Creationists

[LOki]

Here's another question I'm sure you'll avoid:

The use of the term "kind"; some have suggested that it is synonymous with "species," yet here the suggestion seems to be that it means "family." Saying that any gender compatible members of a common species can successfully reproduce is saying one thing (and not in dispute--I think), and saying that any gender compatible members of a family is saying something significantly different.

Precisely clarify the term "kind" as it relates to species and/or family if you are going to refer to contemporary taxonomies and taxonomic terminology as compatible with scriptural taxonomy and taxonomic terminology.

Since I hold little hope out for an ingenuous and honest reply, it's also worth reminding you (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Kind can mean both family or breed.

There are many breeds within a family some breeds can't breed with other family members but they are still from the same family or kind.

That's all for today folks have a great day.

You know, I knew you couldn't be counted on ... or rather could be.

You couldn't be counted upon to be honest and ingenuous, and could certainly be counted upon for some more bullshit.

"Breed?" really? "Breed" is synonymous with "sub-species" and your answer is hardly precise, and certainly not an honest illumination upon the parsing out of a valid and meaningful use of the term "kind."

You really just said "Yeah, "kind" means species or family, whatever."

It's also worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

 

[LOki]

"Powerful stuff!"

 

[koshergrl]

Here's another question I'm sure you'll avoid:

The use of the term "kind"; some have suggested that it is synonymous with "species," yet here the suggestion seems to be that it means "family." Saying that any gender compatible members of a common species can successfully reproduce is saying one thing (and not in dispute--I think), and saying that any gender compatible members of a family is saying something significantly different.

Precisely clarify the term "kind" as it relates to species and/or family if you are going to refer to contemporary taxonomies and taxonomic terminology as compatible with scriptural taxonomy and taxonomic terminology.

Since I hold little hope out for an ingenuous and honest reply, it's also worth reminding you (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Kind can mean both family or breed.

There are many breeds within a family some breeds can't breed with other family members but they are still from the same family or kind.

That's all for today folks have a great day.

You know, I knew you couldn't be counted on ... or rather could be.

You couldn't be counted upon to be honest and ingenuous, and could certainly be counted upon for some more bullshit.

"Breed?" really? "Breed" is synonymous with "sub-species" and your answer is hardly precise, and certainly not an honest illumination upon the parsing out of a valid and meaningful use of the term "kind."

You really just said "Yeah, "kind" means species or family, whatever."

It's also worth noting (again) that that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

If you're going to argue semantics and word meanings, you should look them up first. Otherwise, you come across as the village idiot:

"kind 2 (k

nd)
n. 1. a. A group of individuals or instances sharing common traits; a category or sort: different kinds of furniture; a new kind of politics."

in kind - definition of in kind by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"There is no God because I don't believe it!"

Lol...

"My evidence is BETTER than yours, therefore my faith is more valid! Cuz I say so!"

Lol...

Now you are catching on to the failings of faith opinions when trying to apply them to the natural world of science. They don't compute.

You and i can both believe in The Rise Lord and don't have to be concerned about how God created the world, for it is not a salvation issue, right?

 

[LOki]

If you're going to argue semantics and word meanings, you should look them up first. Otherwise, you come across as the village idiot:

"kind 2 (k

nd)
n. 1. a. A group of individuals or instances sharing common traits; a category or sort: different kinds of furniture; a new kind of politics."

in kind - definition of in kind by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Well look at who is really the idiot!

Sweetheart, go play in the street, grown-ups are talking.

 

[koshergrl]

"
The Biblical usage of "kind" is close to the scientific usage of "species". The Biblical phrase "after their kind" is commonly interpreted to imply fixity of species in Genesis 1, but this interpretation is not consistent with the usage in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Species is defined scientifically as reproductive isolation; organisms are of the same species if they can interbreed successfully, and are of different species if they cannot. In the case of fossils, where the reproductive test cannot be conducted, different species are distinguished by morphology (physical characteristics). If two fossils look different enough, they are classified as different species. A panel of scientists may judge the differences in morphology. This practice also matches the Biblical usage, where different organisms are identified by how they look. If two populations can be reliably distinguished, then they are different Biblical "kinds".

