Scientists baffled by a perfect example of Biblical kinds

[Jose Fly]

Which is of exactly no relevance to your desperate attempt to pull the conversation as far as possible from the exposure of the uselessness of Darwinism and its terminology.

Again, try and keep up. The thread is about "kinds" (HINT: It's in the title).

You didn't ask if they meshed; you stated that they do not overlap. Then you asked if they should be merged.

Riiiiiiiiiight....mesh, overlap, merge....those are completely different concepts. Perhaps English isn't your first language? :chuckle:

Why? What do you think you will gain?

An understanding if other creationists are willing to use your definition. If no other creationist agrees with it, that'll be very informative.

Nope. A lack of knowledge does nothing to devalue the veracity of an idea.

You need to apply common sense to your input here. Would Darwinism be empty if we asked you a question you could not answer?

Again, try and keep up. It's not just your inability to address a fundamental methodological question (what method we use to establish "kinds"), it's also creationism's inability to contribute a single thing to science in over 100 years.

Is that why you're forever making things up?

Like what?

:darwinsm:

Then name something creationism has contributed to science in the last century.

 

[Stripe]

Again, try and keep up. The thread is about "kinds" (HINT: It's in the title).

Yup. It is a far more useful concept than "species." :up:

Riiiiiiiiiight....mesh, overlap, merge....those are completely different concepts. Perhaps English isn't your first language? :chuckle:

Quibbling about words when you've been exposed peddling fallacies is a tactic we'd expected.

Perhaps next time you'll not try a bait and switch.

An understanding if other creationists are willing to use your definition. If no other creationist agrees with it, that'll be very informative.

You'll have one or two data points. What useful information will you have? What would it matter if two people accepted my definition and one didn't? What would their beliefs matter?

It looks like your question would only be of help in allowing you to spout more nonsense instead of engaging on substantive matters.

We've spent three pages on this thread alone trying to get you to remember what the definition of kind is. What hope is there of you ever participating sensibly in a discussion?

It's not just your inability to address a fundamental methodological question (what method we use to establish "kinds").

You've just been called on trying a bait and switch twice. What made you think you could get away with another one?

I can address this question. I can't answer your other one.

Learn to approach the conversation honestly and we might be able to get somewhere.

But we know it's not in your best interest for the conversation to advance; your precious religion of Darwinism is at stake.

creationism's inability to contribute a single thing to science in over 100 years.

:darwinsm:

 

[Jose Fly]

Yup. It is a far more useful concept than "species."

So you say, but talk is cheap. Can you cite a single published paper that relies on "kinds"?

Quibbling about words when you've been exposed peddling fallacies is a tactic we'd expected.

Again, try and keep up. You're the one "quibbling about words", i.e., I use synonyms and you try and argue that doing so = bait and switch.

Perhaps next time you'll not try a bait and switch.

Perhaps one day you'll learn enough English to realize that using synonyms doesn't constitute bait and switch. But I doubt you will.

You'll have one or two data points. What useful information will you have? What would it matter if two people accepted my definition and one didn't? What would their beliefs matter?

What do your beliefs matter?

:darwinsm:

Obviously you cannot name a single contribution creationism has made to science in the last 100 years, which leads to the obvious question....Since creationism hasn't contributed anything to science in over a century, what good is it?

 

[Stripe]

So you say, but talk is cheap.

Fortunately, we have examples and pages of discussion on the matter. The Darwinist's own sources revealed that the term "species" is vague and it even equivocates on its own definition.

Can you cite a single published paper that relies on "kinds"?

Thousands. Just as you can provide thousands that use the word "species."

We know why you want to make this about popularity rather than the evidence.

Again, try and keep up. You're the one "quibbling about words", i.e., I use synonyms and you try and argue that doing so = bait and switch.

Nope. The record is clear. You asked a question. You then used my question as if it answered a completely different question. That is the fallacy of bait and switch.

Now you've pulled a few words out at random and are pretending their similarity is somehow relevant to the discussion. This is called a red herring.

Learn to engage in a rational manner. :up:

We know why Darwinists do not want a clear and rational discussion. That would put their precious religion to the test. They cannot abide that.

What do your beliefs matter?

They don't. :idunno:

Creationism hasn't contributed anything to science in over a century.

:darwinsm:

 

[Jose Fly]

Thousands.

Talk is cheap. Citation or link please.

We know why you want to make this about popularity rather than the evidence.

You claimed that "kind" is more useful than species. If your claim is true, we should see evidence of that in the scientific literature. Let's see this evidence.

Nope. The record is clear. You asked a question. You then used my question as if it answered a completely different question. That is the fallacy of bait and switch.

Try and keep up Stripe. There is no effective difference between asking if concepts mesh, overlap, or can be merged. If you think there is, explain.

They don't.

I agree.

And you dodged the question: Since creationism hasn't contributed anything to science in over a century, what good is it?

