Scientists baffled by a perfect example of Biblical kinds

[Crucible]

Evolutionist: What is the definition of kind?
Creationist: <gives definition>
Evolutionist: What is the definition of kind?

That's their technique.
They will go on a tangent of semantics to deny what is simple. This is despite that they will point out the very same if others throw such on them.

 

[Greg Jennings]

That's their technique.
They will go on a tangent of semantics to deny what is simple. This is despite that they will point out the very same if others throw such on them.

Well will you answer a different question?

Like....how about telling me how all of the aquatic animals in the Great Flood survived in a giant ocean? How would freshwater animals get by for so long in the salty ocean? Seems impossible when you consider that saltwater poisons them within days at the very longest! And how would ocean corals survive the influx of freshwater from the inland water bodies and glacial/polar ice?

 

[6days]

I can give you a definition for species. It's something that isn't perfect, ...

However, you won't and likely can't give me any sort of information on what defines "kinds" in detail.

I'm going to revive an old statement of Stripes..."Evolutionists can't read".


Perfect definitions have been provided......something you admit you are unable to do.*

 

[Greg Jennings]

I'm going to revive an old statement of Stripes..."Evolutionists can't read".


Perfect definitions have been provided......something you admit you are unable to do.*

In afraid you have erred here, 6. Note where I say "in detail" above? That's because when you gave the definition, it was very unclear and quite far from "perfect," and I subsequently asked this:

"And what do you mean by "distinct from other models"? What is your mechanism for measuring how distinct an organism is from another before it is designated as a new "kind"? How do you know where to draw the boundary?"

Which you then proceeded to dodge, predictably. Sound about right?

 

[Stripe]

See the link.

I did. I quoted the definition you claimed included all but a handful of creatures, then I named three examples off the top of my head that broke the definition.

There are thousands more.

Species is a vague and malleable term. It is next to useless in a scientific discussion.

Either scientists don't agree with you about the fluidity of definitions, or they don't consider the species definition to be a true "definition." They've been at this a while longer than you bud. I think I'm going to side with the experts here.

Suit yourself.

But we know you won't bow to expert knowledge when it comes to those who hold to the Biblical model.

If you read further you might see the specifics of it

There are no specifics. They briefly mention the exceptions and then ask the question of how they might be resolved, but never resolve them. In later pages, they use alternative definitions of species — eg, "reproductive isolation" — to make it look like there is no problem.

 

[6days]

Like....how about telling me how all of the aquatic animals in the Great Flood survived in a giant ocean? How would freshwater animals get by for so long in the salty ocean?

Greg, it seems you have fallen for many goofy atheiest 'arguments'.

Tell us what the salinity of the pre-flood oceans were. Tell us how many species of marine creatures did not survive the flood? Tell us if pockets of fresh water might remain intact when mixed with salt water. Tell us how highly adapted marine creatures are now compared to thousands of years ago. Tell us if some fish can live, and or adapt today from fresh to salt.

 

[Stripe]

Well will you answer a different question?

Evolutionists hate sticking with the topic.

 

[Greg Jennings]

I did. I quoted the definition you claimed included all but a handful of creatures, then I named three examples off the top of my head that broke the definition.

There are thousands more.

Species is a vague and malleable term. It is next to useless in a scientific discussion.

Suit yourself.

But we know you won't bow to expert knowledge when it comes to those who hold to the Biblical model.

There are no specifics. They briefly mention the exceptions and then ask the question of how they might be resolved, but never resolve them. In later pages, they use alternative definitions of species — eg, "reproductive isolation" — to make it look like there is no problem.

It is basic, yes, but there are links on the left to the main page with much more info. I don't think anybody considers species definition a problem in science. It is what it is, and as we learn more the understanding of what exactly it is becomes more precise.

And what expert, qualified YECs are you gonna throw at me that can overturn the expert opinions of the many many many more, at-minimum-equally-qualified scientists that say the YEC is wrong (and when you look at the evidence it's pretty clear who is right)?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Evolutionists hate sticking with the topic.

So when someone complains about a certain question, and I try to ask a different question in order to continue a conversation, I'm trying to avoid stating on topic.


YEC is more than just a kooky creation "theory". It's a state of mind. All of you guys just live in your own little world cut off from reality

 

[Crucible]

Well will you answer a different question?

