More of the same.
More of the same.
He only wants a definition to shred it. He can’t accept a concept that doesn’t fit into his limited preconceptions. What part of “it cannot not be defined a priori” and “it must be determined by empirical observation” do you not understand?
I’m still waiting for an explanation for this one. Thanks.
You can tell from his questions he knows what a kind is and moreover what a created kind is and how that differs from the evolutionary view. 
I’m just asking for clarification but no one seems to know what a “kind” really is or how to tell what “kind” any given species is. Makes discussion of the “first principles of created kinds” pretty impossible when you have no idea what a “kind” even is or how to recognize one, don’t you agree?
No. I don’t agree. Does that surprise you?
From you, no. If someone told you liquid water is wet you’d disagree just to be contrary.
Think about it for a while; you’ll get it eventually.
Says the pot to the kettle.
Agreed. But I and other phylogeneticists would claim that the observations have already been done and have shown us that there is only one kind, at most.
But they don’t. Again, the observation has already been done and it has falsified all those notions.
Is that based on empirical observation? I strongly doubt it.
I think we all understand it. We just don’t think your alternative interpretations could possibly make sense, even though we don’t yet know what they are. That’s because the support for the mainstream interpretations is overwhelming. If you want to confront that, go ahead. You could start by explaining why you think Homo sapiens is a separately created kind, unrelated to other primates.
I’m afraid that has been my prior experience with scientists who are also creationists. I’m also afraid that to be a creationist scientist is always to be labeled a creationist first, because no evolutionary biologist will be willing to believe that you are just following where the data leads rather than your conclusions being driven by prior commitment to Genesis. If you want to convince anyone otherwise you have a difficult task. Consider how you would view a person claiming to be a geocentrism scientist or a flat-earth scientist. The differences is only in degree.
I see. The question is too difficult to answer. I get it.
I think there was a new thread created, but no one shifted over because all the questions are here.
I understand your frustration, and my effort to prevent this mash-up failed entirely. 
I think there is a lot of confusion about what RTB stand for, and I have encountered a great variety of beliefs from RTB followers. There are people like @AJRoberts with whom you can have a serious discussion, and others who see argument from incredulity as the epitome of logic.
I think the concept of “First Principles” caught everyone’s attention here, as that seems like a good place to start the discussion. I suspect the atheists here would not accept the sort of First Principles that Hugh Ross proposes, which is why I initially tried to limit the discussion to assuming those principles are true.
Tonight I will start a new Topic for this. If anyone wants to summarize their questions so far, do so below and I will move those posts over. Please summarize the answer too if AJR already provided one.
I will look of a summary of Ross’s principles and post them as the discussion starter.
Same thing. The confusion is yours. “Kind” = “created kind” ≠ “clade”. A kind must be a clade, but not all clades are kinds. There can be clades within clades and clades within kinds but not kinds within kinds.
Thanks. That will be much more helpful than the non-answers being offered up here.
Hey look, a potential first “first principle” of created kinds! 
Honestly, I’m not sure that will be helpful, b/c I think Ross’ first principles include many driven by biblical contexts, others by general inferences from human observations, and others from general inferences of biblical texts, and it seems that if all first principles cannot be framed as “scientific” first principles, it is OBVIOUS that some here will not even be willing to consider them. This creates an impossible hurdle, because they are not willing to engage another position on any other set of first principles other than their own limitations.
Of course it isn’t a principle at all, just a matter of the implications of a definition. Could I also ask you not to be so impolite to the creationists? It unnecessary and might repel them. Blunt honesty seems like a reasonable standard, but insults, not so much. Though I do find that honesty is sometimes interpreted as insulting.
If there are first principles that you consider scientific and are willing to endorse, that can be a start. There is of course no guarantee that anyone will be willing to agree that those principles make sense, but we can’t know until you state them.
Very helpful, @John_Harshman, but it should have been obvious to @Timothy_Horton without you having to spell it out.
Yes, I find that too. I have not deliberately insulted anyone in this thread. I do ask difficult questions which make some Creationists uncomfortable and sometimes leads to cries of “ad hom”, but it is not the same thing.
I imagine it was. He was just arguing for the fun of it. And the confusion would seem to be Mung’s.