• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Another ID, Creationism Challenge

Creationists have no problem allowing for evolution within the whale kind or the bat kind, but refuse to accept that humans evolved within the primate kind.

Yes, I know the term "kind" is meaningless in regard to evolution.

Steve S
 
Doesn't sound like much of a challenge to me.

A "kind" is a group of life forms that are kinda like each other.

Is this supposed to be some sort of pathetic attempt to debunk Intelligent Design, or something?

Why not give them a real challenge. Why not ask them to isolate and measure the very properties of the Designer itself?! And, do so in a manner that can be reliably replicated by independent parties.

It's futile to prove, to a creationist, that Evolution is better science, on systematics alone. They can brush that stuff off like dust on an table. Real science achieves results. Challenge them to obtain reliable results!
 
steve s said:
Creationists have no problem allowing for evolution within the whale kind or the bat kind, but refuse to accept that humans evolved within the primate kind.
Click to expand...

What characteristics about these "kinds" unite them into the same kind classification?
 
Tony said:
A consistent and useful definition for "kind" is harder to pin down than it may seem.
Click to expand...
Big deal. They will say whatever definitions they have work fine for them. How are you going to argue out of that one?

And, furthermore, Creationists will say the same thing you just said, about "species".

Obviously, there is a difference: One has empirical backing, the other does not. But, simply telling them that is not going to work. It helps to phrase the challenge in a manner that demonstrates the demands of what that difference is.

If you are going to go through the trouble of challenging ID and Creationism (a noble deed in general), why stick with such a wimpy manner to do it?!
 
I have trouble understanding the fixation that American creationist have on the term kind. It seems to be a result of an English speaking bias. I have here my Spanish language Bible, La Biblia Latinoamericana. Genesis 1:11 says: ''La tierra produjo pasto y hierbas que dan semilla y árboles frutales que dan fruto con su semilla adentro según la especie de cada uno. The term is used again in Genesis 1:24. '' Noah's story in Genesis 6:20, 7:2, 7:3, 7:14 and 7:16 also use the word especie.
 
Last edited:
eh? said:
Ha!

There just hasn't been enough time for them to fulfill their evolutionary dead end.
Click to expand...

There just hasn't been enough time for you to be disappointed with that assumption.

Here we are, in the 21stCE, and there's still no shortage of creationists. Nothing's tweaking the gene-pool that way yet.

You may be right, of course, and they'll take genus Homo into final oblivion with them. A tale told by an idiot without an audience.
 
yomero said:
I have trouble understanding the fixation that American creationist have on the term kind. It seems to be a result of an English speaking bias. I have here my Spanish language Bible, La Biblia Latinoamericana. Genesis 1:11 says: ''La tierra produjo pasto y hierbas que dan semilla y árboles frutales que dan fruto con su semilla adentro según la especie de cada uno. The term is used again in Genesis 1:24. '' Noah's story in Genesis 6:20, 7:2, 7:3, 7:14 and 7:16 also use the word especie.
Click to expand...

English has the King James Version which is definitive :eek:
 
CapelDodger said:
It starts with "clean" and "unclean". Problems arise right after that.
Click to expand...
Even then you have problems.

Only fish with scales are Kosher. Swordfish only have scales in their early life. Does that mean they are Kosher or not? Perhaps they are Kosher when they are young, and lose Kosherness when they lose their scales?

Most Jewish authorities decided to say "no" on the subject of swordfish Kosher status, anyway. Though, others still disagree.

Either way, it's not like nature makes the question very easy to answer all the time.
 
Wowbagger said:
If you are going to go through the trouble of challenging ID and Creationism (a noble deed in general), why stick with such a wimpy manner to do it?!
Click to expand...

If it was as wimpy as you say, I would have expected creationists to flood this thread. That they haven't suggests that they have more trouble defining it than you know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom