What is a kind?
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#42 Jul 9, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Define kinds as differing variety and then we can agree that there have always been seperate sorts from the beginning.
Uh-huh. "Separate sorts" is such a vast improvement over "kinds".

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#43 Jul 9, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no idea who LGK is. It would be so much more productive if you focused on the topic insted of searching for inexistent hidden agendas. I came here with a legitimate question but insted i seem to be getting a lot of hostility. Why?
I'm sure you see it as a legitimate question but you need to understand two things:

'Kind'(AKA Baraminology) is a purely creationist invention. Tying to define it as a legitimate scientific classification is a non-starter.

We get this 'question' all the time. So any hostility is not directed against you alone but the hundreds that have come before you with the same bogus pseudoscience.

So if you want to talk science, carry on. But if you're pushing creationism, expect strong resistance.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#44 Jul 9, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
You are quoting nme out of context.
No I was not, since the rest of the context was utterly irrelevant to my point. Since this is a science forum the moment you mentioned religion the whole subject became superfluous.
CH2O2 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I have not.
<quoted text>
I know that.
<quoted text>
No, I do not want the religion forum. You are mistaken.
Since science has very little to say about theology the best place to get a definition of the term "created kinds" would be the rubes who invented it. We don't know what the fundies mean, because even the fundies don't know what they mean, therefore we cannot provide an answer, other than the fact that the term is scientifically irrelevant. Therefore all that is left is religious meaning, and that is something you need to get from those who care about such things.

In short, bringing it here was a waste of time.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#45 Jul 9, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Let him talk Dudey.
But we still don't care, Mikey.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#46 Jul 9, 2013
Gillette wrote:
LGK = CH202?
..the suspiciously variable server location....
Nah, not LGK's style.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#47 Jul 9, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it is a silly thing to say. But it was you who said it, not me. Biological variety is within the realm of life, please note i did not use the term biological variety, you did. If you understand abiogenesis you will agree that variety (or variability) was necessary.
Fair do's.
CH2O2 wrote:
Abiogenesis was before life. Thus, i am correct and you just made a silly comment.
Abiogenesis was at life. Pre-abiogenesis was before life, abio is the process of life developing from non-life (although technically the term "life" is arbitrary anyway and turns out not to necessarily be an easy thing to define).

Level 2

Since: Jul 13

Funchal, Portugal

#48 Jul 9, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) Your location keeps flipping around and you have it disguised to begin with.
My location changes depending if I am on my PC or my phone. I do not know how to prevent that. About the lacation being disguised I have no idea what that means. Btw, I've just registered an account.
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
2.) Those of us who have been on this board for YEARS know that there are a half dozen or so specific religious types who keep showing up again and again, and one of those types is the serious poster who pretends not to be a creationist at first, until it comes out eventually that he does, indeed have an agenda. So people's antennae are up.
I am a firm believer in innocent until proven guilty. Please don't blame me for the faults of others.
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
3.) We're bored, as there are few Christian Punching Bags du Jour around at the moment.:)
To be honnest I don't really like that kind of behaviour. and I like it even less when it is applied to me.
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
I think it's an interesting question -- how exactly do they want to define "kinds," and then making them try to stick to that definition in the light of actual facts and knowledge science has accumulated.
I would be happy with that.
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
I think people are suspicious because you seem to be asking the science folks to define kinds...
I'm not asking the science folks. I'm asking in a open forum, to whomever wants to answer. I'm not forcing anyone to participate, but to those who choose to participate I would only ask to do so in a polite and friendly way.
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
...or even take the term seriously.
I do take the term seriously. I have encountered the term time and time again. We will never have a positive discussion if this term lacks a proper definition. Only by defining it and sticking to the definition can we have a serious discussion. Yes, I believe there are some serious criationists out there, and, as I have just discovered, some bored agressive science folks too.
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
I have invited the poster named "LGK" -- who you are not -- to come over here and define/defend kinds. We'll see if the delicate little lamb comes to the slaughter (if he isn't already here).:)
I hope he does come. Not to be slaughtered but to have a honnest discussion without unecessary hostility.

