What "kind" is it?

[Jon]

Genesis 1:11
Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so.

Genesis 1:12
The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.


Genesis 1:21
So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.


Genesis 1:24
And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

Genesis 1:25
God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.



Genesis 2:9
And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground-trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.



Genesis 4:22
Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron. Tubal-Cain's sister was Naamah.


Genesis 6:20
Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.


Genesis 6:21
You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."



Genesis 7:2
Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,

Genesis 7:3
and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.



Genesis 7:14
They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings.


Genesis 8:17
Bring out every kind of living creature that is with you-the birds, the animals, and all the creatures that move along the ground-so they can multiply on the earth and be fruitful and increase in number upon it."

Genesis 8:19
All the animals and all the creatures that move along the ground and all the birds-everything that moves on the earth-came out of the ark, one kind after another.



Genesis 9:15
I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life.


Genesis 9:16
Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth."

I'd say thats about enough

 

[judy]

1st April 2003 at 07:43 PM Jon said this in Post #21


I'd say thats about enough

I would agree.








(By the way, FYI, I think you spell it "heaven" not "heavan.")

 

[Arikay]

Jon, those arent definitions of a kind. One defines "kind" as a tool. Maybe you should actually start reading posts for a change.

 

[LadyShea]

Judy, yes it's an echidna! The platypus shares all the characteristics listed, and has the added distinction of being one of only two venomous mammals. The other venemous mammal is the short tail shrew...its venom is very similar to that of a cobra. So which kind are all of these?

Platypus
Echidna
Short tail shrew

Are they each there own kind?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

1st April 2003 at 07:40 PM notto said this in Post #18

Horse - 32 pairs of Chromosomes

Zebra - 22 pairs of Chromosomes

Same Kind?

Heh, Kent Hovind thinks they are the same "kind". I guess he wouldn't mind considering chimps and humans as the same kind, since they only differ by a single pair of chromosomes.

 

[LadyShea]

I'd say thats about enough

Enough of what? All you've done is shown use of the word "kind", not definitions of "kind". Can you discuss the examples given and how they relate to Biblical kinds?

 

[JohnR7]

1st April 2003 at 06:18 PM LadyShea said this in Post #1

I thought we could do a little experiment with "kinds". First though, we need a good working definition of "kind". Could a YEC that believes there are barriers within kinds that cannot be crossed please provide your best definition of how an animal is classifed? Is it by appearance, mating, other characteristics?

kind:  Groups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool.

By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind".

There are about 4 basic groups in the water, 4 on land and the birds. mammal, reptile, cattle & insects.

 

 

[Arikay]

So based on that partial definition, Humans can be related to apes and still be within their kind.

Hmmm.

1st April 2003 at 05:57 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #27



kind:  Groups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool.

By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind".

There are about 4 basic groups in the water, 4 on land and the birds. mammal, reptile, cattle & insects.

 

 

[lucaspa]

1st April 2003 at 06:35 PM LadyShea said this in Post #4

I guess so Didymus...I have been unable to get a definition of kind

And neither has anyone else.  Here are few  ones from creationist literature:

"These 'kinds' have never evolved or merged into each other by crossing over the divinely-established lines of demarcation." (Whitcomb and Morris, The Genesis Flood, 1961, p. 66)
"A kind may be defined as a generally interfertile group of organisms that possesses variant genes for a common set of traits but does not interbreed with other organisms under normal circumstances." (ICR Impact, "Summary of Evidence for Creation", May/June 1981)

"Many varieties of dogs have been developed from one ancestral dog 'kind', yet they are still interfertile and capable of reverting back to the ancestral form." (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 180)

"The oft-repeated statement, however, that God's creatures brought forth progeny 'after their kind' would strongly indicate that plants and animals which can interbreed and produce offspring would be of the same 'kind'. A corollary conclusion would then be that production of offspring from matings between two different kinds would be impossible." (Hilbert Siegler, CRS Quarterly, Vol. 15, 1978, cited in Godfrey, 1983, p. 168)

"But what is a created ‘kind’? And what organisms today represent the kinds God created in the beginning? The creationist scientist, Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778), the founder of the science of taxonomy,1 tried to determine the created kinds. He defined a ‘species’ as a group of organisms that could interbreed among themselves, but not with another group, akin to the Genesis concept " 

"From Genesis 1, the ability to produce offspring, i.e. to breed with one another, defines the original created kinds. "

"If two animals or two plants can hybridize (at least enough to produce a truly fertilized egg), then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created kind. If the hybridizing species are from different genera in a family, it suggests that the whole family might have come from the one created kind. If the genera are in different families within an order, it suggests that maybe the whole order may have derived from the original created kind.
On the other hand, if two species will not hybridize, it does not necessarily prove that they are not originally from the same kind. We all know of couples who cannot have children, but this does not mean they are separate species! "  http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n3_liger.asp

http://www.icr.org/goodsci/botany.htm
"Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778), a Christian naturalist, devised a system of classification that we still use today. He believed that God created each living thing to reproduce after its "kind," as the Bible teaches. In fact, the word "kind" is "species" in Latin. The English eventually adopted the Latin word "species," rather than using the Biblical word "kind" in their language.

"Although there is confusion between kind, species and genus, it is important for scientists to understand that God created "kinds" during the creation week. A "kind" is able to interbreed and God endowed each kind with a wide genetic variety. The current word genus, and sometimes the "family" in botanical literature are probably the words that most closely designate the "kind" created by God.
Genus is used to name a group of closely related kinds of plants.





