Comments
1 - 20 of 59 Comments Last updated Jul 10, 2013
First Prev
of 3
Next Last
CH2O2

Lisbon, Portugal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jul 8, 2013
 
So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good (Genesis 1:21).
Most creationist agree the Bible allows variation within plants and animals, often called microevolution. Scripture, however, limits the amount of variation to within each kind. So, the great conflict between creationists and evolutionists is the notion of variation from one kind to another kind, also refered to as macroevolution.
Understanding what the word "kind" means is fundamental if we wish to discuss the possibility of variation from one kind to another kind. This is when a clear definition of kind is fundamental. It is useless to discuss the possibility of variation from one kind to another, if we do not understand what a kind is.
What is a kind? What taxa does a kind include? What would be the best definition of kind?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jul 8, 2013
 
CH2O2 wrote:
So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good (Genesis 1:21).
Most creationist agree the Bible allows variation within plants and animals, often called microevolution. Scripture, however, limits the amount of variation to within each kind. So, the great conflict between creationists and evolutionists is the notion of variation from one kind to another kind, also refered to as macroevolution.
Understanding what the word "kind" means is fundamental if we wish to discuss the possibility of variation from one kind to another kind. This is when a clear definition of kind is fundamental. It is useless to discuss the possibility of variation from one kind to another, if we do not understand what a kind is.
What is a kind? What taxa does a kind include? What would be the best definition of kind?
OK lets take that to some specifics. Mammals and Reptiles must be different Kinds by any measure.

Yet we have the evolutionary transitions in the fossil record showing how one reptile group became mammals. One of the biggest and most amazing transformations is how the bones of a reptile jaw ended up in the ear of mammals, a legacy that all modern mammals share. We have the fossils of stages of the change.

Similarly, we have now a large selection of fossils showing the line between dinosaurs and birds is fuzzy. Dinos with feathers, birds with teeth. Creatures with flight wings and still with tails and teeth and claws sticking out of their wings.

Going back further, we see in the fossil record the transitions from amphibian to reptile and even further the transition from fish to amphibian.

So what is a KIND? Are all vertebrates a KIND? No, evolution answers the question better than Genesis can
CH2O2

Lisbon, Portugal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jul 8, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK lets take that to some specifics. Mammals and Reptiles must be different Kinds by any measure.
OK. So mammals and reptiles are different kinds. But that is still a incomplete definition of kind.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet we have the evolutionary transitions in the fossil record showing how one reptile group became mammals. One of the biggest and most amazing transformations is how the bones of a reptile jaw ended up in the ear of mammals, a legacy that all modern mammals share. We have the fossils of stages of the change.
Similarly, we have now a large selection of fossils showing the line between dinosaurs and birds is fuzzy. Dinos with feathers, birds with teeth. Creatures with flight wings and still with tails and teeth and claws sticking out of their wings.
Going back further, we see in the fossil record the transitions from amphibian to reptile and even further the transition from fish to amphibian.
Like I said in the opening comment, I wish to establish a clear definition of kind before any sort of discussion about evolution.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So what is a KIND? Are all vertebrates a KIND? No, evolution answers the question better than Genesis can
I find it premature to make such a conclusion. If we have not yet established what a kind is, how can we be sure it is worse than another explanation?

My question remains. What is a kind?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jul 8, 2013
 
Since evolutionary scientists don't believe in "kinds" you are going to come up with a working definition of one. It is not up to us to do your work for you.

If you are going to claim that evolution is impossible "across kinds" then you will have to have a very very general description of "kind".

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jul 8, 2013
 
CH2O2 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK. So mammals and reptiles are different kinds. But that is still a incomplete definition of kind.
<quoted text>
Like I said in the opening comment, I wish to establish a clear definition of kind before any sort of discussion about evolution.
<quoted text>
I find it premature to make such a conclusion. If we have not yet established what a kind is, how can we be sure it is worse than another explanation?
My question remains. What is a kind?
Actually, with my previous post, the whole idea of "Kind" was blown apart.