 

[Stripe]

You claimed that "kind" is more useful than species. If your claim is true, we should see evidence of that in the scientific literature. Let's see this evidence.

Already shown. If you had responded to my posts instead of seeking ways to derail the thread, you would have seen it.

Try and keep up Stripe. There is no effective difference between asking if concepts mesh, overlap, or can be merged. If you think there is, explain.

Attempting yet another bait and switch was not the way to escape being called on your first three goes at the fallacy.

Are we done with this? You were boring nine posts ago.

I agree.

And so we know your promise to find out what others believe is nothing more than a ploy to avoid sensible discussion, since you would be seeking things you believe do not matter.

Creationism hasn't contributed anything to science in over a century.

:darwinsm:

 

[Greg Jennings]

Fortunately, the truth does not depend on how much headway is achieved.

And even more fortunately, science doesn't concern itself with the religion of ancient tribal people when searching for the truth. Else we'd all still think the sun went around the Earth.....instead of knowing that there are billions of other galaxies out there with planets like our own orbiting stars like our own. Quite the contrast, eh?

We know why you're desperate to change the topic: It is because your Darwinist term "species" has been shown useless, while the creationist term "kind" is well-defined and useful.

Is a panda bear a member of the bear kind?

You will do anything to put distance between that and the present.

What are you talking about?



Anyway, we know why you're desperate to avoid the KT boundary question. It undermines your precious belief system, and you'll do anything to put distance between yourself and that. We know why you're desperate to avoid answering anything: it's because your chosen creation myth has been shown to be in error (in so many places.....just SO many.....almost all scientific fields of study), while the theories put forward and held up by the scientific community about our origins have been shown to be useful.

See, I can do that too. And even better, mine is accurate!

 

[Jose Fly]

Already shown.

Now you're just not telling the truth. You've not posted a single paper from the scientific literature that utilizes the concept of "kinds".

Once again, we see how it is impossible to advocate creationism honestly.

And so we know your promise to find out what others believe is nothing more than a ploy to avoid sensible discussion, since you would be seeking things you believe do not matter.

We'll just have to see how it goes.

 

[Greg Jennings]

:darwinsm:

Okay. If that's a laughable question, then tell me what creationism has given to science on the past 100 years.

Can't wait for this!



PS: do you think Jesus is cool with you lying all the time?

 

[chair]

I'd appreciate it if some of the creationists here could explain to me how they got to this curious meaning of "kinds" from the Bible. In the text it simply means types. Like in a candy store there might be many types of candy. Or kinds of candy.
You can see this quite clearly from Leviticus 11, where the Bible speaks of "the hawk after his kind, "the heron after her kind" and so on.
It seems to me that in an attempt to answer "evolutionists", and perhaps to deal with the limited size of Noah's Ark, you've distorted the plain meaning of the text. An odd thing for those who read the text literally to do.
I also see no hint in the Bible of accelerated evolution after the Flood. I do see mention of specific types of plants (Genesis 3:18)pre-flood, not generic plants that later split into modern species.
It look like in your efforts to beat scientists at their own game you've gotten far too 'creative' in your interpretation of the Biblical text.

 

[Hawkins]

Okay. If that's a laughable question, then tell me what creationism has given to science on the past 100 years.

Can't wait for this!


PS: do you think Jesus is cool with you lying all the time?

Your question is actually laughable in a sense.


Science doesn't deal with all truths. Science is supposed to deal with one specific kind of truths. So whenever a truth is to be investigated, you don't need to assume that it's a scientific truth to begin with.

Science basically deals with a set of rules behind a repeating pattern. ToE has a scientific claim to begin with that it's repeatable for organisms to go from one form to another by following a set of rules (natural selection and beneficial mutation etc.). ToE however doesn't go the conventional way of a science, it's rather a science assisted history study.

ID doesn't have a scientific claim to begin with. It doesn't claim that there's a set of rule behind which repeatedly drives the changes of organisms from one form to another, it however follows a similar line of research as the ToE does.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Your question is actually laughable in a sense.


Science doesn't deal with all truths. Science is supposed to deal with one specific kind of truths. So whenever a truth is to be investigated, you don't need to assume that it's a scientific truth to begin with.

Science basically deals with a set of rules behind a repeating pattern. ToE has a scientific claim to begin with that it's repeatable for organisms to go from one form to another by following a set of rules (natural selection and beneficial mutation etc.). ToE however doesn't go the conventional way of a science, it's rather a science assisted history study.

ID doesn't have a scientific claim to begin with. It doesn't claim that there's a set of rule behind which repeatedly drives the changes of organisms from one form to another, it however follows a similar line of research as the ToE does.

I don't think I have issue with any of that. Except for that science can only investigate things through scientific means. For example, science cannot prove or disprove the existence of a god because there is no way to measure that. You can't use science for "all truths." That's why I use "scientific".

