KIND = GENUS

[Speedwell]

In Genesis 1, where we see that word more than any other chapter, there was no "repeated speciation" going on.

The sun went down, and when it came up the next day, there were kinds all over the place.

But new ones have come into being since then.

 

[Kylie]

BUMPED FOR REHASH​

For your edification: KIND = GENUS.

From the online etymology dictionary:

genus (n.)
(Latin plural genera), 1550s as a term of logic, "kind or class of things" (biological sense dates from c. 1600), from Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin," from suffixed form of PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.

Can you support this Biblically?

 

[Kylie]

Then ditto for "genus".

I disagree.

Kind = Genus

Kind ≠ Species, Family, Order

Can you give a list of different kinds? I won't ask for every single kind, but a selection will do.

 

[AV1611VET]

But new ones have come into being since then.

Such as?

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you support this Biblically?

Would it matter?

I can support Jesus walking on water Biblically.

Did Jesus walk on water?

I can certainly support it academically though.

And for the record, if Genesis 1 would have said God created animals after their genera, academia would harp that the word "genus" was put in there after the fact.

 

[Shemjaza]

Now, now -- let's have a civil discussion please.

Oops. Didn't mean to come off as uncivil.

Merely trying to point out that whenever you agree with science, it's always with a big caveat that "except if it disagrees the literal KJV Bible".

Genus Homo being a good example.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you give a list of different kinds? I won't ask for every single kind, but a selection will do.

QV please: List of Mammal Genera

 

[Kylie]

Would it matter?

I can support Jesus walking on water Biblically.

Did Jesus walk on water?

I can certainly support it academically though.

And for the record, if Genesis 1 would have said God created animals after their genera, academia would harp that the word "genus" was put in there after the fact.

Of course you could support Jesus walking on water Biblically, because in the Bible it clearly says that Jesus walked on water.

Yet I'm not aware of any passage that says that kinds are the same as genus.

So, I ask again, can you support your claim that kind = genus Biblically?

Yes or no.

 

[Kylie]

QV please: List of Mammal Genera

I asked for a list of different kinds, not different genera. You haven't yet proven that kind and genus are identical in meaning.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yet I'm not aware of any passage that says that kinds are the same as genus.

Of course not.

There are none.

The term (kind) has been plutoed (to genus).

And it was plutoed well-after Adam wrote it.

Another good example is "child in the womb," plutoed to "fetus."

You won't find the word "fetus" in the Bible, either.

So, I ask again, can you support your claim that kind = genus Biblically?

Yes or no.

No.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course not.

There are none.

The term (kind) has been plutoed (to genus).

And it was plutoed well-after Adam wrote it.

Another good example is "child in the womb," plutoed to "fetus."

You won't find the word "fetus" in the Bible, either.

No.

Let's not use terms where you have been refuted a thousand times over. "Pluto" should no longer be in your vocabulary in any form.

Once again, all of the Linnaean terms are human constructs. Not constructs of nature. There should be no problem in improving terminology. Though useful as rough place markers there is no concrete definition of what makes a genus or a species. If your beliefs were true that should be easy to do. And yet no creationist can seem to do so. On the other hand if cladistics failed that would refute the theory of evolution and that has never happened.

That should make you think.

Ooh, and once again, how do we know that the Earth is not Flat?

 

[Kylie]

No.

So then on what basis do you conclude that kind and genus are the same thing?

 

[Kylie]

Here's a question for you, @AV1611VET

Is Relicanthus daphneae of the same Kind as Boloceroides mcmurrichi?

They have different genus names, so they are of different kinds, right?

 

[AV1611VET]

Let's not use terms where you have been refuted a thousand times over. "Pluto" should no longer be in your vocabulary in any form.

Why?

"Pluto" is the ADS word of the year for 2006.

 

[AV1611VET]

So then on what basis do you conclude that kind and genus are the same thing?

Online Etymological Dictionary:

genus (n.)
(Latin plural genera), 1550s as a term of logic, "kind or class of things" (biological sense dates from c. 1600), from Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin," from suffixed form of PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.

Merriam-Webster:

genus: a class, kind, or group marked by common characteristics or by one common characteristic

Dictionary.com:

genus: a kind; sort; class

Wikionary:

Borrowed from Latin genus (“birth, origin, a race, sort, kind”)

To name a few.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here's a question for you, @AV1611VET

Is Relicanthus daphneae of the same Kind as Boloceroides mcmurrichi?

No.

They have different genus names, so they are of different kinds, right?

Right.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Online Etymological Dictionary:


Merriam-Webster:


Dictionary.com:


Wikionary:


To name a few.

Oh please. Post #8

 

[Philip Bruce Heywood]

AV1611VET you are a commendable host and may you be blessed and prosper.

Now the Bible says it, that settles it. "Heaven and Earth shall pass away: my word shall not pass away." "And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: ..... ." "Never man spoke like this man" -- but I tried reading the bible for years and until THAT MAN spoke to my spirit in a way that changed things -- it remained a dead letter.

As for genus, and kind .. I don't know. Not strictly discernible from the text, but could have merit? This we do know, strictly discernible, and it destroys Common Descent before it gets off the ground:
"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh. ..... ."

So the script is technically stating a). All living creatures reproduce after their kind --- species are species. Special self-contained units. b). Therefore the mechanism by which species in an unrolling sequence were transformed at the time appointed (it was done by natural processes, the species had already been created as information destined to be transmitted as appointed) the transformation of one species to another was not grapes turning into figs or whatever by everyday processes such as are now evident in the world about us. This the Bible confirms by telling us we are barred from the Tree of Life. All life (virus's are not life) was provided through the Tree of Life. Literal Bible. The mechanism involved absolutely sophisticated biotechnology and quantum information processes. Probably instantaneous information driven cloning-type procedure. Not common reproduction. The same Bible also tells us the Earth is old, old.

There is a large development in this area due to scientific advance. I explain this and many other biblical-scientific developments at my on-line publication, www creationtheory dot com . The controversy is finished. Regards.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh please. Post #8

Yup.

As you said in that post:

See, it can mean anything anyone wants it to mean and there's a definition to support every claim.

I was asked to provide a basis for my belief that kind=genus, and I did so.

And supported my claim.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Yup.

As you said in that post:


I was asked to provide a basis for my belief that kind=genus, and I did so.

And supported my claim.

And I have shown your claim to be erroneous. Where to now?