Sorry you didn't notice.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jul 8, 2013
 
CH2O2 wrote:
So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good (Genesis 1:21).
Most creationist agree the Bible allows variation within plants and animals, often called microevolution. Scripture, however, limits the amount of variation to within each kind. So, the great conflict between creationists and evolutionists is the notion of variation from one kind to another kind, also refered to as macroevolution.
Understanding what the word "kind" means is fundamental if we wish to discuss the possibility of variation from one kind to another kind. This is when a clear definition of kind is fundamental. It is useless to discuss the possibility of variation from one kind to another, if we do not understand what a kind is.
What is a kind? What taxa does a kind include? What would be the best definition of kind?
This is very simple.

There are two "kinds".
Animate and inanimate.
CH2O2

Lisbon, Portugal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jul 8, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
Since evolutionary scientists don't believe in "kinds" you are going to come up with a working definition of one.
I believe you wanted to say "...you are [not] going to come up with a working definition..."
From what I believe you ment to say, I get the impression you feel only evolutionary scientists are alowed to talk. If that were the case the evolution/creation discussion would not exist in the first place. The word kind is not used by evolutionary scientists, yes, but it is used nonetheless. That being the case, it is essential to define it.
Subduction Zone wrote:
It is not up to us to do your work for you.
"...up to us..."? Who is "us"? Why are you excluding me from your "us"?

"...do your work for you." My work? Is this not a discussion forum where people are supposed to make questions and share ideas? Why all this hostility towards me, when all I did was ask a question in the one place where questions are ment to be asked? I'm not forcing you to give me the answers, you are free to leave the topic. But if you do stay, please, try to contribute to the discussion in a positive way.
Subduction Zone wrote:

If you are going to claim that evolution is impossible "across kinds"...[QUOTE]

Why do you assume I'm going to do that?

[QUOTE who="Subduction Zone"]
...then you will have to have a very very general description of "kind".
I have absolutely no description of kind. That is exactly why I opened this topic. If I had the answer it would be pointless to ask the question.
CH2O2

Lisbon, Portugal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jul 8, 2013
 
I must make a correction.

I was mistaken when I said,

I believe you wanted to say "...you are [not] going to come up with a working definition..."
From what I believe you ment to say, I get the impression you feel only evolutionary scientists are alowed to talk. If that were the case the evolution/creation discussion would not exist in the first place.

I now understand what you said. I apologize for my mistake and I remove everything I said in the paragraph above. I maintain everything after that.
CH2O2

Lisbon, Portugal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jul 8, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, with my previous post, the whole idea of "Kind" was blown apart.
Sorry you didn't notice.
I do not see why that would be the case. The transition examples you gave indicate that a kind would not be at the lower taxa but, in my opinion, your post does not "blow apart" the idea of kind.
CH2O2

Lisbon, Portugal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jul 8, 2013
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
This is very simple.
There are two "kinds".
Animate and inanimate.
If kind Animate includes all life, that would probably eliminate any conflit between creationists and evolutionists. But I get the feeling creationists would not accept this definition.
Any creationist out there wish to contribute to the discussion?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jul 8, 2013
 
CH2O2 wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe you wanted to say "...you are [not] going to come up with a working definition..."
From what I believe you ment to say, I get the impression you feel only evolutionary scientists are alowed to talk. If that were the case the evolution/creation discussion would not exist in the first place. The word kind is not used by evolutionary scientists, yes, but it is used nonetheless. That being the case, it is essential to define it.
<quoted text>
"...up to us..."? Who is "us"? Why are you excluding me from your "us"?
"...do your work for you." My work? Is this not a discussion forum where people are supposed to make questions and share ideas? Why all this hostility towards me, when all I did was ask a question in the one place where questions are ment to be asked? I'm not forcing you to give me the answers, you are free to leave the topic. But if you do stay, please, try to contribute to the discussion in a positive way.
<quoted text>
I have absolutely no description of kind. That is exactly why I opened this topic. If I had the answer it would be pointless to ask the question.
No, you totally misunderstood me. I did drop a word.

I meant to say "You are going to have to come up with a definition of 'kind'." Evolutionary scientists don't believe in "kinds" so they are not going to even bother defining it.

If you went to use "kind" to mean all terrestrial life I think evolutionists would be fine with that. Creationists of course would not.

