Total Posts:155|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

'kinds'

natoast
Posts: 204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 11:16:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have seen medic talking about his idea of 'kinds' when trying to disprove evolution. According to him, kinds means "organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring." I'm not sure if this particular belief is a common one for YEC's, but it seems to capture the gist of most of them. But even if you could show that one kind never gives birth to another, I don't see how this interferes with evolution. Say some animal mutates and the change spreads throughout the local population and you have a new species. It can still breed with the original species.
This, I believe, would be following the rules. Then the same thing happened to the new species, creating species C. What if species C could still mate with B, and B with A, but not C with A? Where does that break the rule of "a kind only brings forth it's own kind"?
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 11:57:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Most YEC's (including medic) actually believe kinds to be more general than that. I believe medic prefers the Adam test. Since Adam named all the animals, if an animal is easily distinguishable from another then it is a different kind of animal. So two salamanders could be the same kind because they both look like salamanders even if they can't interbreed. However, the biblical word used for kind during creation isn't used where Adam names the animals, so I wouldn't consider it to be a valid test of the Biblical meaning of kind. In contrast, the biblical word used for kind during creation is used in the dietary laws in Leviticus, indicating that a kind is much closer to the contemporary concept of species than most creationists like to admit. A possible criticism of this interpretation of kind is that kind is used in a much more general sense in Genesis 1 than in Leviticus, although I'm not sure why you would expect Genesis to list every single species God created.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 12:52:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 11:57:15 AM, Enji wrote:
Most YEC's (including medic) actually believe kinds to be more general than that. I believe medic prefers the Adam test. Since Adam named all the animals, if an animal is easily distinguishable from another then it is a different kind of animal. So two salamanders could be the same kind because they both look like salamanders even if they can't interbreed. However, the biblical word used for kind during creation isn't used where Adam names the animals, so I wouldn't consider it to be a valid test of the Biblical meaning of kind. In contrast, the biblical word used for kind during creation is used in the dietary laws in Leviticus, indicating that a kind is much closer to the contemporary concept of species than most creationists like to admit. A possible criticism of this interpretation of kind is that kind is used in a much more general sense in Genesis 1 than in Leviticus, although I'm not sure why you would expect Genesis to list every single species God created.

Theists just keep pushing the goal post. First they said there was no evidence for evolution, then that was disproven by the fact that evolution has been observed in labs with regards to viruses and bacteria. Then they said "ya ok, but that's only microevolution within a species! We have never seen macroevolution, which is a new species at the macroscopic scale!". Then that was disproven, because new macro-species have been observed and in nature to evolve. Now they are saying "ok, macroevolution technically happens, but it's still only within kinds!".

They won't be happy until they see a bacteria give birth to an angel lol
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 3:20:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yeah, I'm really really losing patience with this whole "kinds" thing. I'm having a harder and harder time not being rude about it, because I'm starting to think it's not just foolish, but fundamentally dishonest.

The "can breed" thing is clearly fallacious because of the things they call the same "kind", and once we get into speciation, they've admitted so-called macro-evolution exists.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 3:29:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 3:20:00 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Yeah, I'm really really losing patience with this whole "kinds" thing. I'm having a harder and harder time not being rude about it, because I'm starting to think it's not just foolish, but fundamentally dishonest.


The "can breed" thing is clearly fallacious because of the things they call the same "kind", and once we get into speciation, they've admitted so-called macro-evolution exists.