Biblical Kind

 

[LOki]

"
The Biblical usage of "kind" is close to the scientific usage of "species". The Biblical phrase "after their kind" is commonly interpreted to imply fixity of species in Genesis 1, but this interpretation is not consistent with the usage in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Species is defined scientifically as reproductive isolation; organisms are of the same species if they can interbreed successfully, and are of different species if they cannot. In the case of fossils, where the reproductive test cannot be conducted, different species are distinguished by morphology (physical characteristics). If two fossils look different enough, they are classified as different species. A panel of scientists may judge the differences in morphology. This practice also matches the Biblical usage, where different organisms are identified by how they look. If two populations can be reliably distinguished, then they are different Biblical "kinds".

Biblical Kind

Nice! Nicely leveled up!

And I will keep this in mind, as I discuss the topic with you, that as far as you're concerned the Biblical term "kind" is synonymous with "species."

I'm still interested in how YWC intends to use the term. That asshat is not quite so ingenuous.

Thanks.

P.S. Do not hesitate to correct me if I have your notion wrong. All right? You seem to have decided to be cool, so I'll be cool about getting your perspective right. Fair?

 

[Dragon]

If you're going to argue semantics and word meanings, you should look them up first.

He wasn't asking for a standard definition, he was asking YWC for HIS definition, what HE meant by it. Words mean whatever we say they mean and agree they mean. A definition is just a description, not a prescription. If YWC had given a coherent and precise definition of the term "kind," that would have clarified what he was saying when he used the term.

The problem, and it came out in YWC's response, is that he didn't have a clear meaning in mind at all. It was a vague, general term, very fuzzy, and usable for fudging data and issues. Which is, of course, the way that creationists have pretty consistently used it. Is a "kind" a species? A genus? A family? No, not really -- it's just a way to make a statement in support of creationism that doesn't actually mean anything, and therefore can't be disproven.

 

[koshergrl]

"There is no God because I don't believe it!"

Lol...

"My evidence is BETTER than yours, therefore my faith is more valid! Cuz I say so!"

Lol...

Now you are catching on to the failings of faith opinions when trying to apply them to the natural world of science. They don't compute.

You and i can both believe in The Rise Lord and don't have to be concerned about how God created the world, for it is not a salvation issue, right?

Spare me your condescension...I know what the *failings* of faith opinions are, and I recognize and own that nobody has or will prove the existence of God until he sends Christ back to us. I wonder when you will "catch on" to that? I've certainly stated it enough times that anyone who can read and who has read anything I've posted should have gotten it by now.

That has never been my objection to the anti-Christian community that gets their jollies from running around preaching the religion of evolution to believers. My objection is their pig headed and dishonest insistence that their beliefs HAVE been proven. They haven't. My objection is to their compulsion (which of course I BELIEVE comes straight from hell) to seek out Christians with their fake *facts* to try to shake their faith with them.

The devil is a liar, and so are those who do this. I don't need evidence to verify God exists because if there was evidence, there would be no need for faith now, would there? But it is patently true that there is absolutely NO true evidence that can disprove the existence of God, or the veracity of the bible. It doesn't exist, and it will never exist. Every now and then, we hear of some great *discovery* and all the antis get all worked up over the "proof" that disproves the bible...and in the end, these little discoveries always end up being garbage.

I don't need to verify the existence of God, my faith and the Holy Spirit convict me.

But the other side apparently DOES need that verification...and they lie that it exists when it doesn't.

That's my one and only problem with anti Christians. I have no problem whatever with science. I just don't need it to substantiate my faith in God. And that DOESN'T mean I don't understand it or enjoy it, nor does it mean I don't know anything about it.

 

[LOki]

If you're going to argue semantics and word meanings, you should look them up first.

He wasn't asking for a standard definition, he was asking YWC for HIS definition, what HE meant by it. Words mean whatever we say they mean and agree they mean. A definition is just a description, not a prescription. If YWC had given a coherent and precise definition of the term "kind," that would have clarified what he was saying when he used the term.

The problem, and it came out in YWC's response, is that he didn't have a clear meaning in mind at all. It was a vague, general term, very fuzzy, and usable for fudging data and issues. Which is, of course, the way that creationists have pretty consistently used it. Is a "kind" a species? A genus? A family? No, not really -- it's just a way to make a statement in support of creationism that doesn't actually mean anything, and therefore can't be disproven.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dragon again."

 

[Dr.Drock]

Now if you wish to cover mutations you can see when mutations cause change from a mistake it usually is harmful to organisms.

Beneficial mutations are so rare they cannot do what evolutionist say.

In this post you admit that mutations aren't always harmful to organisms.



