KIND = GENUS

[Kylie]

Online Etymological Dictionary:


Merriam-Webster:


Dictionary.com:


Wikionary:


To name a few.

And why do you conclude that they mean BIBLICAL kind there?

 

[Kylie]

No.

Right.

Okay, and another question.

Is Boloceroides daphneae of the same Kind as Boloceroides mcmurrichi?

 

[AV1611VET]

And why do you conclude that they mean BIBLICAL kind there?

What other choice do I have?

It certainly isn't species, as new species have been found to come into existence since the creation of the world.

It wouldn't be family (or higher), since different animals at the family level (such as raccoons and walruses) cannot interbreed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay, and another question.

Is Boloceroides daphneae of the same Kind as Boloceroides mcmurrichi?

Yes.

 

[Kylie]

Yes.

Okay. So Boloceroides daphneae and Boloceroides mcmurrichi are the same kind, while Relicanthus daphneae and Boloceroides mcmurrichi are different kinds.

Last question.

Is Boloceroides daphneae the same kind as Relicanthus daphneae?

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay. So Boloceroides daphneae and Boloceroides mcmurrichi are the same kind, while Relicanthus daphneae and Boloceroides mcmurrichi.

Last question.

Is Boloceroides daphneae the same kind as Relicanthus daphneae?

No.

 

[Kylie]

No.

Alas, your ideas have lead you afoul of reality. Boloceroides daphneae and Relicanthus daphneae are the same species. It was originally placed in genus Boloceroides in 2006, but molecular data led to it being reclassified as genus Relicanthus in 2014. (SOURCE)

So, in 2014, did this particular species change kinds? Or was it only ever one kind? And if so, which kind was it?

Or perhaps you need to rethink your idea that a Biblical "Kind" is perfectly synonymous with "Genus."

 

[Shemjaza]

I am well aware of AV's linguistic proclivities. And I think you have also failed to see why the analogy fails. A proprietary eponym is a word used to represent a group of similar objects or services eg scotch tape (sellotape on the other side of the pond), FedEx etc. Genus and species are not the same thing, and those terms were coined specifically to represent different things. We do not say scotch tape for duct tape. We do not say genus for species. Kind, therefore, fails as a proprietary eponym.

I see the point with genus, he's just pulling that out of his hat.

But in general the perception is that things like language, behaviors and concepts are the literal property of God. This is why you sometimes get things along the lines of: "You can't be a real atheist and be kind to people, Christianity owns being kind to people."

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I see the point with genus, he's just pulling that out of his hat.

But in general the perception is that things like language, behaviors and concepts are the literal property of God. This is why you sometimes get things along the lines of: "You can't be a real atheist and be kind to people, Christianity owns being kind to people."

Indeed. It's very disturbing to think that they are only pleasant to other people because God told them to act that way. Imagine the terror of living in a society where the biggest bully didn't tell them to be nice to others. What would they be doing?

 

[AV1611VET]

Alas, your ideas have lead you afoul of reality.

Or not.

Boloceroides daphneae and Relicanthus daphneae are the same species.

Neat.

It was originally placed in genus Boloceroides in 2006, but molecular data led to it being reclassified as genus Relicanthus in 2014. (SOURCE)

Nice.

They made a mistake, and they corrected it.

So, in 2014, did this particular species change kinds?

No.

Obviously it was mislabeled in 2006.

Or was it only ever one kind?

Yes.

And if so, which kind was it?

Relicanthus

Or perhaps you need to rethink your idea that a Biblical "Kind" is perfectly synonymous with "Genus."

Nope.

 

[AV1611VET]

I see the point with genus, he's just pulling that out of his hat.

Not to mention the Online Etymological Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, etc.

But in general the perception is that things like language, behaviors and concepts are the literal property of God. This is why you sometimes get things along the lines of: "You can't be a real atheist and be kind to people, Christianity owns being kind to people."

I think the term is: No True Scotsman.

