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?
Creationists: give a coherent definition of "kind"
Moderator: Moderators
- Haven
- Guru
- Posts: 1803
- Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:23 pm
- Location: Tremonton, Utah
- Has thanked: 70 times
- Been thanked: 52 times
- Contact:
Creationists: give a coherent definition of "kind"
Post #1
Last edited by Haven on Tue Feb 18, 2014 7:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
♥ Haven (she/her) ♥
♥ Kindness is the greatest adventure ♥
♥ Kindness is the greatest adventure ♥
-
- Banned
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:54 pm
Post #131
[Replying to post 129 by DanieltheDragon]
Okay. I think I see the source of your confusion.
You are asking for a definition of a Biblical "kind" -- which no longer exists, and which you can't see -- that compares with the definition of canidae, which is extant, and which you CAN see.
Since you asked nicely ( ), I'l try and elaborate.
In thinking of "kinds", you have to discard the ingrained indoctrination that says animals "evolved" from simpler ancestors -- ultimately, according to the theory, to common descent from a randomly assembled single-celled organism (as Haven ponts out).
That is bunk.
It is popularly held bunk -- but bunk nontheless. Some secular scientists are alarmed at the way our advancing understanding of the complexity of the cell, and the impossibility of the information contained in the genetic code advancing from instructions for amoebas to instructions for men, are dismantling this quaint but persistent 19th-century notion.
The Bible says that God created the beasts, in all of their pre-Fall, pre-Flood variety, on a single day.
And these beasts, like the vegetation He also created, reproduced according to their KIND. So, the bovine "kind" produced more bovine; the canine "kind" produced canines, etc. Bovines and canines could not reproduce together; nor bovine and bananas (even though they share a considerable amount of DNA, since they have the same Designer).
Are we together so far?
Now the key is: those original "kinds" contained much more diversity in their genetic code than their descendants. So that from the original canine "kind" on the Ark, it was possible through natural selection to specialize the traits that made wolves different from coyotes, and coyotes different from dingos.
The process is also irreversible. Once information is "selected out", it will not spontaneously reappear. You cannot get the canine "kind" from a pair of domestic dogs; but if you can make them more "wolf-like", by repeatedly breeding wolves with your Golden Retriever, and the descendants of that union.
Does that help?
Btw -- there was only one human "kind" on the Ark, as well. And from those 8 people sprang the variety of humans on the planet; with, for instance, natural selection playing an obvious role in selecting for melanin content in differing environments.
Since the Flood was only 200 or so generations ago, that means that every person on earth is a virtual "kissing cousin" with every other person.
So, uh... howdy, cuz...
Okay. I think I see the source of your confusion.
You are asking for a definition of a Biblical "kind" -- which no longer exists, and which you can't see -- that compares with the definition of canidae, which is extant, and which you CAN see.
Since you asked nicely ( ), I'l try and elaborate.
In thinking of "kinds", you have to discard the ingrained indoctrination that says animals "evolved" from simpler ancestors -- ultimately, according to the theory, to common descent from a randomly assembled single-celled organism (as Haven ponts out).
That is bunk.
It is popularly held bunk -- but bunk nontheless. Some secular scientists are alarmed at the way our advancing understanding of the complexity of the cell, and the impossibility of the information contained in the genetic code advancing from instructions for amoebas to instructions for men, are dismantling this quaint but persistent 19th-century notion.
The Bible says that God created the beasts, in all of their pre-Fall, pre-Flood variety, on a single day.
And these beasts, like the vegetation He also created, reproduced according to their KIND. So, the bovine "kind" produced more bovine; the canine "kind" produced canines, etc. Bovines and canines could not reproduce together; nor bovine and bananas (even though they share a considerable amount of DNA, since they have the same Designer).
Are we together so far?
Now the key is: those original "kinds" contained much more diversity in their genetic code than their descendants. So that from the original canine "kind" on the Ark, it was possible through natural selection to specialize the traits that made wolves different from coyotes, and coyotes different from dingos.
The process is also irreversible. Once information is "selected out", it will not spontaneously reappear. You cannot get the canine "kind" from a pair of domestic dogs; but if you can make them more "wolf-like", by repeatedly breeding wolves with your Golden Retriever, and the descendants of that union.