 

 

[judy]

1st April 2003 at 08:57 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #27



kind:  Groups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool.

By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind".

There are about 4 basic groups in the water, 4 on land and the birds. mammal, reptile, cattle & insects.

 

Ah, so you're a proponent of micro-evolution, but not the macro variety.

John, would you say that horses and zebras may have descended from the same original "kind" ?

What about gorillas and chimps?

Were you aware that chimps have more of their genetic make-up in common with humans, than they do with gorillas?

 

[lucaspa]

1st April 2003 at 08:57 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #27



kind:  Groups of living organisms belong in the same created "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool.

By this definition a new species is not a new "kind" but a further partitioning of an existing "kind".

There are about 4 basic groups in the water, 4 on land and the birds. mammal, reptile, cattle & insects. 

Well, since humans are mammals, then that means that they arose as "variations within a kind" and not special creation, right?  So humans evolved.

So much for having Adam and Eve be historical!

 

[lucaspa]

1st April 2003 at 07:36 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #14



A dog is one kind of animal, a cat is another kind of animal. Dogs will always be dogs, cats will always be cats.

Unfortunately, John, like Duane Gish before you, you invalidated this statement when you said that the "basic kind" was mammal. Instead of being a separate "kind", both dogs and cats are variations within a kind from your other post.

This is where creationists constantly stumble with "kinds".  The listing of "kinds" always ends up contradictory.

 

[JohnR7]

1st April 2003 at 07:40 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #17

Thank you, John, but I think we all went to grade school and can figure that out.

Yes, but not all of us were paying attention. Some of us were looking out the window, watching the clock, or day dreaming about the girls.

But what specific characteristics are used in distiguishing between "kinds"? In other words, why is a dog one "kind" of animal and a cat another "kind"? [/B]

Because they decend from a common gene pool. God clearly shows how Adam and Eve were created and how they reproduced. It is also pretty clear they adapt to their invironment. For example, those who live close to the equator have darker skin, eyes & hair. That protects them from the sun. Without this protective pigment then hair is either red or blond, eyes are blue and the skin white.

Song 1:6
    Do not look upon me, because I am dark,
    Because the sun has tanned me.
    My mother's sons were angry with me;
    They made me the keeper of the vineyards,
    But my own vineyard I have not kept.
 




 

 

[JohnR7]

1st April 2003 at 09:12 PM lucaspa said this in Post #32 

you invalidated this statement when you said that the "basic kind" was mammal. 

I did not say a mammal was a basic kind. It is one of the basic groups, there are many kinds within that group.

Try and pay attention.

 

[lucaspa]

1st April 2003 at 07:43 PM Jon said this in Post #21


I'd say thats about enough

Jon, the passages don't help, because you are never told how to tell one "kind" from another.  You are told there are "kinds", but not specifically what are separate kinds.

This dilemma was summarized in testimony in the 1982 Arkansas Trial by a witness for creationism.  The man had been studying turtles for over 20 years and couldn't tell the court whether turtles were one kind or whether there were several different kinds under the generic name "turtle".

Are turtles one "kind"? Or are snapping turtles a different kind from green turtles.

Remember, Jon and Judy, creationists are claiming there is a barrier such that one "kind" can't become a different "kind". Using cats and dogs doesn't help because no evolutionist says cats will turn into dogs.  They are different lineages.  But dinosaurs (reptiles) did turn into birds and land-dwelling artiodactyls did turn into whales.

Today we have birds turning into a different kind -- water creatures -- in penguins.  Let penguins continue along the path of adapting to water, and you will have a different "kind" of animal.  In fact, I would say that you have that now. After all, no penguin can fly like other birds, so they have to be a different "kind".

 

[JohnR7]

1st April 2003 at 09:08 PM lucaspa said this in Post #31 Well, since humans are mammals,

Well, that is what I get for using a common word. Ok, I will go back and do it again and just give you the hebrew word that Moses uses and you can figure it out from there. I am just doing this as a convience for you guys.

So much for having Adam and Eve be historical! [/B]

Don't be stupid ok. We know you have intelligence so don't go acting like you don't

 

[JohnR7]

1st April 2003 at 09:19 PM lucaspa said this in Post #35 Jon, the passages don't help, because you are never told how to tell one "kind" from another. 

 

What makes you think that is our job? You do not want to teach theology in the science class. So why do you expect us to teach science in the theology class?


 

 

[Arikay]

um, John, just because he doesnt agree with you doesnt make him stupid.

1st April 2003 at 06:23 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #36



Well, that is what I get for using a common word. Ok, I will go back and do it again and just give you the hebrew word that Moses uses and you can figure it out from there. I am just doing this as a convience for you guys.




Don't be stupid ok. We know you have intelligence so don't go acting like you don't

 

[Pete Harcoff]

1st April 2003 at 09:15 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #33

Because they decend from a common gene pool.

Could cats and dogs have descended from the same gene pool (i.e. shared a common ancestor)?

 

[LadyShea]

And still no answer...what kind is the legless lizard and what makes it that kind...and what kind is the echidna, platypus, and short tailed shrew? Is there a "venomous mammal" kind, or and "egg laying mammal" kind? Is there a "legless lizard" kind?

What about salamanders? Some have lungs, some have gills, some have both and some have neither and breathe through their skin...some are legless.

Your definition of "kinds" doesn't help explain anything presented so far.