Scientists baffled by a perfect example of Biblical kinds

[Crucible]

The humans evolved into sheep and believe anything Big Science or Big Government tells them

 

[Greg Jennings]

Nope. The definition of kind I use is clear and useful. Even Darwinists can use it — when they get over themselves and admit that it exists.

You've had quite the fall from grace, huh?

 

[Greg Jennings]

The humans evolved into sheep and believe anything Big Science or Big Government tells them

And where did you do your own deep research?

 

[Stripe]

That's a very astute observation. One of the psychological traits that is common among fundamentalists is a need for certainty. So the fact that the word "species" has different definitions for different situations, and has exceptions is something that they just can't handle (as this thread demonstrates).

Darwinists will do anything to avoid answering a question.

It's that way because populations are constantly evolving, which can make it difficult to determine where to draw the line between "species".

A definition that requires the truth of your religion is the establishment of question begging as part of the lexicon. It just invites nonsense.

It's like looking at a spectrum of colors and trying to say where red ends and organge begins. Depending on the spectrum, it can be very difficult to tell. So I guess using creationist logic, that means "red" and "orange" are meaningless terms!

Nope. There would be many ways to define where orange ends and red begins.

On the flip side, if everything were created completely separately and distinctly by a God, we would expect the lines between taxa to be unmistakable and unchangeable. But instead we see the exact opposite.

Nope. We don't see a gradation between cats and dogs. They reproduce according to their kinds.

So this is yet another area in which the creationists are trying to tell everyone that reality is the opposite of what it truly is.

Nope. We're looking for a rational discussion. When you refuse to define your terms and stick with them, that is impossible.

 

[Lon]

I realise that a new thread may be a better than here for this topic.

Probably right.

 

[Jose Fly]

A definition that requires the truth of your religion is the establishment of question begging as part of the lexicon.

That populations evolve is an observed fact, not an assumption.

Nope. There would be many ways to define where orange ends and red begins.

Many ways? So you are comfortable with words having multiple definitions and applications. Good.

Nope. We don't see a gradation between cats and dogs. They reproduce according to their kinds.

Please explain how you determined that there is a "cat kind" and "dog kind".

Nope. We're looking for a rational discussion. When you refuse to define your terms and stick with them, that is impossible.

Not sure if you've noticed, but the consensus opinion here is that rational discussion with you isn't possible. The only person who can change that perception is you.

 

[Stripe]

That populations evolve is an observed fact, not an assumption.

Nope.

Evolution is just a theory.

And don't start with the "theory doesn't mean what you think it does" lecture. You made the error calling a theory a fact; you correct yourself. :up:

Many ways? So you are comfortable with words having multiple definitions and applications. Good.

Nope. Pick one and stick to it, remember?

I don't care how you define "red," "orange" or "species" — as long as you're willing to stick with that definition and respond rationally to challenges based on your use of the word.

Please explain how you determined that there is a "cat kind" and "dog kind".

I guessed.

Not sure if you've noticed, but the consensus opinion here is that rational discussion with you isn't possible.

And guess what, consensus everywhere is that arguments from consensus are irrational. When you find me being irrational, feel free to point it out. However, believing that what the majority tells you must be true is only going to get you ignored. :up:

The only person who can change that perception is you.

Fortunately, I couldn't care less what the majority think. Science, remember? Not popularity. I bet you're a Trump supporter. :chuckle:

 

[Jose Fly]

Nope.

Yep, we see populations evolve all the time. We see the evolution of new traits, genetic sequences, and species.

Evolution is a directly and repeatedly observed fact.

Evolution is just a theory.

And don't start with the "theory doesn't mean what you think it does" lecture. You made the error calling a theory a fact; you correct yourself.

It's both a theory and a fact. You didn't know that?

Nope. Pick one and stick to it, remember?

I guess it is only you who is uncomfortable with words having multiple meanings. You must really hate the word "run".

I guessed.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Poly]

Fortunately, I couldn't care less what the majority think. Science, remember? Not popularity. I bet you're a Trump supporter. :chuckle:

:up:

 

[Stripe]

Yep, we see populations evolve all the time. We see the evolution of new traits, genetic sequences, and species.

Nope. Evolution is just a theory.

Evolution is a directly and repeatedly observed fact.

Nope. It's just a theory.

It's both a theory and a fact.

Nope. Facts and theories are different things. To claim evolution is both reveals that you are talking about two different things. This justifies the accusation against you that Darwinists use the fallacy of equivocation, promoting their theory by calling it a fact and switching definitions when called on it.

It also lends credence to the accusation that "species" is not only in fact vague and malleable, it is that way for much the same reason as with the "fact and theory" nonsense.

I guess it is only you who is uncomfortable with words having multiple meanings. You must really hate the word "run".

Nope. Homonyms are a perfectly acceptable part of speech. We know that to run someone through and to run out of wine are two entirely different concepts because of context. Therefore, we can define them differently.

However, "species" is not generally known as a homonym. It is used ubiquitously by Darwinists and they only begrudgingly admit to a variety of meanings when pressed.

And this variety of meanings makes the word next to useless in a scientific setting, unless you have explicitly stated your definition and stick to it rigorously.

Thanks for clarifying.

It never helps you though, does it?

 

[Jose Fly]

Nope. Evolution is just a theory.

Nope. It's just a theory.

Nope. Facts and theories are different things. To claim evolution is both reveals that you are talking about two different things. This justifies the accusation against you that Darwinists use the fallacy of equivocation, promoting their theory by calling it a fact and switching definitions when called on it.