Does that help?
Btw -- there was only one human "kind" on the Ark, as well. And from those 8 people sprang the variety of humans on the planet; with, for instance, natural selection playing an obvious role in selecting for melanin content in differing environments.
Since the Flood was only 200 or so generations ago, that means that every person on earth is a virtual "kissing cousin" with every other person.
So, uh... howdy, cuz...
-
- Savant
- Posts: 6224
- Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
- Location: Charlotte
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #132
[Replying to post 130 by Volbrigade]
Ok well that makes sense.
I guess my question to all that is the term still useful in describing zoology biology etc?
In other words when talking about the Flood myth kind has a use when referring to biblical events. Now if I am having a conversation about dogs wolves etc. using kinds seems not to be as descriptive so using canidae would be more suitable in the context of that conversation right? since it is more specific and I can make comparisons using that word while if I used kind I can make no specific comparisons.
Like I said before kind has its uses and purposes but it is not universally useful. Just like if I ask what phylums were on the ark that would not be very useful right?
Ok well that makes sense.
I guess my question to all that is the term still useful in describing zoology biology etc?
In other words when talking about the Flood myth kind has a use when referring to biblical events. Now if I am having a conversation about dogs wolves etc. using kinds seems not to be as descriptive so using canidae would be more suitable in the context of that conversation right? since it is more specific and I can make comparisons using that word while if I used kind I can make no specific comparisons.
Like I said before kind has its uses and purposes but it is not universally useful. Just like if I ask what phylums were on the ark that would not be very useful right?
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #133
Volbrigade wrote:
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".
)
Please show that there are "many PH.D scientists who can show that it is 'beyond pausible' and into the realm of convincing. Show that these 'PH.D' scientists are qualified in the proper field (in other words, they aren't electrical engineers or computer scientists, but have the knowledge geology needed).
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
- Haven
- Guru
- Posts: 1803
- Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:23 pm
- Location: Tremonton, Utah
- Has thanked: 70 times
- Been thanked: 52 times
- Contact:
Post #134
(emphasis mine)[color=indigo]Volbrigade[/color] wrote: In thinking of "kinds", you have to discard the ingrained indoctrination that says animals "evolved" from simpler ancestors -- ultimately, according to the theory, to common descent from a randomly assembled single-celled organism (as Haven ponts out).
I didn't point out that all life descends from a "randomly assembled single-celled organism." What I said was that all life on Earth descends from a common ancestor, which formed through the (non-random!) process of abiogenesis and was likely much simpler than today's single-celled organisms.
This is pure propaganda. Not only is this completely false, but it is actually slanderous against scientists who work in the fields of genetics, evolutionary biology, and related disciplines. It's dishonest to make totally unevidenced and patently false statements like these.[color=violet]Volbrigade[/color] wrote:It is popularly held bunk -- but bunk nontheless. Some secular scientists are alarmed at the way our advancing understanding of the complexity of the cell, and the impossibility of the information contained in the genetic code advancing from instructions for amoebas to instructions for men, are dismantling this quaint but persistent 19th-century notion.
You still haven't defined what a "kind" is. You've simply re-stated what the Bible says, but that doesn't get us anywhere. What, exactly, does the Bible mean by "kind?" Are bovines and bison the same "kind?" South American and Carolina parakeets? Humans and chimpanzees?[color=red]Volbrigade[/color] wrote:The Bible says that God created the beasts, in all of their pre-Fall, pre-Flood variety, on a single day.
And these beasts, like the vegetation He also created, reproduced according to their KIND. So, the bovine "kind" produced more bovine; the canine "kind" produced canines, etc.
This is an ad hoc, off-the-cuff, utterly unevidenced assertion to "explain away" the markers in DNA that clearly point to common descent. I could just as easily blithely assert that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the double helix to remind us of His Noodliness, and that would have as much merit as your unevidenced (and unfalsifiable) blind assertion.[color=darkblue]Volbrigade[/color] wrote:Bovines and canines could not reproduce together; nor bovine and bananas (even though they share a considerable amount of DNA, since they have the same Designer).
Where is the evidence for any of this?[color=blue]Volbrigade[/color] wrote:Now the key is: those original "kinds" contained much more diversity in their genetic code than their descendants. So that from the original canine "kind" on the Ark, it was possible through natural selection to specialize the traits that made wolves different from coyotes, and coyotes different from dingos.
