that the Bible is fiction" is completely false.

Stop using personal attacks and ad hominems to debate. I brought up a viable point. How do I discern that the bible is not a work of fiction when it includes various fictional elements to it like dragons, witches, reanimated corpses etc. You insist that the bible is not fictional so you have to prove to me that dragons witches and reanimated corpses exist. By comparing the bible to other works of fiction that claim to be true I am pointing out that a work of literature while fictional can claim to be true. The claim does not make it true.

How is my post condescending

con·de·scend·ing
ˌkändəˈsendiNG/Submit
adjective
1.
having or showing a feeling of patronizing superiority.

Did I claim to be superior to you in that post? I simply made a comparison of the bible to other works of fiction to show you that just because a piece of literature claims to be true does not make it so.

At the end I asked you to show me why it is not a work of fiction.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 124 by JoeyKnothead]

I don't see how it is negative to call the bible a work of fiction. If I am of the opinion god is not real it would be classified by me as a work of fiction. Even if I believed in god I could still say there are fictional elements in the bible and take a non-literalist approach.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 126:

I don't see how it is negative to call the bible a work of fiction.

Best I can tell, it upsets those who've invested a lot of emotional energy on thinking it non-fiction.

If I am of the opinion god is not real it would be classified by me as a work of fiction. Even if I believed in god I could still say there are fictional elements in the bible and take a non-literalist approach.

Exactly.

Seems some Christians consider it highly inflammatory to discount the Bible, even as the Bible discounts those who reject it as anything beyond a work of fiction.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 116 by Haven]

Let's see... sort of picking and choosing here...

So far 116 posts and not one creationist has provided a coherent, scientifically valid definition of "kind" (Volbrigade said 'common descent,' but this would place all living things into one "kind," which sort of defeats the purpose of the word).

Your patriotism toward your simplistic belief system, coupled with a bias against any information that runs counter to it, is clouding your apprehension.

It's possible I may not have adequately explained the concept of what is referred to by the term "kind", in my initial post on this thread.

It's also possible that there is no explanation that will penetrate the invincible ignorance within which a strict adherence to Evolutionism must be mentally walled.

You also have to explain how the flood managed to percipate the various layers the way they did. Can you show that the fossil layers were caused by a flood?

Not by "A flood". By "THE Flood". And no, I can't. But there are many PhD scientists who can, by providing explanations and interpretations of the existing evidence and data -- the same evidence and data available to everyone -- that is far beyond plausible, and into the realm of "convincing".

Can you also define what a biblical KIND is?

Yes. In fact, I already have. I may even amplify my explanation, if someone were to ask me very, very nicely.

BTW. How can two layers from the 'Flood' sandwich a layer that is from compressed sand in a desert, as happened in the grand canon. Can you explain that to me?

Again -- I can't. But if such a phenomena is true, then there is an explanation that fits in with the Flood, which is also true. And remember: truth is exclusive of all non-truth (that's just a bonus statement -- no extra charge).

Can you explain to me how a layer of sand would accrete over millions of years, in between between two other sedimentary layers, which themselves (we are told) accreted slowly and gradually over millions of years, in the midst of multiple layers; each one featuring the fossilized remains of creatures that we are asked to believe died; and were preserved unscavanged and undisturbed while their remains were slowly and gradually mineralized, molecule by molecule, over great amounts of time?

Can you further explain why there is no evidence of erosion between these gradually deposited layers? Or how they can undulate without cracking? Or how, e.g., a fossilized tree trunk can transverse several sedimentary strata simultaneously? Was it standing in place, gradually fossilizing for untold millions of years, while the various strata were accreting around it?

To Me's: you're doing fine work here, my friend. When they start complaining about being insulted, and how mean you are -- you know you've struck a nerve...

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 128 by Volbrigade]

I am asking nicely for a more specific definition of kind if you have the acumen to deliver it.

Again my position is not against using kinds but for using words in the proper context. I would be curious to know exactly what constitutes a kind so I can understand what a person is referring to when they use the word kind.

For example if I were to say a foxes belong to the family of canidae you would know I refer to animals that have the following characteristics

digitigrade
nonretractile claws
dew claws on the front feet
Baculum
have a ligament analogous to the nuchal ligament of ungulates used to maintain the posture of the head and neck with little active muscle exertion


So I know other canidae probably have these features.

Now since I am unaware of what kinds refer to if someone were to tell me

Foxes are a kind would dogs wolves etc be including in that kind or are they in their own separate kind.



___________________________________________

on the subject of me's its not the content of his argument I find offensive in fact at one point we even shared agreement. It is the fact that he called me a bigot and a liar. That is insulting I would not encourage anyone on this forum to call you a bigot or a liar so why are you encouraging him?