I am not saying that creationists cannot speak. I am merely pointing out the fact that they have failed every time they have tried to define kinds in the past.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jul 8, 2013
 
CH2O2 wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe you wanted to say "...you are [not] going to come up with a working definition..."
From what I believe you ment to say, I get the impression you feel only evolutionary scientists are alowed to talk. If that were the case the evolution/creation discussion would not exist in the first place. The word kind is not used by evolutionary scientists, yes, but it is used nonetheless. That being the case, it is essential to define it.
You are missing several VERY KEY points.

First, there is NO discussion about evolution vs Creationism for the same reason that there is NO discussion between the people who study gravity and the people who believe that invisible weefolk tie everything down with string.

One group does not need to discuss something with the other group because one group is 100% right and the other group is talking about fairy tales.

Second, "kind" is a word. Like many words in the Bible, it's absolutely fabricated and has NO specific meaning whatsoever. YOU may define it any way you like, however you will never form a consensus among CREATIONISTS let along among the rest of the world. As such, any definition you choose is USELESS outside of _YOUR_ opinion.

Creationists don't have a working model. They are not in agreement with EACH OTHER on the TERMS they are using, much less on the "facts" they supposedly accept.

The RANGE of possible dates from one Creationist to another is between "the Earth is exactly 6000 years old" and "the Earth is billions of years old".

With that sort of variability, what the F difference does it make what YOU think a kind is?
"...up to us..."? Who is "us"? Why are you excluding me from your "us"?
"...do your work for you." My work? Is this not a discussion forum where people are supposed to make questions and share ideas?
"Us" in this case would be educated people. You are not a member of us for obvious reasons.

And yes, YOU are asking for a definition of kind. That is YOUR work.
I have absolutely no description of kind. That is exactly why I opened this topic. If I had the answer it would be pointless to ask the question.
Not having an answer is equally pointless.

It's a completely imaginary term.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jul 8, 2013
 
CH2O2 wrote:
<quoted text>
If kind Animate includes all life, that would probably eliminate any conflit between creationists and evolutionists. But I get the feeling creationists would not accept this definition.
Any creationist out there wish to contribute to the discussion?
There is no conflict between Creationists and evolution in the same way there is no conflict between alligators and physicists.

One group knows what they are talking about. The other group isn't capable of participating in the discussion in any meaningful way.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jul 9, 2013
 
CH2O2 wrote:
So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good (Genesis 1:21).
Most creationist agree the Bible allows variation within plants and animals, often called microevolution. Scripture, however, limits the amount of variation to within each kind. So, the great conflict between creationists and evolutionists is the notion of variation from one kind to another kind, also refered to as macroevolution.
Understanding what the word "kind" means is fundamental if we wish to discuss the possibility of variation from one kind to another kind. This is when a clear definition of kind is fundamental. It is useless to discuss the possibility of variation from one kind to another, if we do not understand what a kind is.
What is a kind? What taxa does a kind include? What would be the best definition of kind?
To cut to the chase, "kind" is a meaningless concept. There is no "best" definition in a scientific context, there is none at all.

If you want to have any sort of meaningful conversation with anyone in a science forum (you know, like this one - the Evolution Debate Forum) you need to know enough of the science to understand the basic concepts. We can talk about such things as taxonomy, or even better cladistics, and so long as you understand what the terms mean then the discussion may well be fruitful. If you want to bring concepts from outside science and expect us to somehow shoehorn them into the discussion then you are going to be sadly disappointed. It is not up to us to do your work for you.

If you want to have meaningful discussions here, make the effort to learn a bit about the subject yourself before you begin. It is not hard, the information is not hidden and there are plenty of resources available on the Interwebz. Just avoid the fundy creationists sites and you should do fine.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jul 9, 2013
 
CH2O2 wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not see why that would be the case. The transition examples you gave indicate that a kind would not be at the lower taxa but, in my opinion, your post does not "blow apart" the idea of kind.
Creationists might argue "kind" referring to species or genera, but no higher when they are describing biblical references. They hate the idea of so called macroevolution.

