Theist ➤ Why ☠ Evolution is not Scientific ✔

[Cyberman]

A kind means the same type of healthy animal that can procreate, in other words it isn't Cat+Dog or horse + cow but rather Cow+Cow, Dog+Dog They are all the same kind.

Here is a diagram showing the relationship between all the different classifications used by modern taxonomists. You may google any words of two or more syllables. Where does 'kind' and/or 'type' fit into this system?

[Mister Agenda]

If that is the case then I would have been convinced by your examples but I am not, why am I not convinced yet?

Because you've hung your religion on evolution not being true, so accepting the evidence and allowing yourself to be convinced by it would cause cognitive dissonance so painful that you instinctively shy away from it.

[LastPoet]

What's the definition of a 'kind'?

A kind means the same type of healthy animal that can procreate, in other words it isn't Cat+Dog or horse + cow but rather Cow+Cow, Dog+Dog They are all the same kind.

Are horses and donkeys the same kind?

[Mister Agenda]

Fact: There have been no lab observation of evolution happening such as life coming from non life, only mutations has ever been observed in the lab and mutations are not evolution but variation within a kind, mutations don't increase the genetic information but rather corrupts some parts of DNA and we get a decrease in genetic information in other words devolution not evolution and mutations don't change the kind it is still the same kind.

Fact: Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution, which deals with the speciation of existing organisms. If there's a God, the first one-celled microorganism could have been poofed into existence and evolution would apply thereafter. And applying the same standard, you get a decrease in information when you turn a block of marble into a statue. It would take a lot more code to describe the position of every atom of the former, yet the latter conveys more useful information for the purpose of art appreciation. Gene duplication provides the necessary 'new blocks of marble' for point mutations and the like to act on.

Silver black fox- Again that is not evolution but variation within the dog family kind.

Please define 'kind' scientifically. You're having a scientific discussion, using the word 'kind' is like saying 'thou' instead of 'you'. Species, genus, family, what? And variation that is preserved by natural selection is what evolution is. There is a Nobel for you if you can find a biological mechanism that would prevent those variations from accumulating over time to the point where the descendants of an organism are no longer the same species as their remote ancestor.

When it comes to dating the age of the earth.

"A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a
particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it
confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn’t it?"
Tom Kemp, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record", New
Scientist, Vol. 108, Dec. 5, 1985, p. 67.

The geological column was established before the theory of evolution. Geologists noticed particular fossils were found in strata they established to be certain ages, not the other way around. If they had noticed different colored bottle caps consistently found in different strata, they could then use bottle cap colors to determine the age of a strata quickly, regardless of any theory as to why particular bottle caps are found in particular strata. It isn't circular, it's more like using an index that has been repeatedly shown to take you to the expected pages.

If that's supposed to be the Oxford Tom Kemp; you are definitely taking him out of context because the man definitely accepts the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the abundance of species. Here's a quote from him about his research interests, taken from the University of Oxford Department of Zoology web page:

"My broad field is vertebrate palaeobiology, and I am particularly interested in the mammal-like reptiles and early mammals, and what can be inferred about the structural, functional and ecological aspects of the origin of mammals from their basal amniote ancestry. I also use this case as a paradigm for thinking about major evolutionary transitions and the origin of new higher taxa in general: how long treks through morphospace, involving substantial changes in many characters over the geological time scale, can occur while the phenotype necessarily remains a highly complex, well-integrated entity. I am exploring the extent to which this evolvability versus integration paradox at the phenotypic level can be resolved by the correlated progression model of evolution, and am also concerned about the nature of the adaptive landscapes across which such enormously long-term trends can travel."

[Whateverist]

Yeah...still not any clearer what a 'kind' is.  Especially if you can't explain it with terms we already have.

I think he means that a man might lie with a man or a woman with a woman, but never would these different kinds do anything so unholy as to lie together, and regardless no offspring could come of it.

[Mister Agenda]

I always interpret things from the Creationist perspective, so I don't primarily use the evolutionary scale. Kinds also known as Baraminology(from the two Hebrew words bara, meaning “created,” and min, meaning “kind”).  Often, people are confused into thinking that a “species” is a “kind.” But this isn’t necessarily so. A plain reading of the text infers that plants and animals were created to reproduce within the boundaries of their kind. Evidence to support this concept is clearly seen (or rather not seen) in our world today, as there are no reports of dats (dog + cat) or hows (horse + cow)!

