I've always wondered why people get so hung up on the word kind. Of all the problems you could latch on to, "kind" seems pretty low on the list to me. I get that in order to be scientifically accurate, you need to be more specific than the word kind allows, but I don't see the big deal.

Maybe I would understand it better if I read all that up above, including the links, but I'm too lazy right now.

Great post. Thanks!

I need to read up on owls now...

(April 25, 2014 at 11:37 am)ThePinsir Wrote: Great post. Thanks!

I need to read up on owls now...

I can teach thee about owls.

(April 25, 2014 at 11:57 am)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:

(April 25, 2014 at 11:37 am)ThePinsir Wrote: Great post. Thanks!

I need to read up on owls now...

I can teach thee about owls.

Who?? Who?? Who?? Haahha. I made a funny.

(April 25, 2014 at 10:00 am)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote: The problem creationist is the classification of both by science. Bacteria is a domain(6),the highest level of life, and canidae are a family.(7) The problem is where do kinds stop. If canidae are the same kind, then macro evolution has been proven so much that a creationist that denies it is beyond help.

One of the best parts is when you can point out that raccoons are canidae. The differences and distinction between them and wolf-like canines are glaring, but if they say a wolf "turning into" a raccoon is just 'micro-evolution', then you might as well say everything is micro-evolved and of the same kind.

(April 25, 2014 at 12:32 pm)LostLocke Wrote:

(April 25, 2014 at 10:00 am)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote: The problem creationist is the classification of both by science. Bacteria is a domain(6),the highest level of life, and canidae are a family.(7) The problem is where do kinds stop. If canidae are the same kind, then macro evolution has been proven so much that a creationist that denies it is beyond help.

One of the best parts is when you can point out that raccoons are canidae. The differences and distinction between them and wolf-like canines are glaring, but if they say a wolf "turning into" a raccoon is just 'micro-evolution', then you might as well say everything is micro-evolved and of the same kind.

But raccoons are part of the family Procyonidae, while Canidae is another different family. You are thinking of the order Carnivora in which they are both a part of.

I fucking love owls.

@OP: You seem to think that creationists are stuck with the traditional Linnaean classifications. Why is that? Evolutionists propose changes to the traditional classifications all the time, typically based on genetic analyses which come out different from the morphological classifications.

Quote:I've always wondered why people get so hung up on the word kind.

Because Taxonomic Classification is too difficult for their tiny little jesus freak minds to handle!