Like....how about telling me how all of the aquatic animals in the Great Flood survived in a giant ocean? How would freshwater animals get by for so long in the salty ocean? Seems impossible when you consider that saltwater poisons them within days at the very longest! And how would ocean corals survive the influx of freshwater from the inland water bodies and glacial/polar ice?

Presuppositions of the status of aquatic life is the downfall of the evolutionist's opposition on this subject.

If it rained so much freshwater, there wouldn't be such high salinity in the ocean unless cracks in the Earth thereafter poured salt into the ocean. Such cracks would be made by the weight of the Deluge.

How much salt was there before? What exactly happens to an entire planet of aquatic life in such circumstances?
It's easy to rail against a belief while silently demanding the assumption of one's own.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Greg, it seems you have fallen for many goofy atheiest 'arguments'.

Tell us what the salinity of the pre-flood oceans were. Tell us how many species of marine creatures did not survive the flood? Tell us if pockets of fresh water might remain intact when mixed with salt water. Tell us how highly adapted marine creatures are now compared to thousands of years ago. Tell us if some fish can live, and or adapt today from fresh to salt.

We've been through this before. Only a select few aquatic species can survive wide ranges of salinity. Your arguments don't hold up at all because, for you to be correct, you require things to be what we have no reason to suspect that they were. Like you say here that we don't know if aquatic animals pre-flood could just live in any salinity level or if they were like ones today. Your belief hinges on the hope that aquatic animals all used to be able to live anywhere and suddenly in the geologic blink of an eye they all lost this beneficial trait. That doesn't make any sense.

And it's not like that's the only crazy thing your entire belief hinges on. You require the laws of physics and things such as the speed of light in a vacuum (A KNOWN CONSTANT CRUCIAL PHYSICS, ASTRONOMY, ETC) to have been different 5-6000 years ago with no supporting evidence. That's crazy.

Please explain to me how one gigantic flood laid down a layer of granite (a volcanic rock formed from magma; weird that would be a layer in a flood:think, then a layer of shale, then a layer of sandstone, then a layer of limestone, and so on. My Christian geology professor thinks you modern YECs are a joke. Compared you to flat-earthers :chuckle: Prove her wrong

 

[Greg Jennings]

Presuppositions of the status of aquatic life is the downfall of the evolutionist's opposition on this subject.

If it rained so much freshwater, there wouldn't be such high salinity in the ocean unless cracks in the Earth thereafter poured salt into the ocean. Such cracks would be made by the weight of the Deluge.

How much salt was there before? What exactly happens to an entire planet of aquatic life in such circumstances?
It's easy to rail against a belief while silently demanding the assumption of one's own.

Um salt doesn't just go away. It's there still. And we have sediment cores so that we can know the salt contents, among other things, of environments in the distant past.

You say the flood was due to rainwater? How about you start by telling me where all this extra water came from? How did it rain enough water to cover every land surface?

 

[6days]

You say the flood was due to rainwater? How about you start by telling me where all this extra water came from? How did it rain enough water to cover every land surface?

Strawman..... AGAIN
He didn't say that.

 

[6days]

Only a select few aquatic species can survive wide ranges of salinity.

That is true.

What is interesting is how evolutionists argue against the ability of animals to rapidly 'evolve' because that supports the Biblical model. Science shows organisms can rapidly adapt and change using the genetic information God has given them. See the thread....Rapid Adaptation.

Your arguments don't hold up at all...

Which argument?
I asked you what pre-flood conditions were like. We don't know.

the only crazy thing your entire belief hinges on. You require the laws of physics and things such as the speed of light in a vacuum (A KNOWN CONSTANT CRUCIAL PHYSICS, ASTRONOMY, ETC) to have been different 5-6000 years ago with no supporting evidence. That's crazy.

Hmm... Greg, I think you are frustrated so you create strawmen (Speed of light in a vacuum??)... and you keep trying to move goalposts.

My Christian geology professor thinks you're a joke. Prove her wrong

She also thinks atheists are a joke. She thinks cats are better than dogs. And, she thinks people who eat meat are murderers. (And, she compromises on scripture)

 

[Stripe]

It is basic, yes, but there are links on the left to the main page with much more info.

Information is not a definition.

As we said, your definition has innumerable exceptions, making it no definition at all. And your Web page equivocates on that definition, using alternatives when it comes to addressing the challenges it faces.

