Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site opus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd
From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: creationism topics
Message-ID: <859@opus.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 1-Oct-84 21:19:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: opus.859
Posted: Mon Oct  1 21:19:13 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Oct-84 07:09:37 EDT
References: <32500003@uiucdcsb.UUCP>
Organization: NBI,Inc, Boulder CO
Lines: 27

From Ray Miller:
>      Dick Dunn accuses creationists of circular reasoning in their definition
> of kinds.  He, of course, assists himself in this accusation by "paraphrasing"
> creationists.  All the while, he still hasn't given a "succinct, testable defi-
> tion" of species either.  Actually, what we have here is a prediction by crea-
> tionists, that kinds most likely share a unique common genetic characteristic,
> one that further genetic research into understanding the DNA program should
> reveal.

Yes, I paraphrased.  I said I was doing so.  If you've got a complaint
about the way I paraphrased, state it.  Otherwise, you're just pissing in
the wind.

Nobody asked me to give a succinct, testable definition of species, so I
didn't.

How can creationists "predict" the definition of a term (kind)?

The "unique common genetic characteristic" idea leads to a paradox:
Suppose that animals A and B have such a unique characteristic x in common.
Suppose similarly that animals B and C have a different unique
characteristic y in common.  Suppose that A does not have characteristic y
and C does not have x.  Which of A, B, and C are of one kind?  Does the
definition of "kind" somehow exclude this possibility?
-- 
Dick Dunn	{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd		(303)444-5710 x3086
   ...Relax...don't worry...have a homebrew.