After their own "kind"

I really don't have a problem with evolution as it pertains to religious belief, but since we're all mocking someone, I thought I'd throw out this article about lizards (they're unclean, so there were only two on the ark as far as I know)...

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Raises a few eyebrows about what we think we know...

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I'm not giving u an excuse 4 anything. Where did u c an excuse? Who ever said that we had the definition to the word "kind" in the bible? Your asking the wrong people. Only G*d knows that one.


"zebra is to horse as wolf is to fox." zebra is to a horse as a fox is to a wolf

"and only 10 birds?" why not?

You wouldn't have to speed up evolution for the genetic diversity that we see today to be present. 1st reason is that evolution doesn't exist. 2nd reason is that environmental adaptation takes care of the rest. As proven with those lizards, animals can change rapidly in a very short period of time. It doesn't take BILLIONS and BILLIONS of years.

The more it rained, the more diluted the water would become, Yes. BUT the saltier (heavier) water that the salt water fish are used to would be deeper than the fresh water. They would only have to swim deeper. The fresh water fish would stay higher in the water.

"dogs changing isn't evolution" YOU'RE RIGHT! I'm missing your point.


[edit on 4/26/2008 by JPhish]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
well, i'm asking the creationists. the bible states that animals produce "after their own kind"
but the term "kind" is not defined and i've never, ever seen it defined.

I find it difficult to believe you are having such a problem understanding this single word in the context it is given. Unless you haven't read the entire part of this chapter but one not need even do that to get an idea what this means. Since I have seen you mention this in another post having trouble with the word "kind" Ill refer you back to the original context from the original writing where it IS defined in an analogy which clearly states the kind of examples we see already given as testament to the exact way "kinds" of things come about in the first place and why they are just that way.

it seems that you believe in whatever science that supports your views and disbelieve any science that does not support your views.

This is what we all do.

I have heard astyatax say "the wonderful thing about the theory of evolution is that it keeps evolving"

Not sure what that means but I think a similar reasoning is used whenever Christians have to answer why the dooms day date was wrong. I hope Science can accept the same excuses for errors in judgement and interpretation as we have to accept new changes to cover mistakes brought about by everything from fraudulent evidence to lack of observable data by Darwinists.

I have a funny feeling however, that the teflon will be covering that double standard too around 2012.

God is always the same and so is life itself. Those who tend to use the Bibles age as a reason to discount it is an excuse for what is written in it applies to today as much as it did when it was being compiled when it comes to the human condition.

That is why we argue against Science that tries to prove it wrong because as Christians, we know how God intended it to be and anything we see contrary to the way the Bible says it and it being the word of God, then naturally we are looking in the wrong direction. It is the same with Science too. Anything evolutionists see as evidence of a creator is bad evidence or it is given words to pre-face it like "The illusion" of a creator etc. They know that anything that cannot stand up to the scrutiny of the scientific method is junk science however one of the components of that method are what has been seen and obeserved.


Like much of the intermediaries fossils that we are told will never be observed I can easily dismiss it then as just too bad. This leaves much to be imagined then doesn't it. It leaves much of what has been imagined already to faith in it doesn't it. If evolution were to be strictly held to the Scientific method it so gallantly supports and is used to fault creationist with, it would surely fail for under the strict rules of its own criteria, it must break one of its own rules of observable data to conform.

Herein lies the rub of Science and Religion but we get your answer to the word "Kind" as further reading in the scripture lays out in the form of an analogy or example.

"Genesis 1:11 Then God said, "LET THE LAND PRODUCE VEGETATION: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various "kinds." And it was so.

12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good."

This means you won't find any sperm in an apple and you won't find apple seed in the reproductive system of man. You won't find Apple seed in an Orange and you won't find Human seed in a monkey. The proof the Bible was right as rain back then when all the idiots that wrote the 4000 year old data is that to this day, man has never had sex with his female counterpart where appleman was born. Or any other KIND of thing.




"Kinds" Madness, get it now?

By the way, if you want to know what is meant by the word "thing" you can add species to that too as what is meant by that and what is observable according to your scientific method and according to God.

