Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
sadly, I am willing to bet $50 it was not a joke....
I'd message you my pay pal account, but I think my gf would kill me..
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
40% of Americans belive the world was created 6000-years ago
- Thread starter jimdene
- Start date
sadly, I am willing to bet $50 it was not a joke....
I'd message you my pay pal account, but I think my gf would kill me..
LittleNipper
Well-Known Member
No they are not. A kind would appear to be any animal or plant group which have the ability to produce offspring which then have the capacity to reproduce.
LittleNipper
Well-Known Member
Well um no, perhaps you need to read a dictionary
since on your own admission you failed high school, though my apologies if that is incorrect, you were never clear on this issue:
Parable - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A parable is a brief, succinct story, in prose or verse, that illustrates a moral or religious lesson. It differs from a fable in that fables use animals, plants, inanimate objects, and forces of nature as characters, while parables generally feature human characters. It is a type of analogy.[1]
Some scholars of the New Testament apply the term "parable" only to the parables of Jesus,[2] though that is not a common restriction of the term. Parables such as "The Prodigal Son" are central to Jesus' teaching method in both the canonical narratives and the apocrypha.
The word "parable" comes from the Greek "παραβολή" (parabolē, the name given by Greek rhetoricians to any fictive illustration in the form of a brief narrative. Later it came to mean a fictitious narrative, generally referring to something that might naturally occur, by which spiritual and moral matters might be conveyed.[3] A parable is a short tale that illustrates universal truth, one of the simplest of narratives. It sketches a setting, describes an action, and shows the results. It often involves a character facing a moral dilemma, or making a questionable decision and then suffering the consequences. As with a fable, a parable generally relates a single, simple, consistent action, without extraneous detail or distracting circumstances. Examples of parables are Ignacy Krasicki's "Son and Father," "The Farmer," "Litigants" and "The Drunkard."
Many folktales could be viewed as extended parables, and many fairy tales also, except for their magical settings. The prototypical parable differs from the apologue in that it is a realistic story that seems inherently probable and takes place in a familiar setting of life.
A parable is like a metaphor that has been extended to form a brief, coherent fiction. Christian parables have recently been studied as extended metaphors,[4] for example by a writer who finds that "parables are stories about ordinary men and women who find in the midst of their everyday lives surprising things happening.
Parable - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Main Entry: par·a·ble
Pronunciation: \ˈpa-rə-bəl\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin parabola, from Greek parabolē comparison, from paraballein to compare, from para- + ballein to throw — more at devil
Date: 14th century
: example; specifically : a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle
THE KEY WORD IS LATER ---------------- HOW LATER? 2000 years ago or 40? And I never said I flunked out of high school. Did you ever complete it?
Last edited:
You just defined "kind" as something very close to the standard definition for species.
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
Its fun to redefine words....
I like my turnips to actually mean "Round rubbery like objects often used to create lavatory seats"
........................................................
Main Entry: 1kind
Pronunciation: \ˈkīnd\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English kinde, from Old English cynd; akin to Old English cynn kin
Date: before 12th century
1 a archaic : nature b archaic : family, lineage
2 archaic : manner
3 : fundamental nature or quality : essence
4 a : a group united by common traits or interests : category b : a specific or recognized variety <what kind of car do you drive> c : a doubtful or barely admissible member of a category <a kind of gray>
5 a : goods or commodities as distinguished from money <payment in kind> b : the equivalent of what has been offered or received synonyms see type
kind
1 
 /kaɪnd/
Show Spelled[kahynd]
Show IPA adjective,-er, -est. 1. of a good or benevolent nature or disposition, as a person: a kind and loving person.
2. having, showing, or proceeding from benevolence: kind words.
3. indulgent, considerate, or helpful; humane (often fol. by to): to be kind to animals.
4. mild; gentle; clement: kind weather.
5. British Dialect. loving; affectionate.
Use kind in a Sentence
See images of kind
Search kind on the Web
Origin:
bef. 900; ME kind(e) natural, well-disposed, OE gecynde natural, genial1. See kind2
Synonyms
1.mild, benign, benignant, gentle, tender, compassionate. Kind, gracious, kindhearted, kindly imply a sympathetic attitude toward others, and a willingness to do good or give pleasure. Kind implies a deep-seated characteristic shown either habitually or on occasion by considerate behavior: a kind father. Gracious often refers to kindness from a superior or older person to a subordinate, an inferior, a child, etc.: a gracious monarch. Kindhearted implies an emotionally sympathetic nature, sometimes easily imposed upon: a kindhearted old woman. Kindly, a mild word, refers usually to general disposition, appearance, manner, etc.: a kindly face.
