Magnesium for Health

Question by : Why do creationists refuse to define their terms?
Recently I was discussing ring species with a group of creationists. Their response fell into two categories:

1) Ring species are a result of a loss of genetic “information”.
2) Ring species are still the same “kind”.

But to date, I have yet to hear any creationist actually satisfactorily define either of those terms. What exactly is a “kind”? What exactly is “information”?

For the former, I’ve heard enough creationists talking to come up with the definition that they seem to use, whether they say it or not. The way it is used by creationists, a “kind” is any group of animals collectively referred to by a particular common group name. For example, salamanders are one kind, jellyfish are another, dogs are another, monkeys are another.

The problem with this is it makes no sense whatsoever when one has even the slightest background in biology. Those categories are arbitrary and have nothing to do with the actual similarity of the creatures, nor of their evolutionary history, nor is there any link to known taxonomy.

So, creationists, I have to ask you: Is the reason you refuse to define “kind” and “information” because any definition you could choose would either be nonsensical or would instantly prove you wrong?

And is my definition of “kind” resulting from discussions with creationists an accurate representation of what you mean, regardless if it makes no sense with respect to known biology?

Best answer:

Answer by The_Doc_Man
You are correct. I have never been able to pin down a creationist on a definition. They don’t want to do that because the moment they do, they lose.

What do you think? Answer below!