Most of the objections to evolution are based on ignorance and misunderstandings. They act like somebody had to see it to claim it is true, but believe Jesus rose from the dead based off a book written by people who didn't even know the Earth revolved around the sun. They didn't have to see Jesus rise, yet they believe. However, even though we have seen evolution of new species, and evidence of human evolution within DNA and the fossil, they act like it isn't true. It's just a dishonest double standard.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 7:50:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Reading is not understanding. The Bible distinguishes kinds in Genesis to plants, fowls, sea creatures, moving creatures, cattle, creeping things, and so on. It also distinguishes that all our animals and plants are from heavinly examples. What the Bible actually says is some of those examples came to earth and mixed their seed and made different animals and humans than God did. Those genes still linger. We have no idea but a few animals, what was created actually.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 8:04:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Okay, it would be really cool if a creationist could provide a classification of kinds or provide a source to kinds so they can be studied and creationist arguments evaluated. What I want is a somewhat exhaustive list similar to taxonomic classifications.

For instance, it could be something like this:

1) Birds - all kinds of birds like Chicken, ostrich, albatross etc.

2) Fish - Sharks, goldfish, catfish.

3) Birds - Pigeons, crows, owls.

4) Humans - the one and only "kind!"

5) Apes - Chimps, gorillas, orangutans.

Basically, list all the kinds that "god" has told you exists and classify them and explicitly mark where those kinds start and end.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 8:07:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 8:04:34 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Okay, it would be really cool if a creationist could provide a classification of kinds or provide a source to kinds so they can be studied and creationist arguments evaluated. What I want is a somewhat exhaustive list similar to taxonomic classifications.

For instance, it could be something like this:

1) Birds - all kinds of birds like Chicken, ostrich, albatross etc.

2) Fish - Sharks, goldfish, catfish.

3) Birds - Pigeons, crows, owls.

4) Humans - the one and only "kind!"

5) Apes - Chimps, gorillas, orangutans.

Basically, list all the kinds that "god" has told you exists and classify them and explicitly mark where those kinds start and end.

Enjoy this clusterf*ck.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 10:17:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 8:07:02 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/14/2013 8:04:34 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Okay, it would be really cool if a creationist could provide a classification of kinds or provide a source to kinds so they can be studied and creationist arguments evaluated. What I want is a somewhat exhaustive list similar to taxonomic classifications.

For instance, it could be something like this:

1) Birds - all kinds of birds like Chicken, ostrich, albatross etc.

2) Fish - Sharks, goldfish, catfish.

3) Birds - Pigeons, crows, owls.

4) Humans - the one and only "kind!"

5) Apes - Chimps, gorillas, orangutans.

Basically, list all the kinds that "god" has told you exists and classify them and explicitly mark where those kinds start and end.

Enjoy this clusterf*ck.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Ugh, my eyes, I think they're bleeding.

Those poor biology students.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skeptikitten
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 11:20:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Funny how you never hear professional biologists use the word "kind". Or "macroevolution" or "microevolution" either- unless we are refuting some creationist claim.

My students will never hear such a term come out of my mouth when they learn about taxonomy- because it is a blatant attempt by creationists to Move the Goalposts.

It's also amusing to me that if they go by their new definition of "kind" to include entire Genus groups (and in some cases Families or even higher), they actually require a far higher and faster rate of speciation than any biologist would state occurs. So by backtracking to "kinds", the creationist by necessity accepts evolution of entire species, many genus, and even families. The contradiction seems lost on them, however.
"I never make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect"- Edward Gibbon
errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 1:14:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Here's a more specific definition of kinds. I don't know if this'll help or anything. But, oh well.

From Creation Ministries International.

http://creation.com...

Based on the biblical criterion for kinds, creationists have made several deductions about the modern descendants of the original creations. They deduce, for example, that as long as two modern creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are descended from the same kind.3 Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind.4 The hybridization criterion is a valid operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds. The implication is one-way"hybridization is evidence that two creatures are the same kind, but it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations). After all, there are couples who can"t have children, and we don"t classify them as a different species, let alone a different kind.
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 1:39:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 1:14:32 AM, errya wrote:
Here's a more specific definition of kinds. I don't know if this'll help or anything. But, oh well.

From Creation Ministries International.

http://creation.com...

