Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 7:08 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The definition of Kind.
#1
The definition of Kind.
The objective of this thread will be to collect the usage and deduce the definition of "kind". I thought if we could have a place to accumulate all of the instances kind is used we might be able to, at least, set a working parameter on its usage. Maybe one day we'll make it to Webster??

If a theist finds it in his/her heart to make our search a little easier, please feel free to add some information.

If anyone wishes to dig through the threads to find different usages of kind, feel free. I, on the other hand (because of laziness), plan to add to this thread from future conversations about kind that I find applicable to this thread.

So far, as a starting point, Genus is suspected to be the true meaning of kind. We'll see how that evolves in the future.
Reply
#2
RE: The definition of Kind.
Abstracts are never absolutes and are always subjective. For example, I do not find it to be "kind" to know someone is making a mistake in logic, when I know I could help them, and remain silent while they keep selling that flawed logic to others around them. I do a disservice to them, as well as society as a whole.
Reply
#3
RE: The definition of Kind.
Are you referring to me? I welcome all corrections, so please feel free to be blunt.

I was thinking this could be more for fun. Every time we see a different use of the word kind, we post it here, have a laugh, and maybe we can periodically add what we find to the "official" definition.
I can't remember where this verse is from, I think it got removed from canon:

"I don't hang around with mostly men because I'm gay. It's because men are better than women. Better trained, better equipped...better. Just better! I'm not gay."

For context, this is the previous verse:

"Hi Jesus" -robvalue
Reply
#4
RE: The definition of Kind.
The creatards have no problem spelling out their horseshit.

http://www.nwcreation.net/biblicalkinds.html

You'll note that no where do they provide any evidence for their silly-assed god doing anything. They take that part as a given which is, of course, where they utterly fail.

Utter gibberish.
Reply
#5
RE: The definition of Kind.
(November 17, 2014 at 5:00 pm)Minimalist Wrote: http://www.nwcreation.net/biblicalkinds.html

Utter gibberish.
True

Henry Morris Wrote:It will probably be found eventually that the min [Hebrew word for kind] often is identical to the "species," sometimes the "genus," and possibly once in a while with the "family".

So 'Kind' can mean anything you want it to mean. An indefinable term is useless.

[/thread]
Sum ergo sum
Reply
#6
RE: The definition of Kind.
(November 17, 2014 at 5:39 pm)Ben Davis Wrote: So 'Kind' can mean anything you want it to mean. An indefinable term is useless.

[/thread]

It's not useless if you only need it to mean whatever it takes to disagree with evolution. Which is why a definition is really only half of what we should be asking for here. We should also be asking for a reason to use "kind" over the already extant scientific classification system.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee

Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Reply
#7
RE: The definition of Kind.
That's a link I dug up for a different thread talking about the same subject.

Warning, serious creatard bullshit inside.

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-sel...-and-kind/
[Image: Bumper+Sticker+-+Asheville+-+Praise+Dog3.JPG]
Reply
#8
RE: The definition of Kind.
Quote:In The Genesis Record, (1976) when Henry Morris states:

“ It is significant that the phrase “after his kind” occurs ten times in the first chapter of Genesis. Whatever precisely is meant by the term “kind” (Hebrew min), it does indicate the limitations of variation. Each organism was to reproduce after its own kind, not after some other kind.[2]
Quoted from Min's link. My bolding.

Regardless of the inaccuracies present with "kind", its worthy to note that the author distinguishes between animals giving birth to the same offspring that they are, and a case where one animal might give birth to a different animal, which suggests that there is an idea out there some where that one animal can give birth to an entirely different animal. Evolution certainly doesn't make this claim, and reality doesn't act this way. What is the author trying to dispute?
I can't remember where this verse is from, I think it got removed from canon:

"I don't hang around with mostly men because I'm gay. It's because men are better than women. Better trained, better equipped...better. Just better! I'm not gay."

For context, this is the previous verse:

"Hi Jesus" -robvalue
Reply
#9
RE: The definition of Kind.
There's also this: we have a fairly good phylogenetic model of organisms and their attendant relationships. At somewhere along that model, creationists believe that all the separate "kinds" were created instantly, separately, and distinctly from one another, and they know what all of them are. They'd have to, or else they wouldn't be able to so confidently assert what goes in what kind when we talk to them.

So, given all the things a creationist would have to know to avoid talking out of their ass, we should be able to sit one down in front of a phylogenetic tree and have them point out exactly where each kind starts, how they know it started there, and so on. We'd also know from that exactly how far "microevolution" can take a species.

Of course, if we actually did that, the creationist wouldn't know where to start. Which just indicates... well, you know. Dodgy
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee

Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Reply
#10
RE: The definition of Kind.
If I had to guess, and if they accept the fossil record as evidence for anything at all, they would say "Oh, right there, in that strata, that's where that animal was first created by Glob." At the same time, they would have to dismiss all of the fossil evidence that came before this animal, that shows signs of its features being developed along the way further back in time.
I can't remember where this verse is from, I think it got removed from canon:

"I don't hang around with mostly men because I'm gay. It's because men are better than women. Better trained, better equipped...better. Just better! I'm not gay."

For context, this is the previous verse:

"Hi Jesus" -robvalue
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  That's the Kind of Pareidolia I Like thesummerqueen 14 2353 December 2, 2011 at 9:22 am
Last Post: Epimethean



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)