Level 2

Since: Jul 13

Funchal, Portugal

#49 Jul 9, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure you see it as a legitimate question but you need to understand two things:
'Kind'(AKA Baraminology) is a purely creationist invention. Tying to define it as a legitimate scientific classification is a non-starter.
If we could obtain a exact relation between kind and existing taxa that would be a legitimate definition. It it impossible to obtain? Maybe, I don't know. I'm willing to try.
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
We get this 'question' all the time. So any hostility is not directed against you alone but the hundreds that have come before you with the same bogus pseudoscience.
I can't be responsible by other peoples behaviour.
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
So if you want to talk science, carry on. But if you're pushing creationism, expect strong resistance.
I do want to talk science. Imagine the breakthrough it would constitute to have a generaly accept definition of kind. Imagine how communication would improve. And by the way, I do expect resistance to creationist ideas. I would be the first to resist.

Level 2

Since: Jul 13

Funchal, Portugal

#50 Jul 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
No I was not, since the rest of the context was utterly irrelevant to my point. Since this is a science forum the moment you mentioned religion the whole subject became superfluous.
Since science has very little to say about theology the best place to get a definition of the term "created kinds" would be the rubes who invented it. We don't know what the fundies mean, because even the fundies don't know what they mean, therefore we cannot provide an answer, other than the fact that the term is scientifically irrelevant. Therefore all that is left is religious meaning, and that is something you need to get from those who care about such things.

In short, bringing it here was a waste of time.
If it is a waste of time for you, please stop posting in this topic. Thank you.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#51 Jul 9, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
<quoted text>
If it is a waste of time for you, please stop posting in this topic. Thank you.
I suggest you drop this prissy, behavior-controlling BS right away. It's a waste of typing energy.

I can assure you that NO ONE is going away on your say so and no one will stop posting here, and they will all post just exactly how they want to and with just as much edginess as they want to.

Better get used to it.:)

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#52 Jul 9, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
<quoted text>
If we could obtain a exact relation between kind and existing taxa that would be a legitimate definition. It it impossible to obtain? Maybe, I don't know. I'm willing to try.
You fail to see the problem.'Kind' is simply a made up definition which has no basis in science. There is no relationship between them except in the very broadest of terms.

Biblical kinds cannot interbreed (acceptable) but have no evolutionary relationship. Do you see the problem here?
CH2O2 wrote:
I can't be responsible by other peoples behaviour.
Agreed. However if the last 100 posters supported the ideas of kinds, believes that Genesis is factual and there was a global flood and then when the 101st person shows up talking about kinds, you can understand why we look at you skeptically.
CH2O2 wrote:
I do want to talk science.
Then forget about kinds.
CH2O2 wrote:
Imagine the breakthrough it would constitute to have a generaly accept definition of kind. Imagine how communication would improve.
If you are including science in that, there is no generally accepted definition.
CH2O2 wrote:
And by the way, I do expect resistance to creationist ideas. I would be the first to resist.
Good to know. But we heard that one before as well. Time will tell.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#53 Jul 9, 2013
Let me put it as simply as I can. CH202, if you continue to take the word kind seriously we will continue to NOT take you seriously. The word kind as used by creationists is completely incompatible with a scientific approach. There is no way that it can be used in a scientific context that makes any sense. If you continue to try to expect us to take it seriously within a scientific context you will fail. Abjectly.

From my perspective if you continue along with this line of reasoning it will be because of only one thing - despite your protestations to the contrary, such behaviour will be proof that you are indeed a creationist under disguise, a disguise we have seen here plenty of times before.