Sometimes you slip up and accidentally admit to believing science. Because that's exactly what biologists say, that most mutations are harmful or neutral but in minority cases they can be beneficial. Beneficial meaning they increase an organisms chance to survive and breed and pass on the beneficial mutation.

Not a slip up, but we can discuss a few so called beneficial mutations and see if they were really beneficial to the whole human race.

Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

For honest answers.

Mutations

It would be nice if any of your bible bloggers ever had any education in biology.

But then again if they were educated in biology, they wouldn't be evolution deniers.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"There is no God because I don't believe it!"

Lol...

"My evidence is BETTER than yours, therefore my faith is more valid! Cuz I say so!"

Lol...

Now you are catching on to the failings of faith opinions when trying to apply them to the natural world of science. They don't compute.

You and i can both believe in The Rise Lord and don't have to be concerned about how God created the world, for it is not a salvation issue, right?

Spare me your condescension... snip

She says condescendingly. You know, koshergirl in fact, very little about it. That is a simple fact, and only some time, study, and humility will change that. Don't worry about the wacks on the far side, for they surely have enough matters to worry about. You have done poorly here, as a scientist and as a witness. You remind me of a new convert so committed to convincing the world that you do more damage than twenty devils.

Please stop it.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm glad you caught the condescension. Maybe you are learning.

I've done just fine. I do wonder about those who claim to have faith who batter their own team, though.

 

[koshergrl]

If you're going to argue semantics and word meanings, you should look them up first.

He wasn't asking for a standard definition, he was asking YWC for HIS definition, what HE meant by it. Words mean whatever we say they mean and agree they mean. A definition is just a description, not a prescription. If YWC had given a coherent and precise definition of the term "kind," that would have clarified what he was saying when he used the term.

The problem, and it came out in YWC's response, is that he didn't have a clear meaning in mind at all. It was a vague, general term, very fuzzy, and usable for fudging data and issues. Which is, of course, the way that creationists have pretty consistently used it. Is a "kind" a species? A genus? A family? No, not really -- it's just a way to make a statement in support of creationism that doesn't actually mean anything, and therefore can't be disproven.

Lol..and AGAIN you're on hand to explain to everybody what they REALLY mean.

Good grief, this has to be some sort of disorder...

 

[koshergrl]

In this post you admit that mutations aren't always harmful to organisms.



Sometimes you slip up and accidentally admit to believing science. Because that's exactly what biologists say, that most mutations are harmful or neutral but in minority cases they can be beneficial. Beneficial meaning they increase an organisms chance to survive and breed and pass on the beneficial mutation.

Not a slip up, but we can discuss a few so called beneficial mutations and see if they were really beneficial to the whole human race.

Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

For honest answers.

Mutations

It would be nice if any of your bible bloggers ever had any education in biology.

But then again if they were educated in biology, they wouldn't be evolution deniers.

Who's an evolution denier?

Please quote and link.

 

[Dragon]

Lol..and AGAIN you're on hand to explain to everybody what they REALLY mean.

Good grief, this has to be some sort of disorder...

You might have noticed that Loki attempted to give me rep for that post. Obviously I got what he meant right.

In fact, what he meant was quite obvious and not at all obscure, even though you had some trouble understanding it.

 

[koshergrl]

Tried to give you rep?

What the hell are you talking about? Never mind, I honestly have had enough of your translations. How on earth would people communicate without you?

 

[Dragon]

Tried to give you rep?

What the hell are you talking about?

Look at post #730.

Never mind, I honestly have had enough of your translations. How on earth would people communicate without you?

It usually isn't a problem. It's only a problem here because we are discussing a subject about which you are both ignorant and dishonest.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Not a slip up, but we can discuss a few so called beneficial mutations and see if they were really beneficial to the whole human race.

Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

For honest answers.

Mutations

It would be nice if any of your bible bloggers ever had any education in biology.

But then again if they were educated in biology, they wouldn't be evolution deniers.

Who's an evolution denier?

Please quote and link.

Lee Spetner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read all about it. He essentially invented his own version of evolution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I'm glad you caught the condescension. Maybe you are learning. I've done just fine. I do wonder about those who claim to have faith who batter their own team, though.

I am never concerned in terms of "battering" the other side, because they are on their own unless they cross into my territory. You, as a proclaiming believer, stooped to their level to play their game. So I did not "batter" you, I most appropriately corrected you. Check your biblical precepts, please.