See, Religion really DOES back up Science when we are drop dead honest about it. It is pretty simple to understand if you WANT to understand it but if you want to NOT understand it then I ask, have you your own theory as to what is meant by this single simple word given to how God has proven this absolute fact which Genesis explains as,,

the Origin of man


- Con


















[edit on 29-4-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by Conspiriology
I find it difficult to believe you are having such a problem understanding this single word in the context it is given.

it's insanely vague, so it's quite hard to understand exactly what it means

it seems that you believe in whatever science that supports your views and disbelieve any science that does not support your views.

incorrect. i just accept whatever science is provable. i used to hold tight that string theory was insubstantial and that something else was required that would make such a ridiculous notion obsolete...i was proven wrong

I have heard astyatax say "the wonderful thing about the theory of evolution is that it keeps evolving"

Not sure what that means but I think a similar reasoning is used whenever Christians have to answer why the dooms day date was wrong.

...but the christians say that it's with absolute certainty (odd that they can predict what will come unexpectedly...), while science is changing what it says based on new evidence.
the end times predictions all come from the exact same evidence.

I hope Science can accept the same excuses for errors in judgement and interpretation as we have to accept new changes to cover mistakes brought about by everything from fraudulent evidence to lack of observable data by Darwinists.

fraudulent evidence? darwinists are the ones that point out the fakes...
and there are only about 3-4 examples you can put forth that are outright frauds. the rest (like the embryo charts or the horse charts) were simply mistakes that are taught as an explanation to how evolutionary theory developed (much like how we teach how copernicus, though wrong in many ways, eg his belief that orbits weren't elliptical, was instrumental in the formation of heliocentric astronomy)

there have been boatloads of observable data...much of which has been posted in other threads.

and why must you make a false comparison?

I have a funny feeling however, that the teflon will be covering that double standard too around 2012.

....except that it won't. the 2012 predictions are void of evidence, they're completely based in supposition and imagination
evolutionary science, on the other hand, has mountains of evidence (which you tend to ignore)

God is always the same and so is life itself.

really? have you seen the massive mood swing that occurs between the end of the OT and the beginning of the NT?

Those who tend to use the Bibles age as a reason to discount it is an excuse for what is written in it applies to today as much as it did when it was being compiled when it comes to the human condition.

...except that part where it doesn't. it has no way of dealing with complex moral issues, only very simple ones.
and very few use it's mere age, it's age + context. it is in no way applicable to a modern society full of highly complex moral decisions.
if a siamese twin had been born in that time it would have been cast aside as demonic...now we have the complex decision that might come from having to choose between letting both die or saving one and killing the other...

That is why we argue against Science that tries to prove it wrong

...science doesn't try to prove it wrong, just your interpretation.
science is entirely apathetic to what's in the bible.

...what does any of this have to do with what a "kind" is?

because as Christians, we know how God intended it to be

...so you know the exact interpretation god wanted?
it/s/he never really spelled that out

and anything we see contrary to the way the Bible says it and it being the word of God, then naturally we are looking in the wrong direction.

or maybe the bible is wrong...
or maybe you've got the interpretation horribly skewed..

It is the same with Science too. Anything evolutionists see as evidence of a creator is bad evidence or it is given words to pre-face it like "The illusion" of a creator etc.

...it's called an "illusion" because there's nothing to casually relate it to a creator.
does god make clouds look like horses?

They know that anything that cannot stand up to the scrutiny of the scientific method is junk science however one of the components of that method are what has been seen and obeserved.

*facepalm*

if you're going to throw evolution out on this point, you'll have to throw out forensics.

the concept of "observed" means that there is evidence. it doesn't need to be seen directly.

Like much of the intermediaries fossils that we are told will never be observed I can easily dismiss it then as just too bad. This leaves much to be imagined then doesn't it.

not really. you don't need 100% of the evidence...you just need enough to prove the point.

odd...creationism really has no explanation for why certain types of animals are grouped in the same strata...
or that whole "we have precise measurements that date the world as 600,000 older than what the bible says" thing...