Based on the biblical criterion for kinds, creationists have made several deductions about the modern descendants of the original creations. They deduce, for example, that as long as two modern creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are descended from the same kind.3 Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind.4 The hybridization criterion is a valid operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds. The implication is one-way"hybridization is evidence that two creatures are the same kind, but it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations). After all, there are couples who can"t have children, and we don"t classify them as a different species, let alone a different kind.

Not being able to reproduce isn't all there is to naming a new species. It's clear that most creationists do not understand the complexities of evolution, and have false expectations based in ignorance. Regardless, I think a scientific explanation with regards to "kinds" is needed. Evolutionary biology is science, creationism is not. Therefore, posting something from a creation site is no help unfortunately. We need something scientifically agreed upon, maybe something even simply published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
natoast
Posts: 204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 5:48:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 1:14:32 AM, errya wrote:
Here's a more specific definition of kinds. I don't know if this'll help or anything. But, oh well.

From Creation Ministries International.

http://creation.com...

Based on the biblical criterion for kinds, creationists have made several deductions about the modern descendants of the original creations. They deduce, for example, that as long as two modern creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are descended from the same kind.3 Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind.4 The hybridization criterion is a valid operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds. The implication is one-way"hybridization is evidence that two creatures are the same kind, but it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations). After all, there are couples who can"t have children, and we don"t classify them as a different species, let alone a different kind.

It says in the bible pretty explicitly that cattle are their own kind, but they can breed with other species, like bison's. unless by 'cattle' you think god meant 'members of the bovid family'.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 8:04:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 11:16:12 AM, natoast wrote:
I have seen medic talking about his idea of 'kinds' when trying to disprove evolution. According to him, kinds means "organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring." I'm not sure if this particular belief is a common one for YEC's, but it seems to capture the gist of most of them. But even if you could show that one kind never gives birth to another, I don't see how this interferes with evolution. Say some animal mutates and the change spreads throughout the local population and you have a new species. It can still breed with the original species.

No, it can't breed with the original species if it is a new species because reproductive isolation is the mark of speciation.

This, I believe, would be following the rules. Then the same thing happened to the new species, creating species C. What if species C could still mate with B, and B with A, but not C with A? Where does that break the rule of "a kind only brings forth it's own kind"?

The Bible clearly distinguishes water creatures from land creatures, so any claim that one descended from the other is not compatible.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 8:11:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 11:57:15 AM, Enji wrote:
Most YEC's (including medic) actually believe kinds to be more general than that. I believe medic prefers the Adam test. Since Adam named all the animals, if an animal is easily distinguishable from another then it is a different kind of animal. So two salamanders could be the same kind because they both look like salamanders even if they can't interbreed. However, the biblical word used for kind during creation isn't used where Adam names the animals, so I wouldn't consider it to be a valid test of the Biblical meaning of kind. In contrast, the biblical word used for kind during creation is used in the dietary laws in Leviticus, indicating that a kind is much closer to the contemporary concept of species than most creationists like to admit. A possible criticism of this interpretation of kind is that kind is used in a much more general sense in Genesis 1 than in Leviticus, although I'm not sure why you would expect Genesis to list every single species God created.

Having done more research on the issue, I have a little better idea of kinds than I did when I applied the Adam test. Although the Adam test is indeed applicable in some cases, it is a little more complicated than that, due to variation within the kinds that has taken place since the original kinds were created.

I disagree that Biblical kinds is compatible with the concept of species, although there will be case where they might agree.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 8:27:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 12:52:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 11:57:15 AM, Enji wrote:
Most YEC's (including medic) actually believe kinds to be more general than that. I believe medic prefers the Adam test. Since Adam named all the animals, if an animal is easily distinguishable from another then it is a different kind of animal. So two salamanders could be the same kind because they both look like salamanders even if they can't interbreed. However, the biblical word used for kind during creation isn't used where Adam names the animals, so I wouldn't consider it to be a valid test of the Biblical meaning of kind. In contrast, the biblical word used for kind during creation is used in the dietary laws in Leviticus, indicating that a kind is much closer to the contemporary concept of species than most creationists like to admit. A possible criticism of this interpretation of kind is that kind is used in a much more general sense in Genesis 1 than in Leviticus, although I'm not sure why you would expect Genesis to list every single species God created.