Oh yeah, like Noah's Ark, it doesn't exist.
Got evidence?[color=green]Volbrigade[/color] wrote:The process is also irreversible. Once information is "selected out", it will not spontaneously reappear. You cannot get the canine "kind" from a pair of domestic dogs; but if you can make them more "wolf-like", by repeatedly breeding wolves with your Golden Retriever, and the descendants of that union.
Not when the amount of evidence you've presented is equal to the amount of snow currently covering the Amazon rainforest.[color=brown]Volbrigade[/color] wrote:Does that help?
This is actually impossible because there would not be enough genetic diversity for all people to descend from just eight people. It didn't happen.[color=red]Volbrigade[/color] wrote:Btw -- there was only one human "kind" on the Ark, as well. And from those 8 people sprang the variety of humans on the planet; with, for instance, natural selection playing an obvious role in selecting for melanin content in differing environments.
♥ Haven (she/her) ♥
♥ Kindness is the greatest adventure ♥
♥ Kindness is the greatest adventure ♥
- Nickman
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 5443
- Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Idaho
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #135
[Replying to post 130 by Volbrigade]
If the bovine kind and the canine kind created more bovine and canine kind, yet the newer bovine and canine kinds were different, you have again proven evolution. They are still bovine, and canine but different. Why would a bovine or canine kind be able to create anything that looks different if biological evolution is not true? Of course, if BE was wrong, you wouldn't have all the different species of bovine, and canine. You would have one. The offspring would only have small changes such as different spots, or stature. Kinds cannot explain what we observe. BE can and does.
If the bovine kind and the canine kind created more bovine and canine kind, yet the newer bovine and canine kinds were different, you have again proven evolution. They are still bovine, and canine but different. Why would a bovine or canine kind be able to create anything that looks different if biological evolution is not true? Of course, if BE was wrong, you wouldn't have all the different species of bovine, and canine. You would have one. The offspring would only have small changes such as different spots, or stature. Kinds cannot explain what we observe. BE can and does.
-
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1210
- Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2013 8:01 am
- Location: The Restaraunt at the End of the Universe
Post #136
Volbrigade wrote:
[Replying to post 108 by DanieltheDragon]
How many floods from ancient times have involved the release of the "fountains of the deep"?
3% of the earths water is subterranean. That's gonna cause a flood that covers Mt Everest..............not.
What the world needs now
Is love sweet love
It's the only thing
That there's just to little of.
No not just for some
But for everyone
Jackie Deshannon
Is love sweet love
It's the only thing
That there's just to little of.
No not just for some
But for everyone
Jackie Deshannon
Post #137
[Replying to post 135 by Joab]
3% now... are you making the claim that it has never been greater? Where do you cite this from?
3% now... are you making the claim that it has never been greater? Where do you cite this from?
-
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1210
- Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2013 8:01 am
- Location: The Restaraunt at the End of the Universe
Post #138
One who refuses to supply evidence for his claims is being quite disingenuous to demand evidence from another.Wolfbitn wrote: [Replying to post 135 by Joab]
3% now... are you making the claim that it has never been greater? Where do you cite this from?
I might supply it if you "ask nicely", was that the expression?
Not that it matters there isn't enough water on the planet to cover Mt Everest to a depth of 20 or 50 feet, whichever you want to claim.
What the world needs now
Is love sweet love
It's the only thing
That there's just to little of.
No not just for some
But for everyone
Jackie Deshannon
Is love sweet love
It's the only thing
That there's just to little of.
No not just for some
But for everyone
Jackie Deshannon
- dianaiad
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10220
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
- Location: Southern California
Post #139
Moderator CommentThe Me's wrote: [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.
uncivil generality: If you have a point to make, do it by commenting on the content of the post, only. Do not make personal comments about the poster.
Please review the Rules.
______________
Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
- dianaiad
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10220
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
- Location: Southern California
Post #140
Moderator WarningThe Me's wrote:
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.
Do not comment on the personality, education level, morality or any other personality attribute of the writer. Do not make personal comments about the writer at all. Make your points by talking about what is written.
Please review our Rules.
______________
Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.