It leaves much of what has been imagined already to faith in it doesn't it.

not really. you don't need a complete record of every living thing that ever existed to prove the theory

in fact, you're just moving the goal posts back. if we had 90% of the fossils, you'd say we don't have enough.

If evolution were to be strictly held to the Scientific method it so gallantly supports and is used to fault creationist with, it would surely fail for under the strict rules of its own criteria, it must break one of its own rules of observable data to conform.

...nope, not at all. i've actually explained why this point is false (repeatedly), even to you.....why is it still being used?

Herein lies the rub of Science and Religion but we get your answer to the word "Kind" as further reading in the scripture lays out in the form of an analogy or example.

took you long enough to get there.

This means you won't find any sperm in an apple and you won't find apple seed in the reproductive system of man.

...unless someone's doing something really dirty with apples, i'd agree there.

You won't find Apple seed in an Orange and you won't find Human seed in a monkey. The proof the Bible was right as rain back then when all the idiots that wrote the 4000 year old data is that to this day, man has never had sex with his female counterpart where appleman was born. Or any other KIND of thing.

"Kinds" Madness, get it now?

not really, you're being entirely vague. i was looking for some concrete standard
you gave me both apple is not the same "kind" as human and apple is not the same "kind" as orange" and human isn't the same "kind" as monkey.

By the way, if you want to know what is meant by the word "thing" you can add species to that too as what is meant by that and what is observable according to your scientific method and according to God.

ah, but we've observed instance of speciation, so the bible has fallen flat on its face if it says that one species cannot become another...

See, Religion really DOES back up Science when we are drop dead honest about it.

except those parts where it says the earth goes round the sun, is flat, and only 6000 or so years old...

It is pretty simple to understand if you WANT to understand it but if you want to NOT understand it

...no, it's a question of whether or not you want to distort your perception of reality to the point where your religion pushes out established science to replace it with false science...

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul



it's insanely vague, so it's quite hard to understand exactly what it means

really? here I was hoping you'd have an epiphaney of some sort heh dopey me.

incorrect. i just accept whatever science is provable. i used to hold tight that string theory was insubstantial and that something else was required that would make such a ridiculous notion obsolete...i was proven wrong

I always loved string theory and whats so unusual about your statement is the fact they know so little about it. So very very little, I guess proving you wrong is a substantial advancement in that regard.

...but the christians say that it's with absolute certainty (odd that they can predict what will come unexpectedly...), while science is changing what it says based on new evidence.
the end times predictions all come from the exact same evidence.

Oh like the 29 evidences thing you keep using as a link?

ha ha ha been there done that and all 29 refuted, crushed, smashed, obliterated, just google it madd,, you'll see

....except that it won't. the 2012 predictions are void of evidence, they're completely based in supposition and imagination
evolutionary science, on the other hand, has mountains of evidence (which you tend to ignore)

No correction, I don't ignore them, I simply do NOT believe them because it is NOT what God has said and I believe God.

I don't believe you.

really? have you seen the massive mood swing that occurs between the end of the OT and the beginning of the NT?

Wow mad, are you not making this up based on supposition and interpretation just like those 2012 peeps are? LOL I think you must be or is it only when it suits your arguments that this is done.

I for one never subscribed to a dooms day theory I think it is like the Bible says that it isn't known the hour or day.

so I don't know where ANYONE gets that idea

...science doesn't try to prove it wrong, just your interpretation.
science is entirely apathetic to what's in the bible.

...what does any of this have to do with what a "kind" is?

Well taken in part, nothing but taken in whole as my entire post and the context it is given, is how you should take it. Then again you wouldn't have a reason to to say it is off topic then would you.

...so you know the exact interpretation god wanted?
it/s/he never really spelled that out

He has to me.

or maybe the bible is wrong...
or maybe you've got the interpretation horribly skewed..

That is a possibility,,but

I knda doubt it

...it's called an "illusion" because there's nothing to casually relate it to a creator.
does god make clouds look like horses?

