Biblically defined kinds

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Here's an interesting way to figure out what a kind is let's look through the bible and see what kinds it specifically defines:
Gens 1:21 whales - order cetacea
Gens 1:24 cattle - species Bos taurus
Levit 11:14 vultures - subfamily Aegypiinae
Levit 11:14 kite - subfamilies Elaninae and Milvinae
Levit 11:16 owl - order Strigiformes
Levit 11:16 cuckoo - family Cuculidae
Levit 11:16 hawk - subfamily Accipitrinae
Levit 11:19 stork - family Ciconiidae
Levit 11:19 lapwing - subfamily Vanellinae
Levit 11:19 bat - order Chiroptera
This is just a small sample. It runs the gammut from order to species. there is no consistency of relatedness here. This is just a sample of ten and six of them are families or subfamilies, but if the bible is literal then such pattern seeking is meaningless.

Kind is just the antiquated standard by which ancient peoples could distinguish animals apart. It's not a measure of relatedness. Therefore it cannot compete with biological classification which is a measure of relatedness.

 

[Logic_Fault]

Here's an interesting way to figure out what a kind is let's look through the bible and see what kinds it specifically defines:
Gens 1:21 whales - order cetacea
Gens 1:24 cattle - species Bos taurus
Levit 11:14 vultures - subfamily Aegypiinae
Levit 11:14 kite - subfamilies Elaninae and Milvinae
Levit 11:16 owl - order Strigiformes
Levit 11:16 cuckoo - family Cuculidae
Levit 11:16 hawk - subfamily Accipitrinae
Levit 11:19 stork - family Ciconiidae
Levit 11:19 lapwing - subfamily Vanellinae
Levit 11:19 bat - order Chiroptera
This is just a small sample. It runs the gammut from order to species.

Interesting. Hadn't thought of doing that. It's surprising that creationists haven't taken this approach. I guess with all the "creation research" they're busy with that they just didn't have time.

there is no consistency of relatedness here.

That seems to be the gold standard for the Bible.

This is just a sample of ten and six of them are families or subfamilies, but if the bible is literal then such pattern seeking is meaningless.

Kind is just the antiquated standard by which ancient peoples could distinguish animals apart. It's not a measure of relatedness. Therefore it cannot compete with biological classification which is a measure of relatedness.

The term "kind" always struck me as something similar to the way children classify animals when first learning to speak, e.g. all dog shaped animals are "doggies", all cat shaped animals are "kitties", all cow shaped animals are "moo-moo's", etc. In other words, not terribly informative. Fortunately most children grow out of this as their information about the world grows. Creationists, on the other hand, seem to want to keep this childhood relic around while still wanting to play in the grown up world of science. And they expect to be taken seriously when they attempt it.

 

[FishFace]

You missed the best one - locusts, bald locusts and grasshoppers.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

You missed the best one - locusts, bald locusts and grasshoppers.

I did here. start at post #66

 

[Split Rock]

All the Bible says is they were created "after their kind." The term "kind" as a taxon had no meaning in the Bible, and continues to have no meaning today.

 

[Soul Searcher]

I find it funny how people use the "kind" arguement. It is pretty clear that it refers to species and requires some imagionation to interpret it as anything else.

The kind arguement stems from people knowing that not all animals could have been loaded unto the ark and lived there for such a time. Yet rather than see the story as less than literal they say the word kind means something much broader than it really does.

 

[AV1611VET]

Kind is just the antiquated standard by which ancient peoples could distinguish animals apart.

Sounds good to me --- what's your point?

Holobaramin

A holobaramin is an entire group (past and present) sharing a common ancestry, and therefore a genetic relationship. For example, humans are said to form a holobaramin, since (according to creationist beliefs) they were created as a single kind and therefore share no ancestral or genetic relationship with other animals.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Sounds good to me --- what's your point?

Holobaramin

A holobaramin is an entire group (past and present) sharing a common ancestry, and therefore a genetic relationship. For example, humans are said to form a holobaramin, since (according to creationist beliefs) they were created as a single kind and therefore share no ancestral or genetic relationship with other animals.

well we demosterably share a genetic relationship with other animals so moot point. you can debate whether or not that is due to ancestry but the genetics is there nonetheless.

BTW my point is that the standard of ancient people to distinguish kites and vultures as uniqe in no way reflects how groups of animals are related.

 

[AV1611VET]

well we demosterably share a genetic relationship with other animals so moot point.