 

[Shemjaza]

Not to mention the Online Etymological Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, etc.

I think the belief that Archaic English is the true language that was reformed via miracles and intervention makes your beliefs completely incompatible with any study of etymology.

I think the term is: No True Scotsman.

Similar perhaps, not really the same tone.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's very disturbing to think that they are only pleasant to other people because God told them to act that way.

I went to a theme park once and had a great time.

All the employees there were nice and friendly, and it was overall a great day.

Found out later they were instructed to be nice to everyone.

Disturbing ... just disturbing.

Too bad they just couldn't be themselves ... they may have even been nicer to us!

I won't go back.

On a side note, have you seen my Tilt-a-Whirl Challenge?

 

[Kylie]

Or not.

They have.

Neat.

Yes, throws a spanner in your idea, doesn't it?

Nice.

They made a mistake, and they corrected it.

And how do you know that a similar mistake has not been made with Panthera leo and Panthera pardus?

No.

Obviously it was mislabeled in 2006.

Of course, if I asked you back then, you would have said that it was obviously the same kind.

Relicanthus

And if tomorrow they said, "Hey, we made a mistake, it really was a Boloceroides after all," you'd happily switch back, wouldn't you?

In short, you decision about whether it's the same kind or not has nothing to do with the creature itself, it is only about what word we use to describe it. That's a pretty poor way to understand reality.

Nope.

You really should.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course, if I asked you back then, you would have said that it was obviously the same kind.

Why wouldn't I?

Only God knows we're all wrong, but we don't.

So God gifts us people to correct the error.

It's a win-win thing.

And if tomorrow they said, "Hey, we made a mistake, it really was a Boloceroides after all," you'd happily switch back, wouldn't you?

Absolutely I would.

But have you considered it may not be either Boloceroides or Relicanthus?

God would have the final say.

During the Millennial Reign, He may say, "Hey, guys. It was neither. It was [whatever] all along."

In short, you decision about whether it's the same kind or not has nothing to do with the creature itself, it is only about what word we use to describe it.

You mean name it?

 

[Speedwell]

God explicitly gave mankind the task of naming the creatures, a task which includes creating a taxonomy. "Kind" is used in Genesis as a relative qualifier, not a taxon. In fact, the phrase "according to its kind" can be seen as a clear statement of Darwin's Principle of Reproductive Similarity, which tells us that there is a limit to the amount of evolutionary change possible in just one generation: figs don't grow on olive trees and cows do not give birth to sheep, etc. There is nothing in Genesis, even for a literalist, which justifies the assertion that "kind" represents an impenetrable barrier to evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

God gave mankind the task of naming the creatures.

That He did.

 

[Kylie]

Why wouldn't I?

Only God knows we're all wrong, but we don't.

So God gifts us people to correct the error.

It's a win-win thing.

So you are saying God sends us people so we can more accurate information about something which is wrong anyway?

How does that even work? How can you be more accurately wrong?

Absolutely I would.

But have you considered it may not be either Boloceroides or Relicanthus?

God would have the final say.

During the Millennial Reign, He may say, "Hey, guys. It was neither. It was [whatever] all along."

Then your claim that kind = genus is wrong as well.

You mean name it?

Stop quibbling.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I went to a theme park once and had a great time.

All the employees there were nice and friendly, and it was overall a great day.

Found out later they were instructed to be nice to everyone.

Disturbing ... just disturbing.

Too bad they just couldn't be themselves ... they may have even been nicer to us!

I won't go back.

On a side note, have you seen my Tilt-a-Whirl Challenge?

Do you think if those employees had not been instructed to be pleasant they would have been killing guests, raping children and committing all those other acts which apparently would be the norm if God hadn't specifically proscribed such acts?

Or are you, yet again, trying to be clever because you have no real argument?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you think if those employees had not been instructed to be pleasant they would have been killing guests, raping children and committing all those other acts which apparently would be the norm if God hadn't specifically proscribed such acts?

You have an odd sense of cause-and-effect.