Doesn't god have the power to do that if he wanted?

Oh darn,, I forgot, you have to BELIEVE in God before you can believe in the evidence for God. Which one of those two you are having a problem with has already been established.

if you're going to throw evolution out on this point, you'll have to throw out forensics.

the concept of "observed" means that there is evidence. it doesn't need to be seen directly.

Only with God it seems this is true while with evolution it seems we observe things a "new" way. Can you give me an example of something observed in this new way that wasn't fabricated of just plane made up?

...nope, not at all. i've actually explained why this point is false (repeatedly), even to you.....why is it still being used?

Because your explanation is not sufficient madd, with all due respect madd, why would I when I am not going to take the word of someone who doesn't understand simle words like "kind" . You could have just as easily said the truth here rather than break down each and every single half sentence I said than give your usual dissertation and rebuttal as to why this or that is wrong but simply admit you just don't like God, the concept of God or anyone that does period. The anyone that does part is my own experience with you as I have yet to see you NOT make a foe out of someone as soon as you find out they are a Christian. I have seen Ash make the same distinction about you. So it isn't just me.

Rather than go through this long post of yours where my next area of contention would be where you say it took me long enough.

Ill just agree to dis-agree and be quite comfortable with the fact that I know what Kinds means and you can go on actively NOT understanding it all you want with my blessing.

I mean, afterall YOU were the one asking for a defintion not me not webster nor thorndike or anyone else that has tried has made a damn bit of headway. If I knew it was going to be this much excercise, I would have asked a specialist but I still don't think you'd get it because you simply DON'T want to and THAT is obvious.


Why, I have no idea and

couldn't care less

not anymore

- Con











[edit on 30-4-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by Conspiriology
I always loved string theory and whats so unusual about your statement is the fact they know so little about it. So very very little, I guess proving you wrong is a substantial advancement in that regard.

well, i never said i accept it as fact, but i now know that it's defensible and more than plausible.

Oh like the 29 evidences thing you keep using as a link?

ha ha ha been there done that and all 29 refuted, crushed, smashed, obliterated, just google it madd,, you'll see

...you know, in a discussion you don't just say "google it"
it comes off as...well...insubstantial. like you don't have anything to provide, so i just have to find it myself.

No correction, I don't ignore them, I simply do NOT believe them because it is NOT what God has said and I believe God.

I don't believe you.

ah, and there in lies the problem.

you don't believe in anything that doesn't support your worldview.

XyZeR said it best in another thread:

THE PROBLEM WITH DEBATING CREATIONISTS: You CANNOT reason a person OUT of position that they did not REASON themselves into.

Wow mad, are you not making this up based on supposition and interpretation just like those 2012 peeps are? LOL I think you must be or is it only when it suits your arguments that this is done.

...that was just a joke. a reference to a lewis black standup routine...

Well taken in part, nothing but taken in whole as my entire post and the context it is given, is how you should take it. Then again you wouldn't have a reason to to say it is off topic then would you.

...and you're entirely ignoring what i addressed. it's just your interpretation...

He has to me.

^boom, the epitome of arrogance

you've made an extraordinary claim, where's the extraordinary evidence.

That is a possibility,,but

I knda doubt it

actually, you absolutely doubt it because your entire worldview is based on it.

Doesn't god have the power to do that if he wanted?

...which one?

Oh darn,, I forgot, you have to BELIEVE in God before you can believe in the evidence for God. Which one of those two you are having a problem with has already been established.

...that doesn't make sense
in fact, it is a circular argument

you must believe in god before you can see the evidence to believe in god.

Only with God it seems this is true while with evolution it seems we observe things a "new" way. Can you give me an example of something observed in this new way that wasn't fabricated of just plane made up?

i did, forensics.

Because your explanation is not sufficient madd,

you never pointed out why.

with all due respect madd, why would I when I am not going to take the word of someone who doesn't understand simle words like "kind" .

it's a simply vague word and you don't need to take my word for things.