Now I am prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt because of some of your actions latterly but that will evaporate the moment you again try to get us to accept the word kind as anything but non-scientific creationist BS with no place in a discussion about actual real science.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#54 Jul 9, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
<quoted text>
My location changes depending if I am on my PC or my phone. I do not know how to prevent that. About the lacation being disguised I have no idea what that means. Btw, I've just registered an account.
<quoted text>
I am a firm believer in innocent until proven guilty. Please don't blame me for the faults of others.
<quoted text>
To be honnest I don't really like that kind of behaviour. and I like it even less when it is applied to me.
<quoted text> I would be happy with that.
<quoted text>
I'm not asking the science folks. I'm asking in a open forum, to whomever wants to answer. I'm not forcing anyone to participate, but to those who choose to participate I would only ask to do so in a polite and friendly way.
<quoted text>
I do take the term seriously. I have encountered the term time and time again. We will never have a positive discussion if this term lacks a proper definition. Only by defining it and sticking to the definition can we have a serious discussion. Yes, I believe there are some serious criationists out there, and, as I have just discovered, some bored agressive science folks too.
<quoted text>
I hope he does come. Not to be slaughtered but to have a honnest discussion without unecessary hostility.
I don't mean to sound unkind, but look at the kind of response this kind of question and approach kind of foments. You won't find the kind of answer you kind of expected perhaps, but you sure get a lot of the same kind of answer. Now kind as you have been told and it is not any kind of science term. Now you may ask, what kind of response is this. It is a kind of kind response to your curiosity about kind. You have largely gotten one kind of response or over 40 kinds of response. Since their is no scientific definition, we can't know for sure.

With kind regards
DFS
CH2O2

CÚsar, Portugal

#55 Jul 9, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I don't mean to sound unkind, but look at the kind of response this kind of question and approach kind of foments. You won't find the kind of answer you kind of expected perhaps, but you sure get a lot of the same kind of answer. Now kind as you have been told and it is not any kind of science term. Now you may ask, what kind of response is this. It is a kind of kind response to your curiosity about kind. You have largely gotten one kind of response or over 40 kinds of response. Since their is no scientific definition, we can't know for sure.
With kind regards
DFS
Confusingly funny ;)

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#56 Jul 10, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I don't mean to sound unkind, but look at the kind of response this kind of question and approach kind of foments. You won't find the kind of answer you kind of expected perhaps, but you sure get a lot of the same kind of answer. Now kind as you have been told and it is not any kind of science term. Now you may ask, what kind of response is this. It is a kind of kind response to your curiosity about kind. You have largely gotten one kind of response or over 40 kinds of response. Since their is no scientific definition, we can't know for sure.
With kind regards
DFS
That was very kind of you, Dan.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#57 Jul 10, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
That was very kind of you, Dan.
Thank you. I was taught to be kind to this kind of post when that kind of response was the kind that might be seen as unkind.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#58 Jul 10, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
My location changes depending if I am on my PC or my phone.
I do not know how to prevent that.
My location also changes depending on the computer.

They still tend to be in the same country though.
CH2O2 wrote:
I do take the term seriously. I have encountered the term time and time again. We will never have a positive discussion if this term lacks a proper definition. Only by defining it and sticking to the definition can we have a serious discussion.
Since it requires creationists to be serious I suggest your goal would be akin to chasing your tail.
CH2O2 wrote:
I hope he does come. Not to be slaughtered but to have a honnest discussion without unecessary hostility.
1 - LGK is incapable of an honest discussion.

2 - LGK has been slaughtered so many times he actually convinced me that resurrection was possible.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#59 Jul 10, 2013
CH2O2 wrote:
<quoted text>
If it is a waste of time for you, please stop posting in this topic. Thank you.
I'll stop posting to this topic when you start posting to the correct forums. And do remember these are public forums.

Your welcome.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#60 Jul 10, 2013
CH202 wrote:
I do want to talk science.
MikeF wrote:
Then forget about kinds.
Nail.

Hammmer.

Head.

Bullseye.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 10 min Dogen 162,433
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 19 min Ben Avraham 76,859
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) 20 min yehoshooah adam 4,294
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 26 min Al Caplan 692
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 28 min Dogen 221,771
News Intelligent Design Action Network Meeting 2 hr The FACTory 1
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 8 hr The FACTory 425
More from around the web