If a kind is defined by what can interbreed and what can't, you're basically saying organisms that can't interbreed, can't interbreed. That doesn't seem to be more useful than species and genus and family. If two species can interbreed and the offspring are sterile, are they the same kind? Like horses and donkeys or lions and tigers? If so, I think genus may be the scientific equivalent. The roaring cats are one genus, and at least some of them can interbreed; and they cannot interbreed with other genera of the cat family.  

Genesis 1:25
And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good. 

Y'know, that 'kind begets kind' thing doesn't contradict evolution. Our offspring are always the same 'kind' as us. It would falsify evolution if they weren't. A dog never gives birth to a cat (except maybe with human help), evolution has no mechanism to make that possible. Variations over hundreds or thousands of generations, with the ones that make reproduction more successful conserved and the ones that make reproduction less successful selected against; and the product of ten thousand generations may not be the same species, genus, or 'kind' as it's ancient ancestors, but it will still be the same 'kind' as its parents.

[Ravenshire]

I gave you examples of the theory of evolution is testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable. You can't show that they are not. Yet you are the one claiming that it isn't.

Your argument about 'kinds' shows that you do not understand the theory of evolution. Only creationists refer to 'kinds'. No scientist ever does and scientists are the ones who have researched evolution. You can't breed a fox and a donkey, but both species have a common ancestor. Evolution works in very small steps (or variation if you will) and these small steps accumulate over time. Speciation occurs when a population finds a separate evolutionary niche that can be filled and the subsequent generations become adapted to it instead.

You're the one using the term 'kinds'. How do you define a kind of animal? Do you define it as two species that cannot breed? In which case all you are doing is stating a tautology.

Try learning what evolution actually is before you try arguing against it otherwise all you do is perform a strawman argument.

I gave you examples of the theory of evolution is testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable. 

If that is the case then I would have been convinced by your examples but I am not, why am I not convinced yet?

Because you're a fucking ignorant idiot?

[Cyberman]

Yeah...still not any clearer what a 'kind' is. Especially if you can't explain it with terms we already have.

I think he means that a man might lie with a man or a woman with a woman, but never would these different kinds do anything so unholy as to lie together, and regardless no offspring could come of it.

That's the thing. The damnbible talks about animal being made "after their kind" etc, but it also says that bats are birds and the Moon is a light. Once we start to strip out everything we know to be wrong, how do we know where to stop?

[The Joker]

A kind means the same type of healthy animal that can procreate, in other words it isn't Cat+Dog or horse + cow but rather Cow+Cow, Dog+Dog They are all the same kind.

Here is a diagram showing the relationship between all the different classifications used by modern taxonomists. You may google any words of two or more syllables. Where does 'kind' and/or 'type' fit into this system?

Good for bringing this up, Carl Linnaeus a Creationist was the founder of the modern classification system. in the 1700s the image that you brought up was carl Linnaeus taxonomy. Secular scientists have added several new categories in light of their ancestral “tree-based” taxonomy, but use the old system for convenience. It is now:

• Domain
  
• Kingdom
  
• Phylum
  
• Subphylum
  
• Class
  
• Cohort
  
• Order
  
• Suborder
  
• Infraorder
  
• Superfamily
  
• Family
  
• Genus
  
• Species
  

The Creationist Taxonomy scale bible standard is different:

Creationist Classification of the mourning dove:

• Class 1: Day Five
  
• Class 2: Winged/Air
  
• Class 3: Winged/Flying creatures (owph)
  
• Class 4: Bird
  
• Class 5: Living
  
• Kind: Dove kind (yownah)
  
• Sub-kind 1: dove
  
• Sub-kind 2: mourning dove
  
• Others within the kind: passenger pigeon (now extinct), turtle dove, fantails, pouters, Jacobins, tumblers, homing pigeons, carrier pigeons
  

Kind is in the Biblical Creationist Taxonomy scale.

---

I gave you examples of the theory of evolution is testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable. 

If that is the case then I would have been convinced by your examples but I am not, why am I not convinced yet?

Because you're a fucking ignorant idiot?

It depends on what you mean.

[ApeNotKillApe]

Are you some kind of imbecile?