Antonyms
1. cruel.
all kinds of 1 : many <likes all kinds of sports>
2 : plenty of <has all kinds of time>
LittleNipper
Well-Known Member
And exactly when do you believe the word "species" was coined?
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
The word "gay" arrived in English during the 12th century from Old French gai, most likely deriving ultimately from a Germanic source
Gay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
shockingly, the majority of people do not use the word in this connotation any longer.
Words change, whether good or bad, they change. Now we have the word Species...
and no longer need the word "kind" in this connotation.
but then I am not sure why I am bothering
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
Who cares? If 'kind' has no biological meaning - and you have yet to demonstrate that it does - then the word can be as old as it likes and still have no relevance to the current debate. However, as 9/10 Pingu has pointed out, your latest definition of 'kind' -
- seems to be indistinguishable from the Biological Species Concept. Welcome aboard.Originally Posted by LittleNipper
A kind would appear to be any animal or plant group which have the ability to produce offspring which then have the capacity to reproduce.
So, how many beetle kinds were on the Ark?
LittleNipper
Well-Known Member
But will your eternity benefit?
dust1n
Zindīq
LOL :biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:
I can't take this thread anymore... too much, too hilarious.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Except when it comes to faith in the bible, right?
LittleNipper
Well-Known Member
The word "gay" arrived in English during the 12th century from Old French gai, most likely deriving ultimately from a Germanic source
Gay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
shockingly, the majority of people do not use the word in this connotation any longer.
Words change, whether good or bad, they change. Now we have the word Species...
and no longer need the word "kind" in this connotation.
According to WIKIPEDIA, you think "kind" has deining problems, well----------
[edit] Difficulty of defining "species" and identifying particular species
Main article: Species problem
The Greenish Warbler demonstrates the concept of a ring species.
It is surprisingly difficult to define the word "species" in a way that applies to all naturally occurring organisms, and the debate among biologists about how to define "species" and how to identify actual species is called the species problem.
Most textbooks follow Ernst Mayr's definition of a species as "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups".[5]
Various parts of this definition serve to exclude some unusual or artificial matings:
- Those which occur only in captivity (when the animal's normal mating partners may not be available) or as a result of deliberate human action.
- Animals which may be physically and physiologically capable of mating but do not normally do so in the wild, for various reasons.
- By definition it applies only to organisms that reproduce sexually. So it does not work for asexually reproducing single-celled organisms and for the relatively few parthenogenetic multi-celled organisms. The term "phylotype" is often applied to such organisms.
- Biologists frequently do not know whether two morphologically similar groups of organisms are "potentially" capable of interbreeding.
- There is considerable variation in the degree to which hybridization may succeed under natural conditions, or even in the degree to which some organisms use sexual reproduction between individuals to breed.
- In ring species, members of adjacent populations interbreed successfully but members of some non-adjacent populations do not.
- In a few cases it may be physically impossible for animals that are members of the same species to mate. However, these are cases in which human intervention has caused gross morphological changes, and are therefore excluded by the biological species concept.
[edit] Definitions of species
LittleNipper
Well-Known Member
See also: Species problem
The question of how best to define "species" is one that has occupied biologists for centuries, and the debate itself has become known as the species problem. Darwin wrote in chapter II of On the Origin of Species:
No one definition has satisfied all naturalists; yet every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species. Generally the term includes the unknown element of a distinct act of creation.[7] But later, in The Descent of Man, when addressing "The question whether mankind consists of one or several species", Darwin revised his opinion to say:
it is a hopeless endeavour to decide this point on sound grounds, until some definition of the term "species" is generally accepted; and the definition must not include an element which cannot possibly be ascertained, such as an act of creation.[8] The modern theory of evolution depends on a fundamental redefinition of "species". Prior to Darwin, naturalists viewed species as ideal or general types, which could be exemplified by an ideal specimen bearing all the traits general to the species. Darwin's theories shifted attention from uniformity to variation and from the general to the particular. According to intellectual historian Louis Menand,
Once our attention is redirected to the individual, we need another way of making generalizations. We are no longer interested in the conformity of an individual to an ideal type; we are now interested in the relation of an individual to the other individuals with which it interacts. To generalize about groups of interacting individuals, we need to drop the language of types and essences, which is prescriptive (telling us what finches should be), and adopt the language of statistics and probability, which is predictive (telling us what the average finch, under specified conditions, is likely to do). Relations will be more important than categories; functions, which are variable, will be more important than purposes; transitions will be more important than boundaries; sequences will be more important than hierarchies. This shift results in a new approach to "species"; Darwin
concluded that species are what they appear to be: ideas, which are provisionally useful for naming groups of interacting individuals. "I look at the term species", he wrote, "as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other ... It does not essentially differ from the word variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, and for convenience sake." [9] Practically, biologists define species as populations of organisms that have a high level of genetic similarity. This may reflect an adaptation to the same niche, and the transfer of genetic material from one individual to others, through a variety of possible means. The exact level of similarity used in such a definition is arbitrary, but this is the most common definition used for organisms that reproduce asexually (asexual reproduction), such as some plants and microorganisms.