You could have just as easily said the truth here rather than break down each and every single half sentence I said than give your usual dissertation and rebuttal as to why this or that is wrong but simply admit you just don't like God,

well, yahweh i don't like so much
jesus was pretty cool
the holy spirit isn't talkative enough for my tastes..
and there are some deities i do like

the concept of God

i have no problem with the concept.

or anyone that does period.

my 2 best friends and my girlfriend would entirely disagree with you. i'm in love with someone who believes in god...so you're kind of making insanely bigoted assumptions about me.

The anyone that does part is my own experience with you as I have yet to see you NOT make a foe out of someone as soon as you find out they are a Christian. I have seen Ash make the same distinction about you. So it isn't just me.

um...check with JJ, he has jesus on the cross as his avatar and i've been his friend for a while...
i don't have a problem with christians, it's certain type of beliefs.
same goes for ducky, ducky is a christian and she's my friend.

but it seems like you missed my rebuttal to ash's point...
i don't foe people because of religion, it's because of many other factors
i foe'd you because...well, your homophobia and scientific ignorance.

Ill just agree to dis-agree and be quite comfortable with the fact that I know what Kinds means and you can go on actively NOT understanding it all you want with my blessing.

i'm not actively not understanding it, there's no objective definition given. i want something that i can fit into a scientific framework here.

I mean, afterall YOU were the one asking for a defintion not me not webster nor thorndike or anyone else that has tried has made a damn bit of headway.

...i'm looking for a scientific definition. none of those given can fit into a scientific framework

If I knew it was going to be this much excercise, I would have asked a specialist but I still don't think you'd get it because you simply DON'T want to and THAT is obvious.

it's not that obvious. when someone says dogs and wolves are a kind and then horses and zebra are a kind, it doesn't make sense.

it must really be simple when there's an ignorance of taxonomy and science in general

you're making it out to look like i'm a buffoon for not understanding simple

but you're the one that's making something simple when it's just insanely vague...in fact, you'd prefer it to be vague so you can use the fallacy of moving the goalposts back...

I would imagine that the simplest answer is probably the most accurate. Since at the time it was written science was not exactly a, well, science yet, I doubt that they were speaking in technical terms. I would imagine that to the author(s), if two beings had the physical capacity to bear offspring (and did so), then they were of a "kind". If they could not, then they were not. Simple as that.

reply to post by jezebel5150


hmm

see, this is the kind of thing i was looking for. something that's actually addressing the question...

unfortunately, it doesn't refer to creatures that don't reproduce sexually...granted, they didn't really know about those things...

so i'm guessing the term "kind" (being entirely unscientific) should be excluded from any future "scientific" discussions by creationists.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by jezebel5150

 

hmm

see, this is the kind of thing i was looking for. something that's actually addressing the question...

unfortunately, it doesn't refer to creatures that don't reproduce sexually...granted, they didn't really know about those things...

so i'm guessing the term "kind" (being entirely unscientific) should be excluded from any future "scientific" discussions by creationists.

It might be a wise idea.

Glad I could be of service.

i'd just like to nail this coffin shut


i'm thinking of a living thing
what kind of living thing is it?
it's an animal
what kind of animal?
it's a vertebrate
what kind of vertebrate?
it's a mammal
what kind of mammal?
it's a primate
what kind of primate?
it's a great ape
what kind of great ape?
it's a gorrilla
what kind of gorrilla?
it's a western gorrilla
what kind of western gorilla?
an old silverback.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i'd just like to nail this coffin shut



i'm thinking of a living thing
what kind of living thing is it?
it's an animal
what kind of animal?
it's a vertebrate
what kind of vertebrate?
it's a mammal
what kind of mammal?
it's a primate
what kind of primate?
it's a great ape
what kind of great ape?
it's a gorrilla
what kind of gorrilla?
it's a western gorrilla
what kind of western gorilla?
an old silverback.

Seeing how you didn't answer me regarding the question what is meant by the statement " white woman should sleep with their own kind" and tried to turn it against me as a racial thing, is typical of you mad so I will answer it as most would using the example to illustrate how the use of "kind" is in lockstep with the context the word is used.