And what is this similar line of research to that of evolutionary scientists that young earth creationists have done? What scientists or published studies are you referring to?

 

[6days]

Your definition is different than Musterion's. I asked if they meshed, you said no.

Jose... Your 'argument' is silly.

We believe God's Word to be inerrant. We believe that "In the beginning, God created".

 

[6days]

I'd appreciate it if some of the creationists here could explain to me how they got to this curious meaning of "kinds" from the Bible

Lets God's Word explain it to you.
Genesis 1
11 These seeds will then produce the kinds of plants and trees from which they came.
12 Their seeds produced plants and trees of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.
13 And evening passed and morning came, marking the third day.
20 Then God said... Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind.
21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the same kind.
24 Then God said, “Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring of the same kind—livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and wild animals.” And that is what happened.
25 God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.

I also see no hint in the Bible of accelerated evolution after the Flood.

Hmmmmm.
1. From God's Word, how many years ago approximately did the flood happen?
Clue.... There is about 2500 years of geneaology from Noah to Christ.

2. How many of the dog kind were on the ark?
Clue...Genesis 7:2

3. Do we witness the ability of organisms to rapidly adapt and change using their pre-existing genetic information?
CLUE.... See thread on 'Rapid Adaptation'.

 

[6days]

Okay. If that's a laughable question, then tell me what creationism has given to science on the past 100 years.
Can't wait for this!

Unlike evolutionism..... A belief in the Biblical Creator has not hindered science. And unlike evolutionary beliefs, A belief in Creation did not cause the holocaust.

Evolutionism has hindered the progress of science... It has never lead to a single new technology nor medical advancement.

 

[Jose Fly]

Evolutionism has hindered the progress of science... It has never lead to a single new technology nor medical advancement.

You know that to be a lie, and you continue to repeat it. Says a lot.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Unlike evolutionism..... A belief in the Biblical Creator has not hindered science. And unlike evolutionary beliefs, A belief in Creation did not cause the holocaust.

Even if evolution was responsible for every single bad thing that's ever happened, that still takes nothing away from the fact that it's real. Reality isn't based on what is preferable or what seems more moral to you; it's based on...well..reality.

Evolutionism has hindered the progress of science... It has never lead to a single new technology nor medical advancement.

That's ridiculous and you know it.

You didn't answer my question that was in the post from me that you quoted: What has creationism given to science in the past 100 years?

 

[6days]

You didn't answer my question that was in the post from me that you quoted: What has creationism given to science in the past 100 years?

Greg... Its been answered many times. You are becoming like Jose saying you haven't been answered.

Ok..... Once again....Like many times previous
Evolutionism and creationism are beliefs about the past.
Both belief systems use the same scientific method... and examine the same data.
However..... Only a belief in evolution has lead to things like eugenics and the holocaust.
Not to mention how evolution-ism often has hindered scientific progress with incorrect beliefs about genetics, useless organs, junk DNA, transitional humans, aliens,,,,ETC

 

[Greg Jennings]

Greg... Its been answered many times. You are becoming like Jose saying you haven't been answered.

Ok..... Once again....Like many times previous
Evolutionism and creationism are beliefs about the past.
Both belief systems use the same scientific method... and examine the same data.
However..... Only a belief in evolution has lead to things like eugenics and the holocaust.
Not to mention how evolution-ism often has hindered scientific progress with incorrect beliefs about genetics, useless organs, junk DNA, transitional humans, aliens,,,,ETC

Thanks, but that wasn't what I asked. Not at all.

For a third time: What contributions has creationism given to science in the past 100 years?
If once again your answer is to dodge, we can only assume that the answer is nothing, and therefore that creationism is about as useful as flat-earth theory is: they contribute the same amount to science


Maybe you just don't understand.....I'll rephrase it a bit.....
What scientific breakthroughs have been the result of experiments held using the "biblical model of creation"? You know, like in a similar way to how evolutionary experimentation led to the development of mass penicillin production

 

[Stripe]

I'd appreciate it if some of the creationists here could explain to me how they got to this curious meaning of "kinds" from the Bible. In the text it simply means types. Like in a candy store there might be many types of candy. Or kinds of candy.

It is a simple case of specifying how a word is being used in this context. Similarly, if we were talking about kinds of candy, we could divide kinds along lines of ingredients and preparation methods.

One would have thought that was pretty obvious. :idunno:

It seems to me that in an attempt to answer "evolutionists", and perhaps to deal with the limited size of Noah's Ark, you've distorted the plain meaning of the text. An odd thing for those who read the text literally to do.

What has been distorted?

I also see no hint in the Bible of accelerated evolution after the Flood.

There's a good reason for that. There is no evolution, in the Bible or anywhere else in reality. It only exists in the minds of Darwinists.

It look like in your efforts to beat scientists at their own game you've gotten far too 'creative' in your interpretation of the Biblical text.

Nope. Simple necessity from the assumption that the Bible is an accurate description of history.