Theists just keep pushing the goal post. First they said there was no evidence for evolution, then that was disproven by the fact that evolution has been observed in labs with regards to viruses and bacteria. Then they said "ya ok, but that's only microevolution within a species! We have never seen macroevolution, which is a new species at the macroscopic scale!". Then that was disproven, because new macro-species have been observed and in nature to evolve. Now they are saying "ok, macroevolution technically happens, but it's still only within kinds!".

They won't be happy until they see a bacteria give birth to an angel lol

We're not moving any goalposts. The argument has always been about organisms changing into different kinds of organisms, kinds being the Biblical kind.

You say that one species of a microbe is a different "kind" than another species of microbe, but that is not what is meant when we argue about kinds. It's a different use of the word kind, than what we mean, thus a strawman as well as a fallacy of equivocation.

Also, since you're claiming that evolution has been seen in labs, we need to clarify your definition of evolution. If you're simply meaning something like "change over time" then no one has ever contested such a definition, so that needs to be clarified before you say that we have ever contested that.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 8:35:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 3:20:00 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Yeah, I'm really really losing patience with this whole "kinds" thing. I'm having a harder and harder time not being rude about it, because I'm starting to think it's not just foolish, but fundamentally dishonest.


The "can breed" thing is clearly fallacious because of the things they call the same "kind", and once we get into speciation, they've admitted so-called macro-evolution exists.

You can lose patience all you want, that's your problem, not mine. If you claim that anyone has ever seen anything other than kinds bringing forth after their own kind, then it's you that is being fundamentally dishonest.

If you guys define macro-evolution so that includes an organism being defined as a different species of the original kind of organism, then nobody argues with that happening, but that has nothing to do with descent from a common ancestor. It is common descent that we contest, not horizontal changes within the kinds.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 8:42:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 8:04:34 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Okay, it would be really cool if a creationist could provide a classification of kinds or provide a source to kinds so they can be studied and creationist arguments evaluated. What I want is a somewhat exhaustive list similar to taxonomic classifications.

For instance, it could be something like this:

1) Birds - all kinds of birds like Chicken, ostrich, albatross etc.

2) Fish - Sharks, goldfish, catfish.

3) Birds - Pigeons, crows, owls.

4) Humans - the one and only "kind!"

5) Apes - Chimps, gorillas, orangutans.

Basically, list all the kinds that "god" has told you exists and classify them and explicitly mark where those kinds start and end.

Just as evolution has no exhaustive list, nor do we. The Bible does not give such an exhaustive list, that's why baraminologists are trying to work it out. You act as if we should have all the answers, yet you don't apply that same standard to your own theory. Be patient.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 9:44:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 8:07:02 PM, Wnope wrote:

Enjoy this clusterf*ck.

Here's another cluster for ya...

A and B are the same species. They mate and have offspring who mate and have offspring who mate and have offspring. Generations pass, and many remain in the same general location as the original ancestors and stay almost identical to A and B, genetically. However, due to competition for food, others begin to spread out, geographically, and changes are guided by different selection pressures. C and D decide to mate and they give birth to a little boy, E.

The offspring of A and B can mate with C and D. Little E can mate with others that are like C and D, but he can't mate with those who are more like A and B. So scientists say that E is a different species than A and B, even though he is obviously a descendant of A and B.

C and D are the same species as the offspring of A and B, but E is a different species than A and B. Yet he is the son of C and D who ARE the same species as A and B. That means that little E, according to evolutionists, is a different species than his own parents, grand-parents, great-grandparents, and his entire ancestral line.

