The Creationist Concept of Kind

Creationists love to use the term kind. But what does it mean, and should we care. In this video I point out the huge flaw in using the term kind in a scientific discussion about evolution. Kind is a subjective term. The user is free to define any criteria for grouping objects. I go through a series of examples. Just like the term humankind, we can also add vehiclekind, peoplekind, artkind, sweetkind, and so on. One of the hallmarks of science is having a set of specifically and rigorously defined terms (a.k.a jargon) so that there is no misunderstanding when we communicate. The term kind is the complete opposite of this.

To download this video go to:
http://www.mediafire.com/?8bi0tmbb1dn

If you wish to translate this video you can download the PowerPoint file from:
http://www.mediafire.com/?4tlneddiymg

Learn the facts, spread the truth, and most importantly, Think About It.

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

• Evolution
• Intelligent
• Design
• ID
• Creation
• Species
• Genus
• Macro
• Micro
• Education
• Fact
• Hovind
• Dawkins

[paramattic70]

@salmagnum god said also what breathes air through nostrils. So Noah had beluga, sperm, humpback and killer whales aboard. And all the birds hanging around. Wooo! Um, a freezer for polar bears. Incubator for kymoto dragons and such. All the disease. Wooo! just think how many rats, mice, cockroaches and rabbits would've multiplied. I won't even mention dinosaurs. Human inbreeding. Ok, sounds good. Makes sense.

[MethanolCH3OH]

0:54 Whenever I hear this, I present the following analogy:

Imagine that a young child were to ask what a car was. His parent shows the child a Prius, Chevrolet, and Model T, and says they are each cars. The child concludes that cars are things with wheels that move. The child then sees a train, bus, and plane, and calls them each "car". Because examples were given instead of an exhaustive definition, the child reached erroneous conclusions about what a car is. We need exhaustive definition.

[godlynessdog]

@VCat2006 Not even. :)

[VCat2006]

@godlynessdog Even a pair of radioactive earthworms?

[godlynessdog]

@salmagnum It really is sad what religion has done to you. Do you think it is really possible for a whole new population of species to be made just from the ancestors of one mating pair? Do you know anything about inbreeding? Of course you don't. You think the whole human lineage can be traced back to Adam and Eve. Use some common sense. A healthy population of a species can not be created by one mating pair.

[onijester56]

(cont)

5) You still don't deal with "Super Evolution".

6) You ignore BIBLICAL DIMENSIONS.

And that's just summarizing the errors you put into ONE 500-character post. Either you are a troll or an idiot; I pray to Ra all-mighty that it's the former.

[onijester56]

@salmagnum

1) Source, please.

2) Number of animals does NOT correspond to SIZES of them. Also you forget air-based animals, plants, and bacteria.

3) A good portion of the sea-life would have DIED from the heavy rain water. Also there would be entire desert and arctic lifesystems that Noah wouldn't have been able to get to and you must include those.

3) Most animals would require food, which would consist of OTHER ANIMALS.

4) And we can't forget waste management.

[hostroute]

Creationists read the bible selectively "kind" (miyn) is used elsewhere in the pentateuch to mean very similar animals. Leviticus 11:22, Deuteronomy 14:15 are two examples. If you do a Google search for "creationists kinds noahs ark and genesis 1:25" you will find an article I wrote about this. For the kind theory to hold water they need to prove it means a "root" species and that there is a brake on the evolutionary process. They have done neither.

[shoulderkolibri]

@salmagnum Actually the dimension you're looking for is 450 feet long and 75 feet wide (converted from cubits) The proportion of that and the weight of 70,000 (2 of each) land animals would stuff the ship and make the ship sink. (excluding the hilarious idea of boxes of insects being distributed. Or that there are deadly creatures on board). Even with 35,000 'kinds' you'd be assuming that the existing variety of species in the millions come from some type of miraculous super-evolution -___-'

[cruciphile]

@whitesquirrel7 don't forget tiger sharks and zebra fish!