Please tell me if this isn't what your first thought would be.

Answer=race

Why? because the question was asked in the context of race and kind takes ownership of the context the author of the statement is making.

If I were to use the same sentence saying white woman should sleep with their own species, NOW we have confusion don't we because THAT throws the entire context out of kilter and could mean any other species of animal.
Hell it almost forces on to have to ask "What " KIND" of species" doesn't it. hehe

now lets talk about nails in coffins shall we.

i'm thinking of a living thing
what kind of living thing is it?
it's an animal

WRONG in the context of your statement the word kind locks on to one thing and one thing only that being a living thing so the answer is
"any living thing"

what kind of animal?
it's a vertebrate

and thats what kind it is and locks on to vertebrate so any kind of vertibrate is what kind it is. This isn't the fault of kind being vague it is the context it is given as being specifically a vertibrate so we deduce from the word kind that any kind of vertibrate is allowable and no other kind

what kind of vertebrate? it's a mammal

and thats what kind it is and locks on to two distinctions mammal and vertebrate so any kind of vertibrate mammal is what kind it is. This isn't the fault of kind being vague it is the context it is given as being specifically a mammal and vertibrate we deduce from the word kind that any kind of vertibrate mammal is allowable and no other kind

what kind of primate? it's a great ape

and thats what kind it is and locks on to three distinctions mammal, vertebrate, and ape since we already know what kiind of thing that is being a vertibrate and mammal for the sake of making this shorter we
'll just use the word ape so any kind of ape and whatever great means has no connection to kind unless you want to add what KIND of ape is great where than then the distintion could be locked on to type of ape where great apes should sleep with their own kind meaning other great apes. The author assumes he knows what kind of ape it is else you wouldn't have said great ape. Kind isn't what makes this vague however what makes the phrase vague is the word "great" be that as it may
( clever wrench in the works by the way) but KIND cleans that up too because we still know it is a KIND of ape don't we. Simple once you get the hang of it.

Here lets just cut to the chase maddness. Without going into the other kinds of attributes that make up what kind of thing you are or whether you have a spine or are a mammal just so that we end up knowing you are a kind of thing and the kind of thing you are all those other kinds of things having those same attributes you all share. Taking that to its common denominator as to the "kind" of prediction evolution can make according to your kind and how the use of the word "kind" completely obliterates macro evolution,, Ill ask you a question.

What kind of seed do you carry?

Go ahead maddness, think of all the kinds of things living now and in ten billion years past or future it doesn't matter, and I can gaurantee you it ain't ,,

appleman

wheatman

monkeyman

it ain't even strawman as I know you don't carry the seed straw comes from. The only "kind" you carry is HUMAN kind and NO OTHER kind or species. That is how it is, has been and man tampering with the genome not withstanding the way it always will be.

It is and has been observable and testable.


BANG! Coffin nailed shut

Deal with it

- Con










[edit on 3-5-2008 by Conspiriology]

In my opinion, as long as you can "crossbreed", you can simply call it a "kind".

You can go to this site for more examples:

www.messybeast.com...

Originally posted by amitheone
In my opinion, as long as you can "crossbreed", you can simply call it a "kind".

You can go to this site for more examples:

www.messybeast.com...

Yep you crossbreed cats you get might get a new "kind" of what?


CAT thats what

- Con

reply to post by Conspiriology


any word that is purely context based is not a scientific term.
you can't give me an exact definition of "kind"
therefore, it's a bunk term.

sorry that i'm skipping over my normal evisceration methods, but you will continue to persist in any delusions you have no matter what i say so long as they agree with what's in your religious text, so it's not worth the effort anymore.

Yep you crossbreed cats you get might get a new "kind" of what?


CAT thats what

- Con

Yes, I agree. Nothing complicated about that.

Ok wow how are you gonna bring up the crack pot fantics who say when the world will end haha. Bible says Only God Knows not even Jesus knows, why the hell should men know.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Conspiriology

 

any word that is purely context based is not a scientific term.
you can't give me an exact definition of "kind"
therefore, it's a bunk term.

sorry that i'm skipping over my normal evisceration methods, but you will continue to persist in any delusions you have no matter what i say so long as they agree with what's in your religious text, so it's not worth the effort anymore.