No, it's not a moot point. As I have said before, I don't care if chimp DNA is 100% like ours --- we were created separate. I know you may not understand that, but if you're only looking at it scientifically, then you're not supposed to.

 

[sinan90]

No, it's not a moot point. As I have said before, I don't care if chimp DNA is 100% like ours --- we were created separate. I know you may not understand that, but if you're only looking at it scientifically, then you're not supposed to.

If you shared 100% of your DNA with a chimp then you'd also be a chimp, it's twin in fact. Trying to tell us something here?

 

[AV1611VET]

If you shared 100% of your DNA with a chimp then you'd also be a chimp, it's twin in fact. Trying to tell us something here?

Yup --- I worded it like that on purpose to make the point that no matter how much similarity is found between chimps and humans --- we're different.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Yup --- I worded it like that on purpose to make the point that no matter how much similarity is found between chimps and humans --- we're different.

do you realize how blind to reality your bible has made you when you can say chimpanzees could be our twins and we still wouldnt be related?

 

[sinan90]

Yup --- I worded it like that on purpose to make the point that no matter how much similarity is found between chimps and humans --- we're different.

So you're part of the species pan troglodyte? Interesting.

Presuming that's not what you meant, humans and chimps don't have 100% the same DNA and thats not claimed by anybody as far as I know. So what are you actually tying to get at here?

 

[Split Rock]

Yup --- I worded it like that on purpose to make the point that no matter how much similarity is found between chimps and humans --- we're different.

So in other words, even if we were identical to chimps, we would be different. Right.....

 

[AV1611VET]

do you realize how blind to reality your bible has made you when you can say chimpanzees could be our twins and we still wouldnt be related?

About as blind as anyone else is spiritually when the Bible says Jesus walked on water, and they say He couldn't have.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you're part of the species pan troglodyte? Interesting.

I don't know if we're a species, but I can say that, as far as I know, we are the oldest living created kind on the face of the earth --- humankind.

Presuming that's not what you meant, humans and chimps don't have 100% the same DNA and thats not claimed by anybody as far as I know.

Fine, make it 110% percent then --- it doesn't matter.

 

[Washington]

Yup --- I worded it like that on purpose to make the point that no matter how much similarity is found between chimps and humans --- we're different.

This is sooo sad. On the one hand you are willing to acknowledge that while two animals are identical (sharing the exact same DNA, 100%, necessarily makes them so) they are also not identical: they are different. Kind of like saying, "Red and blue are the exact same colors, (sharing the exact same wave length:either 435 nm or 650 nm, or perhaps their mean, 532 nm) BUT, they are quite different.

Sooo sad when one is driven to the point of absurdity: Black is white, only it isn't. Doesn't it ever occur to you how foolish some of your remarks are?

 

[AV1611VET]

This is sooo sad. On the one hand you are willing to acknowledge that while two animals are identical (sharing the exact same DNA, 100%, necessarily makes them so) they are also not identical: they are different. Kind of like saying, "Red and blue are the exact same colors, (sharing the exact same wave length:either 435 nm or 650 nm, or perhaps their mean, 532 nm) BUT, they are quite different.

Sooo sad when one is driven to the point of absurdity: Black is white, only it isn't. Doesn't it ever occur to you how foolish some of your remarks are?

Not at all --- the difference is what happens after we die. The animal goes back to the Periodic Table, while its "counterpart" goes to capital aitch.

 

[sinan90]

I don't know if we're a species, but I can say that, as far as I know, we are the oldest living created kind on the face of the earth --- humankind.

Definition of species from my pocket dictionary:
1a any of the groups into which a genus is divided, the main criterion for grouping being that all the members should be capable of interbreeding and producing fertile origin
b the members of one of these units of classification
2 A kind or type

Humans aren't living things? Because that's basically what you are saying when you say that we're not a species. We are Homo sapiens sapiens, from the Hominidae family, of the Primate order, from the class Mammalia, the phylum Chordata, and finally in the Animalia kingdom. What is so unacceptable about that?

So according to your statement there could be older "kinds" which aren't created? So not everything was created? What about the actual Earth, doesn't that count as a "kind"?

Fine, make it 110% percent then --- it doesn't matter.

What point are you trying to make? I'm sure you know having 110% of something is impossible.

 

[AV1611VET]

What point are you trying to make? I'm sure you know having 110% of something is impossible.

Tell my boss that.