Luckily, evolution is a continual process. That's right kids, that means that maybe one of you will be lucky enough to be the proud parent of the next, in a long line, of new and different species.

You guys can go ahead and make fun of kinds all you want, but that just goes to show that you haven't really applied the same type of skepticism to your own hypothesis, that you apply to ours.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 9:50:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 1:39:32 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/15/2013 1:14:32 AM, errya wrote:
Here's a more specific definition of kinds. I don't know if this'll help or anything. But, oh well.

From Creation Ministries International.

http://creation.com...

Based on the biblical criterion for kinds, creationists have made several deductions about the modern descendants of the original creations. They deduce, for example, that as long as two modern creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are descended from the same kind.3 Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind.4 The hybridization criterion is a valid operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds. The implication is one-way"hybridization is evidence that two creatures are the same kind, but it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations). After all, there are couples who can"t have children, and we don"t classify them as a different species, let alone a different kind.

Not being able to reproduce isn't all there is to naming a new species. It's clear that most creationists do not understand the complexities of evolution, and have false expectations based in ignorance. Regardless, I think a scientific explanation with regards to "kinds" is needed. Evolutionary biology is science, creationism is not. Therefore, posting something from a creation site is no help unfortunately. We need something scientifically agreed upon, maybe something even simply published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Scientific journals won't publish articles from scientists who are creationists, so calling for approval from solely evolutionary biologists is an appeal to a false authority. A scientist who believes in creation is every bit a valid professional as any evolutionary scientist.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 10:05:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 11:20:40 PM, Skeptikitten wrote:
Funny how you never hear professional biologists use the word "kind". Or "macroevolution" or "microevolution" either- unless we are refuting some creationist claim.


My students will never hear such a term come out of my mouth when they learn about taxonomy- because it is a blatant attempt by creationists to Move the Goalposts.

It's also amusing to me that if they go by their new definition of "kind" to include entire Genus groups (and in some cases Families or even higher), they actually require a far higher and faster rate of speciation than any biologist would state occurs. So by backtracking to "kinds", the creationist by necessity accepts evolution of entire species, many genus, and even families. The contradiction seems lost on them, however.

Luckily not all teachers are as biased, or afraid to subject their pet hypothesis to skepticism. If I were a pro-evolutionary biology teacher, I'd make it a class project to try and find a way to falsify evolution and common descent. Of course I'd probably end up getting fired for teaching creative thinking, rather than indoctrinating my students. I guess it would be embarassing for the pro-evolutionary teacher, too, getting shown up by so many students who actually realize the problems that common descent runs in to.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 11:00:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 8:35:35 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 3:20:00 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Yeah, I'm really really losing patience with this whole "kinds" thing. I'm having a harder and harder time not being rude about it, because I'm starting to think it's not just foolish, but fundamentally dishonest.


The "can breed" thing is clearly fallacious because of the things they call the same "kind", and once we get into speciation, they've admitted so-called macro-evolution exists.

You can lose patience all you want, that's your problem, not mine. If you claim that anyone has ever seen anything other than kinds bringing forth after their own kind, then it's you that is being fundamentally dishonest.


Depends on what you mean by "seen". We haven't "Seen" a canyon the size of the Grand Canyon get carved, either. Though I suppose you reject the scientific consensus on that, too, in favor of your Last Thursdayism.

If you guys define macro-evolution so that includes an organism being defined as a different species of the original kind of organism, then nobody argues with that happening, but that has nothing to do with descent from a common ancestor. It is common descent that we contest, not horizontal changes within the kinds.

Give me a specific and complete definition, of your own, of what a "kind" is, or GTFO. Because you've been asked before. I want a criteria that I can apply to any species to know WTH you're talking about. For added points, I want to know what scientific evidence led you to conclude that there is a barrier at the "kinds" level, once you've done so. Until you're done that, you're being dishonest, because you're making up words with fuzzy definitions that you can change on the fly in response to any argument that comes up, based solely on needing to address that argument, and not an actual new theory.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 11:21:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 11:00:09 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/15/2013 8:35:35 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 3:20:00 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Yeah, I'm really really losing patience with this whole "kinds" thing. I'm having a harder and harder time not being rude about it, because I'm starting to think it's not just foolish, but fundamentally dishonest.


