Dustnite
New Member
I get why creationists try to define things differently, it's required in order to be willfully ignorant of the theory of evolution. I'm questioning why anyone would think that using the word "kind" while referring to what evolution actually does is persuasive at all.
I saw this argument online recently and it reminded me of one of our member's feeble attempts at understanding evolution:
Now we can have a thread debunking "kinds" yet again or abel can come on here and try to correct this definition, but it struck me that a wall of text was needed to explain what a "kind" is and still didn't make any fucking sense. I've seen some on here be absolute sticklers to definitions used and others who say definitions are not necessary to explain evolution, etc.
In my opinion, you cannot even have a fruitful conversation unless you can agree on definitions of what you are talking about. I would also add that most dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive so it is also important to agree with how another person is defining their terms.
Does anyone have a better method in getting past this obvious hurdle for people like abel, creationists or should we always just hammer it home?
I saw this argument online recently and it reminded me of one of our member's feeble attempts at understanding evolution:
From Youtube: 22 Answers to 22 Questions from Creationists said:Pyre Spirit
"If we come from monkeys, why are there still monkeys."
If Americans came from Europeans, why are there still Europeans?
mike edwards
monkeys to man is Another kind, Europeans to Americans are the same kind (species) next..........
Pyre Spirit
Define "kind"
mike edwards
What is a kind?” Often, people are confused into thinking that a “species” is a “kind.” But this isn’t necessarily so. A species is a man- made term used in the modern classification system. And frankly, the word species is difficult to define, whether one is a creationist or not! There is more on this word and its definition and relationship to “kinds” later in this chapter. The Bible uses the term “kind.” The Bible’s first use of this word (Hebrew: min) is found in Genesis 1 when God creates plants and animals “according to their kinds.” It is used again in Genesis 6 and 8 when God instructs Noah to take two of every kind of land-dwelling, air-breathing animal onto the ark and also in God’s command for the animals to reproduce after the Flood. 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)! So a good rule of thumb is that if two things can breed together, then they are of the same created kind. It is a bit more complicated than this, but for the time being, this is a quick measure of a “kind.”As an example, dogs can easily breed with one another, whether wolves, dingoes, coyotes, or domestic dogs. When dogs breed together, you get dogs; so there is a dog kind. It works the same with chickens. There are several breeds of chickens, but chickens breed with each other and you still get chickens. So there is a chicken kind. The concept is fairly easy to understand.
Pyre Spirit
"The concept is fairly easy to understand."
Then why can't you explain it?
You still haven't explained what it is. You've said that "a quick measure of kind is things that can breed together."
But that's still not a definition of what kind is.
Now we can have a thread debunking "kinds" yet again or abel can come on here and try to correct this definition, but it struck me that a wall of text was needed to explain what a "kind" is and still didn't make any fucking sense. I've seen some on here be absolute sticklers to definitions used and others who say definitions are not necessary to explain evolution, etc.
In my opinion, you cannot even have a fruitful conversation unless you can agree on definitions of what you are talking about. I would also add that most dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive so it is also important to agree with how another person is defining their terms.
Does anyone have a better method in getting past this obvious hurdle for people like abel, creationists or should we always just hammer it home?