Right, Religous texts....sure im not religous, the Bible is not religous, jesus is not religous, God is not religous.

Man made them religous.
God does not like organized religon it pollutes the mind, look at the fanatics, the cults an so forth. Religon is for the weak who need a crutch.

Heres one for you... Why do Athetists think they are so damn smart?
seriously like your little pea brain will save you.... sure you may be smarter than me, but thinking your humanist ways just to defy a higher power because you feel it is for weak minded people... blah gimmie break

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

my question: what is a "kind"?

A real time or living method of interpretation of scripture makes it possible for the word to mean almost anything, it depends on what the individual seeking understanding knows and needs to know, and what God communicates in terms of the words applications and implications to and in the circumstances of that individuals life.

I personably think at a certain level it is talking about what geneticist call the species barrier.

Words and their meanings devolve and evolve over time especially between translations, lots of ideas are added and lost around individual words.

Adam probably would have needed to do some genetic engineering, Noah may have done some genetic work also, and that knowledge would have been lost and found a few times down through the ages.

At the time the bible was translated into english how much did the translators know about the science of genetics and how much of it did they see in the words they were translating?

The bible contains all things that pertain to life, all the sciences even quantum mechanics can be found in the bible, it is just a question of interpretation, the more of science you know and need to know the more of it written in the scriptures God is likely to enlighten you to.

The real problem with peoples understanding of words from the bible is most people take an outsiders view towards God inspired works, or any holly writings in general.

When it comes to interpretation of anything you can only go one of two ways, you can take the static interpretation, that is to say words and their context are dead and unchanging in their relation to things, or you have hold a dynamic belief with regard to interpretations, that is to say words and their context are alive and change in relation to things.

The vast majority of people religious and non-religious see the scripture and its words as being static, never really even giving much consideration to other possibilities, which I think that is what causes a lot of the bad feelings towards the bible and what it says.

Not that I blame people, you can't find anyone anymore anywhere that teaches a living method for interpretation of scripture, and we tend not to go beyond what we're taught.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
any word that is purely context based is not a scientific term

So what and who said so.

Madness, you are impossible. I can find hundreds of posts, YOUR posts where you have used that word yourself. I have seen Dawkins use it and Darwin. Your reluctance to answer a simple question, one I had to assume you would answer as race only because you didn't want to get busted knowing what the damn word means. So you simply avoid the truth, even to yourself.

Since YOU can't understand it, than it is a bunk term in your opinion.

I just got done looking at over forty scientific meanings for the word species. Even Darwin, they said was mis understood by what he "really" meant for species. Now if anything is BUNK that is.

Darwin kept chaging what he meant by it too and made up knew meanings whenever his failed theory couldn't support it.

I have never seen so much confusion, obfuscation and deliberate mis-use of Science vernacular in my life. NO wonder science can't tell whether it's global warming or climate change. Whether it's plasma or entropy, whether it's this kind or that kind. They don'ty look for the damn truth and the so called scientific method rarely gets used, they just "say" it does half the time. What happend madness to cause you to lose your grasp of monosyllabic terminology?

What on EARTH could have taken your perfectly adequate command of the english language and put a mental block in their so stubborn to break the chain holding that word embed in an engram so fargone, ten years holding the cans of an atomic e-meter in the presense of an OT 11 couldn't break through.

Are you going to refrain from saying the word or using the word entirely or just use the synonym noun for kind as being nice. What could have clouded your faculties so much and so convincingly that rather than question your own comprehension skills first, you seem too proud for that. It be easier to have the whole world think you are losing it than admit you were are boxed in, wrapped up and ready to be sent to china when it comes to admiting you are ever wrong.

So what do YOU do?

You tell me I have'nt defined it to you and came up with some science technicality to substantiate why.