I don't think anybody considers species definition a problem in science.

That's because it's not used in science; it's used in the religion of evolutionism.

It is what it is, and as we learn more the understanding of what exactly it is becomes more precise.

Nope. It has gotten more vague and malleable because the data keep contradicting the ideas of evolutionists.

And what expert, qualified YECs are you gonna throw at me that can overturn the expert opinions of the many many many more, at-minimum-equally-qualified scientists that say the YEC is wrong (and when you look at the evidence it's pretty clear who is right)?

We are looking at something, and it is not your side being justified.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Information is not a definition.

As we said, your definition has innumerable exceptions, making it no definition at all. And your Web page equivocates on that definition, using alternatives when it comes to addressing the challenges it faces.

That's because it's not used in science; it's used in the religion of evolutionism.

Nope. It has gotten more vague and malleable because the data keep contradicting the ideas of evolutionists.

We are looking at something, and it is not your side being justified.

Well you're just as correct, knowledgable, and open-to-reality as ever, aren't you stripe? Only you (actually, only YECs) would consider information about evolution from Cal-Berkeley, a leader in research on the topic, unknowledgeable

 

[Greg Jennings]

Strawman..... AGAIN
He didn't say that.

Really? He didn't? Then what is this in his quote?

"If it rained so much freshwater, there wouldn't be such high salinity in the ocean unless cracks in the Earth thereafter poured salt into the ocean. Such cracks would be made by the weight of the Deluge."


And so it seems once more that 6days is just yelling "strawman" because it's a word that someone on AiG told him to use when he had no evidence or anything besides "goddidit" to contribute. That explains why he uses the word so often.

 

[Greg Jennings]

She also thinks atheists are a joke. She thinks cats are better than dogs. And, she thinks people who eat meat are murderers. (And, she compromises on scripture)

She may think all of those things, but unlike in geology, she isn't qualified to give an expert view on any of them. She's an expert in geology. Her opinion in that field is not equal to your opinion or mine, but quite a large amount more meaningful. This ignorant comment by you shows how little regard you have for higher education, which would explain a lot about your obvious lack of interest in ever receiving a proper one (sadly) in subjects that you clearly want to act like an expert in


And why didn't you answer my questions about geology? Surely you aren't dodging, right? Not you 6days.....that would just be ridiculous wouldn't it? To think of YOU dodging? What a joke, right?

I know that you would never do that, so I'll repost them here for you to explain for me. Thanks:

Please explain to me how one gigantic flood laid down a layer of granite (a volcanic rock formed from magma; weird that would be a layer in a flood:think, then a layer of shale, then a layer of sandstone, then a layer of limestone, and so on.

 

[Jose Fly]

But you keep asking for a definition.

From other people, yes...because they apparently don't use your definition. :duh:

That's not how I answer that question.

When I asked how you propose we tell what organisms share a common ancestry, you said "genetics", which is a field of study, not a method. When I asked how you would use genetics to do that, your complete response was: ":idunno:"

Have you since figured it out, or is your answer still :idunno:?

Definitions are not personal; they are universal. Expecting everyone to have a personal definition is to invite nonsense.

Your expectation is that you get to define terms for all creationists everywhere? Have you notified them of that? :chuckle:

Learn to read. :up: I said nothing about natural selection.

I'm pretty sure you said that natural selection never occurs. Nevertheless, for the sake of clarity, is that your view?

Do the two definitions contradict each other? No.

They don't really overlap either. But in the interests of clarity again, should the definition of "kind" now be...

"A basic type or model of organism created as distinct from other models, within which is the capacity for considerable variation (wolves, coyotes, mastiffs, chihuahuas, etc), and are all descended from a universal ancestor population"

 

[Stripe]

From other people, yes...because they apparently don't use your definition.

Yet you know what the definition is.

Have you since figured it out?

What is the question?

Your expectation is that you get to define terms for all creationists everywhere?

You asked for the definition of kind (again). I answered.

I'm pretty sure you said that natural selection never occurs.

Nope.

You probably committed the fallacy of decomposition.

Should the definition of "kind" now be...

"A basic type or model of organism created as distinct from other models, within which is the capacity for considerable variation (wolves, coyotes, mastiffs, chihuahuas, etc), and are all descended from a universal ancestor population"

Nope. My definition is sufficient.