This lack of any clear species concept in microbiology has led to some authors arguing that the term "species" is not useful when studying bacterial evolution. Instead they see genes as moving freely between even distantly-related bacteria, with the entire bacterial domain being a single gene pool. Nevertheless, a kind of rule of thumb has been established, saying that species of Bacteria or Archaea with 16S rRNA gene sequences more similar than 97% to each other need to be checked by DNA-DNA Hybridization if they belong to the same species or not.[10] This concept has been updated recently, saying that the border of 97% was too low and can be raised to 98.7%.[11]
In the study of sexually reproducing organisms, where genetic material is shared through the process of reproduction, the ability of two organisms to interbreed and produce fertile offspring of both genders is generally accepted as a simple indicator that the organisms share enough genes to be considered members of the same species. Thus a "species" is a group of interbreeding organisms.
This definition can be extended to say that a species is a group of organisms that could potentially interbreed – fish could still be classed as the same species even if they live in different lakes, as long as they could still interbreed were they ever to come into contact with each other. On the other hand, there are many examples of series of three or more distinct populations, where individuals of the population in the middle can interbreed with the populations to either side, but individuals of the populations on either side cannot interbreed. Thus, one could argue that these populations constitute a single species, or two distinct species. This is not a paradox; it is evidence that species are defined by gene frequencies, and thus have fuzzy boundaries.
Consequently, any single, universal definition of "species" is necessarily arbitrary. Instead, biologists have proposed a range of definitions; which definition a biologists uses is a pragmatic choice, depending on the particularities of that biologist's research
The question of how best to define "species" is one that has occupied biologists for centuries, and the debate itself has become known as the species problem. Darwin wrote in chapter II of On the Origin of Species:
No one definition has satisfied all naturalists; yet every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species. Generally the term includes the unknown element of a distinct act of creation.[7] But later, in The Descent of Man, when addressing "The question whether mankind consists of one or several species", Darwin revised his opinion to say:
it is a hopeless endeavour to decide this point on sound grounds, until some definition of the term "species" is generally accepted; and the definition must not include an element which cannot possibly be ascertained, such as an act of creation.[8] The modern theory of evolution depends on a fundamental redefinition of "species". Prior to Darwin, naturalists viewed species as ideal or general types, which could be exemplified by an ideal specimen bearing all the traits general to the species. Darwin's theories shifted attention from uniformity to variation and from the general to the particular. According to intellectual historian Louis Menand,
Once our attention is redirected to the individual, we need another way of making generalizations. We are no longer interested in the conformity of an individual to an ideal type; we are now interested in the relation of an individual to the other individuals with which it interacts. To generalize about groups of interacting individuals, we need to drop the language of types and essences, which is prescriptive (telling us what finches should be), and adopt the language of statistics and probability, which is predictive (telling us what the average finch, under specified conditions, is likely to do). Relations will be more important than categories; functions, which are variable, will be more important than purposes; transitions will be more important than boundaries; sequences will be more important than hierarchies. This shift results in a new approach to "species"; Darwin
concluded that species are what they appear to be: ideas, which are provisionally useful for naming groups of interacting individuals. "I look at the term species", he wrote, "as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other ... It does not essentially differ from the word variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, and for convenience sake." [9] Practically, biologists define species as populations of organisms that have a high level of genetic similarity. This may reflect an adaptation to the same niche, and the transfer of genetic material from one individual to others, through a variety of possible means. The exact level of similarity used in such a definition is arbitrary, but this is the most common definition used for organisms that reproduce asexually (asexual reproduction), such as some plants and microorganisms.