The "can breed" thing is clearly fallacious because of the things they call the same "kind", and once we get into speciation, they've admitted so-called macro-evolution exists.

You can lose patience all you want, that's your problem, not mine. If you claim that anyone has ever seen anything other than kinds bringing forth after their own kind, then it's you that is being fundamentally dishonest.


Depends on what you mean by "seen". We haven't "Seen" a canyon the size of the Grand Canyon get carved, either. Though I suppose you reject the scientific consensus on that, too, in favor of your Last Thursdayism.

If you guys define macro-evolution so that includes an organism being defined as a different species of the original kind of organism, then nobody argues with that happening, but that has nothing to do with descent from a common ancestor. It is common descent that we contest, not horizontal changes within the kinds.

Give me a specific and complete definition, of your own, of what a "kind" is, or GTFO. Because you've been asked before. I want a criteria that I can apply to any species to know WTH you're talking about. For added points, I want to know what scientific evidence led you to conclude that there is a barrier at the "kinds" level, once you've done so. Until you're done that, you're being dishonest, because you're making up words with fuzzy definitions that you can change on the fly in response to any argument that comes up, based solely on needing to address that argument, and not an actual new theory.

I don't respond to internet bullies and their demands when presented in such a way, and I'll GTFO when I'm good and ready to GTFO. If you can't deal with religious opinions that differ from yours then maybe you should grow up and realize that the Religion forum on a debate site probably isn't the best place for you to hang out.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 11:41:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 11:21:08 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/15/2013 11:00:09 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/15/2013 8:35:35 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 3:20:00 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Yeah, I'm really really losing patience with this whole "kinds" thing. I'm having a harder and harder time not being rude about it, because I'm starting to think it's not just foolish, but fundamentally dishonest.


The "can breed" thing is clearly fallacious because of the things they call the same "kind", and once we get into speciation, they've admitted so-called macro-evolution exists.

You can lose patience all you want, that's your problem, not mine. If you claim that anyone has ever seen anything other than kinds bringing forth after their own kind, then it's you that is being fundamentally dishonest.


Depends on what you mean by "seen". We haven't "Seen" a canyon the size of the Grand Canyon get carved, either. Though I suppose you reject the scientific consensus on that, too, in favor of your Last Thursdayism.

If you guys define macro-evolution so that includes an organism being defined as a different species of the original kind of organism, then nobody argues with that happening, but that has nothing to do with descent from a common ancestor. It is common descent that we contest, not horizontal changes within the kinds.

Give me a specific and complete definition, of your own, of what a "kind" is, or GTFO. Because you've been asked before. I want a criteria that I can apply to any species to know WTH you're talking about. For added points, I want to know what scientific evidence led you to conclude that there is a barrier at the "kinds" level, once you've done so. Until you're done that, you're being dishonest, because you're making up words with fuzzy definitions that you can change on the fly in response to any argument that comes up, based solely on needing to address that argument, and not an actual new theory.

I don't respond to internet bullies and their demands when presented in such a way, and I'll GTFO when I'm good and ready to GTFO. If you can't deal with religious opinions that differ from yours then maybe you should grow up and realize that the Religion forum on a debate site probably isn't the best place for you to hang out.

"Internet bully"? I don't think that word means what you think it means, my friend. For the record, I was just playing on the "t*ts or GTFO" meme. In other words: it was snark. But frankly, that's neither here nor there; you're just "tone trolling".

