The Definition of KIND

[AV1611VET]

I contend that KIND = GENUS.

Here is the Biblical definition of the word KIND:[VERSE=Genesis 1:11,KJV]And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.[/VERSE]And here is the etymology of the word GENUS:

from Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin,"

What say you?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I contend that KIND = GENUS.

Here is the Biblical definition of the word KIND:[VERSE=Genesis 1:11,KJV]And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.[/VERSE]And here is the etymology of the word GENUS:What say you?

Does that quote imply then that all grasses are the same genus and all fruit trees are the same genus?

 

[AV1611VET]

Does that quote imply then that all grasses are the same genus and all fruit trees are the same genus?

Very good question.

Let me run it through my Boolean standards.

[cue Jeopardy theme music] ... [end Jeopardy theme music]

No.

 

[Papias]

Hey, maybe here is a chance for me to actually change your mind, AV. : )

Lev. 19:19 states that there are different kinds of cattle (specifically, that one must not allow different kinds of cattle to mate).

“You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; nor shall there come upon you a garment of cloth made of two ....."​

Cattle are all the same Genus, and in fact are even the same species (Bos taurus). There are subspecies, which are different types of cattle. So it seems from this that "Kind" must be at or below "species", going by a strictly literal reading of scripture.

What do you think?

Papias

 

[AV1611VET]

What do you think?

[VERSE=Leviticus 19:19,KJV]Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.[/VERSE]I think you're assuming it is saying, "Don't let your cattle breed with other types of cattle."

Instead of, "Don't let your cattle breed with horses."

"Diverse kind" = "diverse genera".

Such as Bos and Equus.

 

[Papias]

[VERSE=Leviticus 19:19,KJV]Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.[/VERSE]I think you're assuming it is saying, "Don't let your cattle breed with other types of cattle."

Instead of, "Don't let your cattle breed with horses."

"Diverse kind" = "diverse genera".

Such as Bos and Equus.

I think that the laws are all given to prevent people from doing something that they could (otherwise) do. Obviously, if something is impossible anyway, there is no point to make a law against it. You can't breed horses and cattle - and if anyone would know this, it would be God. So it seems that the law is most likely about something that can and was done - such as breeding different types of cattle (which were present then).

Right?

Papias

 

[AV1611VET]

I think that the laws are all given to prevent people from doing something that they could (otherwise) do. Obviously, if something is impossible anyway, there is no point to make a law against it. You can't breed horses and cattle - and if anyone would know this, it would be God. So it seems that the law is most likely about something that can and was done - such as breeding different types of cattle (which were present then).

Right?

Papias

Good point.

I'll have to cogitate somewhat on that.

 

[Loudmouth]

I contend that KIND = GENUS.

Here is the Biblical definition of the word KIND:[VERSE=Genesis 1:11,KJV]And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.[/VERSE]And here is the etymology of the word GENUS:What say you?

What criteria do you use to determine if two species belong in the same genus?

 

[Loudmouth]

Very good question.

Let me run it through my Boolean standards.

I think you meant to say "double standards".

 

[Papias]

 

[VirOptimus]

Nm

 

[Loudmouth]

Scientists are considering putting chimps into the Homo genus.

"Now, biologists at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit, Michigan, provide new genetic evidence that lineages of chimps (currently Pan troglodytes) and humans (Homo sapiens) diverged so recently that chimps should be reclassed as Homo troglodytes. The move would make chimps full members of our genus Homo, along with Neandertals, and all other human-like fossil species. "We humans appear as only slightly remodeled chimpanzee-like apes," says the study."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0520_030520_chimpanzees.html

 

[juvenissun]

I contend that KIND = GENUS.

Here is the Biblical definition of the word KIND:[VERSE=Genesis 1:11,KJV]And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.[/VERSE]And here is the etymology of the word GENUS:What say you?

Do not use any of those names used by evolution biologists. It only confused the understanding.

I seriously gave a definition and defended it before and it still stands now:
Kind: Lifeforms with similar property and function.
The key idea is: Once a life is classified, then do not change it until a practical conflict becomes obvious. Example: Dog kind, Cat kind (no lions in it), Ox kind, etc.
A creation biologist should try to re-establish this Biblical classification, which Adam had it done long long time ago in the Garden.

 

[AV1611VET]

I seriously gave a definition and defended it before and it still stands now:
Kind: Lifeforms with similar property and function.

Sounds good to me!

 

[Herman Hedning]

Splendid. Do you know how many genera are currently recognized by science? I assume you are using the normal definition of Genus.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you know how many genera are currently recognized by science?

Nope.

I assume you are using the normal definition of Genus.

Affirmative.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do not use any of those names used by evolution biologists. It only confused the understanding.

I seriously gave a definition and defended it before and it still stands now:
Kind: Lifeforms with similar property and function.

All eukaryotes, from humans to trees to amoeba, have similar properties and functions.

 

[crjmurray]

I contend that KIND = GENUS.

Here is the Biblical definition of the word KIND:[VERSE=Genesis 1:11,KJV]And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.[/VERSE]And here is the etymology of the word GENUS:What say you?

Are gorillas, chimps, and orangutans all related?

 

[Aggie]

Common bottlenose dolphins can interbreed with false killer whales, even though they aren't the same genus. (That's how a wholphin is produced.) Bottlenose dolphins belong to the genus Tursiops, while false killer whales are the genus Pseudorca.

AV, since you consider "kind" to mean the same thing as genus, does that mean you accept that members of different kinds are able to interbreed with one another?

 

[AV1611VET]

Common bottlenose dolphins can interbreed with false killer whales, even though they aren't the same genus. (That's how a wholphin is produced.) Bottlenose dolphins belong to the genus Tursiops, while false killer whales are the genus Pseudorca.

AV, since you consider "kind" to mean the same thing as genus, does that mean you accept that members of different kinds are able to interbreed with one another?

Perhaps God's genera list is a little different from Linnaeus'?

This means Linneaues' list is wrong.

Give it time.

All it takes is a discovery and bingo, bottlenose dolphins and false killer whales are under the same umbrella.

Note where Jonah is swallowed by a fish:[VERSE=Jonah 1:17,KJV]Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.[/VERSE]Later identified by Jesus as a whale:[VERSE=Matthew 12:40,KJV]For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.[/VERSE]Note also where a dinosaur has a navel:[VERSE=Job 40:16,KJV]Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.[/VERSE]These are pending discoveries that just might be made before the LORD returns.