But when we look far enough back in the fossil record, even different CLASSES merge together - eg mammals and reptiles, birds and dinosaurs, dinosaurs and other reptiles, reptiles and amphibia, amphibia and fish. This means that they are all one "kind", the phylum vertebrate. And if Kind refers to vertebates etc, it means that they would have to accept that lions, dolphins, humans, sardines, frogs, and pigeons all sprang from a common root. As did all insects, spiders, shrimp, etc. As did all flowering plants.

We cannot show you fossils linking the different groups below that level, as there is not a great deal of any fossil evidence more than half a billion years old...but genomic research makes it clear that they are connected. Ultimately you are connected even to the ant and the oak tree by common descent.

That is why I said it blows the idea of "kind" out of the water. Kind is meaningless unless you make it so broad that like you said, we could speak of "animate" and "inanimate" Kinds. That ain't what creationists or the Bible was talking about, for sure!
CH2O2

Lisbon, Portugal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Jul 9, 2013
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
First, there is NO discussion about evolution vs Creationism...
That is where you are wrong. The discussion is very much alive, like this forum proves. The theory of evolution is very well established but many people donīt accept it. The discussion exists even if one side is wrigh and the other side is wrong.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU may define it any way you like, however you will never form a consensus among CREATIONISTS let along among the rest of the world. As such, any definition you choose is USELESS outside of _YOUR_ opinion.
Perhaps that is the case.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
"Us" in this case would be educated people. You are not a member of us for obvious reasons.
If you are going to insult me I would prefere you did not participate in this topic. It is sad that you feel the need to attack someone you perceive to have a different opinion. If you are uncapable of having an educated conversasion please do not bother talking to me.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
And yes, YOU are asking for a definition of kind. That is YOUR work.
Such unwillingness to communicate is the cause of so much conflict in this world. If you had bothered to ask, I would have told you I fully accept the theory of evolution. I am not a creationist.
CH2O2

Lisbon, Portugal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Jul 9, 2013
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
And yes, YOU are asking for a definition of kind. That is YOUR work.
Such unwillingness to communicate is the cause of so much conflict in this world. If you had bothered to ask, I would have told you I fully accept the theory of evolution. I am not a creationist.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Jul 9, 2013
 
CH2O2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Such unwillingness to communicate is the cause of so much conflict in this world. If you had bothered to ask, I would have told you I fully accept the theory of evolution. I am not a creationist.
I wouldn't mind a dollar for every time I've heard a creationist say that here. We make our judgement based on the arguments used. Your arguments put you firmly in the creaotard camp. Meh...
CH2O2

Lisbon, Portugal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Jul 9, 2013
 
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
To cut to the chase, "kind" is a meaningless concept. There is no "best" definition in a scientific context, there is none at all.
I may be forced to accept that, if I donīt find a definition.
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want to have any sort of meaningful conversation with anyone in a science forum (you know, like this one - the Evolution Debate Forum) you need to know enough of the science to understand the basic concepts. We can talk about such things as taxonomy, or even better cladistics, and so long as you understand what the terms mean then the discussion may well be fruitful.
I agree with you, I understand the theory of evolution and I have a general knowledge of the sciences involved.
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want to bring concepts from outside science and expect us to somehow shoehorn them into the discussion then you are going to be sadly disappointed.
I am not bringing concepts from outside science, the concept of kind is already out there. All I want is to comprehend it. The fact remains that creationists do use the word kind. I wish to establish a correlation between the word kind and the terminology of science. That may prove to be impossible but I can try.
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not up to us to do your work for you.
You seem to be under the impression that I am a creationist. I am not!
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want to have meaningful discussions here, make the effort to learn a bit about the subject yourself before you begin.
The subject of this topic is the word kind. And yes, I am making an effort to learn about the subject.
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not hard, the information is not hidden and there are plenty of resources available on the Interwebz. Just avoid the fundy creationists sites and you should do fine.
This forum is one of the resources available on the internet (like you suggest) but you seem to dislike that I am using it to learn about the subject. I find that odd.
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Jul 9, 2013
 
Most evolutionist do not think purpose has anything to do with why there is variety,sort,form and class in nature, but things have always been of their own kind from the beginning.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••