That may be your opinion, but that only matters to you. In the actual world of science however, evolution is no different than something like germs causing diseases. In both cases, we know that populations evolve/germs cause disease because we see them happen all the time, thus evolution/germ-caused disease are facts. And both are also theories in that the theory seeks to explain how populations evolve/germs cause disease.

If your only rebuttal is to assert "No it isn't" and nothing more, then I'll just thank you for your opinion and move on.

Nope. Homonyms are a perfectly acceptable part of speech. We know that to run someone through and to run out of wine are two entirely different concepts because of context. Therefore, we can define them differently.

However, "species" is not generally known as a homonym. It is used ubiquitously by Darwinists and they only begrudgingly admit to a variety of meanings when pressed.

Begrudgingly? I've not seen anyone begrudge the fact that different definitions of species are needed in different circumstances, such as asexual vs. sexual organisms, or extant vs extinct organisms.

And this variety of meanings makes the word next to useless in a scientific setting, unless you have explicitly stated your definition and stick to it rigorously.

Maybe in your world, but in the real world of science there is no such requirement that terms be set in stone and apply universally. For example, the term "gene" is fairly vague and changes depending on the circumstances. Similarly, the term "life" is somewhat open and malleable. The precise meaning of those terms continues to be debated within scientific circles.

Yet somehow science marches on and continues to use terms like "gene", "life", and "species", despite your odd demand that definitions be forever set in stone and apply universally.

It never helps you though, does it?

Actually in this case, it does. The fact that your method for establishing "kinds" is to guess will be most helpful in future discussions.

 

[Stripe]

That may be your opinion.

Nope. Reasons, remember? You should, I just finished giving them.

If your only rebuttal is to assert "No it isn't" and nothing more, then I'll just thank you for your opinion and move on.

Nope. You'll ignore good reasoning.

Begrudgingly? I've not seen anyone begrudge the fact that different definitions of species are needed in different circumstances, such as asexual vs. sexual organisms, or extant vs extinct organisms.

No? Clearly you haven't read this thread.

Maybe in your world, but in the real world of science there is no such requirement that terms be set in stone and apply universally. For example, the term "gene" is fairly vague and changes depending on the circumstances. Similarly, the term "life" is somewhat open and malleable. The precise meaning of those terms continues to be debated within scientific circles.Yet somehow science marches on and continues to use terms like "gene", "life", and "species", despite your odd demand that definitions be forever set in stone and apply universally.

Perhaps.

However, if it is a problem, then the solution is to define your terms and stick to them.

The fact that your method for establishing "kinds" is to guess will be most helpful in future discussions.

That's nice for you.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Nope. Reasons, remember? You should, I just finished giving them.

:rotfl: well that's baloney

The fact that creationism is complete nonsense just sends your bp through the roof, doesn't it?

 

[6days]

That populations evolve is an observed fact, not an assumption.

What is observed is adaptation, mutation rates, genetic drift etc
Evolution...if you mean common ancestry beliefs is a religion.

 

[Jonahdog]

What is observed is adaptation, mutation rates, genetic drift etc
Evolution...if you mean common ancestry beliefs is a religion.

Uh, no. Don't you and Stripey ever bother to learn anything? I assume you are both adults, age wise anyway, but do you still need help crossing a busy street?

 

[Jose Fly]

Thanks for your time Stripe.

 

[Jose Fly]

What is observed is adaptation, mutation rates, genetic drift etc

You just listed some of the mechanisms of evolution. So basically what you're trying to say is "Sure, we see all the mechanisms of evolution occur, but that doesn't mean we see evolution!"

And that's just hilarious. :chuckle:

Evolution...if you mean common ancestry beliefs is a religion.

Thanks for restating your beliefs yet again, but that only matters to you. As we both know, in the world of science evolutionary theory (which includes common ancestry) remains the unifying framework of the life sciences, and every university and scientific organization that has weighed in on the question has unequivocally stated so.

So again, you can say black is white and up is down all you like, but that only matters to you.

 

[Stripe]

Thanks for your time Stripe.

Darwinists hate dealing with people who reject their religion. They cannot abide a rational discussion, so they will pretend there is no challenge to answer and hide.

However, the challenge remains: "Kind" has a well-defined, rock-solid meaning, while "species" is a vague and malleable term. In a scientific discussion, it is the creationist term that is universally applicable and meaningful, while the evolutionary term is used in multiple scenarios to describe a myriad of ideas, leading to nonsense.

The YEC camp speaks science, but Darwinists promote equivocation and nonsense.

 

[Jose Fly]

However, the challenge remains: "Kind" has a well-defined, rock-solid meaning, while "species" is a vague and malleable term. IN a scientific discussion, it is the creationist term that is universally applicable and meaningful, while the evolutionary term is used in multiple scenarios to describe a myriad of ideas, leading to nonsense.

Yet if we look at reality, there isn't a single university, scientific organization, or private firm that uses or operates with the concept of "kinds", whereas they all used the concept of species.

So again, thanks for insisting that black is white and up is down. It's quite entertaining. :up:

The YEC camp speaks science

Yet you agree that creationism isn't science.

 

[Stripe]

Yet if we look at reality, there isn't a single university, scientific organization, or private firm that uses or operates with the concept of "kinds", whereas they all used the concept of species.

Arguments from popularity are irrational, and this one also happens to be false.

Remember what we said about Darwinists being desperate to avoid a rational discussion? They will always immediately reach for nonsense like this, hoping they will draw a response that will allow them to keep peddling their nonsense.

Darwinists are snake-oil salesmen, willing to say anything to remain in their business of selling lies.

So again, thanks for insisting that black is white and up is down. It's quite entertaining.

Nope. You've asserted a patent falsehood.

Yet you agree that creationism isn't science.

Nope. Are you aiming to get everything wrong?