This lack of any clear species concept in microbiology has led to some authors arguing that the term "species" is not useful when studying bacterial evolution. Instead they see genes as moving freely between even distantly-related bacteria, with the entire bacterial domain being a single gene pool. Nevertheless, a kind of rule of thumb has been established, saying that species of Bacteria or Archaea with 16S rRNA gene sequences more similar than 97% to each other need to be checked by DNA-DNA Hybridization if they belong to the same species or not.[10] This concept has been updated recently, saying that the border of 97% was too low and can be raised to 98.7%.[11]
In the study of sexually reproducing organisms, where genetic material is shared through the process of reproduction, the ability of two organisms to interbreed and produce fertile offspring of both genders is generally accepted as a simple indicator that the organisms share enough genes to be considered members of the same species. Thus a "species" is a group of interbreeding organisms.
This definition can be extended to say that a species is a group of organisms that could potentially interbreed – fish could still be classed as the same species even if they live in different lakes, as long as they could still interbreed were they ever to come into contact with each other. On the other hand, there are many examples of series of three or more distinct populations, where individuals of the population in the middle can interbreed with the populations to either side, but individuals of the populations on either side cannot interbreed. Thus, one could argue that these populations constitute a single species, or two distinct species. This is not a paradox; it is evidence that species are defined by gene frequencies, and thus have fuzzy boundaries.
Consequently, any single, universal definition of "species" is necessarily arbitrary. Instead, biologists have proposed a range of definitions; which definition a biologists uses is a pragmatic choice, depending on the particularities of that biologist's research
Do you realize how this "problem" is one only of terminology, not natural phenomena, and it's only a problem precisely because evolution is correct?
Edit: this all arose because the definition of "species" is an artifact of Linnean classification, a system that pre-dated Darwin and assumed that species were static things. Since then, we've discovered that species change over time, so the problem arises of where we draw the line between the end of one species and the beginning of another... but this phenomenon only exists because of the gradual change that Darwin and others identified.
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
Nippy, the ill-defined nature of species is precisely in line with evolutionary theory. According to theories of speciation, we should expect to find exactly the degrees of gradation and uncertainty in kinship that we do indeed observe - ring species and all.
Now kinds, on the other hand, are on the one hand divinely defined - according to creationists, at least, as bounded groups within which evolution may occur but between which there can be no exchange - and on the other hand seemingly indefinable, in that no creationist I've ever met has been able to define one.
The problem lies on your side, I think.
Especially since, given his definition of "kind", the "species problem" he just outlined is also a "kind problem".
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
According to WIKIPEDIA, you think "kind" has deining problems, well----------
[edit] Difficulty of defining "species" and identifying particular species
Main article: Species problem
The Greenish Warbler demonstrates the concept of a ring species.
It is surprisingly difficult to define the word "species" in a way that applies to all naturally occurring organisms, and the debate among biologists about how to define "species" and how to identify actual species is called the species problem.
Most textbooks follow Ernst Mayr's definition of a species as "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups".[5]
Various parts of this definition serve to exclude some unusual or artificial matings:
The typical textbook definition above works well for most multi-celled organisms, but there are several types of situations in which it breaks down:
- Those which occur only in captivity (when the animal's normal mating partners may not be available) or as a result of deliberate human action.
- Animals which may be physically and physiologically capable of mating but do not normally do so in the wild, for various reasons.
Horizontal gene transfer makes it even more difficult to define the word "species". There is strong evidence of horizontal gene transfer between very dissimilar groups of prokaryotes, and at least occasionally between dissimilar groups of eukaryotes; and Williamson[6] argues that there is evidence for it in some crustaceans and echinoderms. All definitions of the word "species" assume that an organism gets all its genes from one or two parents which are very like that organism, but horizontal gene transfer makes that assumption false.
- By definition it applies only to organisms that reproduce sexually. So it does not work for asexually reproducing single-celled organisms and for the relatively few parthenogenetic multi-celled organisms. The term "phylotype" is often applied to such organisms.
- Biologists frequently do not know whether two morphologically similar groups of organisms are "potentially" capable of interbreeding.
- There is considerable variation in the degree to which hybridization may succeed under natural conditions, or even in the degree to which some organisms use sexual reproduction between individuals to breed.
- In ring species, members of adjacent populations interbreed successfully but members of some non-adjacent populations do not.
- In a few cases it may be physically impossible for animals that are members of the same species to mate. However, these are cases in which human intervention has caused gross morphological changes, and are therefore excluded by the biological species concept.
[edit] Definitions of species
great so you win "half a point" at best...
this tangent still does not, however, address the idea that the world is less than 20,000 yrs old....
:areyoucra
AxisMundi
E Pluribus Unum!!!
Kettle, meet pot.
The irony is very thick in your post, since you ignore scientific facts to support your YECer worldview.
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
It IS hilarious....
sadly it illustrates a whole group of Americans though.....
the kind that the entire world laughs at.