Madness, I have been debating you a long time on and I know your stuff better than anyone elses. I know damn well you aren't stupid by any stretch I also know,,

YOU know what the word "kinds" means sheesh.
What do I have to do, post all the quotes where you yourself used the word in similar contexts? You seemed to know what it meant then.

Now, it seems many Atheists on other boards I have been to trying to figure out this wierd apprehension you seem to have had lately, understanding a simple single solitary word, "kind".

Well lo n behold! Their seems to be a new craze in Evolution Atheist circles where recent web updates to blogs and forum have many other Atheists having a very hard time getting this word. So I guess this is the latest thing we will be seeing whenever we discuss genesis, some Atheist will say "well what is meant by "kinds""?

They will, like you, just fail to understand it or say it isn't a term. Soon we will have the, English delusion and Kind is not a word by Christopher Hitchens. Or the "Kind" that wasn't there. I mean I know why you MUST not understand it, if you did that would really mess up macroevolution.

Jeez if evolutionists used that word,, they would sound like,,,

Creationists.

See Below: You ever seen this before maddness?

Despite the overwhelming trend towards corpus-based approaches to the compilation of general dictionaries, specialist dictionaries of terms appear recalcitrant to change, in line with the position of experts like Landau (1974), who states that the meanings of scientific terms must generally be imposed on the basis of expert advice, not extracted from usage. This paper sets out to assess whether this view is justified. Specifically, the paper considers how current scientific dictionaries of terms deal with items showing subtle semantic variations in use. Entries for five such items (aliquot; crossing over vs. crossover; dose vs. dosage; elute; express) were analysed in five well-known dictionaries of terms in molecular biology, comparing the dictionary definitions with corpus-based assessments of usage. In general, the entries provide only patchy coverage of the corpus-attested spectrum of meanings.

The paper argues for an approach combining more comprehensive corpus-based description (to aid decoding) with more transparent expert-opinion-based prescription (to aid production). ijl.oxfordjournals.org...

Now that is just what we contend with in Lexicographical linguistics. As I am sure you are well aware, most of our medical vernacular is from the greek some latin. These poor Doctors back in Darwits day with his tampering with meanings just so he could keep his failed theory alive.


Yeah, I figure you went to a place like this, www.ncseweb.org...

Then you got all inspired by all that minutia they quibble about and you came back here to announce yet another thing you don't believe in.

The word Kind. or is it A-kind now?

you can't give me an exact definition of "kind"
therefore, it's a bunk term.

Oh I get it, just about everyone gets it, maddness but since finding out how this word works and how it explains how life continues on even with transmutation, allowable, it doesn't leave doesn't leave room for macroevolution.

You know that so called "Mountain" of evidence that we must accept the idea we will never find a fossil for it. Now that they know damn well it don't happen that way, they came up with that equilibrium excuse to explain away the missing fossil record.

So we have yet another materialist globalist atheist creating another competely speculative idea to place on top of the others that were all conceptually manufactured as nothing but an excuse that would seem to work if Darwin was right but I know he wasn't right.

How do I know you ask?

Kinds madness,

Kinds

- Con




[edit on 5-5-2008 by Conspiriology]

I was going to create a new thread about this issue, but the problem is that this thread still exists and I had forgotten about it. I stopped posting in it...around the same time I left this site for a long hiatus. So I'll just rejuvenate this.

What is the definition of the term "kind" that creationists use?

It wasn't answered in this thread.

reply to post by Conspiriology



Scientists don't use the term "kind" in taxonomy. They may use it in everyday speech, considering that it's an everyday word. But when they're being purely scientific, they use terms like 'species' and 'genus'.

Here's how the taxonomy of the common dog goes:

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Genus: Canis
Species: C. lupus
Subspecies: C. l. familiaris

Each of those things means something very specific and very different about the animal.

Subspecies: The "familiar" house dog, in one of many varieties.
Species: The gray wolf
Genus: Information on the genus
Family: Information on the family
Order: Meat eating animals
Class: Warm blooded, live birthing, furred creatures
Phylum: Animals having a spinal chord
Kingdom: Animals



So, where does the term 'kind' fit in with regards to taxonomy?