If you admit that you are basing your opinion solely on your religion, then I guess you've finally admitted that there's no rationality to your position, but only faith. And while there's nothing inherently wrong with that, your pretenses elsewhere to there being rational reasons to argue for these "kinds" are, to repeat myself, dishonest. I can handle different religious opinions. What I lose patience with is dishonest people who pretend they're speaking rationally, when they are coming from a purely faith-based position. Now, if you have rational specific basis to back yourself up, go ahead and do so. But in the meantime, I have reason which I have outlined to call the entire "kinds" position (or baraminology, if you prefer) a fundamentally dishonest one.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 11:44:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 11:21:08 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/15/2013 11:00:09 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/15/2013 8:35:35 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 3:20:00 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Yeah, I'm really really losing patience with this whole "kinds" thing. I'm having a harder and harder time not being rude about it, because I'm starting to think it's not just foolish, but fundamentally dishonest.


The "can breed" thing is clearly fallacious because of the things they call the same "kind", and once we get into speciation, they've admitted so-called macro-evolution exists.

You can lose patience all you want, that's your problem, not mine. If you claim that anyone has ever seen anything other than kinds bringing forth after their own kind, then it's you that is being fundamentally dishonest.


Depends on what you mean by "seen". We haven't "Seen" a canyon the size of the Grand Canyon get carved, either. Though I suppose you reject the scientific consensus on that, too, in favor of your Last Thursdayism.

If you guys define macro-evolution so that includes an organism being defined as a different species of the original kind of organism, then nobody argues with that happening, but that has nothing to do with descent from a common ancestor. It is common descent that we contest, not horizontal changes within the kinds.

Give me a specific and complete definition, of your own, of what a "kind" is, or GTFO. Because you've been asked before. I want a criteria that I can apply to any species to know WTH you're talking about. For added points, I want to know what scientific evidence led you to conclude that there is a barrier at the "kinds" level, once you've done so. Until you're done that, you're being dishonest, because you're making up words with fuzzy definitions that you can change on the fly in response to any argument that comes up, based solely on needing to address that argument, and not an actual new theory.

I don't respond to internet bullies and their demands when presented in such a way, and I'll GTFO when I'm good and ready to GTFO. If you can't deal with religious opinions that differ from yours then maybe you should grow up and realize that the Religion forum on a debate site probably isn't the best place for you to hang out.

The GTFO was a little harsh, but he is making a valid point. We see evolution within species, and we even see new species evolve (speciation) in science and in nature. There would be no reason to claim that it stops once a different "kind" is about to be breached, that's outrageous. Which mysterious mechanism do you suggest stops evolution between "kinds" from happening? How can you scientifically, not biblically, explain your position on "kinds"?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 11:58:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 11:44:11 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

The GTFO was a little harsh...

I thought the reference to the meme was clear and the joke was therefore also clear when I typed it but CLEARLY IT WAS NOT.

So I'll repeat: I was kidding. I am always willing to beat a dead horse until it's well and truly dead, and don't generally leave a debate until the opposing side stops responding, consensus has been reached, or the opposing side falls into straight trolling/nonsensicality. For all my complaints about medic, and even with my comments as to the fundamental dishonesty of "baraminology", he is not a simple troll, nor do the other criteria apply.

I was offering dismissive snark as to the nature of his continued claims about his position in the absence of actually defining his position, indicating that if he didn't do so his claims were to be quite rightly dismissed as nonsense. I assume he actually does have some kind of specific position.

I was not literally telling him to get out. I apologize to one and all for the falling-flatness of the snark.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 12:40:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 12:39:17 PM, glassplotful wrote:
Do Creationists not understand by that disproving Evolution they will be no closer to proving Creationism?

No, it really seems they do not.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2013 1:07:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/15/2013 12:39:17 PM, glassplotful wrote:
Do Creationists not understand by that disproving Evolution they will be no closer to proving Creationism?

I used to think that was true, but if everything didn't evolve, then all the "kinds" came into existence with one shot. Wouldn't that be strong evidence for creationism is evolution was false?